Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12017 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

J. Sawicki: I have three very special family guests today. The first is my mother Jean Kopec. She's 86 years old and still living independently. She watches our proceedings almost every day, but this is the first time she has been here in person for question period. With my mother are two nieces: Cheryl Fownes from Edmonton, Alberta, where she has been working as a social worker and is now starting a new job; and Lynn Fownes, who has just returned from Japan, having taught English as a foreign language. Will the House please give a warm welcome to my family.

Hon. A. Petter: Visiting in the gallery today from North Vancouver is Mrs. Betty Twigg, mother of Alan and John Twigg -- but we won't hold that against her. Hopefully, we will join together and welcome her to the assembly this afternoon. I'd like the House to join me in making her feel very welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have two people to introduce today who are with the B.C. Festival of the Arts, which will be held here in Victoria this year from May 23 to May 30. This is the largest festival of its kind in the country: 950 talented artists will be here to take part in it. Tomorrow at 12:10, there's a preview concert in the rotunda here, and we invite all MLAs. Will the House please make welcome Barry Kelsey, a festival society board member, and Tom Fielding, the host community's co-chair.

[1410]

E. Gillespie: Visiting in the Legislature today is a student who I chanced to meet in the hallway, Matt Cronmiller. He was a student in Mr. Rodriguez's socials class last year, and I had the opportunity to visit that class a number of times. I ask my colleagues to please join me in making him welcome.

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to recognize and welcome a friend of yours and mine to the chamber: Bea Holland, who is the president of Silver Threads and also a councillor in the city of Victoria. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

HIGHLAND VALLEY COPPER
AND B.C. HYDRO RATES

Hon. M. Farnworth: Only that member could stand in this House and say that having the second-lowest or lowest hydro rates in all of North America is gouging the consumer. Only that member could seek to ignore the fact that the government is working with the JPC and the Highland Valley company to see what can be done to keep Highland Valley running in the face of the fact that we have record-low copper prices in the global commodity market. That member just refuses to recognize these things.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

First supplementary, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: This situation at Highland Valley Copper is desperately urgent; it is almost too late. One in seven mining jobs in British Columbia has already disappeared because of this NDP government's gouging with B.C. Hydro rates and its gouging of B.C. industries with tax increases. If Highland Valley Copper closes, one-quarter of the regional economy will disappear. Will the minister tell us why you have to be either an American company or on your deathbed to get action from this NDP government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the fact that the hon. member doesn't understand the global commodity market -- how it works and the fact that copper is at record lows. I understand how he doesn't want to have sympathy for Skeena, for example, but wants the government to do things for Highland Valley. I guess it's because it's in his area.

I also find it interesting that he stands up here and says that Hydro is gouging customers, when we have the lowest rates in North America. And you know what, hon. Speaker? It's too bad he didn't acknowledge it the last time he stood up in this House and said that -- when he said that Hydro was selling power cheaper to the United States. He knew that it wasn't, because it's not. It didn't happen.

B.C. HYDRO EXECUTIVE'S MOVING EXPENSES

[1415]

Interjections.

[ Page 12018 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .and the company has been working with the government to find a way of keeping Highland Valley open. The fact of the matter is that Highland Valley is facing the same situation that copper mines throughout North America find themselves in. We have record-low copper prices, and the fact of the matter is that that is a global fact.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . . Minister. . . . Come to order, members. It's very difficult to hear the response with all the interruptions.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said earlier in the other questions, we have the second- or third-lowest hydro rates in North America.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: That's $75,000 in moving expenses. You have to ask: did B.C. Hydro pay to move the guy's whole house from Victoria to West Vancouver? That's more than you'd get for the average house in Logan Lake if the government decides to let that mine close. That's what we're talking about here. The government gives this guy $75,000 so that he can move from Victoria to West Vancouver so that he can take a $120,000-a-year job so that he can tell the folks in Logan Lake why their houses will be worthless after B.C. Hydro lets the mine close down. That's what we're talking about.

Can the minister explain for us today how B.C. Hydro and his government can justify paying more in moving expenses for a senior Hydro employee than a newly unemployed worker at Highland Valley Copper. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . .can hope to be able to get for their house. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . .once this government allows that mine to close?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, another member of the opposition who doesn't recognize the challenges the copper industry faces from having the lowest commodity prices in decades. This member doesn't want to recognize the fact that market conditions are dictating what's happening at Highland Valley. This member doesn't want to recognize that Hydro has the lowest hydro rates in North America. Only an opposition member could say that the lowest rates in North America is gouging.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

M. de Jong: There's a lot of noise in the chamber, so maybe the minister didn't hear the question. Let's try it again. We've got people sitting in their homes in Logan Lake wondering if they're going to have a job after May 15. They'll be lucky to get $70,000 for those homes if that mine closes. In the meantime, we've got this government and its Crown agency paying $75,000 worth of moving expenses. What the minister needs to answer for British Columbians and, more particularly, for those people in Logan Lake is: how can this government justify the payment of that kind of perk to an NDP hack at a time when those people are confronted by a bleak future in Logan Lake?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's really interesting to see this opposition standing up and crying about Logan Lake and saying that the government should be doing something in Logan Lake, when the fact is that government has been working with the JPC and has been working with the company to ensure the long-term viability of Logan Lake. It's really interesting. They don't do that with Skeena Cellulose. They don't do that with any of the other companies -- come and talk about the JPC to try and ensure long-term sustainability in their communities. But because it's in the member for Kamloops-North Thompson's area, they are prepared to speak about it. Clearly they've got one set of rules for people in their area but a different set of rules for the rest of the province.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: What this minister seems incapable of understanding is the desire of all British Columbians to be dealt with equitably by B.C. Hydro -- to stop gouging them -- and for this government to stop using B.C. Hydro as a tax collection agency. That's what British Columbians want.

[1420]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That member talks about priorities. On this side of the House our priorities are ensuring that we have long-term, sustainable jobs in this province. That's why we've seen investment today by Louisiana-Pacific in northeastern British Columbia. That's 450 jobs. Those are our priorities, even though they were pooh-poohed by the members opposite. What are their priorities -- to take $3 billion out of a budget? What type of problems is that going to create in the province? How many people would lose their jobs if they were on this side of the House? Those are their priorities.

[ Page 12019 ]

HIGHLAND VALLEY COPPER
AND B.C. HYDRO RATES

My question is for the minister who is supposedly responsible for B.C. Hydro. Can he tell us why it is that his government is managing to gouge industrial customers across British Columbia, driving jobs south of the border, at the same time that they've had $9 million in the last year and a half to two years to spend on advertising and propaganda campaigns?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, in the last year there were over 100,000 jobs created in this province. That opposition doesn't want to recognize that. We've seen investment coming into this province. We've seen the forestry firms. . . . Their first-quarter profits are up. Mac-Blo is in the black. They don't want to talk about that. They don't want to recognize the announcement that was made, with the hundreds of jobs that are being created in northeastern British Columbia.

This government recognizes the challenges that face B.C.'s economy in the resource sector. This government understands the challenges that have been created by the crisis in Asia and low commodity prices. That's why this government is ensuring that we have long-term jobs in this province. That's something that they don't want to acknowledge.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, people used to come to British Columbia to invest all on their own -- without government incentives, without buyouts, without payoffs, without breaks. Now, when somebody comes to British Columbia to invest, it's a national holiday. It's Glen Clark Day in British Columbia because somebody came and invested in B.C. today.

My question is for the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. How does he explain to the people in Logan Lake who run the risk of losing their jobs how he can come up with $9 million for slick advertising campaigns on television, on radio and in newspapers, but not one red cent for a regular old hydro tax rate for Highland Valley Copper?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again this opposition and that member claim that having the lowest hydro rates in North America -- the lowest -- is somehow gouging the consumer. Only that opposition could do that, hon. Speaker. Only that opposition -- only that negative opposition -- could stand up and not want to recognize the fact that the government has been up front with Highland Valley, has been working with Highland Valley and has been working with the job protection commissioner to come up with solutions to deal with Highland Valley. . .that are there not because of Hydro but because of the record-low commodity prices, where copper has been down around 61 or 62 cents a pound. Three or four years ago it was up at over a dollar a pound. That's the real problem.

[1425]

Can the minister for B.C. Hydro explain to the people of Logan Lake how it is that they're about to lose 1,000 jobs at Highland Valley Copper when the people at Longview Fiber and Intalco are keeping their jobs with cheap B.C. Hydro power?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That member is wrong, and he knows it. The fact of the matter is that Intalco pays higher than the industrial rate here in British Columbia. That's a fact.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They do so.

The second point, hon. member. . . . The second company he talked about is the one that that member over there talked about. In fact, they don't get their power at the cheap rate direct from Hydro. They bought their power through a second company that bought it from Hydro at higher than the commercial rate. Why didn't they come clean and tell the people that? Because they're gutless.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Petitions

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

[1430]

[ Page 12020 ]

The Speaker: Minister, would you wait just a moment, please?

I would draw the members' attention to the noise level in the chamber. If members have other engagements elsewhere, please leave quietly -- otherwise, conversations outside.

Minister, continue.

Hon. A. Petter: I sense a rising excitement within the chamber as people comprehend exactly the impact that this budget has in terms of our future, our economy and our children. Let me just focus on a few areas of the budget, because this budget makes some very clear choices in terms of the priorities this government has set and, as I said at the outset, more importantly the priorities that British Columbia has set and that British Columbians have told us that they wish to set.

We're well aware of other jurisdictions that have chosen in a very shortsighted way to sacrifice investments like health care, to sacrifice their commitment to hospital care, extended care and home care and, by doing so, to pursue a short-term fiscal strategy that will cost their populations and their provinces tremendously in the long term. This budget takes a very different path from those other jurisdictions and indeed a very different path from what we have seen in the past on the part of the federal government, when the federal government cut funding for health care -- although, thankfully, in the last year it has put some of that funding back.

In particular, this budget increases investments in health care by some $615 million. That is the eighth year in a row that government has increased health care spending in this province. As I say, those increases have come about despite the fact that the money that has been received from the federal government has been reduced in previous years and is finally, to some extent, restored in this year. The operating budget is going up by some $478 million, a 6.6 percent increase. The health care capital budget is going up by $137 million. What does that mean? Very simply, it means more beds, more nurses and shorter wait-lists. In terms of the people -- the people that I talk to in my constituency, the people that I talk to as I travel this province -- it speaks to their concerns and anxieties for themselves and also for their children and their parents.

We know the demographics are such that we have the baby boom generation starting to become a generation that is increasingly in need of health care services. Many people today worry about their parents. Will there be the health care services, the home support services, the Pharmacare support services, the acute-care hospital beds and the intermediate, extended and continuing care that are necessary to ensure that people that people can continue to lead quality lives, despite the facts that we have an aging population and that we are a province that, because of our quality of life and our climate, tends to draw people from elsewhere in the country who are in their senior years?

This budget makes a clear statement in terms of our commitment to protect and enhance the quality of health care. It says to young people that there will be health care services to educate them in terms of preventive care to make sure that they get the health care services they need to lead healthy lives. It says to people of my generation not only that the health care services will be there for us but that our parents, who may be increasingly in need of health care services, will be provided for through home care, through support of varying kinds and through increased extended-care beds of the kind that are being expanded here in greater Victoria. This budget makes a commitment to the quality of life of those children worried about their parents, to those people who are of more senior years and to those who have suffered particular health concerns. This budget makes a major commitment to them and, through them, to our community.

I think that one of the things Canadians and British Columbians take such pride in is our commitment to each other through health care. It's one of the things that sets us apart from the United States. Regrettably, it's starting to set us as British Columbians apart from other provinces, which have moved in the other direction. What this budget says is that British Columbia is not about to be taken in a different direction. We are going to expand and enhance and improve our health care services. We are going to make sure that our medicare system is there for future generations. We are going to make sure that those waiting lists are reduced. We are going to make sure that those extended-care homes are provided, so that people of all generations can be assured that the things we have built for generations in this country and this province to provide a universal form of health care are not sacrificed. That's a very, very important commitment, and I'm just delighted that this budget makes a very strong statement in that regard.

[1435]

But it doesn't just happen; it doesn't just fall from trees. I regret that the members opposite think that this is amusing. This a serious issue, hon. members, an issue that should be of concern to all members: the need to make sure that we invest in health care for our future.

