Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12045 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Speaker's Statement

On reviewing yesterday's question period Blues, I noticed that the hon. Minister of Employment and Investment concluded his answer to a question with an inappropriate reference to members of the official opposition. I regret that I did not correct the member at that time. Such language invokes a response in kind and is not acceptable in this House. I ask all members to use restraint in their characterization of the motives or actions of other hon. members. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

I was quoting from the May 22, 1991, Hansard, wherein I found comments made by the former Finance critic. At that time, he was on the opposition benches, and he's now the Premier. He was chastising the government of the day for bringing in a budget that had a $1.2 billion deficit, which indicated that it was the second-largest deficit in the row. This budget before us today -- when you include the transfers to Crown and agencies -- is a $1.5 billion deficit, so in fact this government's budget deficit is greater than the one that the Premier chastised only eight short years ago, at $1.2 billion.

The Finance critic of the day -- now the Premier -- also indicated that the government of that day more than doubled the direct debt of this province. He indicated that when that government came into power, the provincial debt was $9 billion. And it, I guess, had gone to some $17 billion. Well, in eight short years, this government has also doubled the debt, but instead of dealing with an extra $9 billion, we're dealing with an extra $17 billion. So if we take a look at those numbers and at the comments made by the former Finance critic -- the now Premier. . . . If we are to use the words that the members opposite have chosen. . . . Some of those words actually were quite hollow, or they're quite hollow now, as they've indicated sometimes.

The Premier also said at that time that the budget that was introduced was "a big-lie budget." So if I'm able to quote him, then I would have to use that same term to describe this particular budget -- "a big-lie budget" -- because it contains misleading bookkeeping. It is contrary to the recommendations of the auditor general. This budget is in fact a disgrace. When this government tries to impress upon people that it's made its choices. . . . It certainly has made its choices. It's made its choices to put the people of this province further into debt and to remove more opportunities and to destroy what little hope they may have. That, in fact, is a disgrace.

The Premier at the time, in 1991-- who was then the Finance critic -- also went on to say that the government of the day had five years to improve the lives of British Columbians. Well, this government has had eight years to improve the lives of British Columbians, and it has failed to do so. I don't have to give my thoughts on that, because everyone else who has seen this budget -- every other outside or external organization or agency who may be impacted by this budget -- has already commented. They also feel this. They do not see this budget as bringing any hope or opportunity, and they see that this budget is in fact destroying their quality of life.

[1010]

What does a huge provincial debt do to the taxpayers in this province? I know you've heard this before, hon. Speaker, and I know it will be repeated, because we have to drive this message into the minds of the members opposite, who don't appear to be listening. It means a $2.6 billion debt-servicing cost -- interest expense. All of us who are paying a mortgage, a car loan or credit card expenses know what interest does. It eats up the income that we have to put to our other very important requirements, such as health care and education -- and for sustainability. A debt-servicing cost of $2.6 billion is a huge amount -- something that should not be tolerated. That amounts to -- I know you've heard this, hon. Speaker, time and time again -- a $7.232 million per day cost.

I want to move that down even further, so that those who are paying attention and those who are watching or listening understand what it also means. It means a per-minute interest cost of over $5,000. That is a huge amount -- an amount that we are burdening the youth, our future generation, with. If you go out and speak to them about this, they can't even imagine a $5,000 per minute debt-servicing cost, because they're lucky if they can find summer jobs that would even cover that amount to pay for their tuition for the following year.

Our provincial debt is a serious problem, and the fact that this government has no debt reduction plan is also appalling. It is horrifying to the many taxpayers out there. It is horrifying because it means that this government lacks financial vision. It's one thing to have governance dealing with policies and direction to better the quality of life for people based on your financial plan, but it's another thing when you have no financial plan. How can you possibly offer anything to the people of this province?

The fact that we are here today, at the end of April, responding to a budget and that we have not even received the throne speech for the ensuing year is another indication that this government lacks vision and that this NDP government also lacks a leader. If there was a leader and there was vision, we would have had a throne speech -- one that would

[ Page 12046 ]

[1015]

Many people have commented on the economy. In particular, those who have commented on this and who will affect our financial situation are the credit rating agencies. The Canadian Bond Rating Service downgraded us for a second year in a row just days after the provincial budget was introduced. They did this last year; they've done it this year. If you look back at previous budget speeches. . . . If you look back at the intent of the previous Finance ministers, their objective was to have the highest credit rating, to maintain the credit rating -- even if it wasn't the highest -- that we once had. They've now allowed that to start dwindling downwards. Are they going to be happy when we become the tenth-ranked credit-rated province in this country, as they would have our economy. . . ? I would hope not. Those on this side of the House are going to do everything to stop that.

What I've also seen is the kind of haphazard way that this government is attempting to deal with its fiscal problems. When it starts looking at selling off assets to pay down operating costs, it shows clearly, once again, a lack of vision. It's all right to determine that you need to get rid of some of your assets. If that is what you need to do, fair enough. Then we can question those decisions, and we'll help you scrutinize those. We'll help the members opposite look at those decisions and help them determine whether or not that really is a good idea.

In the end, if the decision is to sell off assets -- and if it is a good one -- where should those funds go? Certainly they should not go to operations. If the members opposite want to respond to that, I implore them to respond to it. That's like starting to sell off your furniture, starting to sell off your car -- things that you need to live, things that you need to help you sustain a lifestyle -- to pay down just your basic operations. What will you have left to sell off? Then all you will do is go on borrowing more, increasing the debt and therefore increasing debt-servicing costs. When the decision is made to sell off assets, it should not be taken lightly. More importantly, once that decision is made, where to put those funds should also not be taken lightly. That's what I see from the members opposite. That is in fact a disgrace.

Recently I attended a reception with the Canadian Home Builders Association here in Victoria, and they said that they are a forgotten industry. In fact, housing is at an all-time low, which indicates that people have no confidence in this economy. That is a shame too. We seem to forget that which is obvious to us: the fact that we live in homes; the fact that we need to have shelter. These are the people who are building those for us, and they are saying that it is at an all-time low. That is disgraceful.

[1020]

Throwing money at the health care budget does not mean putting money in a health care system where patients are regarded first. It's all about numbers. I know that the members opposite like to think that all we do is have a race to the bottom line, but that's not true. Our race to the bottom line is to make sure that the dollars reach the people at the end of the line. But what this government is doing is giving the dollars to a budget without accountability -- to a health care budget that is not discerning about where the moneys should go.

I'm always amazed to hear members talk about the fact that we want to give tax breaks to business. They're the ones that just gave a tax break to business; that's where their objective lies. But the biggest break they're giving to business is the fact that they're allowing the debt to rise so that the debt-servicing cost -- our interest expense -- goes up. They're the ones who are helping big business, hon. Speaker.

