Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12059 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have some very special guests in the members' gallery. His Excellency David Sultan is the Ambassador of Israel to Canada. He's accompanied by his wife Adina Sultan, as well as by Jehudi Kenar, consul general of Israel in Toronto. Earlier today I had the pleasure of presenting to the ambassador a copy of the British Columbia Holocaust Memorial Day proclamation, which I referred to in this House on April 13 during my remarks. Please join me in welcoming them.

P. Calendino: Continuing on with the diplomatic corps, I have the honour today of introducing the recently appointed Ambassador of Italy to Ottawa and the consul general of Italy in Vancouver. I'm happy to introduce him to the House, and I ask every member to give him a warm welcome to Canada: the ambassador, His Excellency Roberto Nigido, who is accompanied by his wife Mieriea Rosenboom; the consul general of Italy in Vancouver, Rodolfo Buonavita; and the trade commissioner of Italy in Toronto, Piero Tarantelli. With them is the honorary vice-consul from Victoria, Mrs. Yolanda McKimmie. Would everybody please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: Today in the gallery I see the former president of the B.C. Liberal Party, Sonja Sanguinetti. I'd really like to welcome her now that I know she's spending much of the time that she used to spend in the party doing volunteer work in East Vancouver for community organizations, giving legal advice. I appreciate what she continues to do. May the House make her welcome.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to introduce two people from Sherwood, Prince Edward Island. Carl and Ferne Riggs are here to visit their son Roger, daughter-in-law Susan and grandson Evan. As everyone knows, people from the Atlantic provinces take their politics seriously. So would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: In the members' gallery today are three representatives of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute: Ford Ralph, vice-president of Petro-Canada; Patricia Yarrington, president of Chevron; and Bill Levy, vice-president of the western division of CPPI. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

J. Doyle: Today I'm pleased to have two family friends from Kamloops in the gallery. Peter Tilt is in Victoria being recognized for 25 years of dedicated service in the Ministry of Attorney General. Peter has served in Golden, Prince Rupert, Prince George and many other places, and presently he is the district director in Kamloops. With Peter is his better half, his good wife Jean. Make them welcome to Victoria.

[1410]

Hon. S. Hammell: We have some very special guests in the gallery today: Param Grewal, Harsimrat Dhillon, R. Paul Dhillon of the Indo-Canadian Voice, and Mr. and Mrs. Promod Puri of the Link. They would have been here earlier but there were problems with the ferries -- it's hard to believe, I know. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today and in the precincts are two groups of 60 students from Gleneagles Secondary School in my constituency, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Wright. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure to introduce Christine and Daryl Boag. Christine is a dental hygienist, and Daryl is a dentist. They're here today to take the dental van that delivers the B.C. Healthy Kids program to small communities across the north, and they're starting today for six months. I had a delightful lunch with them. I welcome them to this House and thank them for the great work that they're doing across the north of B.C.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today I have some very special visitors. My son Murray Goodacre and my daughter-in-law Penny are here from Smithers. Penny's good friend from Victoria, April Green, is also with us in the gallery. My son Murray's best friend, Trent Collison, is with him as well; he is from Port Moody and formerly of Smithers. My son-in-law Alexis Puentes is also here, who is a recent immigrant to Canada from Artemisa, Cuba. He is now living here in Victoria with my daughter Sarah and grandson Daniel. Could the House please make my family welcome.

Oral Questions

HIRING OF STUDENTS FOR FLOOD PROTECTION WORK

My question to the minister is this: can she tell us what specific steps have been taken to identify and guarantee that we have all the people necessary to combat flooding in communities throughout British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: I do appreciate the member's question. I think it is a very important issue that British Columbians are paying a great deal of attention to, because of the potential danger to communities. I do want to stress the word "potential," because at this time we are not yet in a position to declare whether there will or will not be a major flooding event. However, we have taken steps to be as proactive as possible to ensure that communities are ready. In fact, we've approved more than 50 projects worth more than $4 million to date, to engage in dike preparatory work around the province.

We have not, as the member indicates in his question, approved emergency diking operations as of yet. Hon. mem-

[ Page 12060 ]

[1415]

G. Campbell: I appreciate that some work has already been done with regard to this. I think the critical issue for people throughout the province is that we all recognize that it's usually local volunteers who form the bulk of those who are fighting floods when they happen to occur. But as we've seen in Quebec and Manitoba, when the situation becomes dire, the first thing that people do is say to themselves: "How Do we get more people involved? How can we add to this endeavour?" And they're scrambling to do it.

With the snowpacks in B.C. at historically high levels and in a situation in our province today where youth unemployment is the highest of any place west of Quebec, my question to the minister is: has the minister given any thought to hiring students and young people today to prepare for and combat floods which may devastate communities tomorrow?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the first point to make is that we work in cooperation with municipal governments -- in fact, while we are the agency that pays local governments -- on how to engage in these flood protection works; we do not prescribe for them who they should employ in terms of doing that work. I certainly believe that the member, having raised that concern. . . . Perhaps communities would consider that as an option when they are engaging people, employing them in the work that needs to be done.

But I would point out that many of these solutions are highly technical in nature. We have a lot of people -- engineers -- who have to design the works. Much of the works need to be done through municipal organizations, and I don't have the authority to require them to hire certain individuals. But I do agree, as the member does, that it's important that we engage volunteers if that becomes necessary. We have in fact, working through my colleague -- the Ministry of Human Resources -- engaged in a discussion about how we can better involve volunteers over time if a flooding event occurs.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I will try to be quick with this. There is no question that when you have a devastating event like a flood, there are huge problems created. We often can't anticipate them. We now know -- with the highest snowpack in history and the highest level of youth unemployment west of Quebec -- that there may be something we can do in advance of this. Equally, I would suggest to the minister that this is not simply a local or provincial problem. It is also a federal problem, and I want to be sure that we are getting our fair share of funding from the federal government up front today.

Can the minister tell me if she is willing to initiate and work with all members of this House to ensure that we get federal funding up front, which will provide students who are unemployed today with an opportunity to work and may provide us with true insurance to stop damage that may take place from flooding?

Hon. C. McGregor: I certainly encourage any member of this House to work with the federal government, to lobby the federal government, on matters related to flood protection. I would inform this House that the federal government has made a commitment to additional dollars to be spent on federal Indian reserve lands, which will, of course, benefit a variety of communities in the Fraser Valley and other regions of the province.

If the member is interested in youth employment issues as well, I would certainly welcome an opportunity to talk with him about youth employment initiatives that we have in this ministry, as we do in other ministries across government, particularly our environment youth team program, which is a program which does employ thousands of youth across British Columbia. It gives them valuable work experience so that with new skills, they can engage in finding new jobs in the province of British Columbia.

JOB LOSS IN FOREST SECTOR

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members, the questioner has the floor. Come to order.

[1420]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I know they can't do their homework over there and like to distort numbers all the time. First of all, when they use numbers, they add in the multipliers. When we announce jobs, we are straight up about direct jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was not a one-off to create 576 jobs. The one-off deal was similar to many other deals -- a job

[ Page 12061 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: My favourite straight-up number from this government was 41,000 new forest jobs in the jobs and timber accord -- they went straight up somewhere and have never been seen. Those jobs have never been seen; they went somewhere, straight up.

It's interesting to see which companies are investing in Saskatchewan. B.C.-based Ainsworth and Weyerhaeuser have both downsized in B.C., but now are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in Saskatchewan. Will the Minister of Forests tell us why companies are investing in Saskatchewan but not in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The simple answer is that many of those companies made their upgrades in pulp mills over the past years. They didn't do the same thing in Saskatchewan. But the one company he uses -- Ainsworth -- made a major investment: they closed one mill and invested in another mill and virtually employed as many people, and that was only two years ago.

C. Clark: I remember that historic day when the Premier promised a straight-up number of 40,000 new jobs in the forest sector. But when you go to their web site to check on the progress that the ministry has made, it says: "Sorry, 'Forest jobs for B.C.' is under revision." I wonder if that's because maybe the Forests minister is either revising it to reflect the addition of the 500 new jobs they're adding in northeast B.C. . . . Or is he busy revising it to reflect the subtraction of the 22,000 jobs we've hemorrhaged in the forest industry in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've said before that there's been job loss over the last couple of years. In fact, there have been 1,700 jobs lost in the last year in the forest industry -- in recessionary times. We have used a statistical basis right from the beginning of the announcement of any change in forest policy, and that's a survey of employment payroll hours. Those are the ones we use. They involve direct jobs. They have a statistical basis to them, and we tell the truth about the numbers every time we're asked.

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

C. Clark: Even according to the minister's own standards, we are losing tens of thousands of jobs while Saskatchewan is announcing the addition of 10,000 jobs in its forest industry. Saskatchewan, of all places, has a growing forest industry. Next thing you know, they're going to have a growing navy or something, while British Columbia is losing forest jobs. Will the minister tell us why Saskatchewan, of all places, is growing its forest industry, while British Columbia continues to hemorrhage jobs year after year?

[1425]

The opposition can't stand good news. Need I remind them that there's $49 million being invested in Prince George to upgrade mills? Do I need to remind them that a company has invested $293 million in buying out another company? Faith in the investment climate in British Columbia. . . . What did the CEO of Louisiana-Pacific say yesterday? He had the lowest costs of production in northern British Columbia, and that's a reflection of the state of the forest industry now in that part of the province.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Plant: No doubt, a job creation announcement or two from now, the government will come out with a new program to award prizes one by one for every job that it somehow manages to squeeze out of the recession in the forest industry.

Here's the problem. Time after time, members of this government. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. The question has not been asked yet.

G. Plant: . . .have stood in this chamber and said: "The problem in the forest industry is that commodity prices are down," or "There's a problem with the Asian flu." Well, the commodity prices for forest products are the same in Regina as they are in Vancouver, so why won't the Minister of Forests stand up and admit that the real reason why the forest industry in British Columbia is in the tank is because of NDP job-killing taxes and regulations?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member had been listening to the quarterly reports of Slocan, Canfor, Ainsworth and M&B, he'd see that they're now in the black for two simple reasons. But the other side doesn't understand that. One is that we've taken $1 billion in costs out of the industry in the last year; and two, there's been a recovery in Asia and in commodity prices -- two good reasons why there's a turnaround.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Only this Minister of Forests could stand up and, having added a billion dollars to the cost of doing forest business in British Columbia, try and take credit for cutting it. It is no wonder that forest companies are packing up for Saskatchewan. When Credit Union Central. . . . When B.C.'s credit union. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

[ Page 12062 ]

Member proceed -- briefly, please.

G. Plant: Credit Union Central of British Columbia was recently quoted as saying that our forest industry is "burdened with a proliferation of fees, taxes and regulations, all of which makes B.C.'s forest industry uncompetitive." So my question, again, for the hon. minister is: if they can create 10,000 new forest jobs in Saskatchewan, why won't the Minister of Forests stand up now and finally admit that the real reason there's a downturn in the forest industry in British Columbia is because of his job-killing regulations and taxes?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Only the opposition could deny the good news. They would call 576 jobs to British Columbians a drop in the bucket and insult every one of those people who are going to be employed in those projects. It's shameful, hon. Speaker. Over the last three years there's been a succession of streamlining of the regulations that are necessary to protect the forests, and there's been a reduction in the costs to the industry to the tune of $1 billion. We can take credit for some of the restoration of the profitability of the industry in still difficult times in the commodity markets.

[1430]

Tabling Documents

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm pleased to present for the information of all members of the Legislature, in accordance with the statutory obligation set out in section 3(4) of the Health Act, the 1998 provincial health officer's annual report on the health of British Columbians. This year the provincial health officers report is a feature report on immunization.

Orders of the Day

Motion without Notice

[That a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an information and privacy commissioner, pursuant to section 37(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the special committee so appointed shall have the powers of a select standing committee and is also empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;

(b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon the resumption of the sitting of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the special committee be comprised of members of the special committee to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, established this session.]

Leave granted.

The Speaker: The second motion, the main motion, is as you have heard.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call the budget debate.

Budget Debate
(continued)

[1435]

In this year's budget for tourism, for example, we lowered the airport fuel tax. This will have an effect in the number of carriers that will come in, especially to the Vancouver International Airport. In a very competitive environment, it will take business away from Seattle and from Los Angeles and will make our airport boom. As I told the House this morning, we saw the 250-millionth passenger come through the Vancouver terminal, and last week we opened the south terminal at Vancouver, which will take business right out throughout the regions of the province. This was a good part of the budget, and I invite members to support that.

This budget favoured health and education. The people of B.C. were the big winners in this budget. The choice the Minister of Finance made was not to give a tax break to big business, to the rich part of big business, as the Vancouver

[ Page 12063 ]

So let me conclude by saying -- and proudly, as the Minister of Small Business -- that the big winner next to health and education in this budget was the small business community in this province. They got the big tax break. They've got -- next to Newfoundland -- the best tax regime in Canada. The dramatic reductions in small business tax will put $43 million into the pockets of small business to invest in jobs and to invest in other small businesses in the new, booming part of the economy.

As the Minister of Forests said in question period today, there's been a turnaround. It's coming. You can see it. You can see it in the forest industry with companies now going into the black, with job creation in the northeast part of the province, with renewals in other parts.

It's not been easy; it's been very difficult. I represent an urban constituency, and I feel for my friends in the rural areas. They've been struggling; they've had to deal with the excruciating pain of moving from the old economy to the new one.

We're going to survive this; we're coming up with an efficient industry now. We're coming up with settlement of land claims -- which the opposition opposed -- here in the Nisga'a treaty. We're doing that, and that will help business. That will help small business; it will bring federal money into the province and will correct a historic injustice.