I'm also pleased to see that new extended-care beds are opening here in greater Victoria -- and more are on the way -- because of our previous commitments and this budget's commitment to health care. That system of health care is one that is too easily taken for granted, too easily squandered and too easily forgotten. I regret to see members opposite so cavalierly talk about cuts to health care, as they did in the last election: "Oh, we can manage the health care system with less resources. It's a matter of doing it smarter." I fear that what "doing it smarter" means is throwing out the commitment we've made to medicare, throwing out the commitment we've made to a publicly funded, universal system and starting to buy in to some of the privatization and balkanization of the health care system we see occurring elsewhere in Canada and the kind of health care system we see in the United States,

[ Page 12021 ]

I want to turn now to education, hon. Speaker. When we talk about our future, education is critical. We are increasingly as a society, as a world, becoming a knowledge-based economy, in which those who have access to knowledge have access to the fruits of the economy. Those who have access to knowledge have access to the opportunities that are provided by our economy and other economies around the world.

It's important, if we are to ensure that young people today have the same kinds of opportunities that existed when I went to high school or to university, that we invest more in education, not less. When I went to high school, it was still credible to suggest that a high school diploma completed your basic education, and going on to college or university was a secondary or tertiary add-on. That's no longer the case. Now, in order to succeed in today's economy, one must go on and do some post-secondary training. It doesn't have to be academic training. It can be technical training; it can be apprenticeship and skills; it can be training in the service sector or in the technology sector. But without education, the opportunities that young people require and deserve -- that parents are concerned about in terms of the future of their youth -- won't exist. Far from closing the door to advanced education, we as a society should be opening the doors to advanced education, treating advanced education in the same way that we treat basic education from K to 12. Advanced education is now basic education beyond K-to-12.

That's why this government and this budget again bucked the trend of other jurisdictions and goes in the opposite direction to what I know members opposite would go, in its commitment to education in general. In terms of K-to-12 education, we've made a commitment to reduce class size -- a reduction to a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten through to grade 3. That number is coming down, because we know that those early formative years are the most critical years in setting the direction, in ensuring that young people get the kind of training and nurturing and attention they need to start to move forward through the education system.

We've also made a commitment to reduce the number of portables throughout the system, and that's happening in my constituency, throughout this region and throughout this province, so that the facilities are there. In this day and age in our school system, facilities means computer facilities; it means facilities to educate young people in the new technologies and the new ways of learning -- as well as the basic facilities of classrooms, desks, books and the like. We are committing a major commitment to funding to improve the quality of education, to increase the number of teachers throughout the system, both those within classrooms and non-enrolling teachers -- teachers who can help in terms of counselling, librarians and the like -- and making the major commitment, as I say, in terms of the reduction of the number of portables and ensuring that there are good, permanent facilities.

[1440]

You know, hon. Speaker, the members opposite talk about tax cuts for the wealthy and for big business, but they wouldn't blink an eye to increase the taxes for families in terms of what their kids have to pay to go for post-secondary education. They never mention that a family with a couple of kids in high school in Alberta is going to pay $2,000 more a year to get those kids into first-year university or college programs and $2,000 for every year thereafter -- or in Ontario, $1,200 more. If they're in a professional program in Ontario, the differences grow to $5,000, $6,000 and $7,000. What middle-class family can afford to have their child become a lawyer or a doctor in Ontario when that child and family have to pay $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 a year for that education? That is a direction we're not prepared to take in this province, and we're not prepared to see the opposition take us there either.

I'm pleased that we have resisted that trend. You know what's happened, hon. Speaker? By keeping tuition down and by increasing the number of student spaces throughout the system by 16,000 in recent years -- 2,900 in this year's budget alone; 2,900 fully funded new spaces, 700 of those for high-tech training, 100 to deal with the particular needs of resource-based communities -- spaces that will help to build communities, spaces that will help to prepare young people for opportunities. . . . By doing that, by investing in those spaces, by funding the institutions to provide quality education to those students and by keeping the cost of tuition down, we have gone from a situation in which, when I first ran for office in 1991, we were the second-lowest jurisdiction in the country after Newfoundland in terms of post-secondary participation rates -- the number of young people attending post-secondary institutions -- to the point that. . . . The most recent statistics I saw a few weeks ago show that we are now second-highest in the country -- the most educated province in the country and the second-highest rate of participation in post-secondary education facilities by people under the age of 26.

Now, that's an achievement that we can take some pride in, but it doesn't come easily. It shouldn't be taken for granted. It's because of priorities. Because this budget makes education a priority, as it did health care, those opportunities, those doors, will continue to open for young people in our post-secondary institutions. I hate to think what would happen if the agenda we've heard expressed by members opposite were to take hold in terms of post-secondary education -- if we

[ Page 12022 ]

That's the direction we're seeing in other provinces. It's a direction that we're not prepared to follow here in British Columbia, and this government will fight tooth and nail to protect the right of young people to have access to a quality education and to increase those participation rates further. In fact, I would like to see us reduce tuition fees; I would like to see us move towards a set of universal education. . . . Last year this government removed tuition for adult basic education. Today no adult in this province who is without basic K-to-12 education will be denied that education, and no adult will be charged for that education if he or she is prepared to take it on.

One of the most moving experiences I've had in the past year was to travel the province and talk to some of those adults -- single parents who never thought they would be able to go back to school -- now back in school, getting training and looking forward to the job opportunities they're going to get. That's how we build a province for ordinary British Columbians -- not through huge tax giveaways to a few rich individuals or to big business, but helping people get the education they require to get on and have opportunities.

[1445]

Why is that? It's in part because of our quality of life; it's in part because we do have major innovation taking place in British Columbia as a result of our existing industries. But it's in large part because we've invested in education; it's in large part because we've invested in the infrastructure we need and because we're supporting those businesses in the high-tech sector as one sector that can help to grow our economy and help our economy to diversify. So as we see commodity prices go up and down the roller-coaster they go on, and our markets go up and down the roller-coaster they go on, as we've seen in Asia. . . . Of course, in the last two years we've seen a double whammy, as our Asian markets have declined at the same time as commodity prices have declined. But throughout all of that, our high-tech sector has provided a major stabilizing force and is one of the reasons why we have not entered into the kind of recession that occurred in this province in the early 1980s, when we didn't have these dynamic sectors. Film, high-tech and tourism are doing very well in this province, and high-tech in particular is evidence that by investing in education -- by investing in children and their future -- we are investing in our economy.

I had the privilege to attend a very exciting announcement earlier today by MacDonald Dettwiler, a homegrown, B.C.-based company that has gone from a small presence in B.C. to being Canada's leading space technology company and a leader in satellite imaging. It is soon to become a leader in electronic commerce as a result of a very dynamic and exciting partnership between MDA and the provincial government to take over the operation of the B.C. OnLine service, grow that service within the province and export it worldwide, using Victoria as its base -- a very exciting opportunity and a very exciting example of how we can grow high-tech jobs. MDA estimates 2,000 jobs over the next ten years out of this one partnership, because we have excellent education facilities, a good quality of life and excellent infrastructure.

This is not an isolated example. Last year the government partnered with IBM to open a new world-class software development centre. I had the privilege of touring it with the Premier last week. It has far exceeded its expectations of growth in the first year alone, through export business. Through gaining contracts and opportunities around the world, out of B.C. Ericsson Communications, in another partnership with municipalities and the provincial government, it moved its regional headquarters from Calgary to Burnaby to take advantage of the opportunities here in British Columbia. Ballard, one of the leading fuel cell development companies, is a homegrown company that is a world leader in fuel cell technology. With a little support from the federal government, it can continue to grow and stay ahead of the pack, and I hope that the federal government will recognize Ballard and come through with support for a national research centre for Ballard, as they were expected to do. I can name other companies: Electronic Arts, headquartered in Vancouver, is a world leader in games software; Quadra Logic is a world leader in biotech and cancer research.

In Victoria, there has been incredible growth -- 15 percent -- in high-tech in the last year as a result of the fact that this economy is starting to take off. And it's no accident that we have three post-secondary institutions in this province feeding the talent pool for those industries. In the last year, ISM-BC, the largest data-processing centre west of Toronto and established as a result of an agreement with the province, is right here in Victoria. EDS systems decided to locate its regional headquarters to Victoria, Viking Air has undertaken an expansion, and Compugen has opened its regional headquarters. Agresso, a major Norwegian institutional software company -- the Norwegian answer to Oracle -- has decided to take over a company in Victoria, to locate its North American headquarters and market its institutional and educational software out of Victoria.

That's the kind of growth we're seeing. It's because we have such strength in our education sector, because we have invested in education, and we are targeting spaces for high-tech training -- 1,200 over the last two years. That is one of the key reasons why this sector of the economy is growing and why there are jobs waiting for young people who get the training they need. Through the commitments we've made, that training is taking place, and we are seeing huge growth in jobs and opportunities through these investments.

[1450]

[ Page 12023 ]

This is a budget that looks to the future, not by joining the race to the bottom that the members opposite would have us join, not by throwing our lot in with the Kleins and the Harrises and the view that all we've got to do is let things trickle down and be trickled on, but by building from the ground up -- by talking to ordinary British Columbians and listening to their aspirations for a better health care system, a better quality of life, educational opportunities and a government that partners to create new opportunities in high-tech, a government that works with the film sector and other sectors of the economy to ensure that we have lasting opportunities and overcome some of the economic difficulties that a resource-based economy sometimes encounters as we diversify, as we grow and as we work together. That's a positive vision. It's the kind of vision that I think speaks to the aspirations of British Columbians.

What I would ask members opposite is. . . . I would challenge them when they stand up: what is their positive vision? We've heard for two or three years of their negative vision. We know how negative they can be. What British Columbians want to know is: do they have one ounce of positivity in their veins? Do they have one positive idea that they're prepared to put before this Legislature?

I expect that they'll get up and make some cute argument. "Well, our positive idea is: let's get rid of the government." That's about as positive as they get. But British Columbians are getting tired of negativity. British Columbians want to know where they stand. They want to know what investments in post-secondary education will be made and what cuts will be made. If British Columbians aren't given the answers, they will arrive at those answers for themselves, because those answers right now lead to the race to the bottom. They lead to cuts in health care and cuts in education.

It's about time that the opposition party stood up and told us where they stand and where they would take this province. If they don't, people will reach their own conclusions, as they did in the last election. It's time for them to come clean and put their agenda on the table, as we have in this budget. Let's hear what they have to say.

E. Conroy: Let me begin by maybe talking a little bit about an issue that I think is near and dear to all our hearts here in the province of British Columbia, and that's our health care system. Our budget for 1999 increases B.C.'s health care investment by $615 million. It provides funding for more teachers and more school construction and gives our province a lower small business tax rate than Alberta's.

In every part of this province, British Columbians have sent us a strong message: "Improve health care." We've heard what you've had to say, and in Budget '99 we're acting on your priorities. British Columbia's population is continuing to age and grow, placing ever-increasing demands on our health care services. Drug prices continue to skyrocket, pushed ever upward, in part by federal drug patent legislation. Since B.C. has the most generous Pharmacare program in the country, rising drug costs have hit us particularly hard.

This government has increased health care spending eight years in a row, in spite of drastic cuts in federal health care transfer payments since 1995. We still have a lot of work to do if we want to make B.C.'s health care system remain the best in Canada. That's why our government is increasing health care operating funding by $478 million in the '99 budget, a 6.6 percent increase. We're also increasing the health care capital budget by $137 million. Our goals for new health care dollars in Budget '99 are simple: more beds, more nurses and shorter wait- lists.

My constituents have told me that they're tired of having to wait for important medical procedures and surgeries. I've been taking the message back to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance. I'm proud to say that we will be taking immediate action to reduce wait times. New funding in this budget will provide for 58,000 more surgeries and procedures. By this time next year we expect that children waiting for pediatric surgery will get the treatment they need within the time set by provincial standards. We'll also meet the standard wait-lists for cancer treatments.

[1455]

We expect to increase the number of cardiac procedures next year by 700. We expect to increase screening mammography by 19 percent, or 38,000 procedures, in the coming year. But our efforts won't end there. The 1999 budget will create 480 much-needed long term care beds in British Columbia. We've provided funding to hire 400 more nurses to help address workload issues and improve the quality of medical care.

Protecting and improving health care has always been very close to the heart of our government. We believe deeply that a strong, effective medicare system speaks volumes about us as a province and as a society. Nothing is more important to this government than the health of British Columbians and their families. In Budget '99 we're taking the necessary steps to make sure that B.C.'s health care system fully meets the needs of British Columbians and remains the best in Canada.