One of the things that members on this side of the House have said consistently is that one of the first things we would like to see happen in this province is a dramatic, significant and drastic cut in personal income taxes. Tell me how that helps big business, when all we want to do is to give everyone a break. It means small businesses who create jobs are getting a break. They want to have that happen for their workers. We want to see workers take home more. This government has failed to do anything. They've tinkered with the income tax breaks. I know they've been tinkering with it, because I see tax returns each and every year, and I see, even on my own tax return, that the only reason why there is perhaps a reduction is as a result of the fact that the federal government is also making reductions. Therefore, because our basic income tax is a percentage, a calculation from the federal tax, when they lower it, we see an extra reduction.

If the members opposite say that they want to stimulate the economy, they should seriously look at reducing personal income tax. I thought that the Minister of Finance understood this when, over the course of this past year, she seemed to keenly meet and keep an open mind when she met with people in the economic field and in the financial field. She even commented on it a number of times -- that she was intending to take a look at some of these and keep an open

[ Page 12047 ]

This is the Premier's budget. It has been the Premier's budget ever since 1991. With every new Finance minister that has come into place, the Premier has had his hand in the pot. He has made sure that he has got his message out, and he has basically tied the hands of the Finance minister. That is what I see. I can honestly say that I have seen attempts by some of these Finance ministers to make a difference -- thinking that they had the support of their caucus and their Premier -- to move in a direction that would have astounded all of us. But in the end, it's the Premier and his special advisers who said no, and now we're faced with this eighth consecutive deficit budget of $890 million -- but probably closer to $1.5 billion.

[1025]

I also want to talk about education, because this government is advocating that. . . . They're increasing funding in education, and again, it's like the health care budget: more money has gone to the Education ministry, but it actually has not reached the students. What this government doesn't understand. . . . It does boil down to financial analysis. When this government introduced its K-to-3 initiative, which I would have to say is a good initiative. . . . When you want to reduce class sizes so that students get the best opportunity to learn and to achieve good results, that is a wonderful initiative, and I support that. But what the government has to understand. . . . When you change 30 students per class down to 20 students per class, you now have an extra class, and therefore you have extra costs associated. And with extra cost associated, you have to divide the numbers -- your numerator over your denominator -- and it changes the per-student or per-pupil funding. Perhaps the per-pupil funding used to be $5,500. But when you change all of this, you can't say that the per-pupil funding is going to change slightly -- or actually that it's going to drop. Your per-student funding will increase substantially. And if you multiply that new, revised per-student funding that you need by the number of students that we have in this province, then your education budget is actually underfinanced.

So what is this government doing? It's going out to the school boards and to the trustees and forcing them to find cuts. But in the end, the school trustees have just been downloaded the responsibility. And what are they doing? They're having to talk about school closures. In this area, which I represent -- and that you represent, members for Esquimalt-Metchosin, Victoria-Hillside, Saanich South, Saanich North and the Islands even. . . . All of us who represent this area are looking at possible school closures. And, hon. Speaker, I hope they're not in your riding, and I hope they're not in my riding. But that's what we're being told.

And the school board chairman has said. . . . As I read in the paper, she's met with local MLAs. But she hasn't met with me, so I wonder what members she has met with. I'm hoping that she's going to call me and let me know if she's considering it, because I would like to know how I can best protect those schools in the riding that I represent.

[1030]

If the Select Standing Committee on Education would convene, that would be a wonderful opportunity for members on both sides of this House to hear exactly how we can look at restoring music in our schools. I would like to see what this government can do. . . .

Interjections.

I. Chong: When I hear the naysayers on that side. . . . It's ironic that they would call us naysayers, because they are being naysayers when they can't handle their fiscal problems. They're saying that we're naysayers when we try to point out how they're going wrong in how they're doing the financial bookkeeping of this province.

I don't understand why members opposite just aren't prepared to have a select standing committee or to have people come and see them and explain to them, maybe, what can be done. If they think we don't know how it can be done -- and they obviously don't know it can be done -- then maybe outside somewhere someone is willing to bring an idea forward. If so, we should listen to that, and the Select Standing Committee on Education should be allowed to hear that. But these members don't want to do that. They want to stifle the voice of the people, just as they've stifled the voice of the people this past week, as we've all seen, which is also shameful.

At a time when we should be trying to build opportunities, we have a Premier who is immersed in scandals -- fast ferry fiascos, casino licence approvals-in-principle. We've all heard this. What does that do to our economy? It does nothing to restore our economy.

One last thing I'd like to touch on. . . . I know my time is short, and I have so much more to say. But the fact of the matter is that everyone throughout this province, save the small communities, is going to feel another tremendous tax hit. On May 15 the budgets will be coming down from the

[ Page 12048 ]

The ferries are another important issue in my community. Every time there is a threat of a strike or a ferry fare increase, it causes undue worry and stress for the families in our communities, because on the Island, we depend on those ferries to get to the mainland. Whether it is to conduct business -- small business, self-employed business or someone you work for -- or to go to the mainland for treatment that is not otherwise here and that therefore affects our health, we depend on that ferry system. What this government has done to it is shameful.

In conclusion, I just want to say that this budget is not supportable. This budget lacks future vision, and on that, hon. Speaker, I'll take my seat.

K. Krueger: British Columbia marched into the 1990s at the head of the pack in Canada. The future should have been ours. But the 1990s in British Columbia have belonged to the New Democratic Party, and everywhere around us we see the devastation that has resulted from that fact. We were thriving after Expo 86. What a shining example of what British Columbians can accomplish through free enterprise when they're not hampered by a government that is determined to shackle them with overregulation, overtaxation and interference in labour-management relations. When we look around us and measure the results, these results are the report card of the NDP in B.C. -- the party that captured the last decade of the century. Look at what they have wrought.

[1035]

It's a nasty habit to get into -- spending other people's money. It's a terrible thing when a government like this one, which is so negligent and profligate with other people's money, has the key to the credit cards. What the Finance minister is talking about in this budget, of course, is running up credit card debt and applying the credit card balances to the mortgage. Any householder knows that he or she would lose their home if they ran up their Visa cards repeatedly, never made payments on them and always rolled the balances into the house mortgage. One day the bank would just have to take away the keys. That's what would happen.

What happens here presently is that the credit rating is continually downgraded. As it is, the carrying charges on this massive debt, which has more than doubled in this sorry government's term in office in the 1990s. . . . That interest rate continues to escalate, so that now we see this government having to budget $2.64 billion to service the debt that they have created, even though we're at the lowest interest rates that we've seen in my lifetime. What a phenomenal example of terrible mismanagement of an economy and a province! What a harsh price for our children to have to pay!