So there is an economic policy here. It's to keep health and education -- to fund that properly, to get security for our citizens there. And it's to help small business to create jobs in this province and to move into the new value-added economy and into the twenty-first century.

I'm very proud of that, and I'm proud of this budget. I think we're going in the right way, and I believe that the citizens of British Columbia believe that as well. We have made the right choices in this budget.

B. Barisoff: On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Boundary, I'm happy to stand and deliver my remarks concerning the proposed budget. I support the comments that have already been made by my colleagues on this side of the House. I believe they are speaking truthfully for all British Columbians. I believe that it's our duty and obligation, especially in opposition, to ask for accountability on the part of this government -- accountability.

Unfortunately, it's a very sad time in the history of British Columbia. I believe that we have got a government that is totally out of control and has very little conscience in regard to their behaviour.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Does that mean you won't be voting NDP?

[1440]

There's no joy in pointing out the devastation that has been caused by this government to the families and communities of British Columbia. Ask the people of Gold River. Ask the people in Logan Lake about what's potentially going to happen there or in the Kamloops area, or some of the people of the Okanagan who happen to work there.

We are deeply concerned about our future in this province, and with good reason. The families and taxpayers of this province no longer believe anything that this government says. They no longer buy empty promises of jobs and balanced budgets -- promises which have repeatedly been broken.

The proposed budget does little to alleviate the deep concerns of British Columbians. It lacks vision; it lacks substance. It demonstrates a real lack of understanding of what is going on in this province.

The economy is in crisis. For two years we have been accused of fear-mongering, and where are we today? For two years the government has been saying: "You're fear-mongering." But it's getting worse. It's getting worse instead of better; we're deeper in debt and the water's rising. At question period today we brought up the floods. The government had better pay attention, because the water is rising. This is a fact.

Now, what steps are being taken to deal with this? I don't think that any of us imagined that British Columbia would be in this state: last in the country for economic performance. B.C. is worse off than the maritime provinces. We have moved from number one in 1992 to last -- the very last. The families in British Columbia continue to have fewer jobs and opportunities than at any time in recent history. That's a sad commentary for the government of the day, that they would have less money in their pockets after taxes -- in fact, that we would have the highest marginal income tax rates in North America; that we would have eight consecutive deficit budgets with absolutely no end in sight; that our public debt would rise to a unprecedented level of $34.7 billion; and that the interest alone on that debt would cost the province $2.6 billion each year.

That's $7.2 million a day. A multi-care facility in the community of Keremeos in my riding is only $7 million. But this government is spending $7.2 million every single day, and they're wondering why multi-care facilities aren't being built in this province.

That B.C. would have the highest jobless rate for the youth west of Quebec. . . . In fact, most of the youth are leaving B.C. for jobs in Alberta and Saskatchewan. They're not staying here in B.C. No, they don't have a chance to find jobs in British Columbia.

That we would have a negative economic growth rate and that B.C. would experience a net loss of 21,000 jobs by 1999, contrary to promises made by this government -- promises all the time. . . . The Minister of Forests indicates that, oh, the jobs are going to be there. But nothing happens. We've seen 400 jobs the other day in the northern part of the province, and we're excited for that too. But when you look at the figure, losing 21,000 jobs in the province, it gives little assurance to the rest of British Columbia.

[1445]

[ Page 12064 ]

G. Abbott: And look what Saskatchewan is doing.

B. Barisoff: Yes. In Saskatchewan, where they're creating 10,000 new jobs in the forest industry, an industry we have here that should be our main. . . . Forestry used to be our main industry in British Columbia.

That the private sector investment would drop like a stone because of the policies of this government -- what a sad state of affairs. It's a sad state of affairs in British Columbia when you look at what's happening. Do you see why this is such a sad day? Can you understand why the people of British Columbia are feeling so angry, frustrated? What's even more sad is the fact that problems that we're facing in British Columbia right now are in large part due to the policies of this NDP government. They're made right here in B.C. They're not made in Asia; they're not made in the U.S.; they're not made in eastern Canada. They're made right here in British Columbia. It's a real tragedy.

But this government does not appear to understand or appreciate how a really healthy economy works. The jobs are not created by government, but they're created by the private sector. That real growth and investment come as a result of consumer confidence and a business climate that is encouraging, something that the NDP doesn't know how to do.

It's very clear to me and to many of my constituents that this government says one thing and actually does another. The clever rhetoric and manipulation of figures aren't working anymore. It's becoming painfully obvious to the public in this province that not only have they been deceived, but the deception continues.

Unfortunately, there's nothing in the budget to change our minds or to raise our hopes. There have to be bold measures taken if we're going to turn things around. As an opposition, we should do more than just criticize. There's no doubt in anyone's mind that we are in serious crisis in this province. It seems that everyone knows it but the members opposite. The government doesn't seem to know that we're in crisis. They seem to have their heads buried in the sand. The government is actually in chaos. This government is incompetent in its performance, and it has been demonstrated in more than one report by the auditor general over the past two years.

We are even more alarmed because this government does not seem to care about its own performance. Once again, we see a government that responds only after being caught doing something wrong. What do they call it? The fudge-it budget fiasco has promised. . .the minister to come clean with the people. Fudge-it budget fiasco -- isn't that a sad commentary on a government? Very sad. Why does it take an economy in devastation and an auditor general's report to state the obvious to this government about what's happening? It had to be the auditor general to tell them that they'd done wrong.

It's very clear that this government has lost touch with what is actually happening in the lives of British Columbians. It's very sad, because the banks know it. B.C. is in economic recession for the second year in a row -- the only province in Canada.

It's very sad, because my constituents are writing to me, and they know it. I just want to read a couple of letters from constituents. Here's one from William Elmes addressed to myself:

"My good wife was diagnosed several weeks ago with gall bladder stones and has been in severe pain on and off since. Her doctor informed her that there is a six-month waiting period for surgery, which of course is damn ridiculous, to say the least. I cannot understand why our present government is putting people at risk and discomfort. One would think that we were living in a Third World country. In fact, our present government has turned our province of B.C. into a third-rate province and is completely ignorant of its responsibility to the people of B.C. I am a World War II veteran with 28 years' service to my country. I hope you can understand why I feel the way I do about our present government and the way they are managing our health system.

"Sincerely yours,

"Bill Elmes"

The Speaker: Hon. member, just before you proceed, I'd like to remind all members about language usage in the chamber. Even if quoting from some other document, the language is the same as with names and that sort of thing.

[1450]

Let me read another one that was addressed to the Gazette in Grand Forks. That one was from Oliver in the Okanagan area, and this one is from the Grand Forks area. This is addressed to the Gazette. It starts out:

"Harold Funk and NDP supporters in the Boundary area may well be the salt of the earth. We know a few NDP supporters who are decent citizens and certainly worthy of respect.

"Having said that, the current NDP government in Victoria is undoubtedly the most incompetent, bankrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. The recent government budget of March 30, in defiance of advice and counsel from British Columbia's most competent businessmen, further strengthens the argument.

"Any attempt by anyone to defend this current provincial government is shameful. Every single law-abiding citizen of British Columbia is watching its quality of life go in the tank.

"Harold, you and your NDP colleagues owe it to the young people and the future of our province to pressure the NDP government to go to the polls soon rather than wait another two years.

"There is anger, frustration and bitterness in the air because of what your government is doing to our economy. Humility, not insufferable arrogance, is what is needed now.

"Midge and Barry Brandow"

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, it's not. It's signed by Midge and Barry Brandow.

Let me read another one dated March 31, 1999:

"Just one day after the announcement of our most recent provincial budget, please allow me to register my profound disapproval and great disappointment with its contents. I am dismayed almost beyond words that our government has chosen to be so irresponsible. By disregarding fiscal restraint; opting instead to drive both the deficit and the provincial debt to unheard-of proportions, the current administration is playing a very dangerous game and gambling -- against astronomical odds -- with our collective future.

"I, for one, do not approve of the gamble and do not appreciate this administration's callous disregard for the economic health of British Columbia. Yes, economic times are tough. And yes, I am also concerned about the state of our

[ Page 12065 ]

health care system. But to spend recklessly is not an effective means of improving economic conditions. Have we not learned anything from the legacy of federal debt creating during the free-spending Trudeau administration? For goodness' sake, I was born during the Trudeau administration. I now have a master's degree from UBC and own a small business, and we are still paying for programs initiated while I was in diapers. The thought that children yet unborn will pay for yesterday's budget is abhorrent.

"In the interests of brevity, I will stop my rant here and now. Just know that this budget and its ramifications for my future have upset me sufficiently to write my first letter of protest and to take the time and expense to copy it to every single MLA in British Columbia.

"Please stop the madness.

"Rachel Moffat"

[1455]

In health care funding, this government brags about the highest spending in the country. You know, that sounds great. But really, when we examine the results, we keep shaking our heads. We are spending the most money, and the patients are still crying for help. The surgical lists are long, and the long term care beds are insufficient to meet the growing demands. They continue to increase the budget, but in the Okanagan -- and particularly in the South Okanagan -- we're 300 to 400 beds short in long-term care. We're short.

This government doesn't know where its priorities are. They continue to say that their priorities are in health care, but they aren't. They aren't in health care; they aren't in education. Families are in crisis. Because of that, my office gets letter after letter from constituents who are extremely unhappy with their health care -- extremely unhappy with what's taking place. What is that telling us? It tells us that this government is fiscally irresponsible and really doesn't know where it's going. Could it be possible that this government does not know how to manage its resources, that they have no way to measure the productivity or performance against dollars spent and that no matter how much money they had to spend, it would not go where it was needed -- most directly to the patient?

This government talks about directing money into health care, but they certainly don't direct it to the patients. That's where it's most needed. What I'm concerned about is that the patient is not seeing the results of the expenditure -- not in any way, shape or form. The government spends an extra $890 million, and the surgical lists are growing. I've got to wonder what they're actually doing. Unfortunately, in many cases it's going to wages and the growing monster that is required to maintain that confusion -- red tape and regulation that has been created by this NDP government. They say they're eliminating it; they're not.

The budget talks about tax reductions to stimulate the economy, but in reality, when the tax cuts are implemented, we will still have unacceptable levels compared to other provinces. These measures do not go far enough to boost confidence or change the direction. Unfortunately, this government has done very little except react once the damage has been done. This government waits until something's in crisis, and then they respond; they don't respond before. It's crisis after crisis after crisis with this government. When we look around, what happens? They leave the House. We came in December; we came in January. We leave the House. It's almost into May, and we're debating a budget that should have been done by April 1. It's sad.

Our resource sector has been severely damaged, especially mining and forestry, by the growing regulation and a government that is not listening to the investment community.

They also cut. . . . I wish the Agriculture minister was here. They took one portion -- the farmers; the backbone of the economy of British Columbia -- and they cut that portion. They cut the farmers' portion. They weren't paying attention. They decided that the farming community wasn't important in the province. The Minister of Agriculture always says: "Bring it up in the big House. I want to hear it in the big House." Well, it's in the big House, and all I can say is that the members on that side of the House don't really care about the farmers of British Columbia. I've travelled through the Peace, through the Okanagan, through the Fraser Valley. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I hear the Minister of Education say: "Come on, that's not true." Well, why would you cut the budget of Agriculture? If you were cutting all areas of the budget, it would be a reasonable expectation. But when you increase the budget by $890 million and cut the Agriculture portion of it, it doesn't take a little bit of common sense to say: "The NDP government does not care about the farmers of British Columbia." They don't care. If they had cared, they would have done something about it. But they don't.

[1500]

We need to go much further than what has been delivered by this government. We need to cut personal income tax -- small business tax even further. This government says that

[ Page 12066 ]

You know, when we come into this House, we're all indicated as "hon. members." Well, an hon. member, whether they're on this side of the House or that side of the House, would be truthful in what they're saying, truthful in their budget.

We need to introduce balanced-budget legislation and reduce our debt. We need to listen to the investment community and be more flexible with our employment standards and labour laws. We need to be honest with the people of B.C. and negotiate treaties and settlements that are affordable and that contain equality, finality and certainty under the law.

We need to make sure that B.C. has some of the highest educational standards in the world, so that we can compete fairly in a global market. We hear that a lot, that we're in a global market. We heard that today and yesterday in question period. It's the Asian flu, or it's the price of copper that's going down. We are in a global market. We need to make sure that our young people are prepared for this global market. They've got to be prepared to go.

We need to ensure that ultimately the student, the patient, the worker, the small business and the family are receiving the benefits of a system that is properly working and not one that is overburdened with red tape and regulation. This is something that this government doesn't understand. The regulation and red tape are choking the entire system. That the money isn't going to the student, that the money isn't getting to the patient -- these things are happening.

[1505]

We would make sure that in the education system, the money would get to the student. I notice the Minister of Education here. I would hope that he would listen, because the money isn't getting to the student. It's not getting to the student.

We have great potential and great resources in this province; we have one of the richest provinces in Canada. Yet we're number ten. What's happening?

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: I hear them saying: "How could you say such things?"

An Hon. Member: Because it's true.

B. Barisoff: That's exactly right: it's because it's true. It's not getting to the student; it's not getting to the patient. Why are the waiting and surgical lists growing longer and longer? Is that what government means by getting to the patient -- when people have to wait in excess of a year for different sets of surgery?

Or is it getting to the student when we pick up the newspaper right here in Victoria, where the indication is that they're going to close schools? But the Minister of Education says it's going to the student. But we're going to be closing schools. Victoria's not the only place where they're going to be closing schools. They're going to close schools all over this province, because the money isn't getting to the student; it's not getting there.