British Columbians come from many different backgrounds, and along with those differing backgrounds come different values. But there's one thing upon which all British Columbians can agree: there's nothing more important to the future of our youth than a good education. As the minister responsible for post-secondary and universities has just said very eloquently, on the importance of our situation here in British Columbia around the cost for our students in order to attend universities, it's something that for ordinary working people. . . . If there wasn't a freeze on tuition fees, hon. Speaker, there would be many people who would be hard-pressed to be coming out of the universities to take advantage of the wonderful economy that this government is going to be creating in British Columbia within the next couple of years. So not only do we have a huge and wonderful opportunity for our youth to attend post-secondary education, but with more issues like this budget, there'll be plenty of things to do for those people who are coming out of our post-secondary institutions.

[ Page 12024 ]

In Budget '99, $45 million for new operating funding for B.C.'s education system will allow for the hiring of 400 new teachers and will reduce class size in the critical early years from kindergarten through grade 3. This year, as part of our class-size reduction strategy, kindergarten classes in B.C. have been reduced to a maximum of 20 students. Within five years we'll be moving to an average of 18 students or fewer in all classes from K to 3, so that our kids can get the time and attention they need to learn effectively in those, their most important years.

In this budget, the new funding per pupil increases from $5,849 to $5,992 -- a $143 increase per student and the highest per-pupil funding in Canada. In addition, $341 million in capital funding will fund the planning and construction of 13 new replacement schools and 103 renovations throughout the province. Parents have told us that they don't want their kids to be learning in portables, which are supposed to be temporary classrooms. As a result of this year's budget, 560 portables will be eliminated. Our strategy reflects the priorities of British Columbians, who want better learning for their kids.

[1500]

We've also provided a $7.7 million increase in student financial assistance and a tuition fee compensation fund for universities and colleges. Funding for post-secondary education has gone up by more than $245 million since 1992-93 -- an increase of 23 percent. This year we're providing new funding to create 2,900 new post-secondary spaces for students, for a total of nearly 16,000 new spaces in B.C.'s colleges and universities over the past three years. These measures have had a real impact on opening B.C.'s post-secondary institutions to more students. More people are attending post-secondary institutions than ever before. Enrolment at B.C.'s institutions has increased by 10 percent since 1991, while in the rest of Canada it's gone down by 4.4 percent.

I'd just like to talk for a moment about the Premier's summit that happened in my constituency but was for the entire Kootenays and the Boundary region. We had the Premier's summit in November of 1998 at Selkirk College in Castlegar, and we are just now beginning to see some of the results of the Premier's summit come to fruition in our area. I know that sometime in the next month or so there's going to be another Premier's summit, to be held in the Cariboo. Without going into too much detail on how things have worked out in the one in the Kootenays and the Boundary region, just let me say that I'm hopeful that they have as much success in the Cariboo as we've had in the West Kootenays with regard to things beginning now to roll out.

We've also had another initiative that I think has been kind of highlighted in this budget, and that's our attempts to try and understand small business and to be of as much assistance as we can to help small business meet the challenges that it faces during these difficult times. Small businesses are incubators for new industries. These are seeds from which healthy economies grow. They are the most creative, most powerful entrepreneurial force in the province. And B.C. has the fastest small business growth rate in Canada, believe it or not. Government wants to make it easier for enterprise to do business in this province and to give business room to grow and create jobs with less interference from government. That means cutting red tape and taxes. When it comes to building a thriving provincial economy, the small business community plays a starring role. We need to continue to work with the business community to find out what their needs are and to try and meet those needs.

Before I continue around small business, hon. Speaker, just let me tell you a little bit about what's going on in my part of the world with business in general, maybe -- or maybe a little bit larger business than what we would normally call small business. As many of you may know, I have the Cominco smelter in the city of Trail. It's been with the help of this provincial government that I'm proud to say now that the smelter in Trail is just kind of humming along very, very nicely and very successfully. It wasn't too long ago that this smelter was in serious trouble. Their lead technology wasn't working; they'd invested all kinds of dollars in the facility. Indeed, many of us in the communities were afraid that it may not survive.

[1505]

Government went in and worked with Cominco, but what we did with Cominco was a business deal. From putting money into Cominco, we got rights from Cominco to develop power that Cominco owned, and we got some land that Cominco owned. From that, our government formed the Columbia Power Corporation, which is now a partner with an organization that was formed by the MLAs from the Kootenays, the Columbia Basin Trust. We now have underway a $300 million power project to generate power around the Keenleyside dam, which is right now just beginning to start and will be a huge benefit to our region over the next number of years.

It should also be said that what we do have, in essence, is a 12-year plan to develop three hydro projects in the Kootenays. I have to say very proudly that if it weren't for our government and its involvement with Cominco and its involvement in Columbia Power Corporation and its listening to the MLAs from the Kootenays, insofar as forming the Columbia Basin Trust goes, I wouldn't be able to stand here and talk to you about these wonderful employment projects that are going on now and projects that are going to return benefits to the people of the Kootenays and the Columbia basin for generations to come.

[ Page 12025 ]

Let me move for a moment to taxes. Our tax cuts have been carefully targeted to ensure that we maximize the bang for the taxpayers' buck and benefit the B.C. economy without hurting the province's ability to protect services like health care and education. In last year's budget we introduced a combination of tax cuts and incentives to help B.C.'s private sector grow. These incentives included tax cuts for the film sector, a cut in the marginal tax rate for high-income earners, cuts in farm and jet fuel taxes, and a reduction in stumpage fees, just to name a few.

In Budget '99 we're building on the tax cuts and incentives of last year's budget with a further reduction in the small business tax. With the small business tax rate cut by 35 percent in this budget, the rate goes down to 5.5 percent, effective on July 1. That's lower than Alberta. This cut means that small business will pay $63 million less next year in taxes and builds significantly on last year's commitment to reduce the small business tax rate by 20 percent by the year 2000.

We're going even further than that. In this budget, B.C. will keep our small business tax rates lower than Alberta. Further reduction will be matched dollar for dollar by British Columbia. This year the corporate capital tax threshold has gone from $2.5 million to $3.5 million. The threshold will increase to $5 million by 2001, at which time 90 percent of B.C.'s businesses will no longer pay the corporate capital tax. In this budget we've extended the corporate capital tax holiday to four years from the existing two.

[1510]

I hear the members across the floor oft-times talk about the issue around red tape and what the need is to cut red tape, and I concur. But a lot of what the opposition calls red tape are things that many people in this province have fought for, for many years, to have brought into law. I think, for example. . . . On a personal note, I went through a subdivision where I purchased some property to adjoin my farm. I experienced what the members opposite would call red tape, and yes, it was frustrating sometimes. I confess that it was. But when I looked at the reasons for it, I began to understand. There are reasons why, for example, one can't just go and put in a septic tank wherever one wants. There are reasons why certain things around highways, new buildings in municipalities, road access. . . . There are all good reasons why these things have to be there.

I don't suggest that the members opposite necessarily mean that we should take all of these things away. But I think that when they want to criticize red tape, they should tell us exactly what it is that they're criticizing. Just throwing the reel of red tape out to the public makes it look like they all want it to go. I know that they're more responsible than that; I know they are. But I would just ask. . . .

When it comes to the debate on red tape, the government's doing as much as it can in order to deal with this issue. I myself am on one of the task forces looking at red tape, and I think we're going to be successful in dealing with a number of issues. But there are going to be a number of issues that will be difficult to deal with, because there are good reasons why things are the way they are.

Small business creates more jobs in British Columbia than any other sector. Did you know that over 98 percent of B.C.'s businesses are small businesses? Yet starting a new small business is among the riskiest ventures that any entrepreneur can embark upon. We recognize the courage it takes to open a small business, and that's why we're acting to give small business people the support they need.

In conclusion, I think the nature of our budget is beginning to be seen by the people of British Columbia, probably more quickly with regard to this budget than any other budget that we've delivered since I've been here. It's an on-the-ground budget; it's affecting people right now. I want to say to the members opposite that when they see the results of what this budget is going to do for the economy of British Columbia, they'll be sitting over there hanging their heads in shame that they criticized it.

[1515]

What did the B.C. Central Credit Union have to say about this budget? "Borrowing money and increasing the debt to cover operating costs is not a viable long-term strategy." They went on to say: "An ever-increasing debt burden is not sustainable." They also said: "Over the long run, an unabated spending-and-debt approach will result in poorer economic performance." That's what the B.C. Credit Central Union had to say about this current budget.

What did the B.C. Business Summit have to say? They said: "Sixty-one percent of British Columbians believe the provincial budget will not improve the B.C. economy." They went on to say: "Fifty-six percent of British Columbians believe the provincial budget will not improve the quality of life in B.C."

[ Page 12026 ]

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce is saying that this budget is a budget of half measures and token gestures.

The Canadian Bond Rating Service says: "The B.C. economy has underperformed the rest of Canada's provinces in recent years and is not expected to emerge from the relative lag this year or next." We've seen, since the tabling of this budget, two downgradings by reputable bond-rating services in Canada.

The Business Council of British Columbia said: "Future generations of taxpayers -- and future governments -- will be left to pay the price for what amounts to a pattern of reckless fiscal irresponsibility by the current administration."

What did this government's partner in Skeena Cellulose, the TD Bank, have to say? They said, in a very recently issued report dated April 22: "British Columbia is the sole exception to the trend towards fiscal improvement." They go on to say: ". . .British Columbia's fiscal position will deteriorate relative to that of the other provinces, its debt burden will rise markedly, and British Columbia will have little room to cut its high tax burden." That is what the professionals -- not members of the opposition, not members of the government, but the outside world -- that understand these things and the impacts that they will have. . . .

Let us get into, if we could, what was said last year in the budget. There was a promise -- and I'm sure, hon. Speaker, that you remember it as well as I do -- that no matter what, this government would meet its target of a deficit of $95 million. The Minister of Finance said in December: "We will do whatever we have to do to reach those objectives." But now we have the truth. The target was a deficit of $95 million. In the government's own report on the budget, on page 29, you can see that the deficit is $837 million. What is the minister saying for the coming year, the budget year 1999-2000? The minister says that the deficit will be $890 million, but in fact, the real deficit for the province, shown on page 29 of "Budget Report" -- the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations budget report -- the deficit will be $1.5 billion, or $4.189 million each and every day of the fiscal period.

[1520]

Of course, they then came out in 1997 with the fiscal management plan -- that's after the debt management plan failed -- and they projected balanced budgets, a balanced operating budget -- what they now attack the opposition for advocating. Of course, the 1997 financial management plan failed too. Then in 1998 they moved to the modified financial management plan, and now, of course, that's failed. Now we're moving into the new five-year fiscal planning framework. It starts to sound like some countries that have failed miserably.

This incompetent government. . . . The end result for hard-working British Columbians is that this government now rings up, on an annual basis, $2.6 billion in interest costs, or, in terms that people like myself can understand, $7,232,000 per day. That's a lot of money. I'll talk a little bit later about what we could do with $7,232,000 in interest each and every day.

This government tries to tell British Columbians: "You know, we've managed this thing as tightly as we possibly can, and there's no waste anywhere." Let us just look at some of the things that this government has done, some of the choices they've made when they've told British Columbians they were on their side: Skeena Cellulose, $450 million; Ferrari fast ferries, $450 million; SkyTrain, $1.5 billion -- or will it be $3 billion? -- and sweetheart deals to their friends for $500 million; the fixed-wage program, $250 million; and of course, the Nisga'a template treaty and the propaganda program of $8 million. When we look at those numbers, we have a range of between $3 billion and $4.5 billion that that incompetent government decided to go forward on.

Overall, what has this government done with its spending? In 1991 it was at $15 billion. In the year 2000 it's forecast to be at $21 billion, and that is after several hundreds of millions of dollars have been off-loaded from the central consolidated accounts. Just those numbers are up 40 percent. Then they tell unemployed British Columbia families, struggling small business owners and families that are apart that there is no waste in British Columbia, that they're managing the very best that they can. It's just totally unacceptable.

[1525]

But the real catcher, which they don't talk about in their misleading advertising, is on page 65 of the budget book. Let us just look -- and let me quote from this -- where it says: "Fees and licences." That's page 65. Perhaps some of the government members would like to follow along. The last paragraph: "Other fee and licence changes will be introduced during the year as ministries continue to examine their fees and services to ensure that users pay a fair share of the direct costs of providing services." Now, why haven't they told British Columbians that? Why is that just hidden quietly on page 65?