This Finance minister chooses to cannibalize British Columbia's assets and use the proceeds against operating costs, rather than learn to spend less money and act more responsibly -- to sell B.C. OnLine, to sell the government's light vehicle fleet, to sell buildings and land and assets that belong to the people of British Columbia and were accumulated over 125 years of good government before the NDP came to power in the province in the 1990s -- which is absolutely criminal, in my view. Of course, the processes by which these privatizations occur are flawed by the same sad lack of management ability as everything else that this government does in B.C.

For example, the so-called privatization of the government's light vehicle fleet has resulted in overexpenditure on the vehicles, through the suppliers, and a situation where ministries cannot afford the number of vehicles that they had in the past, even though this government has continually increased the number of civil servants. So we see the ridiculous situation in the interior of forestry staff, environment staff and police staff having to ride around in the same vehicles when they frequently have very different business to do. That's ridiculous; that's poor management -- and all of this just to pay operating costs.

We all saw early on in this government's tenure, in the early 1990s, what their approaches of overtaxation, overregulation and interference in labour-management relations were doing to the mining industry. Of course, the NDP have almost killed the mining industry in B.C., and there are some very sharp examples of that in my own constituency and in those neighbouring it. The forest industry was taken down the same road to ruin, starting at the same time as the mining industry and getting there a little later. Now we've had the spectacle of the president of MacMillan Bloedel having to say that when he sells B.C. assets, his share values go up -- another measurement of the results of the NDP in British Columbia and their approaches to government.

The hurt is everywhere from these flawed approaches. It's absolutely essential that this government either change its ways or call an election and allow a competent government to begin the process of the restoration of British Columbia and of making this economy work again, the way that it could work.

[1040]

[ Page 12049 ]

You don't just shut down a mine as if you're flicking a switch. That mine cannot stockpile the chemicals that it needs, because it won't be able to hold them there in storage while the mine is shut down for an indefinite period -- perhaps forever. So it's been using up its chemicals. That mine can't blast more ore off its rockfaces and stockpile it, because the ore will be degraded by the elements, and that's not something anyone would want to see. So they haven't been blasting ore. The mine is using up its supply of ore. The mine will be shut down on May 15. The job protection commissioner can make any recommendations he chooses on that date, and it's too late. Besides which, everyone's known all along that the recommendations would have to be a reduction in B.C. Hydro rates, a reduction in taxes, a fairer way of assessing Workers Compensation Board rates. Highland Valley has an exemplary record on worker safety, but they're charged as if they're any other mine in British Columbia. That is wrong; it's unfair.

Highland Valley is the biggest customer of B.C. Hydro -- $36 million a year. This government is selling hydroelectricity, whether the members opposite believe it or not -- we'll gladly show them the documentation -- to American industrials at half the cost that it's charging Highland Valley Copper. Longview Fiber and Intalco are two American clients that are buying our power generated at our dams from our rivers for half the price that Highland Valley Copper is paying. If this government stupidly drives Highland Valley Copper over the brink, it won't have half of its $36 million a year; it'll have zero. There'll be no income generated by that huge generator of income in the past.

It's not only that. The income that Highland Valley Copper generates through B.C. Hydro, at $36 million a year, is substantial, but it pales next to the tax revenue that is generated through Highland Valley Copper's payroll. They have a payroll of $80 million per year in our region. Their suppliers have additional payrolls that add substantially to that number, and the spinoff jobs throughout our region do as well. And the supplier companies pay income tax. That's how the economy works, as this government should've realized long ago. You do things to set an environment that encourages job creation and private sector investment. It's not as if the government had to invent that wheel. Everything was in place when this government came to power in the nineties, and this government has ruined it.

If Highland Valley Copper goes under, it will be the fault of the NDP in British Columbia. No doubt about it. The NDP should be stepping up to the plate and saying, "We're cutting hydro rates" -- at least to the rate that you charge the industrial customers in the United States. "We're going to cut taxation, we're going to give you a fair Workers Compensation Board assessment rate that reflects your excellent lack of loss experience, and we're going to treat you fairly in future and stop taxing and regulating you to death."

[1045]

Interjection.

K. Krueger: What is your point, Mr. Minister? Would you like to stand up and make your point? He talks about world commodity prices. This is the very same copper price that's being paid right around the world, Mr. Minister. Right around the world, people are getting the same prices for copper as Highland Valley Copper, and they're making money. They're making substantial profits in those competitive countries because they don't have governments that work against them. They don't have governments that attack jobs. If the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture doesn't understand that, no wonder we're starting to hear from the tourism community that they're suffering the same problems at the hands of this government. They're so saddled by regulation. Their ability to generate jobs is so severely impacted by this government's interference in labour-management relations. They are so ridiculously overtaxed. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Member, with apologies for interrupting, I wish to draw the attention of the members to the fact that nobody can hear anything in this chamber. I recommend, therefore, that a little more quiet, a little more respect. . . .The member has been recognized and has the floor.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I trust I will be given a little more time, given the fact that the Minister of Tourism has been heckling me, and had to oblige you to interrupt the debate, when I'm talking about his very ministry, his very responsibilities.

People I met with this morning confirmed that they are suffering the consequences of this government's approaches, just as the heavy industries did over years past. If the minister would go out and interview restaurant owners -- if he would talk to the owners of restaurant chains -- he would find out that with every twist and turn of labour-management regulations that this NDP government has imposed, they have destroyed jobs in British Columbia. Every time they jack up the minimum wage and try to brag that they are doing it to help workers, they eliminate workers' jobs.

These restaurants cut back on the number of employees they have, and they begin importing sauces and spices and things that used to be done in their own operations through value-added approaches. They wipe out jobs in British Columbia because they can only handle a certain percentage of employment costs, and their bottom line gets eliminated. Many of them are operating very close to the margin as it is. At Sun Peaks Resort -- again, a model of what private enterprise and private investment can do for British Columbia's economy -- a number of the restaurants are operating very close to the wire, barely making money. Every time this government jerks them around with new employment regulation, it hurts them, and it puts people out of work in B.C.

Interjections.

[ Page 12050 ]

We look at health care in my constituency, and we have the same problems that I hear about everywhere else in British Columbia. This caucus gets out and works. This caucus doesn't sit in offices in Victoria, like perhaps the members opposite do. That is why we have our ear to the ground, and we know how people are hurting. There are tremendous wait-lists -- close to 3,000 people -- in Kamloops for surgery. That is wrong.