What they've got to do if they want health care and education to work properly is call an election. We'll show them how to get the money to the patient and to the student. The constituents of Okanagan-Boundary felt just as strongly about the issues as anywhere in the rest of British Columbia. As I mentioned before, we have long-term care problems in the South Okanagan; we have long-term care problems in the Boundary region. The little town of Midway is trying to keep its senior citizens there by looking at putting a multi-care facility. . . . All of the areas in the province are looking to do things to get things done right. But this government mismanages money so badly that they'll spend over $7 million a day on interest.

Do you realize, in 30 days, how many small communities could have multi-care facilities in this province, just with the money that they give the big banks? They're not in favour of the big banks, but they're certainly prepared to pay interest till it's coming out of our ears. I think the B.C. government is probably one of the big banks' best customers. I think the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head indicated that it works out to be roughly $5,000 a minute. It's just unbelievable that these people, in eight short years, would put us in such a situation.

We are asking this government to work together with all 75 duly elected representatives to help restore British Columbia to its place as the number one province in Canada and the best place in the world to live. There's no doubt in my mind that B.C. is the best province in Canada and the best place to live, but until such time as we return confidence to the people and return to truth in budgeting, this province is not going to be number one. All I can ask, on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Boundary, is that this government go to the polls as soon as possible and make sure that British Columbia becomes number one again. Not number two, not number three and not number ten, where we are; we want to be the number one province in Canada.

T. Nebbeling: I too rise to speak on the budget. I will speak on a budget which is a very complex document, a document that contains many contradictions, and I intend to highlight some of these contradictions in the points that I will raise in discussing this budget.

[1510]

[ Page 12067 ]

I come from Europe, and Europe has a track record of governments where this socialist philosophy of spending your way out of a crisis dominated the political scene in the fifties and sixties. Countries like France, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Germany are all examples that, at the end of the day, proved that this approach toward the financial management of a nation indeed leads to destruction and irresponsibility. Thirty years after most of these nations have abandoned this concept of spending their way out of a crisis -- three decades later -- these countries are still dealing with the consequences of what the governments of the fifties and sixties did when it came to the financial management of nations.

So when I see this government continue to introduce these kinds of measures, when they explain and deal with the financial strategy for this province, I just cannot understand why, with all the knowledge that members opposite have, they haven't looked at what the end of the path of this approach is. I hope that one day somebody will indeed stop and understand that we are not doing the job for the people of British Columbia when we take this type of approach to how finances are managed in this province.

In the past, I have always had the opportunity to hear not only the budget speech but also the throne speech. Of course, the throne speech is, for us as members, an opportunity, especially on this side, to really see what the business plan is that the government has in mind for the coming year for this province. This year we haven't had a throne speech, so I, in a sense, tried to use the budget to get a feeling for where this government was going to go with the programs and the elements that traditionally would be included in the throne speech.

The main thing that clearly comes forward is the fact that this government has expanded the debt to close to $40 billion, thereby having more than doubled the provincial debt. It's hard to believe that this is happening and that it is happening in a vibrant, resource-rich province like British Columbia. We are rich in natural resources such as forests; we are rich in mines and petroleum. Tourism as a resource has tremendous opportunities and is providing excellent opportunities for many British Columbians. And we have a tremendous workforce in this province. In spite of all these positives, this government has been able to get us deeper into debt.

What is worse, it has lumped onto this province a debt service that this year alone is $2.6 billion. I just have to think what $2.6 billion could do for this province -- what it could do for education or for health care. That $2.6 billion is half the budget of the Ministry of Education. If we could only start using our revenues to eliminate or go toward the elimination of the debt, thereby saving this debt service, and using that money to benefit the people of this province, we would have a much better education system than we have now. We would not see four school closures because of lack of funding. We would have a health care system that had not become the nightmare it is today. It just makes people suffer more and suffer longer.

[1515]

I'm going to talk for a little while about the impact that this financial direction has had on the people of this province. I'm going to use some examples, but in all fairness, I believe that every member in this House can just look around in their own environment, on their own street and in the towns where they live. I have no doubt that every member in this room will see tremendous hardship. I'm going to use one community specifically that has been focused on within the last couple of months for having to live with the consequences of the mismanagement of our natural resources: the community of Gold River on Vancouver Island.

I don't know if any of the members here have been to Gold River. I was there three or four years ago, and at that time there was some talk about closure. But at the same time that the community was looking at the closure of a mill, the community was still looking forward to seeing some opportunities develop that would keep their jobs in place. Gold River is a beautiful little town. It is a little town where people clearly take pride in the looks of the place and how they live together as a community. It is a good example of many small communities in British Columbia. Today this little town has 60 homes up for sale, because in the end the government was not able to assist the little town. As a consequence, the mill did shut down, houses were bought back by the company, and out of a community of about 320 families, 60 families have now left town.

I just hope that members listen when these kinds of dramas are happening. It is so easy to see a 30-second clip on TV with a for-sale sign in front of a house and people driving away. But the drama that takes place in the homes of these people before they make these decisions or when they are forced to. . . . It's often not their decision any longer; they are forced to leave their town. And that drama is happening right now in that community. For the families in Gold River the drama of having to leave town is one thing, but that drama was shared last year by another 18,000 people who had been living in this province. For reasons that you and I and the members here know, they had to leave this province to find job opportunities somewhere else. Eighteen thousand people no longer have a future in this province because of the mismanaged resource industries that have gone down, be it mining, be it forestry -- 18,000 dramas.

Along the Sea to Sky corridor I have two communities where this drama is taking place on a daily basis. One is Squamish and one is Pemberton. On a daily basis I get contacts from people telling me that they have thrown in the towel, that they're going either to Alberta or to any of the other provinces in Canada where they believe they still have opportunities. Often these families are not travelling together. Before they came to the decision that they were going to leave this province, these families had already broken up. The kids had left the little towns because there were no opportunities. They went to the big city in the hope that they would get jobs. That is a consequence that all these people have to live with, because we as a province have not managed our affairs properly and have driven ourselves into a debt that has not allowed industry to catch up or even to stay at par. As a consequence, we see that horrible hardship in communities throughout British Columbia.

[ Page 12068 ]

[1520]

Madam Speaker, as you are aware, many recommendations have been made to this government to include in the budget a new direction as to how small and medium-sized businesses could be assisted through a tax regime that would be different than what they have been living under until today. It was very telling how much emphasis was made by the government on the need for a serious tax consideration for this particular sector. Much of the presentation done by the Minister of Finance reflected that need for change. When we look at the budget and see that indeed there is small business tax relief proposed to kick-start now, the first thing I did was truly look at how much that cut represents and whether that cut would be sufficient for any small business to say: "Hey, now they have left enough in my bank account so that I can start expanding my business again; I can start hiring people again" -- all that small businesses traditionally have done.

The conclusion is that it's a token tax reduction. It will have no impact whatsoever on small businesses and will certainly not be the tax reduction that businesses truly need. It will not give a signal to investors out of the province to come back to this province and invest the dollars that are needed to recharge our economy. What it has done is continue the problems for businesses here in this province that truly cannot make it any longer.

I'm going to use one situation where overtaxation is driving a small business out of town. In the past it has always created jobs, and it would be creating jobs, but -- 100 percent -- because of the tax structure introduced and enforced by this government, that can no longer happen. This is a letter from August 1998. It is a letter to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. This letter was a response to a demand by the government to settle the account on the corporate capital tax payment that this company had to make to the provincial government. So the corporate capital tax, I will prove or show you, Madam Speaker, is truly a job-killer. This letter goes as follows:

"Dear Madam:

"I've received your letter regarding our outstanding corporate capital tax account. Even though I feel that this tax is probably the most regressive tax ever levied in this country and completely immoral, being a law-abiding citizen I will pay it.

"The fact of the matter is that at this time we do not have the funds to pay it. As is the situation throughout the province, business is terrible. We are not making any money. I have a choice between paying my employees or paying this bill."

"It is no wonder that Glen Clark and his band. . .have caused the outflow of capital at an unprecedented rate. Maybe they could wake up and smell the roses before we are all in unemployment lines."

[1525]

The other way that small businesses are often affected, of course, is that the government is involved in a program of downloading traditionally provincial costs onto local governments -- municipalities and regional districts. Have a guess: when the government takes $40 million in grant money away from municipalities and regional districts, what's the consequence? Local government will be forced to increase property tax, and that has happened throughout the province. So where on the one hand the government says, "Okay, we give you this business tax relief," at the same time, they reduce the funding for local government, which then in turn will go back to these same businesses and say: "You got a little bit of tax relief. However -- it's unfortunate -- we have to increase our commercial property rates." The little saving that they made is taken back again. So when the government looks at their budget, I say it is contradictory in many instances. This is one of these contradictions: the savings, the tax relief. All they do is force other authorities to increase taxes.

These off-loadings onto municipalities is the next issue I want to touch on, because again, where the minister is trying to say that everything is done to assist people to indeed have some more money in their pockets, the opposite is true. Since 1991 when this government got into power, we have seen a total reduction in funding to municipalities and regional districts in the order of $800 million. That's $800 million less to the local government, which is $800 million more for small property owners to pay -- residential properties, commercial properties.

So every time this government goes wrong in how they finance this province and looks for new types of funding, what they're really doing is going back to people who own their home or people who own a business. As a consequence of this off-loading, we see, again, little dramas happening in many communities. In the past, communities have tried to absorb the off-loading, the additional cost of running their operation. We have come to the point where that is no longer possible. So municipalities and councils are forced to look at new measures.

With the announcement of the last reduction in November, which was a $40 million reduction of funding for local government. . . . At that time, many communities were forced -- and told the government so -- for the first time to look at staff reduction as an option. They had to look at reducing

[ Page 12069 ]

At a time when we see more and more street crime and serious problems with home invasions and see the government alerting everybody about how vigilant we have to be and how the police will do what is needed to solve this problem, we see funding to the local governments cut by this government, thereby eliminating even the opportunity of better police enforcement. Every time this government does something and says, "Look, we understand your problem," it does something else that just exacerbates the problem. Right now communities throughout British Columbia are truly the victims of that policy.

[1530]

The one thing that I question now is that this government has gone into a program where they have committed to people living in leaky condos in these communities that are going to deal with the budget cuts. These leaky condominium owners have been promised by this government that for hardship cases, there will be a $75 million reconstruction fund. People living in condominiums that have the leaking problems -- and there are about 18,000 of them in this province, primarily on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. . . . These 18,000 people, if they apply and can show that they have hardship, individually can get a loan that is interest-free. That is truly the only support that is given. I cannot find anywhere in the budget -- and post -- that reflects that the $75 million is there for people to apply for.

That is the first curious question I will have when we go into estimates, Madam Speaker. How is it that you give false hope to 18,000 homeowners who are facing bills, on average, of $20,000 to $30,000 and not because of their fault? Where is that money allocated in the budget? I don't see it; I don't believe it is actually there.

So far, the government has approved 325 loans under this reconstruction program -- 325 loans reflecting $7.5 million. You would think that there is still another $68 million to go. Yesterday there was a press release handed out saying that the government had expanded the coverage of the reconstruction program to co-op projects. With the press release, it was made very clear that there are approximately 30 projects that would qualify for funding, and each project has an average of about $2 million in damage. Now, where the regular, normal citizens -- the condominium owners -- have to apply individually. . . . They may live in a complex with 40 condos that have a problem. You apply individually, and you get funding individually. What is different with the co-op project is that the project applies. It doesn't matter whether people living in the co-op project could afford or could not afford the needed repairs. These people do not have to prove hardship, as every other British Columbian has to do. These people are, for all intents and purposes, guaranteed to get the money from the reconstruction project. That is 30 times $2 million. That is $60 million, out of $68 million that is left. That leaves about another $7.5 million to $8 million for the rest of the 18,000 potential applicants who will be judged on a case basis.

So here we go again: the promise made by the government that $75 million will be available.. . . At the end of the day, only three months into the project, clearly there is not $75 million available. At most, there's $15 million available, and that, I believe, will only be there if indeed the home warranty program kicks in and new home construction will make the donations that will be required towards this fund. So it's another promise that sounds great but doesn't really mean anything, because (a) there's no money in the bank to pay for it, and (b) the government has decided to channel that fund towards projects that have nothing to do with individual homeowners.

[1535]

The sad part is that had this government in 1996 reacted to the reports that were written to deal with leaky condos in this province, and had they listened and acted on the 13 recommendations, many of the problems that we are now facing in 1999 wouldn't even be there. So that's the second part that makes this government fail so miserably when it comes to taking care of the affairs of the people in British Columbia. The nerve of the government to continue to stand up and make promises and continue to fail delivering on the promises is illustrated in these couple of examples.

This is a bad budget. It's a bad time for British Columbia. With this budget, times will only get worse. This government is not willing to listen. Prominent business people in small, medium-sized and large businesses have given advice to this government. They have told this government to truly cut taxes so that you leave more money in people's pockets. They have told them to cut bureaucracy and red tape, and they have said time after time that as long as labour laws are as regressive as they are in this province, we will not see anybody believing that British Columbia is open for business. When British Columbia is not open for business, it will not get the investment it is going to need; and with the lack of investment, we will not turn around the prosperity that we could have in this province, based on our natural resources and the phenomenal workforce that British Columbia represents.

Madam Speaker, common sense has been thrown out of the window with this budget. Because of that, I believe that the people of this province are ultimately the big losers. That leads me to fight and oppose this budget.