Of course, we have the former Minister of Small Business and Tourism here today, and we know what a great job was done under that reign.

Let us just look at the interest cost of $7.232 million each and every day of the year that this government has burdened

[ Page 12027 ]

In my riding, the riding of Okanagan-Penticton, we've seen wait-lists for hip and joint replacements rise from 14 weeks to over a year for people in my riding who have worked so hard to build British Columbia -- the seniors of this province. We could remove the backlog with one day's interest saving if we had a government that understood how to manage the finances of British Columbia. We could also put in 140 long term care beds with $7 million. In my particular riding we are short 350 long term care beds because of the disproportionate number of seniors there.

Or with $7 million, if they wanted to, we could hire another 105 police officers to stop the crime in the lower mainland -- the home invasions. The list goes on. With just six days of savings of $7 million in interest, we could also remove the backlog in the court system. We could hire 49 Provincial Court judges for one year to help remove the backlog that this government has created in the provincial courts if we just took a sound and competent approach to managing our finances.

But if you talk about professional management, this government is very, very short of that. If you talk about balancing the books, all of a sudden you're a bad person. If you talk about telling the truth in how you account for the fiscal state of our province, all of a sudden you're a bad person. That's the scare tactic of the government.

[1530]

Let us take some examples. Let us take the example of a constituent of mine, Lily Preston, a 95-year-old lady who was born and raised in Penticton, who worked all her life in Penticton and helped build that community. Now she needs long-term care, but her family cannot find it in Penticton. Now she's 40 minutes down the road, in Oliver. It is wrong, hon. Speaker, that at 95 years of age, a family has to be apart. Let us look at the Bailey family -- a family that reluctantly called me and talked to me about the passing of their father, and father-in-law, because of the growing wait-lists at Vancouver hospitals. We in the interior depend on those hospitals for heart surgery. But because of growing wait-lists, this gentleman was not able to receive his surgery. Unfortunately, he passed away recently.

As I mentioned earlier, we have long-term problems with hip and joint replacements for the seniors in our community. I have letters on file from the Minister of Health that say that the average should be 14 weeks. Yet when you bring forward information, in a non-partisan way, that shows it's over one year, you're sent away. "You don't understand." The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Health should be working together with the members of this opposition to ensure that British Columbians receive timely health care in their communities when they need it.

Then one of the saddest situations that I've had to work with has to do with a five-year-old, Jeremy Rodrigues. Here is a family, Barbara and Joe, who have worked so hard to look after their son, their autistic child. I've had the privilege to work with them and to admire their courage as they fight the bureaucracy of this government. His government was providing services worth $1,000 a month, but because this family wanted to have their child take Lovass treatment, they have singled out this family. The child is not receiving the assistance he needs.

You know what, hon. Speaker? If the family wants to take the child, Jeremy, and put him in day care, they'll spend $1,600, but the child won't get the care he needs. Now, I ask: does that make sense? Here is a family that wants to work every day with their child. At $1,000 a month, because it's Lovass treatment, the government says: "No. But we'll give you $1,600 a month to go to day care." It makes no sense.

This government says they care about families and children; this government says it cares about fiscal responsibility. I'm sorry. It doesn't work. When you start talking to individuals and families, they tell you what's really happening when you deal with this government. But you know what? The Rodrigueses and myself are going to continue to pursue the care of Jeremy no matter what, and one day we will win.

The NDP government says that the 1999 budget is about fundamental choices. If that is it, why can't they tell British Columbians the whole story in a truthful manner? Why can't they stop with the politics? Why can't they stop the half-truths? Why can't they tell the truth in their advertising? If anyone else advertised the way they do in British Columbia, they'd have them in court.

[1535]

Then, of course, they talk. We heard the very strong socialistic views of the member for Saanich South when he talked about taxes. I just want to take a second here and really talk about taxes. I didn't do these calculations; I had a world-renowned professional accounting firm -- by the way, one that's done a lot of work for the government, I think. Let's see what they're saying about what really happens in British Columbia.

Now, let's see. If you happen to be single and make $30,000 a year, what happens in British Columbia? You pay

[ Page 12028 ]

What happens if it's a married couple making $30,000? Let's. . . .

An Hon. Member: How much is the federal subsidy to those provinces?

R. Thorpe: Let's listen. These are the people that you so proudly stand up and say you look after. Let's just show them how well you look after them. Oh, they pay less in Saskatchewan. Oh, they pay less in Manitoba. Oops, they pay less in New Brunswick. Oops, they pay less in Nova Scotia -- less in P.E.I., less in Newfoundland. I guess you're not telling British Columbians the whole story. You're just not telling people the facts. So, ladies and gentlemen, please do not be fooled -- and we know they're not being fooled any longer -- by the untruths and the NDP propaganda. But you know what, hon. Speaker? There is hope -- and it's not the community just before you come into the interior. There is hope for British Columbia.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: The member for Saanich South said: "Tell us what you'd do." Well, I am going to tell the people what our government will do. First of all, we will restore a professional, non-partisan civil service. Secondly, we will pass truth. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Listen. This may be a hard word for you to understand, but listen. We will pass truth-in-budgeting legislation. And then we're going to pass balanced-budget legislation. Then. . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Listen! Listen over there; listen up. We are going to cut the basic personal income tax rate to be the lowest in Canada. Did you get that? The lowest in Canada. And because we're going to have a professional civil service and members who have actually signed the front of the cheques instead of just the back of cheques, we are going to be able to protect and improve health care and education, because we are going to focus in on the patient and the student. That's what we're going to do.

Of course, as my good friend from Rossland-Trail said -- and I agree with him -- he wants us to enact fair and balanced labour laws, especially for that small business sector that's going to grow. I agree with him. We are going to cut the red tape by at least one-third in our first term of office. Of course, we've never heard from the government what they define as red tape, what their goal is and when they're going to do it. Maybe on May 17, after the last meeting of their red-tape committee, we'll see. But I think they're also supposed to be bringing forward legislation. We haven't seen that yet, though.

We are going to protect private property rights and increase access to Crown land and resources. We're going to fight for B.C.'s fair share of federal tax contributions, and we are going to continue to work on behalf of the people of British Columbia to ensure that we negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements.

[1540]

But you know what, hon. Speaker? It really is best said by constituents, because that's who we're here to represent. Let me take a moment to quote a constituent I've never had the opportunity to meet. She phoned our office and left a message on our tape machine, and my staff talked to her afterwards -- Marie Baller. I'd just like to quote this. She was watching the legislative channel, and she said: "The reason I am doing this is to ingrain into my brain never to put that incompetent, asinine government back in again, and I don't think I'm the only one. I've seen nothing but lies and deceptions, and nothing seems to get done except spending. . . ." And that is from my constituent. . . .

The Speaker: Member, I must interrupt. The remarks you made, whether quoted or stated straight out, are not appropriate in this House -- whether you quote them from somebody else or say them directly. The two particular words are inappropriate. It's unparliamentary language. We'll just have you withdraw them.

Some Hon. Members: Apologize!

The Speaker: Just withdraw them. We appreciate your correspondent's comments.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I do appreciate your guidance, and on behalf of my constituent, I'll withdraw them for the parliamentary process.

The Speaker: Fine. Thank you.

R. Thorpe: But I'm sure the message of a constituent. . . . Now, I know you don't talk to your constituents, so it's fine. Just sit there and relax. But you know what?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask that the member for -- where's that member from? -- Cowichan-Ladysmith to withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I didn't hear a particular comment made. The member was not. . . . You, as the member, have the floor. I'm afraid I didn't hear the comment, but I would encourage all members to be very cautious about what remarks are made in this House.

Proceed, member.

R. Thorpe: Yes, hon. Speaker. Thank you very much.

You know what? Why does this government have to act the way it does? Why does it have to take cheap shots? Why

[ Page 12029 ]

It's really simple. I see that some of them over there have pencil and paper, and I would like them to just take a few notes, because it's really simple. We must have a competitive taxation regime, and we must have a business climate which is very friendly and brings investment into British Columbia, because by investment we will create jobs -- as my good friend from Kamloops-North Thompson said when he talked about Highland Valley Copper. When we have people working, we have strong families, and when we have strong families working hard together and paying fair taxation, we have a growing economy, a strong health care system and a strong education system. I guess it's just that this incompetent NDP government doesn't even understand those simple steps.

This budget is going to cause real harm to British Columbia families. It's going to hurt health care and education. So on behalf of my constituents in Okanagan-Penticton -- the folks from Naramata, Summerland, Peachland and Penticton -- I will not vote for this irresponsible approach to a budget that drives deficits to over $1.5 billion and takes debt to $34.7 billion and has British Columbians paying interest costs of $7,232,000 each and every day. It's fundamentally wrong, and I will be proud to stand in this House and vote against this irresponsible budget.

[1545]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We heard the member for Okanagan-Penticton summarize, at the end, what the big headline numbers are in Budget '99. Just to put things in context, this single budget will increase B.C.'s total debt by $3.2 billion in just one year, bringing our total provincial debt to $34.7 billion. That means that by the end of this fiscal year, British Columbia's total provincial debt will have increased by more than 100 percent since the NDP took office -- a shocking record of economic mismanagement if ever there was one.

But the story gets worse. Under this budget, total interest paid in this fiscal year just to service the debt -- not to pay it down; not to reduce or make any headway against the debt, but just to pay the interest costs -- will exceed $2.6 billion. That's $7 million a day every day -- every day on your weekend, every day that you're on a holiday and every day that you might be out hiking, working or visiting your families outside of the province. Every single day, $7 million will go up in smoke, on interest on our debt. That is the definition of irresponsibility and mismanagement.

I agree with the approach taken by my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton when he said that he wanted to step back a little bit from the political debate and look at what independent commentators have to say about Budget '99. But before I do that, I think a touchstone is the following comment, and this is where I begin my approach to the budget: "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich." That's Abraham Lincoln. Over 100 years ago, that's what he had to say. But that's a message that simply has not been learned by the members of the NDP, as they continue to drive our province into record levels of new debt, wasting untold millions of dollars on interest on the debt. That's not thrift.

Extra regulations and restrictive labour practices are pulling down the wage payer and thereby hurting the wage earner in British Columbia. That is why in 1998 we saw more than 16,000 British Columbians vote with their feet, as they left British Columbia for Alberta; another couple of thousand left British Columbia for Ontario. I was born in British Columbia. I can't imagine what it would mean to me to have to get up and leave my province -- the place of my birth, where my family was born, where my family grew up -- and go to some other province in order to look after ourselves financially and economically. It's a disgrace that it's come to that point in British Columbia, where people that were born and raised in our province have to leave for other parts of the country to look after their own families and to fend for themselves. It's even worse that they have to go to Ontario -- no disrespect meant to that fine province.

In beginning my appraisal of independent reviews of the budget of 1999, I refer to a March 31, 1999, editorial of that much-respected journal, the Vancouver Province newspaper. The headline says it all: "NDP Not Cracked Up to Running a Peanut Stand." Let me quote at some length, hon. Speaker, from this editorial:

"The late W.A.C. Bennett often said the NDP couldn't run a peanut stand. The cagey former Socred Premier knew the socialists were long on ideology but short -- oh so short -- on business savvy. His words proved true today in the House. . . . [The Premier's] business experience? Zilch. Most of his ministers have never had to meet a payroll, which is why we've been stuck with an $890 million deficit and a total debt of $34.7 billion -- $8,582 for every B.C. citizen."

B. Penner: Some members opposite are asking whether I ever had to meet a payroll. Well, I did work in private practice as a lawyer. I was responsible for making sure that my secretary got paid, that the receptionist got paid, that the bills got paid, that my clients were looked after and that I had some money to pay my student loans back -- something I'll talk about a bit later. I suspect that very few members on that side of the House have ever been responsible for generating revenue on their own to pay the people that depend on paycheques week in and week out.

[1550]

"The flagrant waste built into the fast ferry project is proof enough that the party is brain-dead when it comes to business. . . . The NDP has alienated investors. Business revenue and confidence have never been so low, business taxes never so high. Lacking a strong economy, they've had to borrow to feed our growing social health, justice and education systems. A peanut stand. . . ? They can't even figure out what side their bread is buttered on," concludes the editorial.

[ Page 12030 ]

They also say: "Last year [the Finance minister's] debt management plan included keeping the ratio of taxpayer-supported debt to gross domestic product in a range of 19 to 22 percent. With the debt now bumping against the high end, she has revised her plan. The range will now run from 22 to 27 percent. Her lines in the sand are washed out with every tide."