These people have paid taxes all their lives, believing that even if they do have to pay higher taxes than the U.S. -- even if we do see our take-home pay shrinking, even if we do experience a lesser standard of living because of this government -- at least they would have health care when they need it. And when they need it, it isn't there. Why not? Because this government doesn't have the money. Why not? Because it spends it on all the wrong things. So we have those 3,000 people waiting. I get desperate phone calls from people who have been set back time and again -- postponed on the wait-list time and again.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We have a situation in Kamloops where the acute-care beds are generally filled by people who ought to be in extended-care and intermediate care facilities. But there aren't any such facilities for them, because this foolish government hasn't built them -- hasn't opened the beds, even knowing that we have a population that is going to need those facilities. We have a whole wing at Ponderosa Lodge, which is an extended-care facility in Kamloops, that has never been furnished or equipped, because the government hasn't anted up the money. What does that result in? No acute-care beds at Royal Inland Hospital. What does that result in? Increased wait-lists and preposterous situations such as occurred recently, where a prostitute was put in a bed in the children's ward because there was no room for her anywhere else in the hospital. She was an acute-care patient. A prostitute was put in a children's ward -- and other adults as well. An inappropriate behaviour occurred, and that is wrong.

[1050]

This government has done precious little for home support, for home care, for respite care. If we want people to look after their elders in their homes as long as they can -- which I am sure we would all agree is best for those elders and good for the families, as a matter of fact -- we should provide respite care when they need it so that they aren't driven to the point of having to give up that elder because they can just never get a break when they need it.

This government should stop being adversarial with the medical doctors and the nurses of British Columbia. It was not a concession to the nurses to finally agree to hire 1,000 nurses recently. We should have hired those nurses long ago. We knew that that need was going to be there. There was a crying need. The nurses were being worked off their feet. In trying to adapt to the ridiculous regionalization experiments of this government, regional health boards and hospitals had switched to using nurses on an on-call basis -- the casualization of the workforce. Indeed, it's probably not going to amount to the hire of 1,000 nurses in British Columbia; it's just going to amount to a conversion of people who are already there from being casual nurses to being full-time nurses. The problems still won't be addressed, because we probably need more than 1,000 nurses. I believe that we do.

When I speak of investment in B.C. and the fact that the tourism industry is being hurt as well, I can give examples.

Hon. I. Waddell: What?

K. Krueger: The minister says: "What?" Here are two examples: Cayoosh Resort and Sun Peaks Resort. Mr. Ohkubo of Nippon Cable, who owns Sun Peaks Resort -- a stellar success story for British Columbia -- said recently: "I will not put another dollar into British Columbia until this government changes its ways." He resents having to pay corporate capital tax on his assets for the privilege of creating jobs in British Columbia. He resents the taxation structure here.

Let's look at Cayoosh Resort.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: We can't, because there's nothing there. Al Raine and Nancy Greene Raine have been working for nine years to develop Cayoosh Resort, and there hasn't been a spade in the ground. Why? Because of regulation. Because of bureaucrats that deliberately throw barriers in their way. Fair warning to those bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government. We will do away with this approach of throwing roadblocks in the path of private investment. It is absolutely wrong that a government attacks investors the way it does, and those approaches are going to end.

Look at education. As our newest colleague on this side of the House said, this government's fond of sprinkling the words "protecting health care and education" across every announcement like fairy dust in the hope that people will think that they are really doing that -- when, in fact, they have to be measured by their results. We've just been talking about the local results in health care. What about education? There's a letter in my hand here that was written to the Minister of Education from the chair of the Kamloops school board about the negative effects of this Premier having jumped into collective bargaining and imposed a solution, together with the president of the B. C. Teachers Federation, on the teachers and on the school districts. Now the districts don't have the money to pay the bills. They're having to cut back on janitorial staff; they're having problems meeting their teacher obligations. He says:

[ Page 12051 ]

"This board accepted the need to make further reductions in programs in response to the loss of funds. The new collective agreement, however, now requires the district to maintain a level of non-enrolling teacher staffing which was set prior to the loss of the special grant. As a consequence, the district's plan to make further reductions to non-enrolling teaching staff cannot be implemented."

If you visited the University College of the Cariboo -- another example of what British Columbians can do when they're allowed to use their skills and to flourish -- you would find that this government's approaches are hurting them as well. UCC has lost its library degree grant. It's unable to keep up to the need that it has to supply the type of materials in its library that it needs for the courses that are being offered today.

[1055]

That is a lot of money, but it's one-twelfth of what was squandered on the fast cat ferries. It's one-ninth of what was squandered on Skeena Cellulose, a defunct old pulp mill up in Prince Rupert that's just limping along because it's on welfare from the rest of the corporate community in British Columbia. You take taxes from viable pulp mills all around B.C. and squander them there. We have pulp mill workers from Kamloops who travel up to Prince Rupert and work on their outdated, defunct, redundant old machinery, and they tell me it's like putting brand-new motors in rusted-out old washing machines. It's just not going to work. It's a waste of the people's money.

Now we see $3 billion being squandered on a SkyTrain extension that Vancouver didn't want. We see at least $300 million being offered up to a convention centre in Vancouver, when communities all over British Columbia are hurting. UBC thinks $40 million is unreachable, yet this government can throw money away on projects like that. That is wrong. It's wrong that the ongoing gifts to the big union buddies of the Premier continue, such as the HCL model. It's wrong that highways, schools and hospitals -- any government facilities that are built around this province -- cost far more than they should because the government refuses to put those projects out to open tender. That is absolutely wrong. If this government would just stop doing that, there would be money to go around for the other pressing needs that exist in this province, both to deal with operating costs and to be ready for the years ahead.

There's a program known as Youth Community Action, which links community work experience and credit for post-secondary education. Every now and then this government has a good idea. I happen to think that's one. But for some reason it's cut off at age 24. Mature students are not allowed access. A person wonders: why are these decisions made? Why is government so arbitrary with people? UBC told us that this province needs 25,000 to 35,000 more students in the system in order to be ready for the next decade. We're not getting them, and we won't get them unless we open up ways for people to actually attain that education. Just doing a tuition freeze doesn't cut it. Those institutions have to make up the revenue from somewhere. They have to find another revenue source, and there are precious few. The government must adequately fund education and health care. It can do that if it stops throwing money away on capital projects that are essentially gifts to the B.C. Federation of Labour and the person that the Premier referred to as the nineteenth cabinet minister in last year's Order of British Columbia presentation ceremony.

This government has tied itself up so desperately in overregulation that it embarrasses itself and cannot get things done. I think the prime example of that is the Ministry of Environment. People who would be job creators in British Columbia find themselves stymied by the Ministry of Environment over and over again -- applying its regulation to their plans, harassing them at every turn and putting up roadblocks. But what about existing problems with the environment in British Columbia? Well, the government doesn't have any staff to deal with those. It's too busy harassing the people who have ideas and who would like to bring on projects.