R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of the budget. I don't like to start out my comments in a negative way, but it absolutely astounds me that members of

[ Page 12070 ]

Interjections.

R. Kasper: Now listen to them. They're just negative, negative, negative -- naysayers. It's hypocrisy in its purest form.

Now I'll talk about the good news in the budget. We heard the negative from that side. Let's talk about the economy -- oh, the member left. Let's talk about the 5.5 percent, effective July 1. We'll have a lower tax rate for small businesses than Alberta. That's a step in the right direction. It may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. It's the kind of thing we don't hear from that side of the House -- not even a flicker or a hint of recognition.

[1540]

It's all borrowed money. I'm not ashamed of that, nor should any of the members opposite be ashamed of that. As I said earlier, they take every opportunity to be available when there's a new school built, an expansion of a health care facility in their ridings or new improvements to the roads. They're there, smiling and taking full credit for what's been done in their own ridings. I don't begrudge them that. I think that's an important thing to do, but in doing so, there has to be recognition of the fact that when those expenditures are made, it is borrowed money. The thing that they continuously, constantly rail against is the fact that too much money is borrowed to pay for those necessary improvements.

Let's look at what's happened in the province historically. Over 500,000 people have moved into this province since -- what? -- 1992-93, so we've had a huge increase in population. That's both internal migration and normal expansion of the population, but it's an increase. So we have to find a way to accommodate that increase.

Not only did I have the privilege of going to that particular opening and ribbon-cutting, I went to the groundbreaking for the new cancer clinic in Victoria, which is going to service Vancouver Island to reduce the wait-lists. Another example of what people have been saying, both on this side and that side of the House, is to eliminate and reduce the wait-lists for those people in need. That's a major step in the right direction, and I think it's going to be an incredible facility. They are going to have services there that are going to accommodate all of the advancements that British Columbia is internationally renowned for in the treatment of cancer. Those are the kinds of things that we have to strive for together, to make sure that budgets like this one that will borrow money. . . . We'll borrow money to build these facilities, and we'll make sure that these facilities are built.

The hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head happened to be at that same announcement, at that same groundbreaking, and we didn't take partisan positions at that particular announcement. I think all of us were overjoyed by the fact that there was something happening, that construction had actually started. We have to realize that through this budget, it happened. Delays occurred for a wide range of reasons, but the important thing is that the groundbreaking occurred.

[1545]

I can't believe that members opposite would rail against that, rail against the services that they continually brought forward to the House -- and in many ways, rightly so. They brought in examples. Some have read out letters from constituents. Some have even introduced in the Legislature people who need the care and people who are tired of being on wait-lists for a wide range of reasons. When action and steps are taken to put dollars there to help reduce the wait-lists by increasing the number of procedures, I think it's incumbent on all of us to give some recognition -- not just the negative. . . . I don't put myself in a category, nor am I negative against the opposition. As a matter of fact, I feel as though I've had a fairly good working relationship with all members of the House, regardless of their political stripe. What I want to make sure of is that those members give credit where credit's due. It's only fair; it's not a big deal.

Not only health care is targeted in this budget -- and it's the lion's share of the total amount of money that's in this budget. My God, it is a big chunk of money, and it provides a wide range of services for the people in British Columbia -- services that they justifiably deserve and demand. The budget also makes sure that we have improvements to our education system.

I just want to draw upon some examples of what's occurred since April of '98. Just in the Sooke school district in my area, since '98 we've seen the announcement. . . . They are

[ Page 12071 ]

[1550]

I think this is important, because it gives a historical perspective: since '91-92, enrolment has gone up in that school district some 5.2 percent. The funding, on the other hand, has gone up 23.6 percent. That district has been faced with some financial problems, and the government has recognized that both this year and in previous years. Not only does the district benefit from additional funding in this budget for their operating costs, but what I've been advocating is to see an addition built on John Muir Elementary School in Sooke, which would be part of the elimination of the portables. That's an important element. I want to make sure that some 100 additional spaces are provided for so that we can meet our obligations and the commitment made by the government last year in the portable-reduction strategy.

Last year we also saw the acquisition of an additional school site in the eastern portion of the Langford municipality. Now what's needed is a school for that particular site. In order to provide the necessary spaces and further eliminate the portables in the Sooke school district, in particular the Langford area, we have to strive and work together to make sure that a new school is in fact built on this newly acquired site.

My riding also covers the Cowichan district. I know that both my colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith and I share the pleasure of being serviced by the Cowichan school district, No. 79. I'll just touch on some of the accomplishments since April of '98, covering the portion of the district that falls within my riding.

Since April of '98 we've seen the funding commitment that was outlined and the go-ahead for the Cobble Hill Elementary School. That has been fraught with all sorts of both history and controversy in seeing the funding and building of that facility. I'd like to just point out that that particular school in Cowichan and the one I previously mentioned, the Journey elementary school is part of the portable-reduction strategy. Both school districts got together and actually decided to use one set of plans. Instead of each school going out and hiring an architect to dream up and build a particular facility different than their neighbour, what they decided to do was to see if there was a set of plans that could work for both jurisdictions on two different school sites in two different parts of the riding. They came to an agreement that will save some $200,000 in the costs associated with architectural fees. I have to applaud those two districts for putting their heads together and finding a way to save money in doing what they do, and that's making sure that the schools are built, because the province makes sure that the funding is there.

We've seen the issue of an addition for Bench Elementary School, and there's an addition going on to Drinkwater Elementary School. Also, acquisition permission was granted for the district to go ahead and acquire a new site for a new school in the Shawnigan Lake area. Little things like replacing the heating system cost money. We're also going to see the replacement of a heating system in the Mill Bay area. Schools, like any other buildings, are subject to pressures that relate to infrastructure. We'll also be seeing an upgrade of the sewer system for Bench Elementary, in the Cowichan area.

[1555]

Historically, the Cowichan district has had some fairly large growth in previous years -- in the early years of the 1990s. As of late, they have actually been on a bit of a downturn. Their enrolment has gone up some 24.5 percent, while their funding has gone up some 29.1 percent. The funding has kept pace with their growth. They can't say that the funding has not been there to keep up with the rate of growth.

We all know that when the funding formula is applied, when the customers come through the door -- those being the students -- then the boards are funded on the basis of the number of spaces or seats occupied. That's only fair for jurisdictions that are in higher-growth areas. I know that a lot of people will subscribe to this: that there is a degree of economy of scale, and they are better able to provide administrative services based on growth numbers in a particular school district.

Not only does the budget deal with the health care and education components, but I know that in the Highlands district in particular -- a small municipality, very rural by nature; they were newly incorporated some five or six years ago -- they've been diligently waiting for moneys, restructuring grants, to assist them. In many cases, those moneys are a long time coming. When it's fiscally possible, then those communities will in fact receive those moneys.

The Highlands is in line for some $840,000, which will enable them to do some very important upgrading of the local roads servicing their community. I know that a lot of us who happen to be down in Victoria. . . . If you look west, you can see a portion of the Highlands municipality. We have a wide range of regional parks. A great number of visitors from the Victoria community go out to this municipality. We want to make sure that the roads are as safe as they can be, so that the travelling public can drive safe roads. It's important for the municipality. Both their residents and visitors want to make sure that the roads are in fact safe.

[ Page 12072 ]

[1600]

I would hope that our friends opposite would at least acknowledge some of the hard work and effort that goes into making sure that their local jurisdictions, the ridings that they represent and the communities that they represent, are also going to be looked after in this budget, as they have been in previous budgets. I know that's a tough one for some of them. But as members, they're diligently going down and writing letters or picking up the phone and talking to the ministers responsible to make sure that there's a good word put in for their constituents who happen to need a new school, happen to need a new bit of blacktop put on a road in their constituency, happen to need improvements to existing highways. I don't begrudge them that, because that's what they're elected to do: to represent their constituents.

It was earlier on this year. . . . I've been gleaning the records, and I guess it was since -- what? --'96, '97, '98. . . . I lost count when I reached a total of over $300 million spent in the ridings of my friends across the way, money well spent. But I lost count. It's over $300 million for schools, hospital and health care facilities, highway improvements -- just pages and pages of good information that I think the members should look at, because it would perhaps serve as a reminder to them as to what this budget and other budgets do. They make sure that where the need is identified, the money, if it happens to be borrowed, is spent to serve the constituents and to provide for growth in the communities we all represent -- all of us. We all represent communities that are in need; they're in need of sewer systems.

I know the previous speaker talked about the issue of municipal grants. So let's put that in context here. The municipalities have a huge wish list that's been submitted for grants, and they want to see money spent in their community for water services, sewer services and improvements to roads. The bulk of that money comes from the province -- well, actually, it's 50-50. Half will come from their municipal taxpayers, and half will come from the provincial purse. That's a fair arrangement. The list would blow you away. I think it was over $1 billion in requests that came in the last go-round under the Infrastructure Works program, which was jointly cost-shared by the federal, provincial and municipal governments.

So the need is identified in those communities, by those jurisdictions, for governments to spend the money. They don't care how it gets there. In many cases, those same municipalities have to go out, through the Municipal Finance Authority, and borrow the dollars in order to spend in their community on water, sewers and roads and to make sure there's economic development in their communities.

[1605]

I phoned up the administrator just a few weeks ago, and I said: "How are things going?" He said: "You'd be absolutely amazed." I said: "Oh yeah, what's cooking?" "Residential permits are up." I said: "To what extent?" "Well, we had seven single-family residential building permits last year. We're at 40 now, and that's because of that sewer system." That's because of the sewer system that this government lobbied for extensively through the programs with the federal government. The municipalities were right beside us, making sure that the dollars were available to provide the infrastructure necessary to create economic development opportunities in a community like Langford. They're going like gangbusters there, and that's good. A high-growth area and local jobs mean that people are going to be paying taxes, and that will benefit everyone in the province.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I'd like to just close on this note. When we deliberate things like this budget, we all keep in mind that a very large component of the budget is borrowed money, a very large component of the budget deals with health care expenditures, and a very large component of the budget. . .

Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

R. Kasper: . . .deals with infrastructure.

Hon. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity.

G. Hogg: It was indeed a delight and a pleasure to be here to listen to the hon. member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca. I hung on to virtually every word he said, and even got stuck on a few. He talked about a number of good things in the budget, and I concur: there are some good things in this budget. Mind you, hon. Speaker, when you spend $21 billion, it's tough to get everything wrong. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

The budget is the province's planning document, a statement of goals, goals clearly shrouded in numbing numbers.

[ Page 12073 ]

G. Hogg: . . .dock.

The budget is the placement of dollars and priorities in a package intended to address the needs both of today and of our future, to place a direction with respect to the demands and the needs. It's a reflection of the government's direction, ideology and priorities. The budget is a statement to the people of this province and to people around the world -- a statement about what we stand for now and into the future.

What does the budget tell us about the goals, about our future? What does it tell us about our priorities? What does it tell us about the choices that are being made? What is in this budget?

[1610]

G. Hogg: Good news. Let's talk about some of the good news. There's an increase in spending of $509 million over last year's budget, going from $20.5 billion to $21 billion; an additional 116 staff members; a 41 percent cut in funding for municipal governments, including $98 million in grant cuts; a 48.6 percent increase in funding for contingencies, for a total of $110 million; an extra 6.6 percent in spending for the Health ministry, to $7.7 billion; and 2 percent for the Education ministry, to $4.3 billion.

The federal government's health and social transfer is up $228 million for '98-99 over the budget forecast and up $500 million this year over last year's forecast, because this budget is drawing down on three-quarters of the one-time windfall that the federal government is providing. Spending for ten out of the 20 government ministries are up. There's a 33 percent increase in capital spending, moving it up to $2 billion, and another $57 million in gambling revenues, and $242 million for the B.C. Buildings Corporation. There is a decrease in the small business tax, bringing it down to 5.5 percent.

Those are some of the things that are contained within the budget. What are some of the things which we perceive -- which I would perceive -- as being missing from this budget? Well, unfortunately, there's no economic growth. There's a drop of 0.5 percent in the GDP in 1998, compared to the budget forecast of 0.9 percent growth; zero percent economic growth for 1999, compared to last year's budget forecast, which was 1.7 percent. That's a true deficit of $1.5 billion for 1999-2000, and almost $1.2 billion for '98-99, instead of the $349 million which was originally projected. It's the eighth consecutive deficit -- $890 million for 1999-2000 and a deficit of $544 million for '98-99. That's over five times larger than the original forecast of $93 million.

There's no debt reduction plan. This year's total provincial debt of $34.7 billion will be $3.5 billion higher than was forecast in last year's budget -- an increase in total debt to 31.7 percent of the GDP from 21.9 percent in 1991, and an increase in taxpayer-supported debt to 23.9 percent of the GDP from 12.5 percent in 1991.

There are no new tax cuts, apart from the small business income tax cut from 8.5 percent to 5.5 percent. There's no additional personal income tax relief at all until the year 2000, when the previously scheduled 1 percent rate kicks in.

As we know, the budget sends messages not just to the citizens of British Columbia but it sends messages out across this country and, indeed, across this continent and around the world -- messages which are listened to, translated and sent back. They can and do affect our credit ratings.

So what have others said about this budget? The B.C. Central Credit Union said:

"The 1999 CRF deficit is more than the $544 million deficit recorded in 1998. This marks the ninth consecutive deficit under the NDP government and the tenth for B.C. No other province has such a record. Borrowing money and increasing the debt to cover operating costs is not a viable long-term strategy. . . .