The Globe and Mail, in an editorial on March 31, 1999, by Jeffrey Simpson, looking at provincial finances across the country, makes the following observation under the heading "Waste Deep in the Big Muddy":

"Canadian governments incurred massive deficits from 1973 until recently, and the accumulated per-capita debt was much higher in Canada than in the United States. The servicing of the debt siphoned out of the economy billions of dollars each year, money that was not available for other purposes. The debt acted as a drag on investment in Canada, and the rising tax levels required to finance the books also drained energy from the economy. Governments -- except for [the NDP] in British Columbia, which blithely produced an eye-popping projection yesterday -- have learned the fateful consequences of reckless fiscal policies and have cleaned up their books."

"Budget deficits appear to be in the cards this year only for Newfoundland, Ontario and British Columbia. . . . Although the Ontario government is in a position to move into the black this year for the first time in a decade, it will likely adhere to its previously stated goal of a balanced budget in fiscal 2000-01. Instead, the Ontario government will provide substantial tax cuts -- most likely to personal income tax rates and possibly the retail sales tax rate -- as well as additional funding for health care in its upcoming budget.

"British Columbia is the sole exception to the trend towards fiscal improvement. After announcing a missed budget target and a sharp increase in its deficit for the past fiscal year, the B.C. government is projecting an even larger deficit for this year. . . ."

[1555]

"In its 1999 budget, the government of British Columbia opted to boost spending and to post significant budget deficits over the next few years in an effort to stimulate its ailing economy. As a result, British Columbia's fiscal position will deteriorate relative to that of the other provinces, its debt burden will rise markedly, and British Columbia will have little room to cut its high tax burden. Following the release of this year's budget, the province's bond rating was lowered by two credit rating agencies" end of report.

We all know this, hon. Speaker, but it's not how the NDP has managed our provincial finances. For the eighth consecutive year this government will fail to balance the budget. In the past, NDP Finance ministers have promised to start paying back the money in future years, but they never did, and now they've even stopped talking about it at all. As a result, taxpayer-supported debt has grown by 166 percent since the NDP took office. Their latest budget, as I've already indicated, takes our total debt to almost $35 billion.

This waste of money on interest is good news for banks. Interest payments on the debt this year will be $2.6 billion. That's $7 million a day. Not a single penny is going to actually paying down the debt. In contrast, Alberta has reduced its debt by $8.3 billion and is saving $650 million in interest each and every year. Do they have a government that doesn't care about people? I don't know, but they are now increasing health care spending by $935 million over the next three years. And even NDP Saskatchewan has reduced debt by $3.4 billion, freeing up more money for health care while cutting taxes, including personal income taxes and the provincial sales tax -- by one percentage point this year. Here in B.C. our children will be paying the price for this government's reckless use of its credit card long after the Premier has collected his million-dollar pension.

People in Chilliwack ask me why it is so difficult for this government to understand a very simple message: in order to start getting out of a hole, you have to stop digging it deeper. This government knows only one thing: it keeps digging the hole deeper. And this year they've increased the rate at which they're digging the hole.

Turning to the budget in more detail, let's start by looking at what's in it. There's an increase in spending of $509 million over last year's budget, from $20.5 billion to $21 billion. There's an additional hiring of 116 bureaucrats for the provincial public service. There's a 41 percent cut in funding for municipal governments, including $98 million in grant cuts. That $7 million a day that we spend to service the debt would almost make up for the total amount of grant cuts incurred by the district of Chilliwack over the past five years of NDP off-loading. That's a very practical example of what could be done if we weren't wasting that money on interest payments.

[ Page 12031 ]

[1600]

There are plenty of ways to cut without hurting people that rely on important services like health care and education. Of the province's total annual interest tab, $900 million is due to the debt incurred just by the NDP. The NDP's extra annual interest costs are equal to more than the combined budget for ten of 20 ministries in government -- or almost the total amount raised through Medical Services Plan premiums or about half of all spending on Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

Total government spending has increased faster than the growth rate of B.C.'s economy. B.C. experienced the steepest rise in per-capita spending among all provinces from '92 to '97. By the end of 1999-2000, consolidated revenue fund spending will have increased by 40 percent to $21.045 billion. On top of the debt interest payments, the NDP has, of course, wasted billions of tax dollars on patronage appointments, propaganda campaigns, needless regulation and red tape and bureaucratic bloat. Examples of waste include -- if any are needed -- more than $300 million on the Skeena Cellulose buyout; $250 million on the Ferrari fast ferry cost overruns; $1.5 billion in extra costs for rapid transit, for SkyTrain; $250 million on the fixed-wage policy; $8 million on the Nisga'a treaty propaganda campaign; and $500 million in sweetheart deals for NDP friends. And that's just for starters.

The member for Saanich South said: "What would the opposition do in government? What is the positive plan put forward by the B.C. Liberal Opposition?" I'm pleased to say that we have one, and I take that challenge seriously. I think it is the obligation of the opposition to show another way -- a better way, frankly. We've heard the member for Okanagan-Penticton recite the list, and I'll start with a quick dissertation of those points as well.

First of all, we need to restore a professional, non-partisan civil service. To do that, we will pass merit employment legislation to establish the highest-quality public service based on competency, not political promotion. We'll pass truth-in-budgeting legislation. We must have open and honest accounting practices. Government must not hide the real deficit or debt from the public. It's the people's money, and they should know exactly what the government is doing with it.

Remember the Morfitt report, released about a month ago, showing this government in utter disgrace and with contempt for the people of British Columbia as they deceived the public during the last election about the true state of our finances? That report was a litany of ongoing attempts by this government to mislead, deceive and cover up, and the voters of British Columbia will get their say.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, point of order.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources rises on a point of order.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member opposite is making claims that in fact don't exist. He's making claims about things said in the auditor's report that simply weren't said, and I would ask him to stick to the facts.

B. Penner: I thank the member for her spurious point of order.

The truth is there to be seen in George Morfitt's auditor general report that was two years in the making. Need I point out that there is a court case that will be proceeding in July? Disgruntled British Columbians are taking this government to court, citing them for electoral fraud by deceiving British Columbians about the true state of provincial finances. It was only a few weeks after the last election that the government had to admit that its much-vaunted balanced budget was in fact hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole -- facts that the government ought to have known, given the briefing notes that were provided by Brenda Eaton and others in the Ministry of Finance.

[1605]

We need to cut the basic personal income rate to the lowest in Canada. Heavy taxation discourages investment and hampers job creation. It's interesting that this government will claim credit for those industries that are doing better after they've given them a tax break. Well, the same principle applies across the board: and every British Columbian deserves to have more in their pocket and not less. As the Leader of the Opposition often points out, money doesn't disappear just because you leave it in someone's pocket. I think it's far more powerful for individuals to have that money to spend to look after their families, their children and their wives than it is for the government to have it, because there's always a certain percentage that gets wasted on administrative overhead.

We need to protect and improve health care and education services by devoting more of each tax dollar to patient care and excellence in education. We need fairer and balanced labour laws. We need to cut the regulatory burden by at least

[ Page 12032 ]

I firmly believe there should be no more government expropriation without compensation. In the Fraser Valley in the past year, many farmers have been told that they will no longer be able to use strips of land as much as 15 metres in width next to waterways, ditches and drainage canals. That has traditionally been part of their farmland, land that they were able to generate income from. The provincial government is coming along and saying: "You can't do it." Well, if the province wants to make that decision, then they should compensate the private land holders for expropriating that land for public use. If that's what the government wants to do, then they have to compensate the private individuals who are being hurt in an effort to benefit the greater whole. That only makes sound public policy.

We need to fight for B.C.'s fair share of federal tax contributions. The government must fight for a fair equalization program that returns to B.C. its rightful share of tax dollars. I know the statistics over the last ten years, and clearly B.C. doesn't get back the same amount of money that we contribute to the federation.

Finally, we need to negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements, and we need to do that with the cooperation and consultation of all British Columbians, not by shutting them out of the process. Last week my constituency office had 96 phone calls about this government's move to invoke closure. I kept track of every single person who contacted me, and I phoned them. Four people supported the government's position, and 92 people were opposed to this government terminating debate in the Legislature before the treaty had been fully discussed and debated in this House.

Hon. Speaker, I know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is next in the speaking order. I'm also mindful of the fact that he is coming to Chilliwack -- on April 30, I believe. So I share that information with him to give him a heads-up. The people in Chilliwack were not pleased that this government shut down the Legislature for two months and then said that we couldn't afford two more weeks to complete full debate on the Nisga'a treaty. People in British Columbia deserve to have input. If they can't have a direct say in a referendum, this government offered the hope of at least a free and complete debate in the Legislature. Now even that was taken away from the people of British Columbia.

[1610]

"Progressive Democratic Alliance leader. . ." -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast --"today slammed the New Democratic government for continuing to add to the provincial debt and for failing to take control of the province's revenues.

" 'This budget increases both our borrowing and our debt. . . . The tax cuts it announces are welcome, but this tax relief is only achieved through more borrowing. . .which taxpayers are on the hook to repay.'

"Over the last six years of NDP governance, provincial debt has risen from $18 billion to $31.2 billion. He stressed the importance that the province stop adding to this sum and begin to pay down the debt. 'The government has taken some action to attempt to stimulate the economy, but their initiatives will not work if the province is encumbered with increasing debt.' "

Instead, last week I watched in horror as he stood up and said: "Enough talk; enough discussion." He moved closure, and the government that he's now a part of supported a move that has never been done in British Columbia in all of its history of 127 years -- that is, preventing individual MLAs, the kind of people he used to say were important, from voting on each and every section of the bill.

That's not acceptable. People in British Columbia expect you to have some consistency in your comments, your beliefs and your principles -- if you have any. Looking through Hansard, I came across some more comments from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast last year -- perhaps appropriately enough, dated April Fools' Day, 1998. This is what he says:

"We should cap the government's legal authority to borrow money and therefore to 'indebt' British Columbians on a proscribed ratio of debt to GDP. We also believe that in any given year we should cap the ability of the government to borrow based upon what the GDP expectations are going to be and upon revenue expectations. That's not unlike, in lay terms, a credit-lending agency -- whether it's a bank, credit card company, whomever it may be -- saying: 'We have looked at what your potential earnings are. We have looked at what we believe is your potential capacity to pay. . . . Therefore we believe that your capacity to pay back debt should be limited to this margin.' "

Lastly, before I conclude, I want to talk about some government waste that's evident in my riding in Chilliwack. That has to do with the former CFB Chilliwack -- closed now for several years and sitting essentially idle. At the heart of that former base is a virtually brand-new engineering school. It cost Canadian taxpayers $13 million. It collects cobwebs and weeds today. I was recently in that building, and there's nothing happening. In fact, it's deteriorating. I call on the

[ Page 12033 ]

I've been to Ottawa at my own expense -- paid for with my own dollars -- and the response I got from the Minister of National Defence, from the Minister of Transportation and from the Minister of Fisheries, who has a seat in Victoria, was: "It's all well and good for an opposition member to be here, but where's your government? Where are your ministers? We're not hearing from your provincial government on what their vision is for CFB Chilliwack."

[1615]

Hon. G. Wilson: I am pleased to rise in this budget debate today and to contribute some thoughts and some ideas around this budget and how this budget may in fact play out over the coming year for British Columbians. I was struck, in listening to the debate so far, by how interesting it is to look at the juxtaposition between those who believe that you invest in British Columbians and put British Columbians first -- you put their health care first, you put their education first, and you try to make sure that the economy has an opportunity to succeed, especially within the small business sector -- and those opposite who tend to take a different tack, a different approach. I think, as I've said many times before in this House. . . . I'm sure that the members opposite, from time to time, might remind me of this, as they tend to, and from time to time will try to have me feast upon my own words -- which, to quote Churchill, I like to think are a "somewhat wholesome diet." Nevertheless, they will, I'm sure, raise the matter that I have said many times before: budgeting is a matter of choice.

How you start to budget, of course, depends upon what you put as your priority. What do you believe are the issues that you need to protect and to maintain your investment in? How are we going to be able to see this economy expand, grow and once again provide opportunity for British Columbians?

It is interesting that the member opposite, for Chilliwack. . . . I appreciate his offer to give me a heads-up, coming into his community. I must say that every time I've visited Chilliwack, I've always been very warmly received and treated very well by the people of Chilliwack. I think they're a very fine group of people, a very fine group of British Columbians. I would expect that they may have differences of opinion on some issues, but I expect that they will treat me as well as they have in the past.