There's a classic example of that in Kamloops. It's called the Owl Road Landfill. It's a dump right in the middle of residential areas of Kamloops, between the subdivision of Juniper and the subdivision of Valleyview. It's not supposed to have foodstuffs in it. For years this dump has been trucking in putrescibles. It covers them up with dirt, granted. But bears can smell them, and bears come down to eat them. Then they wander into Kamloops neighbourhoods. Sixty of them had to be shot last summer. The government just hasn't been able to provide the staff to monitor and deal with that. This dump is also authorized to have a certain quantity of gypsum, and it has a mountain of gypsum. It's only supposed to have it for a year, and it's had it for years. Nobody's doing anything about it. Why? Because this government doesn't know how to set its priorities and writes far too much regulation and then doesn't enforce the important ones.

[1100]

There's another example of regulation gone wild in this province. Recently people in Clearwater abruptly learned that access to 19 favourite fishing lakes in their area was being closed to them. They had to walk into them. They couldn't get into them by the means they'd been using for years as they helped develop that resource in the Clearwater area. Precious little consultation -- one person involved, and a misunderstanding there. But the government serves notice suddenly

[ Page 12052 ]

This is supposed to be a democratic government. I actually lost the election in Clearwater; there were more NDP voters in 1996 than there were B.C. Liberal voters. I'll bet every member on that side that that's not going to happen again. The people of Clearwater, this badly bitten, are now very shy.

They've been waiting since 1995 for this government to make good on a promise to build a multilevel health care facility in Clearwater -- long overdue. Again, it's a lack of extended-care and intermediate care facilities, and the members opposite bleat: "More money, more money." But this is what those members do not understand, and I wish they could open their ears for just one moment: it is not an investment when you spend your operating money.

This government repeatedly refers to operating funds as investments, and they are not investments. Investments are infrastructure; investments are things that are going to generate economic potential; they're not your operating funds. So don't tell us to spend, spend, spend when we remind you, NDP government, of your commitments, of your promises to the people of Clearwater. That hospital should be standing now, and there isn't even a spade in the ground -- endless money spent on consultants, as everywhere else in British Columbia.

I'm running out of time. The list goes on and on, but I want to mention the community social services workers. I want to ask: why don't they matter? Why don't they matter to this government? Why don't their clients matter to this government? Why are those people, dealing with some of the most unfortunate citizens of our society, only worth minimum wage, when HCL workers are worth $30 an hour, salary and benefits -- plus 5 percent recently? How can that be? How does this government set its priorities? Is it whichever union makes the biggest contribution to the NDP re-election coffers? What is it? I can't make it out; there has to be some way that those decisions are made. Why are these community social service workers and their clients being treated as though they are worthless, when others are treated like favoured sons? Why is that? I don't know, and I wish that the government could answer.

I see that my time is drawing to a close. I always regret that, because there are so many things that I'd like to talk about. I'd like to talk about the women's resource centre and the Royal Canadian Legion in Kamloops, and the fact that they are both bumping along very close to closure because the government went into direct competition with them through its ill-advised gaming expansion. This government has lost five times in the courts; it has been utterly humiliated, been told by a Supreme Court judge in British Columbia that it was operating in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada, of all things. What does it do? Does it apologize? Does it stop? Does it get out of the face of charity gaming? No. Instead, it enacts retroactive immunity legislation conclusively deeming itself to have authority to break the law, and that is wrong. Shape up, government. Start treating the people of B.C. like you care.

[1105]

What I'd like to do is emphasize the difference between where this government stands -- our pride in our budget and the pride in the people of this province and our continued commitment to invest in and support the future of our children, to invest in our communities, to invest in health care, in the quality of life in this province -- and this opposition's agenda. When you cut through the political positioning, the political gamesmanship over there, you actually see where they stand, what side they're on, and I think the people of this province are getting past the gamesmanship. They want to hear substance; they want to hear what this opposition has to offer. When you cut past the opportunism, the hypocrisy, what you see is an opposition that does not deserve to be in government, because they have no faith in this province, and they have no faith in the people of this province.

What I'd like to do, hon. Speaker, is go through what our budget offers the people of this province, and cut through the political smear on that other side. What this budget does. . . . I am so proud of it. It boosts health care spending. It helps small business because it recognizes that small business is the incubator in job creation; it is the incubator in diversifying the economy of this province, and that's what this government understands, and that's what the people of this province understand.

We continue to invest, in an unprecedented manner, in education and in youth opportunities, and we are supporting working families. This budget adds $478 million to the health care budget alone. That doesn't even take into consideration the $137 million additional lift in health capital expenditure. There is an additional $45 million lift in core education budget and $341 million in capital funds in new schools, additions to portables and replacements. This opposition tells us to stop spending.

This opposition doesn't believe that we should be investing in schools. They don't believe we should be eliminating portables, and they argue -- when they decry the size of the deficit -- that we are mortgaging our children's futures. I tell you, hon. Speaker, that when we talk about our children and the opportunities for our children, this is the investment that makes the difference. It gives our children the opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone across this country, with anyone in this world -- whether they are rich, whether they are poor, whether they can take advantage of private education. When they tell us to cut back in education spending, what they're arguing for is opportunities for the very select few that can continue to pay for private education in this province, and I say shame on them. That is the difference between this government and that opposition. We stand for the opportunities for all children in this province, and we are prepared to invest in them today, to ensure that they can stand as equals here in British Columbia, regardless of their economic status.

[1110]

[ Page 12053 ]

Let me talk specifically about some of those areas of investment, because this opposition likes to tour some of their favourite spots. Last year they went to Alberta and came back talking about that great province to the east of us, using Alberta as the example of what they would bring to this province. I think we have to do a little bit of comparison. We need to know where these people stand, and we have to stand proudly with our record in this government of investing in the people of this province and the strength that we have.

Alberta, as an example, spends $450 less per capita on health care than British Columbia. Is that what this opposition wants for the people of this province? In the most hypocritical, opportunistic way, they are prepared to use individuals on waiting lists to indicate that they care for the people, and then they speak out of the other side of their mouths and say that they'd bring Alberta-style health care here to British Columbia. Alberta-style health care has a history of closing down hospitals and of spending less money for health care, and that is a shameful record. The standard of living and the quality of life in this province cost money, and the ongoing investment in that quality of life is what allows us to be leaders -- not only for the ongoing investment in the people of this province but for the actual infrastructure that encourages economic development. If you're talking about the future, the future growth in this economy has everything to do with the investment in people and everything to do with the quality of life.

If we were to bring ourselves in line with Alberta, we could save about $1.8 billion, and that's what this opposition is arguing for. They think Alberta is the model to follow, and I say: shame on them. That's the difference between this government and that opposition, and I think they need to stand up and bring some sanity to what they're talking about. You can't have it all ways. You can't talk about cutting the size of government, because government is about health care. It's about spending on supporting families in a healthy community.