"B.C. needs to have a lower tax regime and cost structure if it is to enjoy above-average economic growth. Other elements will also be needed, but this economic requirement is critical, and to achieve that goal, tax cuts and surplus budgets will be necessary in the not-too-distant future. Most provinces are running large surpluses and reducing debt, at least relative to GDP, while B.C. is heading in the opposite direction. This unnerves and puts off investors, and the result is less investment spending."

[1615]

"Sixty-one percent of British Columbians believe the provincial budget will not improve the B.C. economy. Fifty-six percent of British Columbians believe the provincial budget will not improve the quality of life in British Columbia."

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce said:

"The only economic stimulant will be through government spending, and that is a short-term benefit. . . . There is nothing in this budget to stem the decline in private sector investments."

"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. The province has made a difficult policy choice in increasing spending on priority programs and infrastructure, which will exacerbate its worsening financial position in the process."

The Business Council of B.C. stated:

"Instead of doing the hard work required to fix an increasingly uncompetitive economy and position B.C. for growth in the new century, the government chose a path that can be summed up in three words: tax, borrow and spend."

". . .the government's budget, like its overall economic policy, suffers from several serious weaknesses. . . " -- weaknesses which I believe should be looked at and remedied. "There is no recognition that B.C.'s poor economic performance has largely structural causes. The new budget offers virtually nothing in the way of either immediate or medium-term tax relief for individuals or businesses, apart from the measures previously announced in the 1997 and 1998 budgets. The CRF deficit is projected to climb from $544 million in 1998-99 to almost $900 million. . . ."

What have some of the. . . ?

[ Page 12074 ]

G. Hogg: I was expecting better too. And then, fortunately, they saw reality rather than what was before them.

Hon. Speaker, investment firms looking at it, are saying: "In total, this budget does nothing but compound B.C.'s structural problems and has increased the required amount of pain to eventually correct the fiscal imbalances and set us on the correct track. . . ."

"TD Economics" said:

"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, as it opted to boost spending in hopes of pulling its economy out of the doldrums."

"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 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."

[1620]

In the constituency office in Surrey-White Rock, over the past few months I've had many constituents come in with many concerns with respect to issues in health care. We've had two constituents in recently, who are concerned about their wait for eye surgery. They had been waiting over seven months. One of them is legally blind and waiting for cataract eye surgery.

We've had many breast cancer survivors coming into the office, many of them confronted with very difficult circumstances and situations for themselves and their families. A woman who had a mastectomy 24 years earlier in Edmonton, where she was diagnosed and treated within one week, was diagnosed in September of '98 with a lump biopsy, which was tested and proven to be malignant. Over a six-week waiting period for assessment at the cancer clinic, the wait was terribly stressful. The patient eventually went to the United States for treatment. A similar case was reported over in. . . . A similar case occurred, where a woman waited five weeks for an ultrasound. The stress on her family and herself was unbearable.

Hip replacements at the Peace Arch Hospital. Many have been on the waiting list since April of '98, in extreme pain -- and loss of mobility, can walk. . . .

Interjection.

G. Hogg: We need more dollars focused to the patients and the needs of the patients.

Heart surgery is consistent with that. We've had many people waiting -- three times a day -- and being cancelled many times before they in fact occur.

Let's look at education. The hon. member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca spoke about some of the improvements to education, some of the classrooms that are looking at. . . . I have had meetings with the parents and staff of Peace Arch Elementary School and recently met with the district PAC of the Surrey school board. They were expressing concerns that the funds they're raising, which started out to be for playgrounds. . .have now had to expand into the provision of actual core educational services. They are fearful that a two-tier educational system is being developed in this province, and they are having to raise money for core essential services -- for copy paper and, in some cases, even for textbooks.

The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca made reference to municipal budgets and cutbacks in terms of transfer payments. In discussions with the city of White Rock, they noted that they were cut back some $760,000 -- the city of Surrey some $500,000. They weren't dramatically upset with the cutbacks. The cutback in dollars was not the issue for them. What was distressing for them was the process by which the cuts took place, and they were disgusted with the way that government timed the announcement for the cutbacks and the way they took place.

A responsible third level of government -- looking at and wanting to do their planning -- had completed their provisional budgets and was then told at the last moment of these further cuts. Again, it wasn't the cuts which were distressing. It was the process and method by which the cuts were introduced. If they had been given time to deal with and manage the process, they would have been delighted to handle and to work with those. . . . But they were misled with respect to the process, and the budget ultimately hit them.

[1625]

Interjections.

G. Hogg: To help some of the members understand the budget, the salaries are not necessarily reflected in an increase in the salaries of individual teachers. But when you increase the number of teachers, it takes a higher percentage of the overall budget in terms of salaries. For those members who fail to understand that portion of the budget. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, member. Members, it's really difficult to hear.

[ Page 12075 ]

The majority of those dollars, as I said, are taken up in teachers' salaries. If there is a need to go over and explain that, I'd be happy to do it again. But the issue has been that a number of other areas the school districts have been trying to deal with have suffered greatly. They have not been seen to be appropriately funded by the school districts.

The city of Vancouver and the Vancouver school board, when the capping happened with respect to ESL and the five-year cap, lost some $4 million. They spend some $10.2 million on special education beyond what they receive in the funding formulas -- the targeted funding which exists. I appreciate that there is a review taking place that may assist and work with that.

The Surrey school board was down some $400,000 in their ESL funding as a result of the five-year cap. Campbell River is looking at and is potentially planning to close two schools. The Okanagan has been looking at the same. The Victoria school board has held a number of public meetings looking at their budget. I attended two of those meetings and listened to students and parents anguish over issues with respect to what and where they might cut -- whether it should be special education or music programs, janitorial services or even school closures.

The school boards say that they do not have the flexibility to manage their districts. They are locked into provincially negotiated agreements which do not allow them to respond to the needs of their local areas. Administrators, principals and teachers can all, I believe, make better decisions than those of us in Victoria, because they're in a position where they're close to the students, the classrooms and the teachers. Yet their ability to manage those and to have flexibility in terms of funding, because of the funding formulas, makes it very difficult for them to do it. Instead, we are stuck with a cookie-cutter approach to the educational processes that are happening.

The Vancouver school board has anguished for a number of years with respect to what they see as the structural deficits as they exist within their budgets. I recently received a fax from them where they talked about being able to come together for the first time as parents, teachers, unions and students to look at the needs for the funding shortfalls that exist within Vancouver and for the Vancouver students. They've put together a number of options to look at those, and those are options that I think could be facilitated within the budget, if there was some flexibility with the way the budget is applied.

Unfortunately, I think that the funding allocations in many parts of the budget are so inflexible that school boards cannot address the needs and nuances of their particular school districts and their students. Unfortunately, the rigidness of the budget does not allow us to look at Prince George and respond to the different needs that it may have from places like Vancouver, Victoria or Surrey. I think that we need to have an ability within the budget to have the flexibility to respond to those issues in a way that best addresses the needs of the students in each of those areas, rather than having a structural model which binds us to a system that is consistently applied across the province, without having the ability to meet the specific needs of specific students in specific classrooms.

What are the things that we believe need to be done, in terms of the budget or in terms of economic renewal for this province? I believe that the budget should be amended to act immediately to correct some of the policies that have caused us the problems we're facing today, such as job losses and opportunities for British Columbians.

Interjections.

[1630]

Hon. Speaker, we have talked many times about the platforms and the directions which we as B.C. Liberals feel should be taken to deal with the economy. One of those is a cut to the basic personal income tax rate in British Columbia to make it one of the lowest in Canada. In the research that we have done on the impact it has had in other provinces and indeed in states across the United States, a change of 10 percent -- and even lower than that -- will have a dramatic impact on the amount of revenue which we as a province will generate. Heavy taxation discourages investment and hampers job creation. Experience and research have shown that the more disposable income people have, the more jobs are created.

An Hon. Member: Reaganomics.

G. Hogg: We will make our entire taxation system more competitive. We will encourage growth and retain the skilled labour in British Columbia which we have.

I heard one of the hon. members refer to Reaganomics. Actually, Reaganomics did not look at or apply all of the techniques necessary in terms of looking at a complex tax structure and rate program, and order the provision of them. Reaganomics did not work in the fashion that we are talking about, because it's not the same system that we're talking about.

Balanced-budget legislation. In the discussions we've had, I think we recognize the burden which debt and deficit carries with it. I believe we must cut spending and create more value for every tax dollar spent. Individuals, households and businesses all balance their budgets, and we should expect ourselves to have to do the same in this chamber. We must introduce balanced-budget legislation outlawing deficit spending to ensure that the government lives within. . . .

Interjection.

G. Hogg: I was asked a question. In fact, in dealing with the school boards and in discussion with the school boards, I did say to them that if they had flexibility. . . . They have said to me that if the school boards had the flexibility to manage their budgets without the cookie-cutter approach to it, they would have the ability to balance their budgets in an effective fashion.

It's appropriate now to speak about truth-in-budgeting legislation, having the open and honest practices of accounting in which government must not hide their deficit or debt

[ Page 12076 ]

There has been much discussion about making choices about health and educational services. We as B.C. Liberals have talked about the issues with respect to the tax dollar and patient care and excellence in education. Those are our priorities, and those are the priorities we would focus on to have an economy which is effective and vibrant and alive, and which would provide the resources necessary to provide more effective health and educational programs in ministries within this province. We have talked about fair and balanced labour laws, putting workers' rights first by restoring their right to secret votes and certification, and about flexibility for workers and employers by modernizing our laws and the Employment Standards Act.

There's been a great deal of discussion in the debate to date with respect to regulatory burden. It would be our belief and our intent to cut the regulatory burden. I believe that's another reflection which should be coming forth in this budget as we look at the impact that the regulatory burden has had on the costs of services in this province and on the costs of providing services in these businesses. We must ensure that our businesses become competitive again, so that we're able to generate the revenue necessary to provide the services that the people of this province want in a reasoned and efficient manner.

A results-driven Forest Practices Code and the processes provided within such a code would help return small businesses and resource companies to British Columbia and help bring new investment to B.C. in terms of the growth that we need to have and must have within it. We've had a great deal of debate with respect to treaties and settlements, and we recognize that we must correct the social injustices done and have affordable treaty settlements. We must fight for our fair share of federal tax contributions.

[1635]

Hon. H. Lali: Before I start, I'd like to request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: I have some friends in the galleries today. Two of them are very reputable members of the Indo-Canadian media. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: Just hang on, hon. member across the way.

They are Mr. Promod Puri, editor of the Link, and his wife Rita Puri; also R. Paul Dhillon, from the Indo-Canadian Voice, and his spouse Harsimrat Dhillon; and also Param Grewal, their friend. Would the House please make my guests welcome.

An Hon. Member: And they're all reputable.

Hon. H. Lali: And they're all reputable -- absolutely.

I rise in support of the budget that was tabled in the House by the hon. Finance minister, and I support our government's choice to maintain and enhance services and also to assist British Columbia in building its way out of the recent economic downturn, as opposed to the Liberal "hypoGrits' " position of slashing and burning services to the public. I'd like to focus on three areas of budget impact. First of all, I'll talk generally about what the budget entails. I'll also talk about my constituency as well as my own portfolio of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Transportation Financing Authority. And I'll end by talking about what the opposition Liberal hypoGrits have to say about everything in general.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I'll remind you of parliamentary language.

Hon. H. Lali: Sorry, I said hypoGrits -- Grits.

I should also mention that I'd like to thank the member, my critic for Transportation and Highways, for actually trading places with me. He's going to speak when I would be, actually -- a couple of speakers down the list.

I want to start by saying that this budget that was presented this year renews our commitment to health in this province. For the eighth year in a row, we are increasing the Health budget. That's an unprecedented record anywhere in Canada. I think the sole exception is the other great socialist province of Quebec, on the eastern side of this country. This year, in 1999, we increased funding for health care. The investment has gone up by $615 million, in response to what we clearly have heard across all corners of British Columbia. That's a 6.6 percent increase in health care funding. The operating funding is going up by $478 million in this 1999 budget. We are also increasing the health capital budget by $137 million.

Our goals for health dollars in 1999 are simple: more beds, more nurses and shorter waiting lists. I'm proud of the record of this government in increasing funding for health care year after year. In this year, there are going to be 58,000 more surgical procedures performed as a result of this increase in funding. Also, we expect to see an increase in the number of cardiac procedures this year by 700. We also expect to see an increase in screening mammography of 19 percent, or 38,000 procedures, in the coming year. There's also going to be the much-awaited and much-needed long term care beds; there are going to be 480 more this year. In addition to all of this, the funding that we are providing will hire 400 more nurses to help address the workload issues and to improve the quality of medical care.

[1640]

[ Page 12077 ]

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member says that they might end up going to Alberta. As you know, hon. Speaker, for a number of years Albertans have been coming to British Columbia, because the Albertans have been cutting health care dollars out of that system year after year for about, I think, six of seven years in a row.

I'd like to focus my attention now also to the funding increase in education. Again, it's the government's commitment to continue to fund increases in our educational system year after year -- again, the only government in the entire country that has increased funding in education year after year, eight years in a row. That's an overall increase of 23 percent since 1991, the last time those folks across the way were in government -- those Socreds who have now turned Liberal. I'll explain in a minute what that funding of 23 percent entails. But again, it feels good to sit on this side of the House to support the budget, to support these increases. I know that these hon. members across the way have always spoken against these increases, year after year.