It is interesting that the member for Chilliwack does raise an issue, and that's the matter with respect to debt-to-GDP. What's interesting is that I don't necessarily retract today the comments that I made last year in opposition. Certainly I haven't had a huge change of heart or opinion. In fact, it would seem to me that if we're going to get into a realistic approach and discussion with respect to budgeting and how the budget proceeds, we should spend a little bit more time talking about debt-to-GDP and a little less time talking about deficit and gross debt figures, because they don't really tell you very much. The fact that you owe money is one issue. But if you owe money as a result of investment in a large number of capital investments that therefore become assets and therefore, as assets, provide you opportunity to expand and grow your economy, it puts a completely different light upon it. A different perception is seen.

We see that with respect to the kind of debt-to-GDP discussion. . . . It is true, with respect to the difference between the 1998 and the 1999 debt, that we're looking at an increase of roughly 2.6 percent, with respect to the taxpayer debt per GDP. If you measure that against the other provinces -- the provinces that have just been quoted here by the members opposite -- you'll see that British Columbia is doing very well, thank you. In fact, we're doing extremely well. This is still one of the finest provinces in Canada to live in. This still has one of the greatest opportunities for any Canadian who chooses to come to invest here and to seek to find opportunity. The member for Saanich South, I think, talked about a lot of those investments, particularly with respect to the high-tech sector, and about the advantages that British Columbians are able to gain with respect to that particular sector of the economy.

While it is true that this is a fine place to live and invest, it is true that over the last while we have suffered, I think, a significant downturn in the commodities market. We also have seen the Asian economy and seen the problems associated with the Asian economy greatly reduce revenue flow to the provincial Crown. It causes us some difficulty with respect to managing a provincial economy -- which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 billion, on an annual basis -- if we see revenues declining.

I suppose the choice that you're faced with, then, at this point is to say: "Do we want to recognize a reduction in revenue flow to the Crown of roughly $800 million? Do we want to say that we'll take that $800 million and simply cut expenditures out of government to the tune of $800 million?" Or do we wish to see how we can maintain services in health and education, provide opportunity for small business investment and, on the other side, seek to find ways to rebuild, to restructure and to stimulate the economy, to be able to see a greater amount of economic return back into the province?

It strikes me that what the members opposite are saying is that their choice would have been to simply cut away at the money, to cut the $800 million. In fact, it would have been more than that; it would have been in excess of $1.5 billion.

[1620]

They would have said that what they want to do, I think, to balance the budget -- if I understand their choices -- is commence the firing, within the civil service, of anybody they didn't believe to be politically neutral. So there would be an assault on the civil service. Then they tell us that their choice would be to put in place a merit employment system. If you look at private sector merit, hon. Speaker, you'll know that in order to hire the best, you pay the highest value, the highest

[ Page 12034 ]

Then they would introduce what they call truth-in-budget legislation. That, of course, is not going to save any money. All that's going to be is a different reporting system. So there's no net gain there.

Then they would introduce balanced-budget legislation. Now, balanced-budget legislation, notwithstanding the fact that at their convention a couple of weeks ago, their leader said that it was going to take three years to get to this balanced budget. . . . In the interim, presumably, this balanced-budget legislation isn't going to be there. And they say that within the balanced-budget legislation, they will essentially assign a charge against the ministers of the Crown whose particular line ministry runs over budget. I think the member for Chilliwack said that that would have cost the Premier personally, out of his own personal bank account -- under their accounting -- some $18,000 this year. I think that was the price he used.

It's hard to imagine how absurd this process of the members opposite sounds to British Columbians. No other jurisdiction in Canada has recognized that you're going to first of all put in balanced-budget legislation and assign a penalty against the minister for cost overruns. It is a nonsensical proposition -- non-sensible.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member opposite says: "Check Ontario." This is the Ontario that I understand is running a $4 billion deficit this year, member. So before you point to Ontario, recognize that a $890 million deficit looks pretty good in comparison to an Ontario deficit of $4 billion. It seems to me that balanced-budget legislation will in fact cause an increase in taxation, or it will cause a serious reduction in expenditure. It can be nothing other than that. Either you're going to cut your spending -- cut it drastically if you have a decline such as we have, of $800 million in revenue -- or you're going to have to increase your taxes. That is the only way you can balance your budget.

So if the members opposite say that they're not going to increase their expenditures -- because it's also their plan to lower spending -- then clearly it means that there are going to be significant cuts in the two major expenditure areas: health care and education. It's the only place that anybody with a rational view of how you budget in British Columbia -- or who understands how budgeting in British Columbia works -- could find it.

On this side it was decided that health care and education would be given priority in expenditures, because we know two things. We know, first of all, that we have an aging population, a population that over the years is going to require an extended amount of health care. Secondly, we know that young people today and those returning to school from the workforce, if they are to succeed, will have to have the very best education possible in order to meet a highly competitive world, a highly competitive marketplace. We need to put in place technological training and trades training programs.

[1625]

Does that mean that we have no further challenges ahead of us? Obviously not. Does it mean that we like, enjoy or somehow relish having to table a $890 million deficit? Clearly not. Nobody wants to willingly, knowingly move toward deficit spending if we have the choice. But given the priorities that are taken, clearly the choice does not exist. So what must we do now? Clearly what we must do now is move forward with programs that will provide incentives for people to invest in the economy, to be able to expand the economy and to be able to bring economic growth back to British Columbia. Those programs are underway.

We are already seeing new jobs being created in the north, which was announced today. That's a good thing. We are seeing investments that are coming in high-tech that I think will provide huge opportunities for British Columbians, as the member for Saanich South has already alluded to earlier in this budget debate. Those who are in resource-dependent communities know that there are programs underway now to try to find ways to diversify the economy and to be able to move investment out into the rural parts of British Columbia -- to the north, to the coast and to the Kootenays -- to make sure that we have an opportunity for those economies to flourish and succeed so that people who live in resource-dependent communities have opportunities to succeed.

There are two sides to the ledgers, members. There are those which are on the expenditure side, and there are those that deal with the revenue side. It is the revenue side to which we must pay our attention now, because it is on that side that we must now start to see increased revenues to the province of British Columbia. It would be interesting for those members and for the public at large who are listening to this budget debate to make some comparisons with respect to which direction, with respect to revenue flow, the members opposite might choose to try and engage in, in assisting the building of this province.

Many people have asked me over the course of the last six to eight weeks why I would have chosen at this time to leave the ranks of the opposition benches and come over to join government. With respect to the current standings in the public opinion polls, some would suggest that that was a highly risky move from a personal, political point of view. That may be, but I'll tell you that from where I sat formerly, down at that end of the chamber, I witnessed what was going on in the ranks of the opposition benches and what programs were coming forward in the ranks of the government benches.

When we started to look, we -- all of us collectively, as British Columbians -- could see the fact that we were facing an external economic influence, largely an Asian influence. Notwithstanding the problems associated with the FTA, the NAFTA, the MAI and the kinds of influences that the international marketplace was having on British Columbia, those influences and those forces were causing huge challenges for

[ Page 12035 ]

[1630]

We're doing no service to our communities. In fact, we are doing a disservice to our communities. So it seemed to me that if we really have the interest of this province at heart, if we really understand the economic challenges that we face, if we really recognize the urgent need for us now to turn a corner and to start to build an economy, it is time for us to put an end to that kind of personalized partisan wrangling. It is time for us to put our shoulders together so we can work together to make sure that this province gets the kind of government that will make sure that all of its investors -- whether it's the smallest of the small or the largest of the large -- have an equal opportunity to succeed and so that British Columbians maintain their ownership of our economy.

For that reason, it was important, I think, to make the move. And it is for that reason that I would take up the offer of the member for Chilliwack with respect to his Armed Forces base there. When I go to Chilliwack at the end of the week, I will have an opportunity to meet with people who have concerns with respect to the Armed Forces base. I will certainly do what I can, and for those people who are advocating that maybe there is a first nations' interest in that base, to make sure that those first nations' interests are properly respected and properly reviewed. I believe that working together we will build this province, but if we continue the kind of personalized attack that we've seen over the last while, we will do nothing except disservice to all of our constituents.

I want to close my remarks by coming to the last part that the members opposite have suggested with respect to their budget plan, as opposed to our budget plan. They say that one of the things they will do is that they will sit down and work. . . . I think the language they used was fair treaties. They will negotiate fair treaties for first nations people. The resolution of the treaty process in British Columbia is crucial if we are to have economic stability and if we are able to have the well-being of all parts of British Columbia prevail, especially the interior. We cannot have economic certainty until we make sure that we settle treaties that are outstanding. We will not get economic certainty in British Columbia until such time as we have an opportunity to sit down with first nations, third-party interests, municipal interests and all parties and make sure that what we put in place is lasting, fair and honourable.

I find it incredible that the members opposite suggest that as part of their plan, they're going to negotiate fair treaties. It's incredible, because they have blocked the one, first modern treaty that has come before British Columbians -- to an individual. Not content with 116 days of debate here. . . . This is far greater than you're likely to get in the Commons. I doubt that you'll hear everybody yelling about how authoritarian and dictatorial the Liberals are in Ottawa when they bring in their time allocation and closure, because it's a standard practice there and one that is needed for the orderly process of business. Not content with that and to put greater uncertainty in the economy of British Columbia, the members opposite, to an individual, will support the taking of Nisga'a to court to try and block it, to try and end the process there.

[1635]

If we are to work together, and we must work together. . . . If we are going to proceed forward with respect to treaties, if we are going to do that, then it seems to me that the signal that British Columbia now needs, the signal that all first nations people in British Columbia now need, is the signal that we are going to actually stop the partisan wrangling and fighting. The signal they need is for the members opposite to withdraw their court case -- to take it out of court -- and to say to the Nisga'a that it is ratified and that they will no longer try to block that treaty in the courts.

They say that they would try to sit down and negotiate fair treaties. I doubt, quite frankly, that there is a first nation in British Columbia that would sit down and negotiate anything with these members opposite. I would believe that to be true, because that is the concern that is expressed to me. It is expressed to me, because clearly, notwithstanding the number of years of debate and negotiation that have gone into the provision of this first modern treaty, the members opposite would block it in court. The first nations have no confidence that that would not happen again.

The disruption that will happen in the province economically, should the treaty process fail. . . . And we know, because we heard from the official opposition critic just a few days ago on Prince George radio that the members opposite -- should they, God forbid, sit on this side of the House -- would, as one of their first actions, stop the treaty negotiation process, bring a halt to treaty negotiations and, in some way, turn it to the people of British Columbia.

I don't think the members opposite have a clue what that would do to the economy of the province of British Columbia. You know that? I don't think they would have a clue. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 12036 ]

D. Jarvis: There is no mining.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member says there is no mining, again demonstrating such a profound ignorance of the economy of the province. It's important for us to recognize, I think, that what we have to do is look at the facts of the case. The facts of the matter are that if they are to stop that process, nothing will be more devastating to the economy of the province than that one simple act, which the member for Matsqui, their official opposition Aboriginal Affairs critic, said they would do in the first days that they, God forbid, should sit in government in this province.

An Hon. Member: Do you know more than the people?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'll tell you. . . . Well, the member asks if I know more than the people of British Columbia.

D. Jarvis: The answer is no.

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is no. No, I don't know more than the people of British Columbia, hon. member. But. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: And he suggests: why don't I trust the members? I do, hon. Speaker. That's why we have elections. That's why they elect people to office. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: An election will be called in due course. There is a mandate to fulfil. What the members opposite do not recognize. . . . [Laughter.] And they laugh! What they don't recognize is that their policy with respect to treaty negotiations does not serve the forest industry. Their policy with respect to treaty negotiations doesn't support the mining industry; it doesn't support the ranching industry. It doesn't support the guide-outfitting industry. It doesn't support the fishing industry. In fact, it doesn't support any industry in British Columbia. The moment that the member for Matsqui, should he ever get into government here, says they're going to kill the treaty negotiation process, which are his words and his words clearly on Prince George radio just a few days ago. . . . The amount of disruption in this province will be unbelievable. It will be unbelievable, and the economic uncertainty will be significant.

[1640]

A demonstration from the members opposite of their commitment to do so would be to withdraw their court case against the Nisga'a to demonstrate a measure of goodwill and support for the treaty negotiation process. It would also be demonstrated by the members opposite working with government with respect to land use policy and land use direction with respect to a whole host of initiatives that will help bring about economic return, greater economic reliability and a greater investment in the province.