[1115]

Let's look at what it would mean to an average worker if we brought it in line with American spending. I'm using the Leader of the Opposition's own words. He likes to compare it to the average income earner in Blaine, and he is driving, in the most opportunistic way, his agenda which says that there should be smaller government and that there should be less taxes paid. In one of our hearings in this past year, we had a gentleman come and talk to us who had just moved up to Burnaby. He brought his family from California. I want to quote, from this gentleman's own mouth, his comment about the decisions that he made in coming back to Canada. He said that the community that he came from is a community about the size of Burnaby. The town that he came from was Reno Valley, about 132,000. . . . A lot like Burnaby, he says. He says: "Driving down the street, you see a bunch of kids, and you think: okay, there are five or six kids. Which one of them has the gun?"

It's not funny. In a town of 132,000, there are 109 gangs. There were 11 killings a year; that's almost as many as you would have in a town comparable to the size of Burnaby. . . . He said: "When I moved, there was a bullet hole in my oldest son's bedroom window. You don't want to go to sleep every night with the sounds of gunfire and police helicopters flying over. It is a life of confrontation. Because we're different, we made the decision, regardless of the income and the tax structure in the States, to come back to Canada."

When you look at the model of the United States -- and the Leader of the Opposition is now a proponent of the American system, arguing that Blaine pays less taxes and that we should drive to that level -- you have to understand that what you're doing is giving up that quality of life. It's not only the quality of life with respect to the difference of a population that has lost hope, a population that no longer has a government on its side, compared to a government that is prepared to invest in hope and in opportunity and to stand beside the youth of this province, giving them real options.

But this person went a little further, and I'm going to come back to the question of health care and the question of where your tax dollars go. This particular person then went on to talk about health care. He said that when he was in California, his health costs were as much as a mortgage. It was $700 a month that he paid for his health insurance -- $700 a month. He had a $500 deductible, which he paid up front. The plan was a 30-70 plan, which meant that he paid the first 30 percent on $10,000 of health care. After that, then Blue Cross picked up the difference. Blue Cross had a limited prescription program, and there were restrictions on which doctors he was able to use. He then went on to say that this particular health plan did not cover his life insurance.

[1120]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 12054 ]

That's the difference between this side and that side of the House. I challenge them to stand up and be counted, to make sense of what they're saying. You can't have it both ways. You can't cut taxes. You can't downsize government and continue to spend in programs that level the playing fields -- the kind of programs that make us Canadian and that invest in opportunities for children and workers today to ensure that we can continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with any other person in this country as trading partners.

I want to go a little bit further to compare the difference between them and us. When we talk about advanced education, this government has a strategy to invest in technological education and high-tech opportunities for this province. Our record, not only as British Columbians but as Canadians, is at the forefront. We should be proud of that. This province's continued support and investment in those programs is unprecedented across this country. Let me talk about some of those numbers. When you compare other jurisdictions. . . . The members on the other side don't like to do this, because they don't like to deal with the real facts. They don't like to deal with the realities of a global economy, an economy that we in this province -- when things are well -- do very well in.

When you look across the country at the cuts to social spending -- and we're talking about health care, education and other social programs in upcoming budgets. . . . This is in the Globe and Mail, January 1999. This province leads the way. What we see in Alberta is a 9 percent cut in social spending. That's health care and education. Ontario, one of the other provinces that they like to point to, shows an 11 percent cut. We have held our own, and we have held the investment in those programs. Even we can do better, because we in this province believe in and understand the importance of continued education. We are not prepared to abandon this generation.

[1125]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the interruptions are not helpful.

J. Smallwood: I want to talk about some of the nuts and bolts. These people talk about the fact that they believe that we should have the same tax load in this province as they do in the States. They don't talk about the implications. They don't talk about a $700-a-month cost just for your health care insurance -- plus the fact that you have to pay every time you go, because you have to pay a deductible when you go to the doctor. They don't want to talk about that reality. They simply want to talk about the need to drive down the tax load, which is the revenue that pays for these programs, in this province.

Well, this government has brought a balance to that very question, because our record on that front is exemplary also. Not only are we standing on the side of families and on the side of working people in investing in programs that allow them to stand shoulder to shoulder, but we're also cognizant of the fact that workers in this province need to be assured that the government is watching that tax load and is sensitive to the pressures that they face on a daily basis.

Let me talk about what this government has done. This government has frozen hydro rates. This government has frozen ICBC rates and, for the very first time ever, a road safety dividend, cutting premiums by 2 percent for good drivers. . . . It is that kind of public policy, that kind of leadership, that I believe puts a lie to the opposition's bantering. I want to go a little bit further, because this opposition doesn't like it when we talk about the real facts. They don't like it, but the reality of a government that is prepared to stand with working people, that is aware of what working people in this province see as important. . . .

This government has also cut personal income taxes for individuals as well. On January 1, we reduced the tax rate by 2 percent, saving British Columbians another $110 million. This government has brought the kind of balance necessary for the time and place in this province that has understood the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the member for Surrey-Whalley has the floor. When the opportunity comes for other members to speak, I expect the same respect for them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

J. Smallwood: This government has made some tough decisions, and that balance is the tough decision. It's a decision that continues to recognize the strength of the province -- the people of this province -- and not only have we continued to support them in a time when there are economic pressures, but, first and foremost, we have not abandoned them in their quest to continue to be leaders. That's the difference between this government and the opposition on the other side.

When I made my introductory comments, I talked about our continued support for and investment in small business. That is part of the package. It's part of our commitment to ensuring a strong and continued future for the people of this province. We recognize that small businesses are the incubators. They not only provide an opportunity for growth in jobs, but they are the incubators of new ideas, of innovation and the opportunities to continue to be leaders in this province. That's what the history points out.

[1130]

[ Page 12055 ]

Hon. Speaker, let's look a little bit further on this tax question, because they were firmly in the camp with the B.C. Business Summit. Now, they said. . . .

An Hon. Member: I noticed we were.

J. Smallwood: That's good, yes. The member across the way is saying: "Yes, we were. Yes, we were." We supported the business summit, and their leader, the Leader of the Opposition, says that the single biggest obstacle to new private sector investment and job creation is high taxes. Our budget clearly outlines the kinds of cuts that this government has brought to our budget, has reduced the revenue and increased pressures on our ability to provide the kinds of support that we believe in, that we're committed to and that our record shows and demonstrates. But what we did not do is change the high-end tax bracket. This is what this opposition wants us to do.

When I was heading over here on Monday morning, I noticed an article in Report on Business that I found to be astonishing, and I think it really reflects the difference between the opposition and the government side. The government is prepared to cut personal income tax, and the government is prepared to give low-income individuals with children an increase in their child bonus. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order.