There's a $45 million increase in this '99 budget for funding British Columbia's educational system, which will allow the hiring of up to 300 new teachers and will also reduce class sizes in the critical early years -- that's kindergarten through to grade 3. This reduction in class sizes will mean that there will be a maximum of 20 students in those classes. Within five years, we're working to make sure that that average decreases to fewer than 18 students in all classes from K-to-3.

I also want to add that there's a $341 million investment in capital funding for the planning and construction of 13 new schools and new additions to 103 schools. That's 13 new schools or replacements for schools, and 103 new school renovations and expansions.

I now want to focus attention on post-secondary education. I know the Liberals were going to cut 14 percent from post-secondary education in 1996. They said that, but they denied it. When the Leader of the Opposition was asked about that in a heated debate on national television, he said: "It's right here in our book. We're not going to decrease that; we're actually going to increase it 14 percent." But when they had a closer look at the book -- their so-called red book -- they conveniently forgot post-secondary education -- totally forgot. They couldn't remember to just include it in there. When we thumbed through the book, taking a second look, it wasn't even in there. That's what they think about post-secondary education in this province. They totally forgot about it.

Interjections.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. members are arguing about whether it was benign neglect or negligence or just. . .

An Hon. Member: Truth in budgeting.

[1645]

We've also increased the advanced education funding by $58 million this year. Included in that is a $7.7 million increase in student financial assistance to make it more affordable for students to go to university and college in British Columbia. Funding for post-secondary education has gone up by more than $245 million since the NDP formed government in 1991. That's an increase of more than 23 percent. That creates, in this year's budget, 2,900 new post-secondary spaces for students, for a total of 16,000 new spaces at B.C.'s colleges and universities over the past three years alone. That's just in the last three years, and that's not counting the tens of thousands of new spaces created before that in this province.

Obviously this is another fact that I'm proud of: enrolment in post-secondary education in B.C. has increased by 10 percent since 1991, while in the rest of the country -- all across Canada -- it has gone down by 4.4 percent. That's a record that we can be proud of, and it has a lot to do with the direction that this government is providing.

I want to talk a little bit about the breaks to small business in this year's budget. We've cut taxes and also helped small business by reducing red tape. I just want to pinpoint last year. In last year's budget, we introduced a combination of tax cuts and incentives to help B.C.'s private sector grow, and we also increased. . . . It's easier access to some of the programs. These initiatives include tax cuts for the film sector and also a cut in the marginal tax rate for the high-income earners in British Columbia. It also cuts farm and jet fuel taxes, and there's also a reduction in stumpage fees, just to name a few. In this year's budget, the small business tax rate is cut by 35 percent. The rate goes down to 5.5 percent, effective July 1. That is lower than Alberta's -- their mentors.

This cut means that small business will now pay $63 million less per year in taxes than they would have otherwise. That will help them to create jobs. What we've also done -- what the Finance minister announced as part of the budget -- is go even further than that. We're making a commitment in this year's budget that B.C. will keep the small business income tax rate lower than Alberta's. What that means is that if Alberta decided to decrease theirs to below ours, we would automatically decrease ours to keep it, dollar for dollar, below Alberta's. That's good news, and that's something that I know that small businesses in my constituency. . . . They're telling me that this is something that is really going to help them to create jobs.

Speaking of my constituency, I'd like to just talk about some of the things that have gone on over the past year and

[ Page 12078 ]

[1650]

I want to talk a little bit about high-tech. In Lillooet the residents are looking forward to the opening of a biological research facility, which is actually a joint venture between Taiwan and Canada, with assistance from the province of British Columbia through its commitment to high-tech and also training. I'm looking forward to that in the future.

On the forestry side, the forest action plan has stopped the bleeding in the forest industry in this province. Various stakeholders in the forestry industry came forward with a number of issues, which has lowered costs to the industry by over $1 billion, which includes almost $700 million in stumpage fee reductions. There are also reductions in the number of steps in the Forest Practices Code, which will save over $200 million a year -- and then other costs related to industry as a result of the forest action plan, which the Minister of Forests introduced early in January of 1999.

In the community of Merritt we had Weyerhaeuser sawmills, which actually closed. But the deal that we were able to structure between Aspen Planers and Weyerhaeuser means that there will be 134 jobs saved. Actually, 125 jobs will be saved; and an additional nine created on top of that as a result of the forest action plan which was signed early in February of this year. Also, in the community of Merritt the residents are meeting under the auspices of FRBC to look at how we can further diversify the economy of Merritt and the Nicola Valley.

I'd like to just contrast that with what the Grits -- the hypoGrits -- across the way have been talking about when this whole issue came about.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I'll just remind you again of parliamentary language.

Hon. H. Lali: If it injures the hon. members across the way, I'll change my wording.

The hypersensitive Grits across the way. . . . I'd like to talk about what they would have proposed in terms of the issue with Weyerhaeuser and Aspen Planers in Merritt. When Weyerhaeuser announced that they were going to shut down their sawmill in Merritt, and they were going to take the timber with them and also eliminate jobs, I took a very hard-line stance and said that that I was going to fight tooth and nail to make sure that jobs and timber would remain in Merritt. If Weyerhaeuser would work with the community, the government and the workers, I'd be more than willing to facilitate that. But if they figured they were going to just walk away with the timber, that was not going to be in the cards. That's what I said, and in the end we were all able to sit down at the table -- the workers in the local mill, the IWA, government officials, forestry officials, myself, Aspen Planers and Weyerhaeuser -- and come to a deal whereby they left 150,000 cubic metres per year behind and also 134 jobs.

This is what the opposition Forestry critic had to say: "To strip WeyCan of all or a portion of their annual allowable cut would drastically worsen the situation. That would simply jeopardize hundreds more jobs." That's what he said. That's also what the member for Okanagan-Vernon, who represents Lumby Weyerhaeuser workers, said: we should just turn our backs and let the big multinational corporations walk away with the people's timber, and we shouldn't say anything. Government and communities cannot tell companies what to do at all. That's what they said. What they, in essence, wanted to do was go back to the good old days of all control in the hands of multinationals and let them continue to rape and pillage the valleys of resources and continue to eliminate jobs. The quote I gave from the Forests critic came right out of the Kamloops Daily News.

[1655]

I'd like to focus now on some other good news about what is happening in my riding. In Merritt, again, there was an announcement made last year by the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology and myself. That was for $6 million for a Nicola Valley Institute of Technology and University College of the Cariboo joint facility in Merritt. The groundbreaking is going to take place in the next few days, actually.

Also, some more good news that I had the pleasure to deliver, on behalf of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, was the 27-hectare land transfer -- valued at $432,000 -- to NVIT so that they could build their campus there. That was more good news that I was able to deliver.

Continuing on with education, in the community of Silver Creek I made an announcement not too long ago for a $2.9 million replacement of the elementary school. The people had been clamouring for that for well over a decade, and we were able to deliver on that commitment, which I had made when I first got elected.

Also, we will be eliminating portable classrooms in Merritt. In addition to Collettvlle Elementary School and the Coquihalla Middle School, those are expenditures of well over $3 million, which will enable people to get rid of the portables and put people in some regular classrooms there.

Turning now to the field of health. In Princeton, not too long ago -- about a month and a half or two months ago -- I made an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Health for $1.5 million to expand the Ridgewood Lodge as our commitment to the quality of health care in that area. In Lillooet we will see a $1.5 million renovation to the extended-care facility there. We'll also begin construction on a $4 million healing centre, with a hospital in Lytton. They've been waiting for a while, as well. So there's a lot of good news coming forward in the field of health in my constituency. They're quite happy to see this budget come through.

[ Page 12079 ]

I'd like to turn my attention to the private sector in my riding. Aspen Planers in Merritt has made a commitment to spend over $8 million renovating their sawmill in order to take advantage of the forest action plan that we signed with them earlier on. In the community of Hope, Money's Mushrooms is relocating to Yale-Lillooet from the Fraser Valley, and they're investing millions in a facility in my riding.

I talked a little bit about the extended-care facility there in Lillooet earlier. In Lillooet we had. . . . The film industry actually has been looking for locations to shoot films. There's a major film that was shot last year in Lillooet. They're coming back; the film industry is coming back for more shootings in the Lillooet area in the upcoming year.

Also, in Ashcroft there's a classic example of this government's commitment to red-tape reduction. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and I have gone in and made an announcement last year for a $12 million rock quarry project in the riding. We can expect construction to begin very soon, as some of the hurdles and the red tape are out of the way. We had red-tape reduction in the Ministry of Energy and Mines, in the Ministry of Environment and also now in the Ministry of Agriculture. When the construction begins and it's up and running, the project will employ 50 people for 50 years, thanks to the efforts of all of the ministers and the ministries in reducing red tape.

The village of Cache Creek is also quite happy. There is a number of people. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I know that the hon. member across the way, the member for Matsqui, is envious. In the past he's been envious of Harry Rosen clothing; now he's envious of all the dollars that are going into my communities. I say to the member. . . . I know they were talking at one time of trying to cut the amount of $3 billion out of the annual budget of the provincial government. On the other side, they'll talk about wanting more funding for this program -- wanting a bridge in their riding or a piece of road or a hospital or education. They keep talking about that. They can't have it both ways.

[1700]

Also, the community of Cache Creek received $60,000 for the expansion of their community centre. That was good news and welcome news for them. As a matter of fact, the construction's already underway. I had a chance to take a look at that on the weekend, along with the mayor, John Ranta, who is the chair of the UBCM.

Some of the highways projects. . . . I want to talk to my ministry budget; I'd like to take a moment to look at what some of the projects are throughout the province. I made the announcement in March that we were going to. . . .

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to just take my seat for two seconds, because the hon. member has an introduction to make.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

W. Hartley: I thank the hon. minister for allowing me to make this introduction. Members, may I have your leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Visiting us today from Capital Christian School in Sacramento, California, are some 30 grade 8 to 12 students and a few adults and their teacher, Mr. Combs. Oh, he's a band teacher, so I believe it's a band we have visiting us here. They're learning about comparative government and local history. Would members please welcome them.

While I'm on my feet, I'd also like to welcome a number of seniors -- retired professionals, I should say -- from the Alumni Association of UBC, 1949, with their coordinator, Ms. Rooke. Would members please welcome them.

Hon. H. Lali: I'd like to continue with my speech on the highways throughout the province -- including the member for Peace River North; I'll talk about the north as well. In last year's budget we had a capital and rehab funding increase of $100 million from the year before, in order to rebuild our transportation infrastructure and also to build new projects. I'm happy to say that this year we've increased the budget by $110 million from the year before, so that's a $210 million increase from two years before in order to build roads and bridges all across the province. Four-fifths of that money is going to areas outside of the lower mainland to look after projects all over British Columbia, including the north half of the province where two years ago, I think, the funding was about $26 million for the north. We increased that to $66 million last year, and in this year's budget that was increased to $69 million. The commitment to the Peace River area is there, and it's something that we're going to do on an incremental basis and make sure that it's a multi-year program, so the funding will not decrease below those levels. I know the member across the way is interested in projects coming his way, and I think he'll welcome the commitment by the ministry and this government to building roads and bridges up in the north.

The $490 million that I announced in March this year. . . . Job creation was the cornerstone of the announcement that I made in terms of the impact that it will have on small rural communities, especially those that were negatively affected by the downturn of the resource sector -- communities across the interior, the north, the Kootenays and the northern part of the Island. This year the $490 million investment means 4,000 direct and indirect jobs in the private sector in British Columbia. On the operations side, the ministry's rehabilitation budget this year is almost $30 million, creating an estimated 340 to 500 direct private sector jobs. The road and bridge maintenance budget this year is close to $311 million, creating almost 5,100 direct and indirect private sector jobs -- for a total of

[ Page 12080 ]

[1705]

I want to talk a little bit about some of the main projects, starting with the Kootenay Lake ferry. We're constructing a new 74-car ferry that creates 74 direct full-time jobs. The ferry will be built right there in the Kootenays and will service the route from Balfour to Kootenay Bay on Kootenay Lake. It will replace the outdated 40-car ferry MV Anscomb that's there. The total project is $20 million.

The Port Mann Bridge. I made the announcement along with the Premier in March. It's a $74 million project that allows a fifth eastbound lane onto the Port Mann Bridge, as well as getting rid of the backlog of cars that occurs at the Cape Horn interchange. I know that the local MLAs on both sides of the river, and on both sides of the House as well, have been anticipating an announcement such as this one, which we were able to make. . . . Obviously we're looking after the needs of the people living in the urban areas, to make sure that we get rid of congestion points and make sure that people can get to work on time as well as be able to get home to their families and children once work is finished.

The Lions Gate project. We're gearing up for an announcement as to who is going to be the successful bidder. Again, the bridge deck is important in terms of widening and improving user safety, and we're reducing some of the environmental impacts and doing seismic upgrading. The finalization of the negotiations is still underway, and we expect to sign a contract really soon.

Also, my critic across the way joined me when the announcement was made on the airport connector in Richmond. That's a $40 million partnership between the government of British Columbia. . . .

I see my time is up. Can I make a final comment?

Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Hon. H. Lali: Okay. I'd like to thank the members and the hon. Speaker for giving me this time to talk about my constituency and give my response to the budget speech.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to rise today in the chamber to speak to the 1999-2000 provincial budget. This budget is our government's financial plan and our commitment to British Columbians as we prepare to enter a new millennium. This budget is about improving education to make sure that young people in British Columbia have the educational opportunities that they need to participate in British Columbia's economy in the near future. This budget is about improving our health care and making sure that British Columbians have access to the best health care in this nation. Indeed, today they do, and I'm very proud of that. This budget is also about helping small business create jobs so that they can continue to grow the economy in British Columbia.

I'd like to begin by talking a little bit about health care. One thing that's been very obvious to me and which has been very consistent is my constituents' demands for good health care facilities and access to health care in British Columbia. They've lobbied me extensively over the course of the last three years. It's a major, major priority for them and for their children as well. It's a big part of what makes this province of ours so very special.

[1710]

Some of the highlights in this year's budget for health care are that we'll be increasing our health care investment by $615 million. The operating budget is going to be increasing by $478 million, and the capital budget is increasing by $137 million. There'll be over 400 new nurses hired. They'll be investing $21 million to create an additional 480 long term care beds. Up to 58,000 more surgeries and other procedures will take place; that's a 13 percent increase. We'll be investing $3.5 million to reduce pediatric surgery waits. An increase in the number of screening mammography procedures by 38,000 is something that's very important for the women in my constituency, and it is very well supported. Providing funding for 5,000 additional chemotherapy treatments and 5,000 new radiotherapy treatments to reduce cancer treatment waits is really important for the constituents of North Island when they travel for treatment. So we're building on the progress that we've made in health care over the last several years in British Columbia, and I'm really proud of that commitment.

We're investing an additional $10 million to reduce backlogs at hospitals across the province. We're reducing the wait-list at British Columbia's Children's Hospital by funding up to 800 more surgeries a year. We are funding an additional 10,000 magnetic resonance imaging scans across British Columbia and investing $10 million in a new mental health plan. Those are all things that I think are just fantastic. No matter what you have in life, there's nothing more important than your health.

I know. I was talking to an American that located from Washington to British Columbia a few months ago. He had a small business in B.C. -- or was starting one; he'd lost his business in Washington. I asked him: "Why did you come to British Columbia? What is it that draws you? I mean, it's obvious that there are lots of things, but I'm interested in hearing from you." He said: "Glenn, it's a number of things. It's the environment. It's the quality of people that we have in British Columbia, clean air, clean water -- 95 percent of the people in this world get up every morning and they haven't even got clean water to drink. We've got some of the best water in the world in B.C. -- fresh air, gorgeous viewscapes, good education and good health." He lost his business in Washington. His wife got very sick, and to treat his wife he had to sell his house and his business and lost everything he'd worked for all his life. It was a really tough situation for this man. So I'm proud of the system that we have in British

[ Page 12081 ]

Health in British Columbia is interesting. We spend the most amount per capita on health; I think it's up around $1,900 per capita. We spend more than any other place in this country. There's about $450 per capita more spent on British Columbians than on Albertans. To give you some sort of an idea, if B.C.'s health funding was at Alberta levels, we'd save about $1.8 billion a year. That's an unbelievable amount of money, but the priority in British Columbia is to have world-class health care. I'm proud of that. I don't want to go where Alberta's going.

There was a recent report that came out a few months ago in Maclean's illustrating and supporting British Columbia's health care, saying we definitely have the best health care in this nation. I thought it was a wonderful article. We have the best cancer treatment in this nation, the best success with cancer. We have the best cancer researchers working right here in the province. I know a lot of the members on both sides of the House met with the B.C. Cancer Society a little while ago, and they had some great plans for research and development and to fight this insidious, terrible disease.

[1715]

The health care in my riding. . . . I'm thrilled, just absolutely thrilled. A week ago last Friday I went up, and the Minister of Health gave me the word that some of our projects had been approved for North Island. Yuculta Lodge, a continuing-care facility for older people, will be built in Campbell River -- a 100-bed facility. I went there, and a lot of elderly people were lined up in the audience, and they were just absolutely ecstatic. They were thrilled. It was nice being there. They're really looking forward to having a good environment to live in and really good facilities, and so is the staff. That's the kind of investment that I'm proud of and the people in my constituency are proud of.

St. George's Hospital. I went up to Alert Bay later on that afternoon and announced $4.37 million to build a new health care facility -- a continuing-care facility -- in Alert Bay. It's really badly needed. In Port Hardy we're building a $1.5 million extension on the hospital for continuing care. We've funded construction of the Depew wing onto the Campbell River hospital, bringing it to fruition. There's a new CT scanner in Campbell River for the people of North Island -- all these projects are wonderful -- and hundreds of thousands of dollars of capital funding for new high-tech equipment in the Campbell River hospital. Those are all projects that I'm very proud of and certainly ones that my constituents support.

Education. That's the other priority of our government, and we're delivering on that. Bottom line: nothing's free. If you want to make those investments, it costs money. It means making decisions, sometimes tough ones. It means a commitment to British Columbia now and a commitment to British Columbians in the future -- building now for the future. I think that's important, particularly where education is concerned.

There are some great things in education. We're increasing core education funding this year by $45 million. We're hiring another 300 teachers to work in K-to-3 so young children, when they're building their educational foundation, can get the attention they deserve and a good, solid foundation to go through the educational system. I think that's really important. There's capital funding of $341 million to build 13 new and replacement schools, for 103 school renovations and expansions and for eliminating 560 portables -- it's just amazing -- and creating 2,900 post-secondary student places, including 700 in high-tech fields. High-tech is just booming in B.C. One of the biggest criticisms that the high-tech industry has is that they can't get enough people to fill the work spots. They need high-tech people that are well educated, and B.C. is certainly responding in that field.

We're freezing tuition fees for post-secondary education for the fourth year in a row. This is a great achievement. I believe B.C. has the second-lowest tuition costs in this nation. I think that's great. It's allowing our children from the rural areas to come down and get an education at Malaspina, Camosun, UVic, UBC, Simon Fraser or any of the great educational institutes. They can afford it. Working people can afford to put their kids through school and get them an education. This is a commitment to our children and a commitment to the working people in British Columbia that don't have a lot of money but want their children to have the educational opportunities that, in some instances, they were not afforded.

We'll be hiring another 500 teachers; launching a five-year strategy to reduce the number of portables in B.C. by half; investing a record $748 million in school construction and expansion; reducing kindergarten classes to a maximum of 20 students; and increasing funding for English as a second language by $237 per pupil, which makes B.C.'s ESL programs the best-funded in this nation. I'm really proud of that. We will also be establishing new technical centres in Prince George, Kamloops and Nanaimo to help more young people get into the job market; dedicating $2 million to upgrade and replace computers at B.C.'s 20 colleges and institutes; and eliminating tuition fees for adult basic education at public post-secondary institutions.

[1720]

We're inviting B.C.'s research institutions to share in a $100 million B.C. knowledge development fund, and that's wonderful. We're increasing financial assistance for students with dependents by $50 a week, and we're eliminating tuition fees for adult basic education as well. As I said, it is free.

I'm really impressed with some of the schools and educational commitments that have been made to North Island. I

[ Page 12082 ]

I'm particularly proud of the work that the Minister of Advanced Education has done. It's a real commitment to post-secondary education. Last year North Island College received an additional 80 FTEs -- which was wonderful -- and again, an additional 89 FTEs this year. The Minister of Advanced Education also put in progress a program for ITAC, which is the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, for additional FTE allocation, and put in a special program for post-secondary education for economic need or economic change in regions. If there are regions where additional educational programs are needed, that FTE allocation is available. I'm really proud of that.

One thing I'm very proud of, coming from a rural constituency, is the Minister of Education's commitment to the PLNet, which is the provincial learning network. It means that all our educational facilities in British Columbia will be hard-wired with the best technology in the world, so that they can interact and do videoconferencing throughout the world. Remote communities are going to have a lot better educational facilities, and I'm very proud of that. It'll be great.

In the budget this year there were a lot of different programs or initiatives dedicated to small business, and I think that's really important. I believe that small business in B.C. accounts for about 98 percent of the total business allocation in the province. This year our government is cutting the small business income tax rate to 5.5 percent, effective July 1; it's now lower than Alberta's. I'm very proud of that commitment. It was reduced from 8.5 percent to 5.5 percent, with a commitment by the minister that if Alberta lowers its small business income tax rate, we will do likewise. I think that was an outstanding move.

[1725]

We're building on a number of initiatives made last year by cutting taxes for small business and by introducing tax credits and other incentives in film and television. We've had some wonderful movies in Campbell River. One of the Disney movies that was up there last year was an $80 million movie. You couldn't even get a hotel room in Campbell River on the North Island. It was great for the economy.

We're cutting royalty rates in the gas and oil sector by up to 40 percent. That means more drilling and more exploration in British Columbia, which is great. We're setting up 23 one-stop business registration centres across the province and eliminating the farm fuel tax, which sounds good. I think that's great. It will help farmers; they're really important. I think that was great.

Some of the other things. . . . That's small business, and I think small business is really important. But there is always a lot of talk about big business. There are a lot of things going on with big business. Louisiana-Pacific just made an announcement that they're making a capital investment of about $280 million in the province, which I think is great. The president said that they had a choice of investing anywhere in the world or North America, and they chose British Columbia because that was the best place for them to locate. I think that's great.

Tembec recently came in from Quebec and acquired first operations in the Cranbrook area. I know that the member for Kootenay is very pleased about that. Fletcher Challenge Canada has made a huge capital investment in Campbell River -- almost a quarter of a billion dollars -- on a new cogeneration plant there. That's all good news for British Columbia and the North Island.

We've made significant changes in the small business forest program for the North Island. Over half the volume that comes from North Island has been allocated to firms on the North Island, and that's in a large part due to our Forests minister and the work that he's done and the commitment that he makes to rural communities and to diversifying the industry and giving people in the region an opportunity.

We've had a number of businesses come in. Sitka Spruce is locating in Campbell River; they're going to be doing a $7.5 million investment. Green River timber up in Tahsis is making value-added products. Lukwa Mills in Port Hardy is doing the same; it just received a forest licence. A-Frame Sawmill and the Mill Creek mill have both benefited from the small business program and the minister's commitment to small business -- as well as, like we saw, a forest licence that was awarded on the North Island last year.

The list goes on. I'm really happy about all that. I think it's very progressive, and it's good policy.

We've had tremendous commitments to infrastructure from our government. I think it's really important to build our province now. The economy is not right where we want it. It's starting to pick up, and I think that's very good. But we're going to get some great value for our dollar when we do investments in infrastructure in B.C. because of the competitive nature of it, as well as the fact that a lot of times the costs will be down 10 to 15 percent. Some of the projects in my riding that have been done over the last couple of years are: the Campbell River bypass, which was $47 million; the Campbell River bridge, which we're finishing construction on just now and which is about $4.5 million or $5 million; and a new four-lane road committed to by the minister and by the Premier. The section between Campbell River and Courtenay will now be four lanes, for an additional $40 million.

It's just wonderful. Our constituents drove that agenda and supported us, and we supported them and worked with them. The Premier and the Minister of Highways came through big-time, and we all appreciate that. The Discovery Passage road goes around Campbell River by the ocean -- a project of about $6 million. The Dogwood Street extension is about $8.5 million. Resurfacing the North Island Highway last year -- about a 30-kilometre section -- and a number of road upgrades. . . .

[1730]

[ Page 12083 ]

This year there's almost $7 million worth of work going into the highway north of Campbell River, including resurfacing Highway 19, new deceleration lanes at Woss and Nimpkish, a new Port Alice turnoff, new bridges, about a $6 million capital project along Misty Lake between Port McNeill and Campbell River, and a traffic island in Port McNeill to help little kids get across Campbell Way at lunch-hour and when they go to school and come back, which I think is just great. The Port McNeill intersection has been all changed around -- it is a lot safer -- and location markers were put in. Also, there's some capital projects and realignment of the road on Quadra Island. All of these projects, I'll tell you, are wonderful. They're just wonderful.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

An Hon. Member: And they cost money.

G. Robertson: And they cost money. That's right. They cost big-time money. You know, there's an old saying: there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you want these things -- and all my constituents do want them -- they cost money. I'm very pleased with them, and I think they'll make a better province and a better constituency. These are investments that are needed now for the long term.

You know, hon. Speaker, I had one of my constituents suggest last week that maybe we should run a balanced budget, and I said: "Well, we could do that, but understand that the projects that you are demanding -- the better health care, capital projects, better education -- cost money. So which is it?" And he didn't know what to say. So I said: "Look, name me one project in this riding -- one capital project, one educational initiative, one health project, one capital project in health, or one piece of equipment that you wouldn't want at your hospital. Name me one."

And you know what? He never named one. As a matter of fact, he said: "Glenn, guess what. We want another $3 million for sewer funding so we can have a healthier environment." And he said: "I support you 100 percent on that. I know it's money you'll have to borrow, but it's an investment in health and it's an investment in long-term infrastructure in Campbell River, and I support that."

With that, hon. Speaker, I will say that I think this is a good budget for this time in British Columbia. It's a budget that recognizes the priorities of British Columbia, and it's a budget that's about investing in people and investing in our province.

D. Symons: In past years when I've got up, I've usually got up and started by saying something to the effect that it's now my honour or pleasure to speak on the budget. But on this year's budget, I'm afraid I can't start with those words. You know, I described what I referred to as last year's fudge-it budget as a real disappointment. This year's budget, though, was a real surprise for me. For those of you who know a little bit of music, you might know about a fellow named Haydn, who wrote the Surprise Symphony. The symphony goes along in a routine sort of way, and suddenly there's a boom -- a shock. That's exactly what happened to me when I heard the numbers in this budget. It was a real shock -- an acknowledged $890 million deficit. At least I can say it was an acknowledged one, because in the past we've had a lot of fudging the books. At least they're getting a little more honest. Granted there are some other numbers, which I'll get to later, that weren't counted in part of it. But that was a real shock. It's with real despair, I guess, that I have to get up and speak on this, because this is not really the way we should be dealing with this province economically.

The Finance minister talked of travelling the province and "listening to the advice of British Columbians. . .chambers of commerce in Penticton, Prince George, Quesnel, Golden, Burnaby and Campbell River. . .the Rotary Club in Nelson. . .editorial boards and open-line shows in Kamloops, Vernon and Kelowna, among many more." That's what the Finance minister said in her budget address.

[1735]

You know, I find it interesting, in listening to the previous members speaking, that the government members are getting up here and defending what is basically undefendable -- a government that would end up bringing in that sort of deficit and increasing the taxpayer-supported debt by $3 billion.

In last year's budget address, the minister boasted. . . . Here's what happened in the 1997-98 fiscal year. "We reduced spending for the first time since 1958-59." That again was the minister speaking last year. But you know, that miracle, as I recall it, only occurred because of their ability to cook the books. They took $70 million in spending from the Highways ministry and put it in the Transportation Financing Authority, which is money that will now have to be paid back at some future time. It debt-financed highway building. They took $20 million that used to be in the Ministry of Tourism and developed a tourism agency that now doesn't appear on the books. They took $100 million in silviculture, which used to be paid for in the Forests ministry and that's now in Forest Renewal, off the books. That adds up to $190 million that's no longer counted as spending as far as the consolidated revenue fund goes. So the minister's words last year were -- to put it mildly -- somewhat misleading when he said they had reduced spending for the first time in about two decades. You know, they had $190 million in spending that really didn't quite appear there.

On top of that, of course, they also had another sum of money, approximately that much again, that was from reductions in spending to the municipalities. They cut back spending to the municipalities by a similar amount. So there was an awful lot of spending that they weren't counting last year.

Now we find that that Minister of Finance is the Premier of the province. But back in 1992, as Finance minister, he increased the fees and taxes in British Columbia by $800 million. In 1993 he repeated the effort -- again, another $800 million increase in fees and taxes for the people of British Columbia. That is more than $1.5 billion in new taxes that was put on the people of British Columbia in the first two years of this NDP government by the person who was the Minister of Finance then and who is now the Premier of the province. We the people of British Columbia continue to pay that $1.5 billion each succeeding year of this particular government.

[ Page 12084 ]

We had the new Finance minister come in in 1994, and this new Finance minister decided: "We have to do something about this. The debt is climbing; our deficits are still there. So we'll bring in a debt management plan." This debt management plan was going to look after that. What it basically said, in simple terms, was that in 20 years they were going to reduce the debt to where it was when they took office. In other words, they were planning, with this great debt management plan, that it would take them 20 years to reduce the debt to where it was two years previously -- 20 years to undo two years of their work.

Well, after two years that debt management plan didn't quite work, so they had a revised debt management plan. We went to an election in 1996 based on two balanced budgets that soon after we found out weren't balanced. Indeed, the auditor general said that there was no way on earth that the government could have thought that those budgets would be balanced -- that they used optimism rather than sound figures for creating those balanced budgets that turned out to be, basically, lies.

[1740]

I have absolutely no faith in this government's fiscal abilities. This government's incompetence does not give me confidence that they will handle this year's budget and economy any better than they have handled the economy over the past eight years.

This is not just my opinion, nor the opinion of the Liberal opposition; it's also the opinion of the Canadian Bond Rating Service. After seeing their last year's budget, they reduced B.C.'s bond rate. Lo and behold, after this year's budget, they reduced it again. We have other people making comments on the budget this year. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia has said: ". . .high debt levels are a deterrent to investment and economic growth. . . . The province's increasing debt will make it very difficult to lower taxes and make it very difficult to sustain current levels of spending on important services such as health care and education." The B.C. Chamber of Commerce made some similar comments. The Canadian Bond Rating Service, however, said that they believe "B.C.'s deficit spending during this period. . .may not necessarily stimulate the economy as intended and will exacerbate the government's deteriorating fiscal position." They also went on to say: "The province has made a difficult policy choice of increasing spending on priority programs and infrastructure, which will exacerbate its worsening financial position in the process." Those are the Dominion Bond Rating Service's comments on this particular one, and they lowered our bond standing.

Standard and Poor's said that the downgrade reflects the NDP's expansionary fiscal policy and the resultant widening budgetary imbalance, as well as the mounting tax-supported debt burden. The Business Council of B.C. said: "Instead of doing the hard work required to fix an increasingly uncompetitive economy and position B.C. for growth in the new century, the government chose a path that can be summed up in three words: tax, borrow and spend."

Hon. D. Lovick: A nice moderate position from the B.C. Business Council.

D. Symons: They also went on to say. . . .

I'm glad that somebody feels that these are the moderate positions of the B.C. Business Council, but they are certainly the ones that can drive the economy of this province.

They also 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" -- hard words but true words.

Goepel McDermid, relating to this particular budget, said: "The 1999 B.C. budget grade is F" -- F for failure. "In total, this budget does nothing but compound B.C.'s structural problems and has increased the required amount of pain to eventually correct the fiscal imbalances and set us on the correct track." They ended their comment with: "Let's pray for a miracle!" Hard words, but indeed we're living in tough times in British Columbia with this NDP government.

The Canadian Bond Rating Service also said, referring to the NDP government: "They've thrown caution to the wind and are embarking on an ambitious spending spree that will be debt-financed. . . . When you have debt rising so much faster than population and economic growth, you've got a major problem." That was their comment.

Well, this is the eighth consecutive deficit budget by this NDP government. It's a record for B.C. -- eight consecutive deficit budgets. Maybe we should. . . .

An Hon. Member: Tell us what it was in '87. What was the debt? What was the deficit?

D. Symons: The debt was considerably lower than it is today, the hon. member would like to know, and indeed it was.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The member has the floor.

D. Symons: The NDP will promise and say anything. But it's the record, not their words, that must be heard. Let's look at some of the NDP words on budgeting. Here is one: "There's no magic in balancing the budget in British Columbia. In fact, it's extremely easy -- absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing." That was said in 1989 by the NDP's Finance critic. That particular Finance critic is now the Premier of this province.

[1745]

[ Page 12085 ]

Third quote: ". . .British Columbian taxpayers urgently need some relief from the tax unfairness of this government." I would say amen to that. That's the first statement they've got right -- except that it was said by the Premier when he was Finance critic back on March 21, 1991. Let me read that one again, because it applies so much today: ". . .British Columbian taxpayers urgently need some relief from the tax unfairness of this government." How correct.

What this government needs, really, is the budget it should have laid out before the people of British Columbia -- that lays out the government's vision for the future. It should be designed to give the people of B.C. confidence that their government has a plan. We really did not see that in this budget; all we saw was a lot of feel-good words and what not about how wonderfully they're doing, etc. There really wasn't a plan other than some five-year fiscal framework that was very, very vague and really meant nothing. They should have a plan that shows that their government knows where it's going, and that shows that they are going to get there and that they have a plan to do it.

The Premier -- as Finance minister in the new NDP government in 1992, in introducing the NDP's first budget -- said: "This government is committed to policies which foster economic stability and confidence." And they blew it every year since. They've used words similar to that in every succeeding budget address. They are hollow words, and they can no longer be believed.

For a variety of reasons, this government has lost its moral authority to govern. We've had Bingogate and Hydrogate.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker.

D. Symons: We've had the misrepresented budgets of 1996. . . .

The Speaker: The member will take his seat. I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: On a point of order, it is an absolutely outrageous linkage to suggest that this government had anything whatsoever to do with so-called Bingogate. The member knows it; he continues to mislead this House. It's outrageous. He should withdraw.

The Speaker: I appreciate. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . . Member, just a moment, please. We must recognize, in the speeches we make, sensitivities about various issues. I encourage members to take that into account.

Member, continue.

D. Symons: I find it interesting, hon. Speaker, that the member is claiming no connection to that, yet the NDP Party was willing to pay off some of the debts that were raised there. The Premier made comments that he was going to pay off some of that money. It hasn't been done yet, mind you -- another thing that hasn't been carried through with. But anyway. . . .

The Speaker: Member, that is not helpful.

Continue, member.

[1750]

Now, after all of that, this government brings in a budget that has a deficit of $890 million. The debt is up by $2.7 billion to $34.7 billion. There has been a 100 percent increase in the provincial debt under this government.

This year's budget address was not as misleading as the past year's. It was rather full of spin on how they're making choices and doing great with health care and education, with sly references to others out there somewhere who would wreck health care and education. Indeed, those references are not correct, because this side of the House has every bit as much concern about health care and education as that side. We will end up, when we're government, proving that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. It's not possible to hear with the interruptions and the noise going on.

Member.

D. Symons: It seems that each year for the past five years, the NDP had been going to reduce hospital wait-lists, and each year they get longer. The government talks and advertises what a good job they're doing. As the advertising and talk get louder, the lines get longer.

The government has stated that its priorities are health care and education. I remember back in 1992 when the Highways minister -- when I was just asking what they were doing with different highway projects -- would throw back at me every time, "Which hospital beds do you want me to close? Which schools do you want me to close?" and so forth. They're still using those lines, and they're tired and worn out -- this from a government that has brought health care in the province to its knees.

They've had the failed experiment of Closer to Home, regionalization and the health accord. In the health accord. . . . They're talking now in this budget about increasing the number of nurses in British Columbia. They brought in a health accord not that many years ago that was designed to reduce the number of nurses in British Columbia. Now they're saying: "We're going to help health care; we're going to hire more nurses." Well, which was the government that brought in a policy to reduce them not many years ago? It was this same government.

I'd like to tell you about health care in my riding, the deals with the Vancouver-Richmond health board, and just bring a few quotes and information in regarding that. Over the past few years the government has been wanting to

[ Page 12086 ]

We have for orthopedic surgery now, currently in the Richmond hospital, a six-month wait-list and for total joint replacements, seven months. For general surgery and for urgent breast and colon cancer -- and notice the word "urgent" -- it's a two-month wait-list. For gynaecology, for laparoscopy, we have a six- to 18-month wait. Pelvic surgery has a two- to eight-month wait. Urology, if it's urgent -- if it's for an obstruction, for instance -- is two months. Can you imagine the pain that somebody suffers for two months while waiting for something that's described as urgent? And those are urgent ones.

Psychiatry. The department of psychiatry has 12 patients that waited up to two days. Now, you've got somebody having mental health problems, and they have to wait two days -- and it's emergency medicine that is referred to here on this list I have. This is from the hospital, by the way. It's not something I've made up or something we've scammed from people; it's from the hospital. The doctor has put together this list. I think when you look at the mental health one and say to somebody who's having mental problems that you have two days' wait before you get treated -- before you get any treatment, because this is waiting for treatment -- that is really quite something. That doesn't speak well for our hospital system.

[1755]

What they need is more people in the operating room. They need more nurses in the operating room in order to first deal with our wait-lists, and then they need more beds with staff to service them in our hospital. We have the space there. We don't have the funding for the people to be treated. So that's one of the real problems in Richmond. We find there that we have wait-lists, and we have bed shortages.

Finally, I'd like to just give a little story -- not finally for this, because I see that I will be continuing tomorrow. But I want to just bring in this particular case, because this happens to be somebody that I knew the mother and father of. This lady wrote to me at the beginning of January of this year. She was concerned because she was supposed to have a brain biopsy on December 3, and it didn't occur on time. Therefore they rescheduled it for January 11. It was cancelled because of bed closures. It was rescheduled for January 15, and a few days later, eventually, it was done. But there was more than a month and a half delay for a biopsy on a known tumour in her brain. In her letter to me, she asked: "Does the government now have people put down as elective until they become emergency surgery?" I think it is a very valid question. Doctors are being pushed every day to decide whether they can quote this as emergency or urgent or elective. It's very difficult to make a doctor the person that has to make that decision.

But anyway, this lady did have her surgery. Her mother phoned me at the beginning of this month to tell me that she had died. Now, I don't know whether, if she had received prompter treatment, she'd be alive today. But I know that she deserved the opportunity to have that chance, and she didn't get it.

Noting the time, I would move that we adjourn debate.

Motion approved.

Speaker's Statement

I have some observations to make relating to ministerial statements in the House. A review of Hansard over recent weeks shows that we need to remind ourselves of practices in this House applicable to ministerial statements. While these statements are not provided for and regulated through our standing orders, there are basic rules and guidelines that this assembly has accepted through custom and usage.

The purpose of ministerial statements is to enable a minister to convey to the House, briefly and factually, information of interest and urgency on government policy or ministry administration when no other proceeding offers a suitable opportunity. Ministerial statements are generally made in the House immediately before the calling of orders of the day. Leave of the House is not required unless a statement interrupts another proceeding. The courtesy of advance notice to the Chair has been the practice. It is also established practice that the critic in the Official Opposition is entitled to make a few remarks in reply. Other members may also reply by leave of the House. Ministerial statements must be brief, factual and specific, as should be the responses, which must be confined to the points raised by the minister. This is not a proceeding intended for partisan debate or argument.

I refer the House to past statements by Speakers of the assembly on the contents, scope and practices relating to ministerial statements -- specifically, April 26, 1978, and March 20, 1987, from which I quote:

"Under the practices of this House, and in accordance with Speakers' rulings previously made, ministerial statements should generally be brief, be factual and be specific. General arguments or observations that are beyond the fair bounds of explanation, or too distinct a reference to previous debate, are out of order and will result in appropriate intervention by the Chair. There are, of course, similar limits to replies made to ministerial statements."

Hon. D. Lovick: I would advise members that the House will sit tomorrow. With that, I would move that the House now adjourn.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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