This morning on CBC it was announced that the Premier and the Minister of Forests were about to make an announcement on a rather historic investment in the Peace River area. That is something that the mayor. . . . Mayor Thorlakson from Peace River stood up and said: "This is a good investment for this part of British Columbia." He stood up and said: "This investment is something that is going to help to diversify our economy, which is already doing well with gas and oil. It is now going to help the forest sector and the forest industry."

All of us, I think, were ready to celebrate that yes, this is a good thing for British Columbia. But could we get one solid, positive word from the members opposite -- even one word to say that this is a good thing? The answer is no -- not even one word. In fact, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain came out and said that this was a drop in the bucket, that it didn't matter to British Columbia and that basically we should ignore this good news.

The members opposite, I think, must stop the negative political commentary. The members opposite must start to help to promote this province for what it is and what it can be. The members opposite have got to stop telling investors to go to Alberta. The members opposite have got to start to work together so that we can build this province for all British Columbians.

Our vision, the vision for British Columbia, is one that puts aside its partisanship. It's one that hangs up our partisan coats when we're in this chamber. Instead of exacerbating the divisions and negativity, it's one that says that we will work together, that we will build together and that we will seek to make sure that this province is the strongest province it can be. That's what we're elected to do. That's what each of us is elected to do. The great tragedy is that the only thing the members opposite can hope for, and what they do hope for, is a continued decline. They're hoping that a decline in the economy will somehow make them look attractive to the voters. Hon. Speaker, that is unfortunate; that is most unfortunate.

I invite the members opposite to take a more progressive view. I invite the members opposite to start to work with us in a less partisan way. I invite the members opposite to put the interests of British Columbians ahead of their own personal political interests just once. Work with us, help build this economy, and help make British Columbia the best it can possibly be, because this province is second to none in Canada.

E. Gillespie: It's a pleasure and a privilege to rise in support of the 1999-2000 budget and, in particular, to follow the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who spoke at

[ Page 12037 ]

[1645]

The B.C. Liberal Party, the official opposition, supported by groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and that right-wing think tank the Fraser Institute tell us that we're being taxed to death. When do we ever hear a positive vision of the role of government, the role of taxation, the role to provide the services, the infrastructure and the privileges which we enjoy in British Columbia and in our country, Canada?

I find the argument of high taxation in this province particularly amusing when I look at the reports which accompany the 1999-2000 budget. I have here a chart which compares the provincial and federal taxes by province, and in every category the taxation level in British Columbia is second-lowest in the country. I'll quote a couple of these. The two-income family of four -- this is with federal and provincial income taxes combined -- with an income of $55,000 per year pays a total tax of $13,263, the second-lowest in the country.

Let's look at an unattached individual with an income of $80,000, paying taxes -- total taxes, provincial and federal -- of $28,041. Of that, $10,955 is the total provincial tax which, of course, includes direct taxes as well as sales tax, fuel tax, property tax, income tax and health care premiums. Once again, it's the second-lowest in the country. What about a senior couple with equal pension incomes of about $30,000? Again, it's the second-lowest in the country, with a total tax, federal and provincial, of just over $5,000.

But of course, taxation is only one side of the equation, part of the revenue on which the budget is based. What is most important is the choices made in determining how these precious revenues will be allocated in order to best support the aspirations of the people of this province. Let's look at just three of these choices. The first choice is improving health care. Our budget for 1999 increases B.C.'s health care investment by $615 million. That includes an increase of $478 million for health care operating funding, which is an increase of 6.6 percent. We're also increasing the health care capital budget by $137 million.

But what does that mean for people -- for patients? We are constantly hearing from the opposition: "Patients first." What it means for patients is more treatments, better access, more nurses, quicker care and better care. That's what it means. That's the choice that we make. It means 58,000 more surgeries in this province. It means increasing the number of cardiac procedures by 700, and it means increasing screening mammography by 19 percent.

I'm pleased to say that just this week, in the Comox Valley, St. Joseph's Hospital's screening mammography program reports that there is no waiting list -- that is, any woman who requires a screening mammography can make an appointment and be seen in the same week. We are just drawing to the end of Cancer Month, when we bring particular attention to the dreadful disease that cancer can be. We are reminded of how important early detection is. Screening mammography is one of those early detection tools and is very important in the treatment of cancer in this province.

This year we're providing funding to hire 400 more nurses to help address workload issues and to improve the quality of medical care. Just to take a moment and look at what this means for the people in my constituency, Comox Valley, part of the $137 million that we see for capital funding in this province is going to the construction of the new Vancouver Island Cancer Centre. Just ten days ago we had the opportunity to attend a sod-turning ceremony to celebrate the beginning of construction of that cancer centre, which is going to triple the amount of treatment that will be available for people on Vancouver Island. That's a $47 million investment in health care and in research on Vancouver Island alone.

[1650]

I had an experience related to me just recently, where the addition of one nurse at the Cumberland Health Centre has made a tremendous difference in the lives of the nurses at that centre and in the treatment that is provided to the patients there in extended care. The addition of one nurse at the Cumberland Health Centre has meant a tremendous reduction in sick leave and in the off time of the other nurses on staff -- just to have that small amount of relief. Once again, the opposition says that health care spending must focus on the patient. That is exactly what our choice is: more beds, shorter waits, more nurses.

Now let's take a look at a second choice that we've made, a very important choice for all British Columbians -- that is, the choice to continue to invest in education. British Columbians come from a whole variety of backgrounds and bring all sorts of values to their lives in this province, but there is one value upon which all British Columbians agree -- that is, the value of a good education. That's why we've increased education funding by 23 percent since 1991.

We have embarked on a strategy to build new schools, hire more teachers, reduce class sizes in the primary grades and reduce the number of portables. In this year's budget alone, $45 million in new operating funding for B.C.'s education system will allow for the hiring of 300 additional teachers to reduce class sizes in the critical early years from kindergarten through grade 3. This year, as part of that class reduction strategy, we will see class sizes in kindergarten reduced to a maximum of 20 students. In addition, this budget invests $340 million in capital funding to fund the planning and the construction of 13 new and replacement schools and 103 school renovations and expansions.

Let's just take a look at what that choice means for the constituents in the Comox Valley: since 1992, a total capital

[ Page 12038 ]

In school district 72, Campbell River, the capital funding since 1992 is $47.5 million. In the last year alone, that capital commitment means we've been building an addition to Georgia Park Elementary School and building an addition and a renovation to Phoenix Middle School, an addition to Southgate Middle School and an addition to Carihi Secondary School.

[1655]

Let's take a look at post-secondary education. Today there are 141,000 full-time post-secondary students in 108 British Columbia communities. For the fourth year in a row, this year's budget continues the freeze on tuition fees for universities and colleges. Tuition fees in British Columbia are the lowest in Canada after Quebec and lower than tuition fees in Ontario. This is something of which I am very proud. Add to this last year's budget commitment -- which, of course, continues into the future -- to make all adult education for completion of grade 12 tuition-free. Hon. Speaker, there is nothing more important for British Columbians than a good education.

This year's budget increases student financial assistance by $7.7 million. It has new funding to create 2,900 new post-secondary spaces. The total result of that is that more people are attending post-secondary institutions than ever before in British Columbia. Our commitment to improve learning for B.C.'s students has never been stronger, and that's a commitment that will continue.

I wish I could share this beautiful piece I have about North Island College from "The Maclean's Guide to Canadian Colleges." I will just take a moment to read a small piece about this that speaks to the importance of higher education. This is a piece about North Island College.

"Turning 30 was hard for Lisa Ashbaugh. A single mother of two living on social assistance, Ashbaugh knew she had to take serious measures or she would be living in the same one-bedroom basement apartment when she turned 40. 'I was looking for something that was not only going to take me out of a situation I didn't want to be in, but help my children,' says the resident of Comox, B.C. In 1996, she enrolled in a general upgrading course at nearby North Island College and followed this up with a two-year co-op program in computer science and technology."

" 'I have a whole new outlook on life,' says Ashbaugh, who will finish her program this year with three co-op placements on her transcript and strong job connections."

This year's funding allocation for North Island College means an increase of 89 spaces for the area served by North Island College. Of those 89 spaces, 20 will expand the high-tech programs, and nine will be allocated to trades training. This is a tremendous commitment to a new and rapidly growing and vibrant college, and the people of the Comox Valley, North Island and Port Alberni know this.

One more item I'd like to speak on in terms of our support for children and families in this province. . . . In the Comox Valley, we are very privileged to have a One Stop Access Centre, which is one of four pilots in the province. It was funded jointly by the province and the federal government on a pilot basis only. We knew as of last year that the federal government would not continue funding this pilot. On March 31, I was very pleased to be able to let the One Stop Access Centre know that they would receive continuing funding from the province. It would take up the shortfall from the loss of federal funding.

[1700]

The opposition Liberals delight in telling the people of this province that they have no confidence in the economy, that capital is in flight from this province. They think that by repeating this mantra often enough and loudly enough, they can make it so. Yet at the same time, we see the puzzling results of a national survey. Families in this province show more confidence than anywhere else in the country that they will seek to buy a new home in the coming year. What about last year's boat show in Vancouver, where more high-end boats were sold to British Columbians than in a number of years? What about today's announcement by Louisiana Pacific that they will be constructing and opening four new aspen reman mills in northeastern B.C. because, as the CEO says, British Columbia has the best investment climate, the best workers and the fibre? That's up to 1,000 direct and indirect new jobs. It is indeed a puzzle.

We have heard a number of economists quoted today, and I'm going to take this opportunity to quote Marc Lee, who's an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Interjection.

E. Gillespie: Yes, this ought to provide a little balance to those economists from the Fraser Institute. Let's hear what Marc Lee has to say. He says:

[ Page 12039 ]

"Economists generally assess the overall debt level not in straight dollar terms but in relation to the size of the economy. Like a household or a business, the bigger you are, the more debt you can hold. This year will see a rise in B.C's debt-to-GDP ratio to 24 percent, but this is still the third-lowest of all the provinces. The federal government's debt-to-GDP is 65 percent. . . ."

". . .Ontario, after years of deep cuts" -- speak to parents of children; speak to university students; speak to those who require health care services in Ontario -- "has a ratio of 30 percent.

"What matters most, for any government, is the ability to pay off the interest incurred on the debt. . . . B.C. will pay 8.6 cents per dollar of revenue in interest payments. Only Alberta, Manitoba and B.C. have debt service costs in this ballpark. The other seven provinces pay at least 13 cents per revenue dollar, with Ontario at 17.7 cents and Nova Scotia at 19.1 cents."

"But for B.C., now is the time to run a deficit, not a balanced budget that would exacerbate the existing economic downturn. . .it is simply good public policy to stimulate demand in the economy through fiscal measures."

"Another area is $45 million in new education spending. This is simply a good investment with a large payback. Estimates of the economic return for completing additional schooling (through higher incomes to individuals, and hence, larger tax revenues to government) range from 15 to 30 percent -- not a bad return when government can borrow at 5 percent.

"These are all political choices. . .increasing spending for health, education and capital projects at a time of economic downturn is a better choice. The province needs it and can afford it. The critics should stop their barking."

[1705]

These are the choices which support the people of B.C. and the communities in which they live. These are the choices which will support the citizens in my community -- the Comox Valley. And these are the choices that I support.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

D. Jarvis: I rise once more, after the seventh or eighth year, to speak on the budget speech -- Budget '99. I intend to be a lot different, because it's obvious, from. . . . The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the member for Comox Valley have been talking about a theme that seems to be the new campaign theme for the NDP government, and that's a positive theme. So I certainly do intend to speak positively during this little discussion that we're going to have for the next half-hour or so.

This government has done more to put the working man out of work than any other government in the history of British Columbia. This budget is so heavy with depressing news, and all this following eight years of NDP fiscal mismanagement. The forest industry is under siege; they've lost thousands and thousands of jobs. It's crippled very badly, and it's quite likely that it may not recover. This government has made an assault on mining to such an extent that there are more mines closing than starting up. That will be for many years to come, because it is quite apparent that there's no money being invested in this province in development or an investment. . . .

The member for Comox Valley stated that we were criticizing the investment in this province because it's in flight. Well, it flew out of this province a few years back. What we're hoping for is for it to come back, and that's what we're trying to encourage. She talked about the new business up at the aspen mill, which is going to come in probably within the next year. This is the big hope of this government, and we truly hope it does come true. But what they fail to mention are the thousands of jobs that were closed down in that industry in the last few years. There are probably at least ten mills that have closed down in British Columbia in the last year and a half; 16,000 jobs have been lost. They forget that Gold River has now become almost a ghost town within about two months, because over 382 jobs were lost there.