J. Smallwood: I want to make sure that they hear this, because I think it's really important. Hon. Speaker, there is a lot of heckling over there, and when I talked about the child tax credit, they said: "Lower than Alberta?" They don't have one in Alberta. The program we have in this province is unprecedented. Our investment in children in this province is unprecedented, and I am proud of that.

Let's look at the high tax rate. Let's look at who these people are that these folks are standing up with and are proudly on the side of. Let's look at the income that Robert Monk. . . .

[1135]

Hon. I. Waddell: I want to congratulate the hon. member. I know she was just getting going there, and she was setting out the difference between the opposition and the government and where it really stands -- what side the opposition's on and what side the government's on. The opposition is on the side of a very select group of very rich people in this province, and the government is striving hard to govern for the vast majority of the people in the province.

I want to adopt a little different point of view, if I might, to begin with. I know that this is the heart of democracy here and that this is where the people's wills are reflected by their representatives. I accept that, but I sometimes feel that it becomes a bit artificial, in the way that we look at things. I want to reflect to the opposition and to the people who are watching and listening -- the people in the gallery -- what I, in my experience of the last ten days and as Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, see going on in the province.

Yesterday I was at Vancouver International Airport welcoming the 250-millionth visitor that's gone through that airport. It was a young couple from Argentina. They'd come from Argentina to New York and then from New York direct to Vancouver, and they were on their honeymoon. They were a wonderful young couple -- Jose and Cecilia Rodriguez. I got to meet them. I got to give them a Cowichan sweater, and I got to give them some other gifts to tour Super, Natural British Columbia. They were beaming that they had come here. They're part of the fastest-growing industry in the world and in British Columbia -- the tourism industry. It was a very. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, maybe the hon. members don't think this is important, but I do. I think it was important for the people of the airport and the people of British Columbia that this was such a great occasion.

Four days before that, I was also at the airport but at the south terminal. We opened the new south terminal of the airport. This was amazing, because this was a historic old building, and in the building. . . . Many people had come to Canada through the south terminal years ago. Other people had used the south terminal to get out to regions in B.C., to get over to Tofino or to Anahim Lake or up into the Cariboo. It is the area where people on tourist trips or on small airlines go into the interior or the coast of British Columbia. I was there with all the regional mayors. We had an old Grumman Goose, and we opened the south terminal by cutting a ribbon with historic old amphibious aircraft that go up and down the coast of British Columbia. It was a great occasion. It was something to celebrate and something to be positive about -- about British Columbia. It was a great economic benefactor that will benefit the province's economy.

On the way to the south terminal, I was stopped twice, because movie crews were shooting movies in Vancouver. We now have the largest movie industry -- next to New York and Los Angeles -- in North America. That's ahead of Toronto; it's ahead of every other American city -- ahead of Montreal. That is unbelievable -- $808 million in movies. When I became minister a year ago, I announced that we had a $630 million industry in film. We brought in two tax credits to help the film industry, both domestic and foreign. We were hoping to make $700 million; we made $800 million. Film is booming in British Columbia, in spite of "The X-Files" going. We had a lot more coming in.

A few days before that, I had the privilege to meet and sit with the Premier of China, Zhu Rongji, and the foreign minister of China. They were saying: "We want to bring more trade to Canada. We want, in fact, to be one of your major trading partners." The Chinese Canadian community was out welcoming that Premier and that trade.

[1140]

Interjection.

[ Page 12056 ]

I was at Whistler ten days ago. I talked to some ski operators, and they were lobbying me about the Olympics. We won the bid to be Canada's bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics. I saw Rob Boyd, the great skier and one of the "Crazy Canucks" there, who was saying to me: "Now, don't cut the Callaghan Valley. Don't log it, because we need to have it for the Olympics. Get working on that, Ian. Get moving." I said: "Yes, Rob, we're working on the Olympics. We've got our bid committee working on that, and we're going to put together a good bid."

But the ski operators at the little place where I met Rob Boyd, Creekside at Whistler, said to me: "This is our best season ever." I got a letter from Charles Locke, who runs the Fernie operations, saying: "Skiing in British Columbia has an excellent future as a result of favourable government legislation and policies." Now, he's a ski operator. The weather helps, too, I've got to admit. But we're going to have skiing in June. You know, the film climate and ski climate and tourism climate and cheap dollars -- and things like that -- all help. There were government policies there, back behind all these operations; that's why we're having some success.

Hon. Speaker, did you see the high-tech announcements that were made in this morning's paper -- both in Vancouver and in Victoria? Did you see some of the other things that are going on in the province? When I listened this morning to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson and the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, both members of the opposition. . . . The member for Kamloops-North Thompson wanted to lower minimum wage. You know, I'm proud that we have a decent minimum wage for young people in this province. It may be nice for them; they've gotten older and they have forgotten. They have lots of money now, and they've forgotten what it's like to be a young person who is not well off and who has to work in the service industry. They need a decent minimum wage, and I'm proud that this government backs a decent minimum wage.

The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson said that he was worried about the ski hill. I have visited that ski hill, and I've put one of the people on the ski hill -- from Sun Peaks-- on to the board of Tourism British Columbia. They're not doing too badly up there. I wish them luck. I'm behind them, but I would hardly think that they're really suffering. I think there are other areas that we could work on.

The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson talked about getting rid of civil servants. I hope he gives that speech in Victoria during the next election. I think it will be interesting to hear what he says, because he said it pretty bluntly. I think we need good civil servants to make public services run efficiently and properly. We in fact have carved back the civil service in many ways. It is a very efficient civil service now. It's more efficient than a lot of the forest companies and a lot of the big businesses in British Columbia. If they were as efficient as some of the civil servants, they would do a lot better in business.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson spoke about the copper mines up in Highland Valley. He made an interesting point. He said, as I understood it: "Look, you are saying that copper prices are down. . ." And they are. That is part of the problem in the British Columbia economy. We are still a resource-driven economy -- that is, we export lumber, we export copper and gold, we try to catch and sell fish for domestic use and export. Prices are down, and resources are down in these areas -- the prime areas of British Columbia. That's why we have trouble in our economy right now. But we'll get over it.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson says: "But look at the other copper mines in the country -- in the world. Their prices for copper -- it's a world price -- are down, but they are doing okay." Well, what are the alternatives, if he looks at it? The differences between those mines and the mines of British Columbia are lower wages, lower environmental standards and no safety standards at all. So I challenge him to go to the miners up in his area -- up in Highland Valley -- and tell them that he wants them to have lower, Third World wages. That's where he wants them to go. That's the policy of the Liberal opposition. That's what they want to do to mineworkers in British Columbia. I challenge him. I'll do that debate with him any day.

[1145]

An Hon. Member: It's all about choices.

Hon. I. Waddell: It is about choices. Let me talk about that. Here's what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says about choices and alternatives and the full cost of a tax cut.

"Not surprisingly, most people would like lower taxes and lower public debt. But most people also want better health care, quality education, a clean environment and good roads, amongst other things. Public policy is about reconciling these conflicting choices. Canadians have traditionally chosen" -- and I ask the member to listen to this phrase -- "to support programs that increase the fairness and equity of our society. Before succumbing to tax-cut euphoria, British Columbians should think deeply about the price they are willing to pay. The biggest expenditure items in the B.C. budget are health, education and social assistance, which together account for almost 80 percent of the total provincial funding. What's left goes to a myriad of public services such as law enforcement, infrastructure and environmental protection. The appropriate question for tax cutters is: which public services do you want to do without?"

[ Page 12057 ]

A good politician never forgets his or her riding, so I'm going to talk about my riding here for a minute. In my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview what happened is that we found more money to eliminate the portables at Moberly school. This weekend I was there to deal with some money for a community centre there, Killarney Community Centre, where we found some money to help them rebuild. We're building a beautiful new gym for the kids in that area. It's really needed. Tomorrow I'm going there, to Fair Haven old folks home, run by the United Church -- a seniors home -- and we're announcing a $14 million project to build that home for acute care and other care and seniors housing. That is a huge investment in seniors and in health care, and that is directly out of this budget. It's not magic.

An Hon. Member: It's borrowed money.

Hon. I. Waddell: It's not borrowed money. It is. . . .

Interjections.

[1150]

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: The member asks how I am going to do that. Let me talk about it.

An Hon. Member: So far you've shrunk it.

Hon. I. Waddell: The member says: "So far you've shrunk it."

An Hon. Member: Look, Madam Speaker, he shrunk the economy!

Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. member would let me, I would answer the question.

The problem with the B.C. economy at the moment, as I said before, is that we are trade-dependent on Asia and other parts of the world. That is rather different from the other parts of Canada. They had a terrible recession in the early nineties and other times in eastern Canada because the American economy was down, but we had prosperity because we were trading with Asia, which was booming. Our trade is dependent on the prices of our natural resources -- the price of copper and gold and other resources, some of. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: I asked the hon. members. . . . I'm trying to answer their questions, if they'd listen to me.

Some of our resources are in trouble, as I mentioned before -- like our fishery and so on. Our challenge is to create a new. . . . It's a challenge that we all have together. Whether you're on this side of the House or the other side of the House, governments. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. I. Waddell: We are in an excruciatingly difficult and painful period right now in British Columbia. We are creating a new economy in British Columbia. It will be the economy of the future for our young people. It will be a different economy. It will be an economy that features high tech and the growth of small business. It will be an economy that features new manufacturing, that features value-added, for example, to our wood products. We can't abandon the old economy of fish, forestry and mines, but we have to change it. We have to add to it; we have to make it more efficient, and we're doing that.

I invite the hon. members to look at some of the things in the paper, today:

" 'Vancouver Economy Set to Grow 2.1 Percent,' the Conference Board of Canada says. 'Excellent employment growth in the last few months, as indicated by the recent labour force survey from Statistics Canada, provides a good springboard into 1999. . . . The province's natural-resource-based economy will continue to be challenged by fragile Asian market conditions and weak commodity prices,' the board said. 'However, some relief is in sight as the East Asian economies. . .rebound in the latter half of 1999 and by 2000, the B.C. economy is expected to regain a solid footing and expand by 2.3 percent.' "

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. members would listen. . . . They'll get a chance, you know, to speak. I invite them to speak afterwards. But please let me try and make some points about what my vision and my ideas of the economy are. They can differ if they want, but maybe they could listen.

What we're saying is that the economy is changing, that Asia is coming back, that we are rebounding and that we have, in fact, made efficiencies in our economy. If you look at some of the other stories. . . . The Alaska cruise-ship lines are booming. The film industry is booming, as I've already mentioned. There are new high-tech companies. And, finally, there's a tremendous growth in the small business sector. That's what I want to talk about, and I'll conclude with that.

An Hon. Member: In Alberta.

Hon. I. Waddell: Not in Alberta, in British Columbia. British Columbia, from 1991 to 1998, had the fastest-growing small business sector in the country -- a 7 percent per annum growth rate. In Alberta and Ontario it was 5 percent, and that's. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: The member doesn't have to believe me. That's a Statistics Canada report.

[1155]

[ Page 12058 ]

So what have we done to help small business? Small business provides 98 percent of the jobs in British Columbia. This budget targets health and education, and the biggest winner in it, in the business sense, is small business. There is a tax cut for the little guy -- 8.5 percent to 5 percent. This was a huge. . . . It's the lowest in the country, except for Newfoundland.

Secondly, we listened to business, and business said: "Cut red tape." So we have passed an act to do that, called the red tape reduction act. We've already begun to do electronic filing. We've already begun to clear away some of the difficulties with red tape that have been identified by business -- some 94 examples -- and we've started to cut them, one by one. We're doing this.

Thirdly, we have ordered the government to look at things through a business lens, so that when an official is making a decision, they look through a business lens. We have cut the corporation capital tax by raising the upper limits for small business, so that by the year 2001, 90 percent of small businesses won't pay the corporation capital tax. We've implemented one-stop shopping for business in 24 locations throughout the province. The member for Okanagan-Penticton was with me when we opened the one-stop shopping business setup in the government agent's office in Penticton, and I'm pleased that he was there.

We've brought in a You-Bet program. You-Bet is to bring young entrepreneurs into the system. For ten bucks they can come to some seminars. They can learn how to start their own businesses. If I had an hour to speak, I could speak on this program alone. It is a great success for young people. It's inspired many small businesses. I have stacks of letters from small businesses that have done that. The opposition could be cynical about that, but they should talk to these young entrepreneurs and these young people and see what they've done.

We have set up a Visions for the Future program for young aboriginal people. If the opposition, instead of voting against Nisga'a and opposing the settlement of land claims, started supporting the settlement of land claims, they could help business in British Columbia. They could concentrate on young aboriginal people in business in British Columbia.

Finally, we've worked on ecotourism -- part of tourism, the fastest-growing industry -- to free up areas of Crown land and to work toward expanding that. Now, those are eight programs for small business.

I'm going to ask that we adjourn for lunch. Before I do, I haven't had a chance to say how much -- well, I did a little bit -- culture and arts are booming in this province. As members know, the B.C. Festival of the Arts is taking place now in Victoria. There's a concert in a few minutes in the rotunda, and I would like to invite everybody to that.

I move that we adjourn this debate until after lunch.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Hammell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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