She also tells us about the great things that are happening with the NDP government, that their taxation is so good for the average person in this province. Well, if you take the average. . . . She was quoting different select groups, like single people. If you take a single person on social assistance, they are only getting $16.61 a day to live on. Now, this is the party of virtue that's talking; this is the party that wants to see the downtrodden better themselves.

[1710]

We've got more problems in this province than you can shake a stick at. I mentioned the fact that we had a forestry industry that was under siege. We have a mining industry that's been assaulted like no other industry in the history of this province. Even the Barrett government wasn't as bad as what this government has done to the mining industry. This government is anti-everything -- any industry -- and this is a very serious problem.

Fishing. The latest articles coming from B.C. coastal economy committees say that by the end of next year, the year 2000, there are going to be 15,500 more lost jobs on the coast here in British Columbia, and this government is doing nothing about it whatsoever. The member for Esquimalt-

[ Page 12040 ]

You wonder what's happening to this province, hon. Speaker. The most positive thing that this government could do, seeing that they're on a positive theme now, is call an election, and let's see what happens to this province. Let's see if we can get it going again, see if we can recommend that the province be turned around and bring industry and development into this province.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I've just had a comment made to me by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. He is one of those gentlemen that gives these great philosophical speeches out there -- how wonderful things are going in B.C. and what he's going to do -- yet he never answers them. What happened to the minister's statement that he was going to create jobs through aquaculture? Not a thing. He's never come back and stated that he has been muzzled by his party behind him, because those are statements that aren't philosophically good for this province. And has he ever made a grand and glorious statement about offshore drilling in British Columbia? When has the minister got up and said anything about that? It was two or three months ago that he got up and said something like that, and nothing has been done.

Obviously, again, he speaks the big talk, but he never says a thing, and that's unfortunate. Those things that he talked about could have been positive things, because this is the positive theme of the NDP party at this point. Having failed to make those positive statements. . . . I can only assume that he has been muzzled, like he is now, and he has failed to make such a statement or given anything positive that's going to happen to British Columbia. His environmental wing has shut him down again.

[1715]

That is a shame, because to attract the private sector means new wealth in this province, and this revenue is desperately needed in this province. All we see is the increase of incentives for more taxation and the recirculation of our old dollars -- money that has been earned and taxed previously. There has been no creation of new money at all in this province. All there is is a growing debt. All we see with this government is a pathetic attempt by 40 nondescript socialists trying to run a billion-dollar corporation, and they have failed at that. They have failed for the last eight years, as evidenced by our growing debt.

An Hon. Member: I thought you were going to be positive.

D. Jarvis: I'm being very positive, Madam Speaker, on those aspects -- very positive. Those are facts, not pies in the sky, like the minister from Metchosin would say -- and never answer again.

I've said this before: there's no one on that side of the House who has really ever had to meet the story of the old payroll. They all come from either academia or the unions and never really knew how to run a business or read a balance sheet. I hear a scoffing at me from our friend from Comox Valley, and of course we all know that she and her husband run a. . . . I know this is personal. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member.

D. Jarvis: . . .but I thought it would be an advantage for us to know the fact that they run a bed-and-breakfast on Quadra Island. Now, that's experience -- but I won't say that.

There is a smaller province than B.C. next door to us. For the past year -- past five years, actually -- that province has continually outperformed British Columbia in business investment. They've had less unemployment. They've had more jobs, more tax revenue coming in, less taxes to the people and less debt. That is probably why about 60,000 people have fled British Columbia and crossed our border over to Alberta. This little province next door to us -- Alberta -- has a very healthy economy. It is working towards lower taxes and higher income for its taxpayers, whereas all this government is doing, it appears -- and this is the positive aspect, again -- is creating a disincentive for work. That's why people are leaving.

Not too long ago Alberta had a debt load that was worse in proportion than British Columbia's. But they realized that the disincentive of debt was detrimental to its citizens and how debt interest had a negative effect on education and health programs. They knew that low unemployment and low business taxes and low personal taxes create a climate for more investment in their province. So about five years ago Alberta did the inconceivable thing because of the spendthrift practices of the government before them, which was probably similar to our own government. Alberta had to exercise the values of prudence, restraint and patience. Unfortunately, we see none of this occurring in British Columbia today under this socialist government, let alone the fact that we see anything in this positive budget that they supposedly have presented to the people of British Columbia.

[1720]

[ Page 12041 ]

Whereas Alberta has a great budget, we in British Columbia are faced with a very pathetic one -- a very pathetic budget. This government is trying to hold on to power through spendthrift taxes, as evidenced in this budget. Millions and millions of dollars are being spent just to retain power. We have a government whose concern is servicing its foreign debt rather than concern for its public debt. Nowhere in this budget is there a significant effort by this government to pay back what we owe, to create new wealth. Nowhere in the budget do we find where we look to, for example, the resources in this province in order to expand the revenue base required to deliver the very basics of service to the people of British Columbia.

It's quite apparent that the socialist policies have not worked. As we see, the quality of life is fading throughout this province. We have massive debt exceeding $34.7 billion and, as has been said by several people already today, after eight consecutive deficits, still no debt reduction plan in place. In fact, no debt plan has ever even been considered that they have ever followed through on; there's nothing in this budget to that effect. So we are now paying $7.3 million a day on interest in order to reduce the debt, paying all this interest to the banks outside of Canada. Foreign banks are paid $7 million a day.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret that I have to interrupt you. There seem to be some strange noises in this chamber, some of which is talking and some of which is something else. I ask the members to remember the decorum in the House, please. Thank you very much.

The member can continue.

D. Jarvis: Investment and development have already left this province, and it's going to be hard to get them back. There's no question of that, because the social experiment of this NDP government has discouraged those investors, especially in the resource extraction industries.

Oh, we may see a small bit of investment develop -- for example, what's happening in this next couple of days. I think the NDP are all going to jump up and down and say that we've got some new mills coming in, and that's good. But when you offset it with the loss that's occurred, like the whole town of Gold River went down about two months ago. . . . That's positive, but not that positive, not enough to. . . . It's a start. I'm glad to see that this government is slowly starting to think that way.

[1725]

But obviously their philosophy has got in the way of economic development. They are not going after the big thing. "Well, we're getting jobs for 450 people in some little mills going on there" -- one mill or two mills going on up in the Prince George area. But ten mills closed down just a few months back. It's like everything else, you know. You take a lot away and put a little back in; you take more away, and you put a little more back in. It doesn't work; that's not how you keep your economy healthy.

But the minister of investment and development doesn't seem to understand the basic principles of how to create wealth in this province. Now, I think that probably is because he's never been in the position before. I mean, here he is, the minister of investment and development. He's supposed to be making decisions that are going to affect the four million people in this province for years and years to come. We know that he doesn't know what he's talking about; he doesn't understand.

He's got a bureaucracy behind him, full of NDP hacks giving him advice. But when you go down lower to the ones that really know what they're talking about, below the hacks that are his assistants, they have basic ideas that they're trying to put forward, but they get cut off all the time. We know that's going on all the time.

Our fishing resource industry is in chaos, and our forest industry has collapsed. And as I said, our mining industry is in great decline. The tragedy of this is that there is wealth to be created in our resources in our province, but it's not being advanced, as this government believes that its philosophy is right. That's the philosophy that the environmental wing does not want to see any further development or resource extraction in this province.

Madam Speaker, my time is going by quicker than I thought.

This government is more concerned with trees than it is with people, and that's the sad result of this socialist government at this point. Yet they're on the road to another spending spree, a spree that will drive us further into being the poor have-not province that we have basically become through their policies.

Meanwhile we see mounting debt, as I said before. Our health and education programs are all in turmoil, and there is high unemployment, getting worse every day. With our high taxes, more and more families and businesses are leaving British Columbia. Most people are leaving for tax purposes. Then we see our most valuable resource, which is people, also being exported. And they won't be coming back very soon, as they really can't afford to -- nor will they want to, with the taxation system that we have. We have ideas on how to change that, and several of our speakers have brought that to the attention of this government. Let's hope they heed it. If not, let's have an election, and we'll see what the people of British Columbia want to say about it.

We have problems with revenue, yet it lies just around the corner. But it's not even being considered by this province, due to, as I said, their philosophical approach to environmental concerns instead of a socioeconomic concern. There's no consideration for a commonsense approach that would benefit all of us in British Columbia.

[1730]

[ Page 12042 ]

This government has really no concern that the private sector is in a helpless state, in the sense that if there is no support to allow them to develop their industry while they're waiting for announcements. . . . They just sit back and wait and wait for the decision by government to give them the opportunity to come in and go through assessment plans and whatever it may be, to get the right to go out and start a business. All this time they're incurring expenses -- excessive expenses -- and nothing happens. Meanwhile other governments are saying to them, with open arms: "Come to our province, our country." This is the sad state of affairs of a lot of our industries that could have produced great revenue for this province and helped us with our education and health costs and all the rest of it. But no, this is how they drive the private sector out of British Columbia. One of the reasons that revenues are plummeting is because the private sector is being driven out of British Columbia. That's why the deficit last year was actually in excess of $500 million. They said: "Well, in our budget it's only going to be $95 million." And last year we had 0.05 percent in growth this province. That in itself was very pathetic. We could be one of the richest jurisdictions in North America.

In this province we have the lowest private sector growth, at 2.5 percent, with the Canadian average at 8.4 percent. Yet our public sector growth is at 7.7 percent, and the Canadian average, conversely, is at a low of 0.01 percent. Where's the logic?

The private sector creates wealth, and the public sector just recirculates old dollars. While other Canadian provinces show low public sector growth and high private sector growth and rising revenues, we in British Columbia have the exact opposite to this fiscal approach. That is why the rest of North America is growing faster than British Columbia is growing. We are slowly sinking to a have-not province and will be in last place before we know it.

As I said, B.C. was in first place at one time and is now in the last place in Canada, and the trend in B.C. is opposite to that in the rest of Canada in all aspects. While we're rushing to get revenues, this government, without any real knowledge of how to run a business, is breaking all the rules -- even their own.

As I mentioned before, this party of the underdog is now the party of the underworld. We are not doing well. We are being left with a choice with this Premier: do we go with his credibility, or do we go with his competence? Either way, it is a pathetic attempt to govern a province that is in a paralysis state and is drowning in red ink from its economic mismanagement. It's the very familiar story of more money going out than is coming in. Investors shun B.C. because of a poor business attitude and a climate where all they can see or hear from this government is high personal taxes, regulations and red tape, excessive royalties and high costs for electricity. All this -- red tape, high costs and taxes -- is making business more uncompetitive compared to the rest of the jurisdictions that we are trading with, not only in North America but throughout the world.

[1735]

I see that my time is up. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: But, Madam Speaker, if the demand is that great, I'm willing to stay up here for some more time.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

I. Chong: I'm pleased to rise today in response to the budget that was introduced on March 30. I'd like to start my comments with somewhat of a positive note, which the members opposite have been crying out for. I'll start that off by quoting Hansard from May 22, 1991. It says:

"The budget contains the largest deficit in British Columbia history -- over $1.2 billion. It marks the second large deficit in a row, and it projects continued high deficits into the future. The budget reveals that the province's direct debt has more than doubled since this government came to power in 1986. It is now $9 billion. The budget does not have one new idea on how to protect jobs and paycheques of British Columbians, at the very time that the Conference Board is predicting that B.C. will have the worst economic performance of any province in Canada."

The then Finance minister -- the now Premier -- went on to say:

"The budget is a big-lie budget. . . . It contains misleading bookkeeping, contrary to the recommendations of the auditor general and every reputable financial analyst in Canada. A $746 million deficit last year is portrayed as a $15 million surplus."

The former Finance minister -- the now Premier -- went on to say, on May 22, 1991:

"This government has had five years to improve the lives of British Columbians, and it has been five years of neglect. . . . It has shown a lack of commitment to financial accountability. Above all, it has shown a lack of commitment to honesty."

[ Page 12043 ]

[1740]

At this time I would like to move adjournment of debate and continue it first thing tomorrow.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: We will take a few moments. The Administrator is in the precinct and will be joining us momentarily for royal assent.

[1745]

Clerk of the House:

Nisga'a Final Agreement Act

In Her Majesty's name, his Honour the Administrator doth assent to this act.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada