Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12087 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a group of very special visitors to the House. In the members' gallery this afternoon is the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. These men and women have gathered in Victoria today to review this year's nominations to the order and select the recipients for the June investiture.

I understand that there were 138 nominations this year, with many submitted by members on both sides of the chamber and from every corner of the province. The OBC Advisory Council is chaired by the Hon. Allan McEachern, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of B.C. It includes, of course, our Speaker; Mayor John Ranta of Cache Creek, who is president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities; Dr. Charles Jago, president of the University of Northern British Columbia; Mr. Gerry Armstrong, Deputy Minister of Advanced Education; and two members of the Order, Ms. Kazuko Komatsu of Burnaby and Dr. Roger Tonkin of Gabriola Island. Would the House please make these members most welcome.

[1410]

Hon. H. Lali: I would also like to join the Premier in welcoming Mr. John Ranta, who is the mayor of Cache Creek in my riding. As well, we have visitors in the gallery today from the Canadian Transportation Lawyers Association. This association is actually meeting here this week in lovely Victoria. Would the House please bid these visitors welcome.

C. Clark: In the press gallery today we have three visitors from the Tri-City News: Craig Hodge, the photographer, who also has the distinction of being the president of our local chamber of commerce, as well as Janis Cleugh and Kate Poole, two local reporters for the Tri-City News. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would like to introduce two people visiting the gallery today. The first I want to introduce on your behalf as well, hon. Speaker, as she's a former constituent. Her name is Florence Reid, and she is a writer from Saltspring Island. I understand that at the tender age of 75, Ms. Reid is opening a new business offering reiki services on Saltspring Island. The second person I'd like to introduce is my administrative coordinator -- a new title -- Wendy Twomey, who provides wonderful service for me and for government. Would the House please make both of them very welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: There are three people with us today that I'd like the House to welcome. They are people who have worked tirelessly on behalf of injured workers in British Columbia. With us is Birgit Lund, her son Steve Lund and Mr. Joe Toms. Would the House please welcome them here.

J. Cashore: Further to the introduction of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, I'd like to add my welcome to Janis Cleugh, Craig Hodge and Kate Poole of the Tri-City News. For the information of members, they're here today doing stories on three MLAs: the two MLAs who have already welcomed them and also the MLA for Port Coquitlam. Their story is "A Day in the Life of an MLA." I just want you all to know that we've arranged our schedules to appear to be extremely busy today. All sorts of phone calls and messages are coming in, and I think they're duly impressed. So please make them further welcome.

P. Nettleton: I would be remiss, hon. Speaker, if I were not to welcome a great president of a great university, Charles Jago of UNBC in Prince George.

Oral Questions

SKYTRAIN AND TRANSIT LINK TO COQUITLAM

My question is to the minister responsible for transit and transportation: why should anyone have any trust in anything this government says when once again they have broken their word?

[1415]

The Speaker: Minister, to the question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Unlike other jurisdictions in all of Canada, which are actually withdrawing from building public transit. . . . The Ontario government, the Alberta government, the Manitoba government and the Quebec government are getting out of the business of building rapid transit. We, as of today, committed $1.9 billion to build SkyTrain. Where are we going to build it? We're going to build it from Vancouver to Coquitlam, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: This side of the House has been very clear from day one. We want rail transit from central Broadway to Coquitlam. We don't believe that it should be SkyTrain, which cannot be funded, which will not be funded and which has

[ Page 12088 ]

My question to the minister responsible is this: when will the betrayal stop? When will they sit down and work in good faith with the people at TransLink to provide full funding to make sure that the system gets from central Broadway to Coquitlam as quickly as possible -- with an affordable transit system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, what hypocrisy! This opposition stood up and voted against the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. That hon. member stood up and spoke against the transfer of responsibility to the regions. That leader -- that Liberal leader -- spoke against SkyTrain -- proven technology that works, that has 94 percent support amongst people in the lower mainland and that actually delivers on the Livable Region strategy for all of us who have to live in the lower mainland and are threatened by incredible environmental degradation.

This side of the House is committed to rapid transit that works, and that's SkyTrain. We've actually put our money where our mouth is. Where's their money, hon. Speaker?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: If I had the choice between deciding about the greater Vancouver regional district board and TransLink, thinking about the Livable Region plan and that minister, I'd pick the TransLink people every single time. The minister points out. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Campbell: . . .that we voted against the legislation, and the minister's right. We knew that TransLink couldn't count on this government to keep its word -- ever. This is a project that's been planned by amateurs. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Campbell: . . .and it's been pushed by incompetents -- government incompetents -- from day one.

My question to the minister is: rather than dealing in this kind of rhetoric, will she sit down now, stop. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Members, we didn't hear the question. We need to hear the question, members. Come to order.

G. Campbell: Will the minister stop the folly, get back together with TransLink and plan a financially sound, doable, fixed-rail link that will get people to Coquitlam at the most affordable price now?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Ten years of planning is enough. The public wants rapid transit now. They want it now, and they want stuff that works. The planning is complete; the work has been done. SkyTrain is on track. It's working for people who have to live in the lower mainland, who want to get out of their cars and onto transit that will move them around this region. They want it to be done in an affordable way. We're delivering on that. We've made a commitment that is unprecedented -- $1.2 billion to build phase 1. That's starting now.

You know what? If it was up to the Liberal opposition. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Finish up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .the train would never leave the station.

[1420]

NORTHERN REPRESENTATION ON TOURISM B.C. BOARD

The board of directors of Tourism B.C. has no northern voice. The most northerly representative lives at 108 Mile House, near 100 Mile House. What steps is the minister taking to ensure that northern British Columbia has adequate representation on the board of Tourism B.C.?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm glad the hon. member asked me that question, because tourism, of course, is our fastest-growing industry in British Columbia. I've just got the figures for February, and American visitations are up 25 percent from last year. It's quite amazing.

But I agree with the hon. member. Our challenge is to get people out of the lower mainland, get them up north, get them in the regions -- get the visitors there. I took the matter up with Tourism B.C. I asked them to change their maps. I appointed someone from Prince Rupert. I've tried to appoint people from other northern parts, and I affirm to the member that I've asked Tourism B.C. to make their next appointment from the northeastern part of British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary from the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Well, maps that look like they're made in the last century are bad enough. But a call to Tourism B.C. today revealed that this multimillion-dollar Crown corporation, which describes itself as a world leader in tourism marketing, does not even have a web site.

[ Page 12089 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member was in the House when the Legislature passed the Tourism Act. The Legislature in fact privatized Tourism B.C.

An Hon. Member: Two years ago.

Hon. I. Waddell: That's right.

You know, when you privatize, you have to leave it up to some of the people in the private sector to do what they think is right. By and large, they've been doing a very good job, because our tourism figures are up.

However, there are some areas that could be improved. They have got a web site, but it could be a better web site. They have got maps, but they could obviously be better maps. They have got representation, but they're not choosing enough people from the regions. As I say, I commit to the hon. member to do what I can as minister over them -- but it is privatized, virtually -- to put those views forward and to continue tourism growth in British Columbia.

FRASER VALLEY AIR QUALITY AND SUMAS POWER FACILITY

[1425]

The Speaker: There's no supplementary to this question. It's been taken on notice.

M. de Jong: I have a new question. We all know -- at least, I hope we all know -- that there are days when the Burrard Thermal generation facility is required to shut down because of environmental and health concerns. In this case, the American facility a half-mile from the international border will continue to operate. There are days, Madam Speaker, when you can't see Mount Baker. There are days when British Columbians at that end of the valley are told not to leave their homes. So my question to this minister or the minister responsible for Hydro is: what assurance can they give to British Columbians living in the lower mainland that their air quality is not going to be further degraded by the negotiations that this government is undertaking with the Americans?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are concerned about air quality in the lower mainland. That's why we're building SkyTrain. That's why we've supported natural gas projects in British Columbia; that's why we do monitor airshed quality; that's why we have AirCare in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's why, as I said earlier on, we're building SkyTrain. We're proud of it, and we're going to get on with it.

BULK WATER EXPORT TO SUMAS POWER FACILITY

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I think it's appalling that that side of the House does its homework so poorly that it's not even aware of the kind of provisions there are under the bulk water export act. We lead this nation in the fact that we put in place a ban against bulk water transfer while the rest of Canada sat without doing anything. We challenged NAFTA.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. C. McGregor: We challenged the MAI. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . .on the basis of how it can impact on our environment. That's why we're protecting natural resources. We know what that side of the House would do with natural resources: give them away, mine in parks, cut down trees in parks. That's the agenda for the Libs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, come to order.

First supplementary, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

M. Coell: According to the Sumas application now before the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, an amendment to the B.C. Water Protection Act, which bans the export of bulk water, is expected in April 1999. Can the Minister of Environment tell us when she planned to tell British Columbians that her government is going to start exporting bulk water to the United States? When is she going to tell British Columbians?

[ Page 12090 ]

[1430]

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. McGregor: We took the steps in 1995 to bring in a very progressive piece of legislation which will ban water exports from British Columbia, because we on this side of the House know that that's an issue that British Columbians all over the province care about.

Hon. Speaker, the hypocrisy of that side of the House, to try and claim that they care about natural resources. . . . I'd ask each of them to examine their conscience, to look at who donates to them and to consider that some of the worst polluters in this province are donating to their cause. And I wonder why?

Tabling Documents

I have the honour of tabling the 1997 annual report of the Job Protection Commission.

The Speaker: Minister, just read them all off.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I also have the honour of tabling the B.C. Hydro 1998 annual report.

Hon. J. Kwan: I have the honour to present the 1997-98 annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Ministerial Statement

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS KILLED OR INJURED ON THE JOB

I know that I speak for all members when I say that we mourn these men and women whose lives were cut short by their work. To their families, to their friends and to their co-workers I extend my deepest sympathy and respect. Last year we demonstrated our sympathy and concern in a tangible way by introducing stand-alone occupational health and safety legislation. On introducing that legislation for second reading, I quoted numerous statistics. I want to repeat just a few of those today.

Three workers die every week in British Columbia from workplace injuries. In Canada, three workers die every day. That is a frightening statistic, and it is also unacceptable. We must never forget the tragedy of loss of life, and that is why we mourn across this province and this country on this day. But we must also never waver in our determination to prevent future tragedies.

Earlier today I had the very solemn honour to participate in a ceremony to unveil a memory wall which honours B.C. workers who died on the job. It was striking to look around and see people with very diverse views and backgrounds so committed to a common purpose. People like Tom Stephens of MacMillan Bloedel and Angela Schira of the B.C. Federation of Labour tell us that improving workplace safety is everyone's responsibility, not that of only unions or only business or only government. We all have a responsibility to create a safer workplace.

For my part, I will solemnly pledge today, as Minister of Labour, to do everything in the power of this office to reduce the needless toll that workplace injuries take on B.C. families. The workers of British Columbia deserve our greatest respect. It is most fitting that we reinforce our commitment to our workers and to their safety on this day of mourning.

Hon. Speaker, I know my colleagues from across the House also wish to speak, at the end of which I hope you as Speaker will allow us to celebrate a moment's silence to remember those workers whose lives were lost in the service of their families, their employers and indeed all British Columbians.

[1435]

K. Krueger: I've been asked by my colleagues to express our response to the minister's statement on this sad and sombre observance. Workplace deaths destroy productive lives and shockingly interrupt relationships, leaving survivors to struggle toward a resolution of emotions and thoughts which they may never reach. When death has been untimely, unforeseen or preventable, the hurt in survivors' lives is even deeper. Doubtless that is the case in many if not all of the 125 tragic losses of life in B.C. throughout 1998 through workplace injuries and occupational disease.

On this day we honour and mourn those who have died in both the past year and all previous years, and we express our empathy for their loved ones. We recognize that each of these deaths was a singular tragedy which deprived our society of a person of infinite worth. Further, each tragic death hurt many other people in deeply personal ways: spouses suddenly forced to carry on alone, children deprived of their parents, grandchildren denied the opportunity to experience life with this loved one, and parents, co-workers and friends left to resolve the hurt and emptiness. The families, workplaces and communities of these workers were much diminished by their loss, as were we all.

Although the number of workplace deaths in B.C. is decreasing over the years, each such loss is a deep personal tragedy, especially for those who were loved, sheltered and supported by these workers and who will never be able to greet them again at the end of the working day. The loss of a loved one takes an immeasurable toll. It is fitting, good and right that we honour those who have died and pay tribute to their memories in this way. At the same time, we must rededicate ourselves to the duty of ensuring safe working environments for British Columbians.

[ Page 12091 ]

Further, new risks emerge and must be safeguarded against. British Columbia's state of earthquake preparedness, for example, is an issue for which all MLAs share concern. The recent terrible tragedy in an Ontario Transit garage, while criminal in its outcome, was also an awful reminder of the potential consequences when people do not feel respected, or experience personal harassment in the workplace. It is our duty to learn from the tragedies which occur and do our part to eliminate the risks which we identify.

It is also our duty to ensure that injured workers and the survivors of those who die receive efficient, supportive, prompt, fair and caring service from the Workers Compensation Board. We recognize that caring people are in place to address the dramatic deficiencies of the past at WCB, yet progress is still unacceptably slow. I recently reviewed a case submitted by my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton, where the WCB had taken seven years to determine what it deemed to be payable to the widow of a worker killed in a clear-cut workplace tragedy. That is unacceptable to any member of this Legislative Assembly. I'm sure that every member supports the official opposition in our firm message to those who are entrusted to deliver services and benefits to injured workers and their families: we expect and demand prompt, thorough, respectful delivery of service and benefits to British Columbia's workers.

It is not difficult on this day to join our thoughts and our wills from both sides of this House in standing together to honour, mourn and remember those workers who have died. We dedicate ourselves to the duties of ensuring safe workplaces in British Columbia and delivering entitlements to the survivors of those we have lost, as well as to injured workers and their families.

[1440]

I'd now like, as the minister requested, to offer us an opportunity to stand for a minute's silence.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

D. Symons: I'm just finishing off the comments I started yesterday. I do note that my time is running short, so I'd just like to make a few final comments.

I want to get around to Richmond schools and deal with some things in Richmond. As time is running short, I'll make it brief. Basically, in Richmond, 92 percent of the school board's budget now goes for salaries. That leaves the remaining 8 percent that will go for building maintenance, teaching supplies, heat, light and all the other things that are required in a school district to operate the schools in a safe and meaningful manner for the students of this particular municipality, and it's the same across the province.

What we're finding has been happening in the last few years, though, is that our PAC groups -- our parent advisory committees and so forth -- that used to raise money through hotdog sales and other things for extras like field trips, playgrounds and things of that sort are more and more finding it necessary to now raise money for needed materials such as paper, books, art supplies, sports supplies and things of that sort, which before had come through the normal funding process for schools. PAC groups are now more and more filling in the gaps where money is short in the education process. I find that a little bit difficult to deal with.

[1445]

The government in power has complained frequently, again and again, about how much the federal government has cut back in transfer payments to the province. At least I'll say for the federal government -- not supporting their cutbacks -- that they gave the province years of warning as to what the grants would be in the years to come. Basically the municipalities find out what their municipal grant will be for that year six weeks before their budgets are due to be made. Really, it's unacceptable for a corporation to find out that shortly before the time they have to have their budget ready what their grant will be for that year. Indeed, I say that for Richmond, it's virtually nothing now. That means that we now have to have either fewer services or higher taxes because of this downloading by the provincial government.

I'd like to just finish off with a few other little comments. One is that I note, in relationship to this budget, that the Vancouver Sun, in its March 31 edition, had an editorial headlined: "Credit Card Budget Strains Credibility." I won't read the rest of the article, but you do get an idea of what the content of it might be.

Also, I think we find some words from the very members themselves on the government side of the House that strain credibility. For instance, back in 1994 the new Finance minister of that year who took over from our Premier, the previous Finance minister, said: "Unless we can reduce and eliminate the deficit, we will not be able to continue providing first-rate education for our children or quality health care for all of us." Remember, that was said five years ago by the Finance minister, and what we find now, looking today at what they've brought forth in this year's budget, is precisely the opposite. This government is now, with the Finance minister and the Premier, running a really huge deficit compared to what it was back then. Basically they turned around 180 degrees from what their philosophy was only a short five years ago and what they said in the budget address then to what they're saying in the budget address this year.

We find out that the same Finance minister said in 1995 that there would be no budget deficit that year. Remember

[ Page 12092 ]

In 1996, just prior to the election, that same Finance minister said: "This year I'm pleased to announce a second consecutive surplus budget." We found out shortly after that statement -- and after the election, unfortunately -- that those were budget lies, and there was indeed not a balanced budget in either '95 or '96.

Well, now we get into the new term of this new NDP government we have today, and it says. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Your time has expired.

D. Symons: Oh, goodness gracious. I had so much more to add to this. Anyway, I would thank the Chair for the opportunity to make these statements. There's so much more I would love to have said.

Hon. D. Miller: I regret that the hon. member opposite didn't have more time. I like to pick up on what members opposite say, in order to try to present some alternative points of view.

I want to talk more broadly today about the British Columbia economy -- some of its strengths, some of its weaknesses and some of the reasons why the budgets for not just this current fiscal year but for the past few fiscal years, in my view, are important to the ongoing development of this province.

[1450]

It struck me then, as it still does strike me occasionally, that while all of us in this chamber are guilty of taking selective positions that seem to suit the issues of the time. . . . Perhaps all of us do engage in a bit of politicking. I think that the member who just spoke, for example, clearly appreciates the need for new school construction in Richmond. But for political reasons, I guess, he chooses to say, "Yes, we need them -- but by the way, this is a terrible government, because you're incurring debt," ignoring the fact that part of that debt is for the cost of constructing new schools.

Schools are interesting, as well, hon. Speaker, if I could just deviate a bit more. I was in my constituency on Friday and over the weekend. I had the opportunity to announce the construction of a new school -- or rather, the rebuilding of a portion of an old school into a new school, which will subsequently lead to the closure of a very small elementary school, King Edward Elementary, which was opened the year I started school. It's a bit old, and it's on a very small couple of blocks on a city lot. There's gravel. There's no playing field, really, except a gravel field and a couple of portables attached.

But I was really struck, in going in and talking to some of the children. . . . First of all, a young woman -- I believe her name was Morgan Sutherland -- started a penny collection for people in Kosovo that had just taken off. The schools, in that very short time -- I think about a week -- had collected about $700 in pennies. She was a little girl in grade 2, and it was really delightful to see that someone so young had some awareness of these kinds of international issues and would start that kind of campaign. It gives you faith in these children.

Then going into one of the portables to talk to the grade 7 class about the announcement we were making, which was the new school, I really was delighted. I don't want to get anybody mad over there, but the kids asked a number of questions, and I thought that they were far better than some of the questions I have received in question period here. Again, it's just an opinion, and I don't want to get anybody upset over there. Most of them had two questions. It's interesting when you listen to these kids. Some of them were saying: "Why should we leave here? We like this classroom. We like it."

Maybe the point is that education is something that is delivered in a variety of ways. It doesn't necessarily have to be in the fanciest surroundings to be effective. I started my school life up in northern Vancouver Island in a one-room schoolhouse, and hey, it didn't hurt me.

But let's look at the broad issues of the B.C. economy and try to go back over the decade to try to understand the kind of unique position of British Columbia and why the current budget -- as I say, in my view -- is appropriate. Unlike other Canadian provinces, British Columbia experienced a phenomenal boom in the population over the last decade -- a phenomenal boom. We also, unlike other provinces, did not feel the effects of the kind of recessionary influences that were afoot in the world. So we escaped, largely. The growth of the economy over the last decade, I think, has been very healthy; I'm not sure what it averages year over year.

[1455]

How do you, for example. . . ? When you see the population increase that we've experienced in some years, as many as 70,000 per year, that's a pretty good-sized city coming into British Columbia every year. Clearly we, and those people who have children, require the expansion of school spaces, post-secondary spaces and health care facilities. All of those things cost a great deal of money. Faced with a choice, I think the reasonable and best choice was to decide that we would invest in those new facilities, because -- and again, I want to talk about this a little later -- one of the keys to improving our economic prospects is the kind of investments

[ Page 12093 ]

I don't know that we as citizens necessarily associate some projects with debt. When you drive the Island Highway -- and I do that a little more frequently now, because I have a couple of grandchildren up in Comox -- I know that I contrast that with the old highway. My wife and I really enjoy the fact that we've got a nice superhighway and we can get there quicker and everything else. The people I talk to all over the Island all say the same thing. It was long overdue. We needed this linkage. It certainly will provide new economic opportunity, because we have a better highway transportation system on Vancouver Island now.

But I don't think, when people are talking about it, that they necessarily in their own minds realize that this Vancouver Island Highway represents about $1.2 billion worth of debt. That's debt. So that debate we have, largely in this province, about debt being an odious and terrible thing. . . . I don't think we necessarily relate it to the kind of infrastructure that I'm talking about. Whether it's the small, very modest, $3.5 million school project in Prince Rupert, some of the very larger school projects around the province or some of the university projects and health care facilities, those kinds of things are debt. Yet a different ways to look at those is that we're making investments in our infrastructure which will pay a return in future years to the citizens of this province. I think that's a smarter way to look at it.

We have a province that now, in a very short time, has increased its population to slightly more than four million people. It might be that that's a good thing. I think British Columbia can stand to have a greater population. I think it represents more of an opportunity to develop a more sophisticated domestic economy, as opposed to one that at this juncture, at least with respect to the kind of revenue that's obtained, is very much an export economy. There's nothing wrong with that, but there are some issues around being the captive of international cycles like the one we're going through now -- the commodity price cycle.

How, then, do we develop this province? What are the strategies that are required -- the foundation, if you like -- so that over time we can expand the economy of the province and provide new opportunities? Well, I think that in the more heavily populated regions of the province -- the lower mainland -- we see that to some degree the economy is different than the economy in other parts of the province. There is urbanization, a massive population base and the opportunity to have at least the domestic economy within the heavily populated regions: sort of sales and service, the retail side. There is the growth -- in fact, very healthy growth -- of new industries, industries that are not traditional to British Columbia. My colleague the Minister of Small Business and Tourism talked about the growth of the film sector, which is, I think, nearing $800 million or $900 million in value as an industry in British Columbia. It is providing new opportunities for skilled workers, which in turn provides new opportunities in the film sector.

[1500]

We see that that economy needs capital spending, but not in ways that are exactly the same as in the regions. The debate earlier today in question period is a good example. If we are to avoid the issues of gridlock that have plagued other major cities around the world -- and if you want to see some really bad examples, try going anywhere in Seoul, Korea, in rush hour; you can't -- then we know that we're going to have to invest in transit, both conventional and SkyTrain, and try more and more to move people out of their automobiles. Those are massive public expenditures. There's no way around it; there's no nice, neat way to say: "We would like to have these things, but, by the way, we hate debt." In the classic case, you really can't have your cake and eat it too, and if you think you can, you're only fooling yourself. So those are necessary expenditures, but there are cost savings that come from that. But mostly it's the ability to maintain transportation networks, linkages and all of that. In addition to the benefits for individual members of the public, it has significant benefits for business interests as well.

But in the regions of our province, we've got a different challenge. We don't have the kind of diversity -- or at least not to the degree that is required. It's very clear that the regions of our province, to varying or lesser degrees, are really in some sense. . . . Their core economies are based on the extraction and processing -- some very primary, some more extensive -- of the natural resources that we find in our province. The difficulty, of course, in being captive to that kind of economy is that you are subject to what happens in the global marketplace more than ever before. I know we went through a very tough period, '81 to '83, in terms of the falloff in demand for our products, and declining lumber and pulp prices. I suppose it was exacerbated at that time by interest rates, which reached about 20 percent. But I think this has been a more profound experience, and it's one that is worth looking at to, hopefully, learn some lessons with respect to the nature of our economy and what we can do to try to improve it.

In the regions, my view is that infrastructure investment is even more critical. I regret to say that we do not, unless we would seriously push the limits with respect to debt. . . . We're not able to actually spend as much money as I would like to see spent on northern infrastructure. That's the message that came out of the group we put together in the north -- the Premier's summit on northern development. Clearly it's a message. The member for Peace River North, I think, has been pretty focused and constant in talking about more spending on infrastructure. His colleague the member for Peace River South and all of my colleagues in the north, whether they are in this party or not, generally agree that spending on infrastructure in the north is a top priority.

We tried to respond to that. I know that the Minister of Highways has been very good in terms of allocating his budget. I know that last year fully half of the budget for the Ministry of Highways was allocated to northern B.C. I think it is somewhat the same this year. It's going to take more than that, quite frankly, over time, but I think we've made a good start over the last couple of years in allocating more resources for infrastructure development in northern British Columbia.

[1505]

[ Page 12094 ]

We spent $140 million building the campus. That's part of the debt of this province. I ask you, hon. Speaker: while it's debt, is it also not an investment that will return dividends far greater than $140 million over a relatively short period of time? I think the answer everybody in this chamber would come to is yes. The solution, in my view, to trying to escape or mitigate against the influence of commodity price cycles is to move your primary industries up the value chain.

I spoke in Prince George at the Northern Forest Products Association convention a couple of weeks ago and talked about several of these issues. I guess I was also fairly provocative in talking about some new ideas -- which, by the way, was quite welcomed by the delegates, or at least the ones who talked to me afterwards. They think it's long overdue that we have some new ideas in terms of forest issues. I talked about adding value and adding knowledge to our primary sector. Surely the key over time to changing some of that dependence is to add knowledge. Knowledge can be in the form of workers that have received training so that their skills are greater or of adding the technology -- whether it's computer technology or other technologies -- to existing industries to add knowledge to our primary industries to make them more sophisticated, to drive them up the value chain, to look at marketing additional products.

To give just one example, the Minister of Forests was in Houston on Friday at a forest products conference. One of the people I was talking to there told me about an individual who has come up with a new idea. They are taking the kiln sticks, which were garbage -- those sticks that are used to separate the piles of lumber when they go through the kiln -- and working them through machinery and creating panel boards. Now, that was just an idea that they added some knowledge, technology and skill to, and out of something that used to be junk, they are now producing a product that is not just a simple 2-by-4 or 2-by-6 but rather a product that is less subject to the kind of cyclical demand that commodities are usually subject to.

I spoke at the Northern Forest Products Association about an endeavour that not many British Columbians are aware of: the fact that a number of years ago -- and I was proud to be part of that when I was Minister of Advanced Education -- on the campus of the University of British Columbia was a centre of excellence, a federal initiative but a really shining example of collaboration and cooperation in British Columbia. The government directly, at that time through the Ministry of Advanced Education, provided $6 million in capital debt; Forest Renewal provided $8.5 million. The forest industry provided money, and the federal government provided money.

[1510]

The theory is very simple. I'd go back to what I said about adding knowledge, whether that's in the form of the skills of the people that we have or is in fact the hardware, the technology, that we use. In this case, we now have a facility that is graduating students in those areas of expertise that we require to change the nature of our forest sector industry from a commodity base to a value-added base. These are students who are acquiring sophisticated skills in the area of design and of process.

In other words, how do you actually set up a mill -- a small mill, a value-added mill -- that is efficient, that is not one where you have wood being handled three or four times, that can produce whatever it is at the lowest possible price and therefore be competitive in those international marketplaces? We've got people coming out with sophisticated skills on the marketing side. In other words, we have made a considerable investment in people, both in capital and in operating.

People are surely just as necessary an ingredient for changing the nature of the forest industry as some of the changes that perhaps might take place in how we allocate wood, and those kinds of questions -- how we price wood and what kind of machinery we manufacture. These people, I think, are just as valuable and perhaps more valuable. Again, that is consistent with the other key principle that we've identified for growing the British Columbia economy, because we think the key is knowledge.

We looked at other jurisdictions around the world that have done well, that have grown their technology sector. Israel, by the way, is another example. I think that now about 50 percent of their economy is related to high-tech. They also realized that knowledge. . . .

So what have we done over the last five years? We have expanded the number of spaces in our post-secondary institutions dramatically. We've frozen tuition fees for the fourth year in a row, because we think that one of the critical issues in British Columbia is to allow students to get access to the kinds of training, to acquire the kinds of skills, that you need as companions if you're going to grow certain sectors of our economy.

It's not been without its challenges. It costs money to freeze tuition fees. It costs money to build new universities. We're now proceeding with the work required to develop the Technical University in the Fraser Valley -- a new technical university. You can see the synergy in the relationship between that Technical University -- say, a mini-Cal Tech or MIT -- and the growth of that high-tech sector in the large urban regions that I talked about. These are strategies for which -- while you may not see a payoff instantly -- over time, there will be an immense payback to the people of British Columbia.

I know it's fashionable to some degree in our era, I guess, to talk about the issues of finance and the issues of debt and

[ Page 12095 ]

I've talked about some of the pressures we had here in British Columbia that other provinces did not face: the growth of the population by about half a million people; the need to spend that kind of money so that we had the schools, universities and hospitals, so that those people could not only receive adequate health care but get the kind of training; and the need to develop our transportation infrastructure, both in urban and rural settings, so that access to resources and the movement of goods and people are made easier. All are strategies that contribute to the growth of our economy.

[1515]

British Columbia is fortunate. Our debt-to-GDP is, I think, the second- or third-lowest in Canada. We're about on par with Alberta. It's interesting that while Ontario is often lauded as the place to look for those on the right who want to find a model, one only has to look at the deficit numbers in Ontario to realize that perhaps it might not necessarily be so. The question we have to ask ourselves in British Columbia is: what are the challenges, and what are the strategic investments that have to be made now and in the near future to ensure economic growth over the long term?

You have to tie that finally, to close, with numbers in the budget that represent your values. Clearly there are differences between political parties. We have tried to express our values in this budget in a very dramatic way. We think those values are values that are shared by all British Columbians.

Education. Would anybody in this chamber dare to stand up and say that we should not spend the money we're spending on education? I don't think so.

Health care is a tough debate right across this country. I have some personal opinions about whether the partners to the health care system are using the money that's there in the system to get the maximum efficiency. Notwithstanding that, we've said we've made a commitment to the people of British Columbia that health care is one of our top priorities. Will there be bumps along the road in health care? Will there be circumstances where individuals may not get the best? Probably. But by and large, relative to other provinces and other countries, do we have a world-class health care system? Absolutely.

We think those two areas, education and health care, are important to this province. They represent the values on this side of the House. We are not apologetic in the least for having put a significant amount of the resources in this budget into those two areas of health care and education.

We need to see some things happen internationally; there's no question about it. I find myself, as the Minister of Energy and Mines, looking almost daily at the commodity price list. This morning, finding that copper was at 69 cents, I was really happy. My parliamentary secretary applauds, and I do too. But let's not forget that two years ago, copper was $1.20 a pound.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. Your time has expired.

Hon. D. Miller: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity. I look forward to listening to the members opposite.

[1520]

On the budget. Our budget for 1999 increases B.C.'s health care investment by $615 million, provides funding for more teachers and school construction and gives the province a lower small business tax rate than Alberta, our neighbour. In every part of this province, British Columbians have sent us a strong message: improve health care. We've heard what you had to say in Budget '99, and we're acting on your priorities.

B.C.'s population, as was mentioned by the Deputy Premier, is continuing to grow and age, placing ever-increasing demands on our health care services. Drug prices continue to skyrocket, pushed ever upwards in part by federal government drug legislation. Since B.C. has the most generous Pharmacare program in the country, rising drug costs have hit us particularly hard. The federal Conservative government of Brian Mulroney went to bed with drug companies all over the world. The Liberal Party in government today in Ottawa, when they were in opposition, said they would change that legislation. They have not. That continues to cost our province a lot of money. So I say shame on them.

This government has increased health care spending eight years in a row, in spite of drastic cuts to federal health care transfer payments since 1995. But we still have a lot of work to do if we want to make sure that B.C.'s health care system remains the best in Canada. What did the Leader of the Opposition say a couple of years ago about the cuts in funding from the federal government? He said that the funding cuts from Ottawa weren't big enough; they should have cut bigger cuts. Now he's trying to say different things. But that's what he is on the record as saying a couple of years ago. That's why our government is increasing health care operating funding by $478 million in the operating budget for 1999, a 6.6 percent increase. We're also increasing the health care capital budget by $137 million, for a total of $615 million in new money.

[ Page 12096 ]

What is the opposition saying? During the election in May 1996, the opposition leader, when he was campaigning in Nanaimo, said he would cut the budget for health care by 20 percent. Who do the opposition really care about when it comes to health care? The only people that I see them caring about are their friends in the B.C. Medical Association, which I consider to be B.C.'s most militant union. The tactics they get away with. . . . Do you know, hon. Speaker, that the BCMA and their 7,500 members have the highest fee schedule in all of Canada? Yet I never see the opposition criticize the tactics of the B.C. Medical Association -- their friends. There are 20,000 additional people on waiting lists because of the tactics of the doctors and surgeons in British Columbia, because of the tactics of the opposition in supporting the BCMA in their quest for more taxpayers' money.

The B.C. Liberals don't criticize the federal government for being in bed with the multinational drug companies. They refer all the time to Alberta, yet their answer -- the Alberta government -- is, for instance, to blow up one of their hospitals in Calgary. It was a big event some months ago. Are they in favour of that kind of thing? Which one of Vancouver's hospitals would they blow up if they formed government?

[1525]

I'd like to speak about public education from K to 3. For our government, improved learning and ensuring that our students have the best learning environment we can give them has been one of our top priorities every day since we were elected. That's why we've increased education funding by 23 percent since 1991. Beginning last year, our government embarked on an ambitious strategy to build new schools, hire more teachers, reduce class sizes in the primary grades and reduce the number of portables in our province.

This budget is about improving education to ensure that our young people have the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in the new economy in our province and in the world. In Budget '99, $45 million in new operating funding for B.C.'s education system will allow for the hiring of up to 300 new teachers and reduce the class size in the critical early years from kindergarten to grade 3.

This year, as part of the class-size reduction strategy, kindergarten classes in B.C. have been reduced to a maximum of 20 students. Within five years, we'll be moving to an average of 18 students or fewer in all K-to-3 classes, so that our kids can get the time and attention they need to learn effectively in those important early years.

In this budget the new funding increases per-pupil funding from $5,849 to $5,992 -- a $143 increase per student and the highest per-pupil funding in Canada. In addition, $341 million in capital funding will fund the planning and construction of 13 new and replacement schools, and 103 school renovations and expansions.

Parents have told us that they don't want their kids to be learning in portables, which are supposed to be temporary classrooms only. As a result of this year's budget, 560 portables will be eliminated. Our strategy reflects the priority of British Columbians who want better learning for their children.

Post-secondary education. We're keeping our commitment to B.C.'s post-secondary education students. Today there are 141,000 full-time post-secondary students in 108 communities. The 1999 budget keeps tuition fees frozen in B.C.'s universities and colleges for the fourth straight year. The opposition is opposed to this tuition freeze, and they've mentioned it at different times in question period or in other comments in this building. We want to keep post-secondary education affordable. Tuition fees in B.C. are in fact the lowest in Canada after Quebec. That's something that I'm very proud of, hon. Speaker.

We've also provided a $7.7 million increase in student financial assistance and a tuition compensation fund for the universities and colleges. Funding for post-secondary education has gone up by more than $245 million since 1992-93 -- an increase of 23 percent. This year we're providing new funding to create 2,900 new post-secondary spaces for students, for a total of nearly 16,000 new spaces in B.C. colleges and universities over the last three years. Those measures have had a real impact on opening up B.C.'s secondary institutions to more students. More people than ever before are attending post-secondary institutions. Enrolment at B.C.'s institutions has increased by 10 percent since 1991, while in the rest of Canada it has gone down by 4.4 percent. I would like to know if the opposition would follow the example of Alberta, when some years ago they said that kindergarten wasn't compulsory anymore, and if you wished to send your children there, you had to be charged. That's the government that they most often refer to when they're speaking in this House.

[1530]

Tax cuts were also mentioned in the budget. Let's look at tax cuts for a moment. Our tax cuts have been carefully targeted to ensure that we maximize the bang for the tax-

[ Page 12097 ]

We're going to go even farther than that. In this budget, we're committing that B.C. will keep its small business income tax rate lower than Alberta's. Any further reduction will be matched dollar for dollar by British Columbia.

This year the corporation capital tax threshold has gone up, from $2.5 million to $3.5 million. The threshold will increase to $5 million in 2001, at which time 90 percent of B.C. businesses will pay no corporation capital tax. In this budget, we intend to extend the corporation capital tax holiday to four years from the existing two years.

Mentioning items in the constituency of Columbia River-Revelstoke, which I'm honoured to represent. . . . First of all, I as their representative in this building would like to take this opportunity to pass on my best wishes to the people of the city of Revelstoke. This year they're celebrating their 100th anniversary as a city. I was up there on March 1 to help them celebrate the actual anniversary, and they will be having further celebrations on July 1.

As the elected representative of the people of Revelstoke, I was pleased to work with the city of Revelstoke and the people of Revelstoke to set up the second community forest in the province of British Columbia. What did the opposition say about that? They said that no, we shouldn't fool around, setting up a community forest in Revelstoke. Every year since that community forest was set up, it's made money, and it continues to employ people in Revelstoke. It keeps the wood in Revelstoke.

Another company I've worked with in Revelstoke is Selkirk Specialty Wood, which is a new finger-jointing plant in Revelstoke. There's an investment of about $5 million by a local company. There are 70 new jobs in Selkirk Specialty Wood in Revelstoke, something that I feel good to have worked with the community on, to direct the wood. And the company, Selkirk Specialty Wood, delivered with the jobs.

Over in Golden, Evans Forest Products were in some financial trouble two and a half years ago. This government -- the Deputy Premier, the then Minister of Forests; our Premier today; and the Minister of Forests today -- worked with that community, with myself and the elected leaders, the workers in the mill and the management of the mill to restructure that company. Today the ownership in that company has invested about $90 million in the plants. They are producing laminated veneer lumber. I would at this time like to commend the majority owner in that company, Mr. Georges St. Laurent; the management of that company; the IWA, who work and give up some of their wages to make this restructuring possible; the many contractors; and the people in the community of Golden that banded together to make the restructuring of this company possible.

[1535]

Interact Wood Products, another success story in Golden, has got 100 new jobs in the last couple of years in their finger-joining plant. I would like to commend them and their workers for the new jobs in the value-added sector. Next year in my constituency we are going to have the value-added wood forum for the Kootenays in Golden, just to show the people in the East and West Kootenays an example of what people can do in the value-added sector to produce more jobs per cubic metre of wood cut.

I am pleased to have worked with the community of Invermere in the Columbia Valley. They now have the first-ever permanent facility for the College of the Rockies -- the satellite office in Invermere. The first permanent facility ever is going to be opening sometime this spring. It's up and running as we speak today. I toured it some while ago. It is something I am very, very proud of, as are people in the Columbia Valley.

Other capital investment in my constituency, down at Bull River in the Fort Steele area, is a new bridge that has gone in there -- $2 million. Investment in the tourism sector -- ski hills. . . . Intrawest owns the Panorama ski hill in the Invermere area. They are building a new golf course, opening up this year. They have done a terrific job. They are to be congratulated in the work that they have done. But again, Panorama is another success story. Lots of money has been invested in our province and in the area I represent.

Charlie Locke, as we know, bought the Kimberly ski hill and the Fernie ski hill in the member for Kootenay's riding. He is very happy to be in British Columbia. He is putting, over the next ten years, about $500 million in investments into both of those ski hills. I would like to congratulate him on the investment he is making in our province.

Golden Peaks Resorts. Ballast Nedam from the Netherlands -- a major company all over the world -- has bought the ski hill in Golden and is going to be investing $150 million in a gondola and ski hill development in Golden. I congratulate the people that have made those investments in the constituency I represent.

The Columbia Basin Trust, which we worked. . . . The four representatives in the parliament, then and today, continue to work with Columbia Basin Trust. We've set up an 18-member board, independent from government, to make sure that the people who lost a lot of their livelihoods when their valleys were dammed by the Columbia River Treaty many, many years ago. . . . We are finally bringing some of that money home. Government is a 50-50 partner with those many communities that were shafted and dammed by previous

[ Page 12098 ]

I am pleased to have worked in the small community of Field, close to the Alberta-B.C. border. Close to the community of Field is the Burgess Shale -- up in the mountains there -- which was a find of world renown. There's going to be a $6 million centre built in Field. Government, through the Ministry of Employment and Investment, has contributed $500,000 towards this new centre.

Throughout my constituency, major upgrades are going on in many of the schools, from Kimberley through to Revelstoke.

[1540]

I'm pleased to have worked with the infrastructure moneys that were announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs some months ago. Revelstoke has got $3.3 million for a new treatment plan because they had problems with the water a couple of years ago. Radium Hot Springs announced at the AKBM meeting -- the Association of Kootenay-Boundary Municipalities meeting -- a couple of weeks ago that they're getting $475,000 to assist them, with assistance from the provincial government here down through to the municipal government.

I was pleased last year, along with many, many people from the constituency that I represent, to attend the Premier's economic summit in Castlegar. It was a good chance to consult with about 200 people from many sectors in the five constituencies in the Kootenay and Boundary area that we represent in parliament. We now know better the feelings of those individual people and those groups, and already we're working in fact with those groups to return what they as stakeholders feel as to services in their communities.

I mentioned that we have the infrastructure fund up and running. It goes for three years -- $50 million per year, 50-50 with the municipal government.

On millennium grants, I'm working with many communities in my constituency. There's $20 million in place to help British Columbians celebrate the year 2000. Again, it's a 50-50 agreement with the people.

Many areas in my constituency also are pleased to have B.C. Hydro, with the lowest hydro rates in all of Canada. . . . Many of the forest companies in the communities, which are up and running and creating new jobs as we speak, are pleased to have worked with our government as we restructure the Forest Practices Code -- which the opposition said they would rip and tear and do away with and go back to the old ways -- and work with them as government instead of going back to the old ways, which the opposition would like to do.

Hon. Speaker, I think it's time for the opposition to say what they do stand for. They change day by day. They don't have any policies. Most of the ones they do have are written in disappearing ink, I think.

I've been in this building since 1991. One of the proudest moments that I feel I've had was the debate. . .and working with the Nisga'a people, who had waited 111 years. From their behaviour over the last month -- of intolerance -- I feel that had that opposition been government, the Nisga'a would have been turned away at the gate again. It's something that made me as a British Columbian very sad: to see their antics, all to do with trying to clean up a few votes on the Right out there. That's all that was about.

When the Liberals were up in Kelowna a couple of weeks ago -- and of course, we know the gaming revenues. . . . It was really nice for that, thank you very much -- the $105,000 in increased gaming activity that weekend. Of course, they don't believe in gaming. It must have been other people in the Grand Okanagan Hotel that weekend.

One of the things they talked about was open government: "We believe in open government." Yet when the media asked them about how much their director, Martyn Brown, gets paid, they said: "No, no. We can't tell you that. That's a secret. No, no. We don't believe in that."

They say they would like more legislative committees to sit, yet when the freedom of information committee tried to get a meeting together a couple of weeks ago -- I think it was a couple of times -- there was none of the official opposition available to sit on that committee.

Their policies, if they have any, change day by day, if not hour by hour.

We all know of the despicable remarks of the Leader of the Opposition some weeks ago when he was addressing the Board of Trade. It's my honest opinion that the only reason he finally apologized was because of the pressure from the media -- not because he felt he should but because he was finally pressured and shamed into making a half-assed apology for his disgraceful remarks.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a point of order.

B. Penner: We all heard unparliamentary language from the member, and I ask for a withdrawal of his remarks.

J. Doyle: When I said half-assed. . . . If that's what the member is referring to, I do apologize for that. That's what offended you? Okay.

[1545]

J. Doyle: It's interesting to hear the opposition talking about workers and unions, yet the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, when he was talking about workers and unions not too many months ago, said that the way to deal with the workers and unions is to whack them now and then. Give them a whack. That's their way of working; that's what they think of working people in this province.

[ Page 12099 ]

J. Weisgerber: I rise today to speak to the budget. I'm going to try hard not to repeat those things that I said almost a month ago when we did interim supply. I do want to focus a good deal of my thoughts today on economic issues, economic confidence and the need for us to build a stronger and more vigorous economy in British Columbia. I want to talk about some of the successes and some of the failures that we've seen.

Before I do that, however, I feel obliged to talk about some of the fundamentals in the budget. I want to, and believe it's important for us to, recognize the tremendous growth we've seen in public debt over the last decade. In 1991, when the government that I was a part of left office, taxpayer debt was about $9.3 billion. That was the total taxpayer-supported debt, not including self-financing debt with Crown corporations but including not only accumulated deficits over 125 years but also debt on provincial institutions where the province and the taxpayer were primarily, basically, responsible for the debt. That figure, again, was $9.3 billion. Eight years later, that debt has grown to $21.5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder how much longer this increase in debt can continue. It seems to me very reminiscent of what all of us saw and were appalled by in Ottawa, where, in the 1980s and early 1990s, we had a federal government where spending was simply out of control and there appeared to be no will or focus for the government to live within its budget. The federal government didn't only run a deficit in bad times; the government ran a significant deficit even at the peak of economic activity. When prosperity in the country was at the maximum, when the economy was as strong as anyone could reasonably hope it would be, and when unemployment was as low as it would ever be, the federal government continued to run a deficit and to build taxpayer debt to somewhere around $600 billion in Canada today.

What we've seen here in British Columbia over the last eight years is very similar. The government now, today, argues that its $890 million deficit is necessary because of downturns in the resource sector, because of difficulties with Asian markets. Those are very real facts. But looking back over eight years, British Columbia has enjoyed some very strong years in the time that this additional $11 billion or $12 billion in debt was being accumulated.

[1550]

This year, we see the government selling off its fleet of automobiles, pocketing the money and then leasing the cars back, a very short-term solution with very long-term implications. With the sale of the B.C. Systems Corporation and now with the privatization of that -- $50 million in benefits for the sale of a company that provided information that was free to British Columbians, and that's not the case any longer -- B.C. Systems will have to generate about $15 million a year in revenue, in order to pay back the province for that corporation that it bought and to pay the expenses of its employees -- and, hopefully, for them to make a profit. So $15 million in fees that we didn't see before. . . .

We've also seen a dramatic cut in revenues and transfers to municipalities. A look at this year's budget indicates about $100 million taken out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That's about a 40 percent cut in revenue to municipalities -- this coming from a government that has complained bitterly over the years about cuts in transfer payments from Ottawa.

But if you examine the documents, if you examine or take our budgets, the budgets produced by the New Democrats as the source of your information, you will see that in no year has there actually been a reduction in the number of dollars coming from Ottawa, year to year. There hasn't been an increase at the rate that the government believes is appropriate. The government believes that with a growing and aging population, there should in fact have been greater increases in transfer payments from Ottawa. But nowhere and at no time has there actually been a dollar loss to British Columbia as a result of transfer payments from Ottawa. If you look at and examine this year's budget, you show a whopping 20 percent increase -- a $462 million increase -- in transfer payments from Ottawa to British Columbia, at the same time that a $100 million cut is being passed along to municipalities.

To the members opposite and particularly to the members on the cabinet benches: when you meet with municipal officials, when you go to groups like the UBCM or NCMA and find that the politicians there, both the New Democrat politicians and the free-enterprisers, are all hopping mad, don't be too surprised. They too can read budgets. They too know that they've been dealt with much more harshly than the province has with respect to its relationships with Ottawa.

In a recent column that I wrote, I suggested that there was good news in the budget and that some of that good news in the budget was in the area of health care spending. I don't think that any thinking, caring person would want to simply ignore the fact that there were substantial amounts of money -- about half a billion dollars -- earmarked for more nurses, for more beds and to cut waiting lists. That has to be something that provides some comfort to British Columbians generally.

[1555]

When I was in cabinet and we wanted to cut a ministry's budget, the bureaucracy always identified the two or three highest-profile, most sensitive services that they provided and then brought a cabinet document forward, suggesting that they cut either A, B or C, leaving the politician with the

[ Page 12100 ]

When the members opposite are talking to their constituents about the cuts that they might like to see, I'm often curious to know: did they just list hospitals and highways, or did they also list multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns? Do they ask their constituents: would you prefer an $890 million deficit, or would you prefer that we be more prudent in the construction of fast ferries? Do they ask their constituents: would you prefer an $890 million deficit, or would you prefer a more competitive labour environment on projects such as the Island Highway? I don't think so, any more than the bureaucrats offer those kinds of suggestions to cabinet and to politicians -- nor do these members apparently offer those kinds of options to their constituents when they're talking about options with respect to government spending.

As I watch and listen to this debate, I'm amazed to hear the government go after the Harris government in Ontario. That's no surprise. I'm not surprised to hear them criticize the Klein government in Alberta; that's no surprise. But I'm a little more surprised to hear them criticize the Romanow government in Saskatchewan. But those criticisms are there, I guess, because they all balance the budget.

One of the things that I find most interesting about the criticisms of Alberta and Ontario. . . . Someone mentioned that Ontario doesn't have a balanced budget, and the minister is correct. Sadly, that's the case. But we're all led to believe that these reductions in spending have come at the expense of health care. I don't pretend to know all about the health care system in this country; what I do know about is the health care system in northeastern British Columbia. We continue to send far more patients to Edmonton, to Calgary and to Grande Prairie than we ever see coming from Alberta to British Columbia. I would challenge the Minister of Health or someone in the ministry, if they happen to be listening, to tell us what the statistics are with respect to the number of people who are transferred from Alberta to British Columbia for health care versus the number of British Columbians -- particularly northern British Columbians -- who are air-evac'd or who, by commercial aircraft or road, go to Alberta for health care. I believe it would be incredibly revealing. I think we would find, in that old slash-and-burn province, that they somehow are able to accommodate the people in their hospitals that we in British Columbia, with our $890 million deficit, are unable to accommodate. We should think about that. We should think about what that means in terms of budgeting strategies, in terms of priorities, in terms of the necessity -- as the members opposite would have us believe -- for a deficit.

[1600]

On that note, I'd like to move to what I think of as sort of the second part of my response to the budget, and that is to deal with economic issues. I'm going to avoid the temptation to talk very much about the provincial economy generally, because there has been adequate discussion on that from both sides of the House. I do want to talk about what's been going on in northeastern British Columbia.

I know that the Minister Responsible for Northern Development is here, and I will say to him and to all British Columbians that in large measure, what has been happening in the northeast has been quite positive, particularly the government's response with respect to the gas and oil industry. I say that in all sincerity. I believe that the Premier met with people in the oil industry a couple of years ago. I believe he developed, along with the minister, a better understanding of the things that drive that industry, and I believe that the government responded in a way that was very admirable. As an independent representative for the northeast, I'm very pleased with that and very much supportive of the government's attempts in that area.

With respect to northeast coal, things haven't been as rosy as I would like, and I know that they've not been as rosy as the minister would like. Northeast coal is an important part of our provincial economy, closely tied to the Japanese steel industry and to the economic climate in Asia -- particularly in Japan. When I travelled to Japan, it was clear to me that we were facing very tough competition from the Australians. I believe that we're obliged, not only as a province but as a country, to let the Japanese government know -- as we attempted to let the Japanese steel industry know -- that for Canadians this issue of coal exports is a much larger issue than simply the marketplace as it relates to hard coal and the competition that exists from Australia. I believe that Australia is a less reliable supplier than northeast coal is. I believe we've demonstrated, over the last ten or 15 years, our ability to produce a dependable source of supply and a high-quality product.

I look also at what we as Canadians buy from the Japanese. For every dollar that we as British Columbians and Canadians get from the Japanese, we send $2 back -- at least $2 -- for automobiles, television sets, appliances. . . . There are areas in our economy, in the retail marketplace, where you simply have trouble identifying a product that isn't made in Japan. I think we've got to have some hard conversations with the Japanese, and we've started that. But I think that the federal government is obliged, and should be obliged, not only because of the importance of northeast coal to the people of Tumbler Ridge. . . . And heaven knows, as my constituents and as people who are in a one-industry town entirely reliant on northeast coal, nothing could be more important to them.

[1605]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I also want to talk a little bit about the recent announcement with respect to Louisiana-Pacific and the aspen industry

[ Page 12101 ]

Aspen was a weed product up until 1985, when Louisiana-Pacific first agreed to build an OSB plant -- an oriented strand board plant -- in Dawson Creek. There was a lot of controversy, and I'm not going to go back and rehash the debates in this House. I don't think that's particularly important. What is important is that it was the right decision. It was the right decision in 1985. I believe it was the right decision, although a less spectacular success, with the pulp mill in Chetwynd in 1990-91. And it's the right decision today.

One of the reasons that it's the right decision is that it's not simply trying to carve up, one more time, the softwood supply; but rather, it is a move into an underutilized species. The fact is that with three or perhaps four OSB plants in the northeast, there will be the efficiency of volume that will allow for a peeler plant so that we can do plywood veneer -- again, very good news -- and an I-beam plant where you use OSB board to build floor joists, etc. These new plants, at least the OSB plants, will most likely be in the North Peace, in the Fort St. John-Taylor area. In the northeast particularly, there is a very genuine sense of a regional economy. If there is employment -- employment opportunities and economic activity -- in Fort St. John and Taylor, then the people of Dawson Creek and Chetwynd and, to a lesser degree, Tumbler Ridge are able to benefit from that.

I am delighted, then, that we're going to see this kind of ongoing diversification, particularly with respect to these underutilized species. I wonder, without being an expert, if there aren't parallels in the rest of British Columbia with other species of wood, other minerals and other kinds of resources that we couldn't take greater advantage of.

[1610]

I've been there. I've got the scars, because I didn't ask enough hard questions, because I took as gospel the fact that the only way the ministry could reduce its budget would be to somehow kick sand in the face of all of my own constituents. I've done that and regretted it.

So I think that we've got to approach this notion of fiscal management in a much more pragmatic way. We can't, as the members across the way have done, stand up and say that the only way we could possibly reduce this $890 million deficit would be to cut hospital beds or deny students education and post-secondary education. When I say that. . . . I try not to talk too much about provincial issues, but you can't ignore the news today with respect to the layoffs of aides for special needs children in Vancouver. You have to be concerned about that. You have to ask yourself: if the $890 million deficit was necessary to protect education, why then are these kinds of cuts going on? It seems to me that the government simply can't have it both ways.

In summation, I'm disappointed with the debt and the growth in debt and deficits in our province. I continue to be encouraged by the economic growth in the northeast and by the support that my constituents get from this government with respect to the resource industries.

G. Campbell: I rise today to speak on this budget with some real sorrow about what has taken place in British Columbia and what took place here on March 30. It's sorrowful, because the fact is that this government has once again misled the people of British Columbia about their goals. They consistently mislead the people of British Columbia about the position that the opposition has taken.

To be candid, as I sat here and listened to the Finance minister give her comments when she issued the budget on March 30, I found it a breathtaking document. I was literally breathless to see a Finance minister who was standing up after eight years and telling us that she didn't know quite how to manage the economy and that what she was promising was an $890 million deficit once again.

For all of the members in government, all of the members opposite, I would like them to remember that one of the ways that we restore the economy and restore private sector investment is that we have to be able to restore the public's confidence and trust in government. Listen to the words of the leader of the government; this is a direct quote: "There's no magic to balancing the budget in British Columbia. In fact, it's extremely easy, absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing." That's what the leader of this government said to every person in British Columbia ten years ago. It was the easiest thing he could imagine doing. Year after year we've been promised balanced budgets, and year after year this government has broken that province to the people of British Columbia. The Finance minister stood up and said to us all that it's time for one of the "most transparent budgets" that we've ever seen in the province, and proceeded to underestimate the deficit once again. The chartered accountants of British Columbia have told us what's the true deficit in this budget: $1.5 billion.

[1615]

[ Page 12102 ]

In fact, what we're doing is driving a nail into health care and education. The minister tells us that there's a 6.6 percent increase in health care spending. But what do we really discover with this newly transparent budget? What we find out is that it's not an increase in terms of spending; it's simply a paper increase. In fact, when you look at what this government has done, you're going to find that the increase in support to health care is less than it was last year. You're going to see that there is almost $100 million set aside in this budget, because the government finally figured out that we're on the verge of the year 2000 and thinks we'll deal with the Y2K bug. You're going to find $35 million in the health care budget for interest costs. It's not going to take care of any patients. What this budget really is about is increasing costs and, most importantly, a massive, historic increase in public sector debt -- $3.5 billion of additional debt.

You know, it was funny. Yesterday I heard from the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the new convert. Just a few years ago he was saying, "It is irresponsible for government to increase debt by a billion dollars," and he's sitting there voting for an increase in debt of $3.5 billion. You talk about a conversion on the road to the bank. That's incredible.

[1620]

That debt management plan was introduced because they claimed to understand that interest costs eat away at our ability to support essential public services like health care and public education. Well, after one year they couldn't quite handle the debt management plan, so you know what they did? They created the revised debt management plan. What a surprise! After one year they found they couldn't meet those targets, so then they created the new financial plan. Then they found out that they couldn't meet those goals, so they created the modified financial management plan.

Then they found that they weren't going to live up to those commitments either, so what they discovered this year was the brand-new, five-year fiscal framework. Let's see what happened with that. What's happened over those five years of broken promises, broken commitments -- those five years of shattering the people's trust in the institution of government? What's happened? The debt management plan said that we were going to have a debt load in this province. We were going to strive for a debt load in this province of about 10 percent of the provincial gross domestic product.

This year the new fiscal plan calls for a 27 percent debt -- deadweight government debt. I guess one of the things that I just can't understand -- and I would welcome someone on the other side explaining this to me -- is: why was debt bad in '91, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97 and '98, and suddenly in '99 it's a great thing? Let's be really clear about this. This government and that minister told people they had a balanced budget in '96, and she wasn't telling the truth. This government and that minister said they'd balanced the budget in '97, and they were not telling the truth.

What they've done is they've taken taxpayer-supported debt. . . . For those opposite who don't understand this, there's only one way to support taxpayer-supported debt: that's for the taxpayers pay for it with their taxes, with someone else's money, with the hard work of people across this province. This government goes in and cavalierly says: "Let's add $3.5 billion in debt."

What's happened with taxpayer-supported debt since Mr. Premier told us that he was going to balance the budget, that there was nothing he could think of that was easier? What's happened is that it's gone from $9.8 billion to $26.1 billion. What's happened is that British Columbia has been driven from the number one economy in this country to the worst economy in this country, under this government's incompetent, inadequate indifference.

What's happened with gross provincial debt? That's the total debt of all of our public institutions. What's happened to that? It's gone from $17.2 billion and it's doubled. I want everyone on that side of the House to understand what they're doing when they double that debt. They're saying to people two generations away that they're going to pay for something that they'll never, ever see, at the same time that we've got young people who need teachers. We've got young people who need support in school districts across this province. We can't do that. Why can't we do it? It's not just this government's incompetence; it's the massive amount of debt that this government has built up.

What has happened? What really goes on here is that the fastest-growing cost of government in British Columbia since 1991. . . . It hasn't been health care. It hasn't been education. It hasn't been social services. It hasn't been taking care of our children in the province who are in need. It has been interest. The biggest benefactors of this government's largesse and incompetence have been the banks. And these are the people that claim to be working for the working people.

[1625]

[ Page 12103 ]

Let's start with a couple of questions. Which hospitals was this government planning to close if it didn't increase the budget by half a billion dollars? Which schools were they going to close down if they didn't increase the budget by half a billion dollars? Let's be very clear about this. I'm going to say this slowly so that the other side understands it, and maybe they'll stop saying what they've been saying. Right now in our current budget, health care is 38 percent of it. Right now in our current budget -- in this year's budget -- education is 29 percent. That's what it is.

This side of the House intends to make sure that of that 38 percent, 38 percent is going to take care of patients in the province -- not bureaucracies, not experiments, but patients. This side of the House intends to ensure that 29 percent of the provincial budget goes to take care of student and teachers in the classrooms of this province, whether they're in the Kootenays, in the Peace, in the north, on Vancouver Island or in the lower mainland. We're going to make sure that students and teachers see the benefits of that 29 percent.

I want to be very clear about this: we're going to cut the waste in government. We're going to cut the special deals that this government has made with group after group after group. Where could we go. . . ? Can anyone think of where we might go, except for closing down hospitals and schools? I can tell you that the B.C. Liberals, the opposition, have no intention of closing any hospitals or any schools.

What we intend to do is go back to open tendering in British Columbia and make sure that the taxpayers get the best possible value for every single dollar that we spend. That would save a quarter of a billion dollars. What we intend to do is have a forest practices code that works, that's based on results, and not waste a billion dollars on that. What we intend to do is not carry out projects like the fast ferry fiasco, which has cost taxpayers $215 million and counting in additional debt.

What we intend to do is not incur an extra $1.5 billion for a transit project that won't get you to where want to go. We'll spend half the amount that they're spending on SkyTrain to get people where they need to go -- to Coquitlam. What we will not do is waste $8 million of the taxpayers' money on propaganda that does not tell the truth. And we will not spent $500 million on special deals for friends and insiders, as this government has done.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars in this budget that can be dealt with without even starting to think about making sure that health care and education are protected, as we intend to do. Who is driving the nails into health care and education? The NDP is, hon. Speaker. They have wasted money. They think it's better to spend money on interest than on patient care, students or education. That's the problem. This government doesn't understand.

[1630]

It's clear to everyone that this government's taxes, taxes and more taxes -- almost $2 billion of additional taxes and fees since 1991 -- have killed economic growth. Just look at it. Don't even worry about the kinds of labels we see. Let's look at what's happened to the working person in British Columbia. Let's look at what's happened to their paycheque. As this government sits on that side and some of them get the biggest paycheque they've ever seen in their lives, remember what's happening to the average worker. This government is directly and unequivocally responsible for the reduction of the average take-home pay for B.C.'s workers of $1,000 between 1992 and 1997.

What has happened? Investment has fled this province. For four of the last five years, investment has left this province. We're in last place in private sector investment. Companies flee this province. Over 200 companies have left the province in the last year and a half. Why? Because they can't stand what this government is doing, and they can't believe they have to do all the work they do to get so little. And when they go, they take jobs with them. Jobs leave the province. People's sense of hope leaves the province. Our young people are leaving the province. And they don't want to; they want to live here. They know that this is a great place to live. They know it's the best province in the best country, in the world. Unfortunately, they also know that this is the worst government in the history of the province.

What has happened is that for the first time in a long, long time, 19,000 people fled this province last year. They fled this province to other parts of our country, looking for opportunity and hope. Imagine people deciding to leave British Columbia -- to leave Victoria, Cranbrook, Clinton or Prince George -- for Ontario. Imagine going to Ontario from B.C. I bet you wouldn't do that, hon. Speaker, and we don't want our kids to think that's where they have to go.

We educate our young people at great institutions like SFU, UNBC, UBC and UVic. And you know what? They're starting to look to the United States for work. Go to Silicon Valley and try talking to them there. You'll find more Canadians there than you'll find in Victoria.

This government's policies have driven our economy down to the worst economy and the worst economic growth in the history of this province. The fact of the matter is that we're in last place in Canada. When we have our young people looking for opportunities elsewhere, whether it's California, Ontario or Saskatchewan, we should know that the government is failing the young people of British Columbia. We want to bring them back home. We want to reunite them with their families.

There are some very straightforward ways to do that. I don't want to leave this quick discussion without outlining for the government all they have to do. We are ready to help. This side of the House is ready to give this government a literal blueprint for the future. Instead of marching down the road to economic decay and disaster, we're willing to give this government a map to get them forward again, to move us back in the right direction.

First thing: truth-in-budgeting legislation, which will stop the manipulation of the books that this government has car-

[ Page 12104 ]

[1635]

An Hon. Member: Baloney.

G. Campbell: To the minister who said "baloney. . . ." You know, this minister should go and talk to someone in Gold River and find out what it's like to have to sell, to leave your town and to know that you're going to get about 50 percent of the value of your home. I challenge that minister to leave his town and take 50 percent of the value of his home, because his government is the government that has driven those values down.

Let's think about these people for a minute. How do you create a sense of hope for people? Well, the first thing is that we want them to know that if they work hard, then they can get ahead. Wouldn't it be great if we could just give every worker in this province -- not pick the ones we like or don't like, just every worker in this province. . . ? Let's give them all a raise You know that it's in this government's ability to do it.

You know how you do it? You cut personal income tax, you cut it now, and you cut it big. I've got to tell you that I look across, and I see the financial genius across shaking her head, saying: "Oh no, you can't cut income tax. Boy, I'd hate to see you cut income tax." Just think. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, it's really difficult to hear what's being said.

G. Campbell: I appreciate the fact that you, at least, hon. Speaker, would like to hear what I have to say. I do appreciate that.

What happens when you cut income tax? Again, you'll hear from the government: "Gee, you've got to be careful. You cut taxes, and there'll be nothing there for health care; there will be nothing there for education. Won't that be awful -- worry, worry, worry?" Well, the fact is this, and here is an announcement: the money doesn't disappear if it stays in people's pockets. Guess what. The money is more powerful in people's pockets than it is in the government's pockets. Do you know why? It's because. . . .

Let me ask: how many members of the government opened their paycheques the other day, had a look at them and said to themselves: "Whoa! That is way more money than I know what to do with"? Guess what: the average worker in B.C. is looking at their paycheque and saying, "That's $1,000 lower than it was in 1992" -- $1,000 less per year for the average worker.

When they get their paycheque -- when they get their raises because there is a dramatic income tax cut -- do you know what they'll do? They'll spend it. They might buy a book; they well might buy a book. You know what? Those people who buy those books, unlike the member opposite, will probably read them, learn from them and use them. As they buy that book, they may go and buy a pair of shoes. They might buy a sweater; they might buy a hammer. I don't know what they'll buy -- neither does the government. But they will buy it, and those dollars will go into the local community, and the local community will find that suddenly young people and people across their community have a chance to work. And when they go to work, they pay taxes.

The government just keeps on saying that this will never happen, but the fact is that it's happened everywhere it's been tried. What happens is revenues increase. As the economy grows, revenue to government increases. As people's paycheques grow, revenue to government increases, because they pay tax and they buy things -- they contribute. Their personal contribution makes a point of the fact that as we do that, the economy grows and health care and education are supported. A strong economy means great health care and great public education, and that's the message you have to understand.

[1640]

It really is a matter of choices, as the Minister of Finance has said. Let's just recognize the choices this government's made. This government chose, irresponsibly, to go ahead with the fast ferry project, which is already $215 million over budget. What could you do with $215 million? You could provide for 69,000 heart bypass surgeries. Or you could cut that in half, and you could do 8,000 hip replacements. Even after doing that, you could provide for 1,000 new teachers and 1,000 new police officers for a year.

We think it's critical that we have an education system that every parent, every student and every teacher takes huge pride in and says: "Yes. Look at the example B.C. is setting. Look at the leadership role B.C. is taking." British Columbians are used to leading; British Columbians want to lead. And we can have them lead in education, in health care and in the economy, if we will just learn from their experience in their communities.

I was not happy with this budget, but more important than me not being happy with it is that people of British

[ Page 12105 ]

Therefore I am pleased to move the amendment to the budget standing on the order paper in my name, because I believe we have to send a clear message to the government that this budget is not good enough. It is not the road to the future; it's the road to ruin.

[Be it resolved that the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply, be amended by adding the following: "But the House regrets that the government has presided over successive downgrades to BC's credit rating; the government has not balanced the budget in eight years; the government has brought BC Ferries to the brink of bankruptcy with its fast ferry program; the government has wasted billions of dollars on the Skeena Cellulose bailout, Nisga'a propaganda, inoperable minibuses, assorted union sweetheart deals, and numerous other boondoggles; the government has committed millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to the Vancouver Convention Centre, without knowing what the project will cost or how taxpayers will pay for it; the government has failed to keep its promise to create jobs under the Jobs and Timber Accord and has threatened the survival of forest-dependent communities around the province; the government has constantly broken its legislative commitment to homeowners, renters and small businesses by arbitrarily cutting municipal grants by almost $800 million in seven years; the government has signed Skytrain contracts which have been kept secret from taxpayers and will add billions of dollars in unnecessary costs to the project; the government has allowed surgical wait lists to grow and health care to deteriorate, particularly in rural regions; the government has failed to adequately protect children and implement the recommendations of the Gove Commission; the government has failed to protect Burns Bog, while giving a $25 million loan to a private company for the development of a theme park in that fragile ecosystem; the government's economic mismanagement has made BC the only province to suffer a drop in private sector investment from 1992 to 1999, and has caused an unprecedented exodus of people, jobs and companies from BC; the government has increased taxpayer-supported debt by 133% since 1991 and that this government is in a state of disarray and utterly incapable of restoring confidence in our economy and governing generally."]

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: Visiting us today from Nanaimo is Bill Dempsey. Bill's a small business operator in Nanaimo, and he's down here to talk to the official opposition. I would ask everyone in the House to please make Bill welcome.

On the amendment.

G. Plant: I rise to make my contribution to the budget debate. In particular, I rise to second the motion that the Leader of the Opposition has just moved.

The motion appears on the order paper as Motion 63, and it's a good motion. I think it perhaps has one or two deficiencies. It's a bit short; it's a bit shorter than I think it probably should be. But recognizing that the goal of this motion is to try to give expression, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, to the concerns that they have expressed to us and the concerns that we as members of the official opposition have with the budget introduced by the government, this motion is a pretty good step in that direction.

[1645]

"Be it resolved that the motion 'That the Speaker do now leave the Chair' for the House to go into Committee of Supply" -- I pause to point out that that is the motion before the House -- "be amended by adding the following: 'But the House regrets that the government has presided over successive downgrades to BC's credit rating; the government has not balanced the budget in eight years; the government has brought BC Ferries to the brink of bankruptcy with its fast ferry program; the government has wasted billions of dollars on the Skeena Cellulose bailout, Nisga'a propaganda, inoperable minibuses, assorted union sweetheart deals, and numerous other boondoggles. . . ' "

G. Plant: I pause, hon. Speaker -- boondoggles too numerous to enumerate. And it's always a pleasure to see that I have excited the interest of members opposite. I continue.

" '. . .the government has committed millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to the Vancouver Convention Centre, without knowing what the project will cost or how taxpayers will pay for it; the government has failed to keep its promise to create jobs under the Jobs and Timber Accord and has threatened the survival of forest-dependent communities around the province; the government has constantly broken its legislative commitment to homeowners, renters and small businesses by arbitrarily cutting municipal grants by almost $800 million in seven years; the government has signed Skytrain contracts which have been kept secret from taxpayers and will add billions of dollars in unnecessary costs to the project; the government has allowed surgical wait lists to grow and health care to deteriorate, particularly in rural regions; the government. . . ' "

G. Plant: It's good to see that I continue to have their interest, hon. Speaker.

" '. . .has failed to adequately protect children and implement the recommendations of the Gove Commission; the government has failed to protect Burns Bog, while giving a $25 million loan to a private company for the development of a theme park in that fragile ecosystem; the government's economic mismanagement has made BC the only province to suffer a drop in private sector investment from 1992 to 1999, and has caused an unprecedented exodus of people, jobs and companies from BC; the government has increased taxpayer-supported debt by 133% since 1991 and that this government is in a state of disarray and utterly incapable of restoring confidence in our economy and governing generally.' "

I support that amendment. It's a pretty good summary of the disastrous management of this province's economy by this government, and it provides all the reasons that anyone could want for why this is not a budget that any right-thinking British Columbian could support.

During the course of the debate that's happened up until this point, there has been lots of reference to numbers. Budgets are all about numbers, and I don't underestimate the importance of numbers for a moment. But I want to spend a minute or two during this part of my remarks just telling a couple of stories about things that have happened to me over

[ Page 12106 ]

[1650]

We had a meeting with the Prince George Chamber of Commerce, and we asked the Prince George Chamber of Commerce what was working or not working on the national unity front that they wanted to tell us about. We were travelling British Columbia, listening to British Columbians talk about something called the Calgary declaration and about national unity issues. The thing that they said surprised me. The answer to our question was this: "In Prince George we feel much closer to Ottawa than we do to Victoria. We feel completely isolated from Victoria up here in northern British Columbia. We see our resources leave the north and don't see any kind of return on that investment coming back to the north."

When I've travelled to the north over the past three years, I've certainly learned that I had better listen to that voice of alienation and do what I can here in this chamber to give expression to that voice and to respect it. But as I participated in and listened to the debate among these citizens about the policy ideas that they thought should form the basis of a more coherent, organized and responsive economic policy direction for northern British Columbia, I also had the opportunity to have a tour of the University of Northern British Columbia, which the Minister for Northern Development referred to during the course of his remarks earlier this afternoon. In fact, it was his remarks that reminded me of that tour. It was a good tour. It is an impressive facility. It is a marvellous facility and probably a wonderful place for any young British Columbian to go to university and obtain a degree.

At the end of our tour we were all gathered in the main foyer of the administration building. Someone said: "Well, that was wonderful. How much did all this cost?" The answer, I think, was $137 million. Earlier today the minister said $140 million. It was certainly in the range of $137 million to $138 million, or thereabouts. I remember that there was a bit of silence among the group that was sitting or standing in the foyer. I'm sure that everyone, like me, was thinking about what a lot of money $138 million was -- looking at the buildings and thinking about the value of that investment.

Then one of my colleagues said: "Well, that's a little bit less than the cost of a fast ferry." All of a sudden I got a completely different perspective on the way this government continually fails to sort out the issues and priorities and to sort out the issues of its responsibilities in terms of managing the public purse on behalf of British Columbians. On the one hand, I'm impressed by the University of Northern British Columbia. I'm proud to be a citizen of British Columbia, where people growing up in towns like Fort St. John and Dawson Creek have an opportunity to go to university not so far from home. But I'm embarrassed to be a citizen in a province where someone can say it's a good investment to spend almost $450 million or more on three vessels, not a single one of which has yet carried one single paying passenger anywhere -- despite years of promises, of ceremonies, of photo opportunities and untold millions of dollars of waste. That was one of those moments when I certainly had the experience. . . .

[1655]

G. Plant: My colleague says: "A lightbulb went on." It certainly did.

I had another one of those experiences a few months ago. One of my constituents came in and wanted to see me. He wanted to talk about economic issues, so we spent an hour together. This was an individual who is in his retirement years. He had worked his way up basically from the shop floor in a large engineering firm over a long career, until the point where he achieved a senior management position -- obviously a highly successful individual. Along the way, because he had his own sense of priorities in his life, he had managed to put aside money year by year -- probably month by month -- and had purchased commercial properties, small apartment buildings, and over time had built up a small portfolio of a number of these buildings. So in fact, in his retirement years he was earning, I believe, what all of us would regard as a more than reasonable income. I expressed my admiration for his achievement.

But here was his problem. He had been to visit his accountant, and his accountant had looked at his financial situation, had looked at the situation of the assets which he had built up over time, had looked at his tax situation and had said: "You know, I have to give you some advice. It's really a big mistake for you to continue to have all of these assets here in British Columbia. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to do a calculation that will take into account all of the taxes that would apply and come into effect if and when you die in British Columbia, assuming the tax regime that applies then applies today. I'm going to compare that to the situation that would arise if you were to move to Alberta." That analysis was done.

I was particularly interested in one part of that analysis, and that was the part of the analysis that dealt with the issue of probate fees. Back in the days when I had the meeting with my constituent, the probate fee issue was something that was there on the table. We knew that the Supreme Court of Canada had said that the fee was really a tax and that the tax was illegal. But we didn't know what the government was going to do to solve that problem. We know that now, and we'll get to that issue, I'm sure, in the days ahead in this session.

But what struck me as amazing was that the result of the analysis done by this accountant was that the estate. . . . If you looked at the value of the estate of this admittedly successful individual, it was going to cost $224,000 more to die in British Columbia than to die in Alberta.

[1700]

[ Page 12107 ]

My constituent is not alone. There are many people who have managed to make a success of themselves in British Columbia -- fewer of them today, perhaps, than there were a decade ago. All of them are actually faced with this decision. All people who see before them the opportunity to make a success of their lives and their careers are asking themselves this question: "Should I do it in British Columbia? Can I afford to do it in British Columbia?" I know people who have left Canada to raise their families in the Bahamas, of all places, because they have had that same economic tussle that I've been talking about. They've resolved it one way rather than another.

The fact is that those kinds of stories, I think, are not just few and far between. They're increasingly common, and I think that they are actually a factor for the decisions of government. What has happened is that after eight years of NDP government, the taxation and regulatory regime has become so overwhelmingly oppressive that people are making the decision to leave. We would like, in this province, to do what we can to protect the health care and education systems that we're proud of, but we need to have a revenue base in order to do that. And in order to have a revenue base that will support the public services that we think are the key to the quality of life in British Columbia, we need to give people a reason to invest here, to devote their lives here and to commit their intellectual and personal resources to staying in this province.

We're not doing that, and this government isn't doing that. This government goes out of its way year after year to raise more barriers to investment and to create more disincentives to investment. They can talk all they want about their commitment to health care and education, but the real tragedy is that people in British Columbia see through that. They are doing the thing that, over the long haul, will hurt us the most: they're voting with their feet, and they're leaving. That is truly a disgrace.

The third story I want to tell concerns a telephone call I had after I had the opportunity of participating in a televised debate with the Minister Responsible for the Public Service. It was an entertaining exchange. The Minister Responsible for the Public Service attempted to persuade the viewing audience that British Columbia was not experiencing a recession, that in fact times were good in British Columbia. "Look at all these great initiatives." One that he referred to, which I like a lot, concerns a project out at the Vancouver Airport, near my constituency, where, in order to get some aircraft repair work underway, the government has actually made, I think, a $20 million investment in order to get an $18 million return -- which is typical NDP economics.

But at any rate, the day after that television debate, I had a telephone call from someone in Gold River. Let me make a confession: I've never been to Gold River. I've been to lots of pulp mill towns in lots of places across North America, and I've been to lots of sawmill towns all over British Columbia and North America, but it happens that I've never been to Gold River. I did refer to Gold River during the course of my remarks in the televised debate; the Minister for the Public Service didn't. She called to say: "I just wanted to thank you for mentioning Gold River in that debate last night, because we're hurting here in Gold River. This is a town in pain here in Gold River, and we don't really think the government is paying attention."

[1705]

Those are a few stories -- a few among many, I'm sure. I know that all of us in this chamber and certainly all of us on the opposition benches, when we travel around British Columbia, hear those stories from people. In my constituency of Richmond-Steveston. . . . Well, when people speak about the two economies in British Columbia, there is some truth to that. As I travel around the parts of the lower mainland that I spend the most time in, most people are still working; there are jobs. That's not true everywhere. It's not even true on the street where I live, where there are people out of work because the provincial economy isn't growing and it's not generating new opportunities. But yeah, it's true that in Richmond-Steveston, for the most part, people are not hurting the way they are in places like Gold River or some of the resource towns outside the lower mainland.

There's such a tremendous sense of frustration about how much better things could be if the yoke of government could be lifted from their throats, if the burden of taxation could be removed. There is a tremendous sense of frustration that opportunities are being lost and that lives are being put on hold. Enterprises are being shifted into neutral. We're not moving forward, because people don't see a reason to move forward.

A great number of people who live in my constituency are recent immigrants from Asia -- from Hong Kong, from Taiwan, from the Philippines. They tell me, in no uncertain terms, about that frustration. They have seen some cycles in some of the economic interests that they have, and for many Asian businessmen, clearly things are not what they would like them to be. But more important than that, what they tell me is that they can't figure out why this government doesn't get it -- that when you persistently overspend, when you persistently overtax, when you persistently refuse to be accountable for the dollars you spend, you do not create the conditions for growth in an economy. What you do is strangle growth; you strangle investment opportunities. This budget is such a pathetic failure to even begin to understand those problems.

My colleagues have spoken about the consistent and repeated failure of this government to come to any kind of landing on what might constitute a plan and then stick to it. All of us in our lives make plans. The question that we need to ask ourselves is: is this a plan, or is this some sort of fantasy or a pipedream? For seven or eight years this government has

[ Page 12108 ]

Interjection.

G. Plant: That's right.

That's something that all citizens do in their lives. They make plans, they set goals and they set objectives. They try and figure out what their vision is for themselves, for their families, for their lives, for their communities and for their businesses. They make commitments, and they honour them.

[1710]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

We could talk -- and my colleagues have -- about the astonishing foolishness of a government that stands up and commits to a budget that on the taxpayer-supported side of the ledger alone promises an $890 million deficit, at a time when every other jurisdiction in North America has recognized that deficit financing is not the key to economic renewal. We could also talk about the debt problem. All those things are very important, serious problems with this budget. But the thing that I find the most disappointing of all is the complete lack of any sense that this government really knows where it's going -- or rather, that its decision-making time horizon is any longer than about an hour and a half.

A year ago we heard a budget speech filled with all kinds of commitments, promises and a sense of objectives. A month ago the same Finance minister stood up and virtually threw the entire structure of that entire budget out the window as if it had never happened -- as if it were not even on her event horizon anymore. Instead, we got a whole new set of hopes and dreams -- or maybe they're pipedreams and misguided promises. Who knows what they are? The truth is: who knows what they are? Who knows where this government will go tomorrow? Something will come along and catch the fancy of some cabinet minister's eye. The government will buy another pulp mill or. . . . I don't know what the government will do. No one knows what this government will do.

For eight years no one has known what this government will do, because they keep changing their mind. Day after day they betray all the principles they once stood for, 25 years ago, and then they decide to betray the principles that they announced last week. For seven years we heard about fiscal responsibility. A month ago they threw fiscal responsibility out the window for no reason other than short-term politics -- short-term something. I don't even begin to understand the logic of where this government is going.

What ordinary British Columbians think. . . . When ordinary British Columbians have to live with the idea of plans, with discipline, with responsibility and with a sense of vision about how they want to live their lives, and they see a government that has no vision, no plan, no consistency, no discipline, no responsibility and no integrity, they say to me -- and they say to all members of this House: "Throw this budget out. Support the amendment. Throw this government out. Let's rebuild British Columbia again. Let's get rid of these guys."

Hon. Speaker, I think the amendment is a perfectly clear and marvellous expression of those important and enduring principles.

[1715]

The reasons are as follows: first, because of the health care system, which is critical to every one of us in terms of ensuring that we have proper and appropriate medicare; second, around education. In my family I have one brother and four sisters. My family immigrated here because my parents wanted the children to have an opportunity to gain a post-secondary education. They knew that if we stayed in Hong Kong where I was born, those opportunities would not be realistic for our family. Finally, they moved here because of the quality of life which we enjoy here in British Columbia.

The opposition members mentioned that they're opposed to this budget. I sit down and am perplexed as to why anybody from the opposite side would oppose improving health care. The highlights of the budget around health care are very clear. We are improving health care by increasing the spending. We on this side of the House have increased health care spending eight years in a row. This year in the budget we have increased health care spending by $615 million. I want to know from the opposite side which part of that they don't support.

You know, they talk a lot about Alberta. But it wasn't long ago that the Alberta Medical Health Association put up ads and billboards, advertising and advocating for them to change their health care system to reflect what we're doing in British Columbia, to have the kind of commitment that we have shown on this side of the House. Yet the members opposite

[ Page 12109 ]

The other things in terms of the highlights within this budget are indeed critical issues that British Columbians have said they want action on: reducing the surgery wait-lists, ensuring that people have access to surgery services within the system. We also within this budget have increased nurses, the people who provide for the primary care in our hospitals and in our clinics to the people who need these services.

Are they saying that they don't support the work of the nurses? Are they saying that we should not increase the nurses' staffing levels to ensure that they can provide that continuum of care to our communities? It's astounding when I hear the opposition members say they don't support this budget.

What else is in this budget? It's also the education focus -- the tuition fee freeze. We have frozen tuition fees for four years in a row, and that is a critical component in ensuring that access to post-secondary school is being provided for everybody throughout the province. We have increased core funding for education by $45 million

Are they saying that we shouldn't increase the core funding in education? We have increased the teachers to ensure that the size of classrooms is smaller so that children have a better environment to learn. We have worked and put in capital dollars in the area of reducing portables.

Hon. Speaker, all of these items cost money, and these are good investments that we're providing to British Columbians. You cannot say that you support these services on the one hand and on the other hand say that you shouldn't spend any money in these areas. Those things are inherently contradictory, and the opposition members know that. They know better than that, and they know that British Columbians value health care and education as the cornerstones of what we stand for and who we are as British Columbians. Even the UBCM, when they conducted their survey, showed that British Columbians support health care and education, and that's where we have directed a significant amount of our resources -- to build British Columbia by ensuring that those investments are in place.

[1720]

When I think about other taxes, personal income taxes have also been reduced. But our priority in reducing taxes is not for the big corporations, which the members opposite advocate. We advocate reducing taxes in the area of small business individuals -- individuals and families who are in the lower bracket and the middle-income areas, not in the highest brackets. That's not where our priorities lie, and it is very clear in this budget. When the members opposite say, "Don't support this budget," we know where their priorities are. They don't support health care, they don't support education, and they don't support cuts in small business taxes. They don't support cuts for low-income and middle-income families and individuals. I say they have their priorities wrong.

I also want to touch on issues in the budget that are very relevant to my riding. I want to say why this is an important budget for my constituents in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. I was talking about the small business tax cuts. In Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, we have a very vibrant community where we have numerous different quarters: the Grandview-Woodlands area, the Chinatown community, the Main Street corridor, the Broadway corridor and many others. The small business community is the cornerstone of what makes Vancouver-Mount Pleasant unique and a magnet to draw people to come into Little Italy and Chinatown to experience the atmosphere, the culture, the food -- to experience Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. This incentive, in terms of the small business tax cuts, is going to support our community in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and encourage new investments in this area as well.

The other component in this budget, as it is relevant to my riding, is the housing opportunities. The Minister of Finance announced in the budget that we will increase our unit allocation this year by 1,200 units. This is a significant piece as it relates to the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant.

I started off by saying that we immigrated here. I come from a low-income family, and when we first moved here, we -- a family of eight -- lived in a basement suite that was 700 square feet. Many of the folks in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant don't have adequate housing. They don't have safe and secure housing. Social housing and cooperative housing are critical components of ensuring that there is stability for people who don't have access to safe and affordable housing. Housing is a critical component in making the quality of life for the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and maintaining that standard of quality.

The units will contribute to ensuring that people have access to better housing. We have made numerous announcements with respect to housing in the last number of months and over the years because of our government's commitment to housing. British Columbia and Quebec are the only two provinces who are still committed to producing new units every single year. This is irrespective of the fact that in 1993, the federal government left the housing business altogether. It pulled out of housing. We lost 1,800 units per year as a result of the federal government's abandonment of housing in British Columbia.

[1725]

What do we need to do? We certainly need the government's commitment to say that not only will we build our normal 600 units of housing. . . . We have actually doubled

[ Page 12110 ]

In terms of commitment and cooperation what we need is for the federal government to come back to the table to partner with us -- with the province of B.C. -- and with the municipalities to ensure that housing is indeed a right for all British Columbians. What we need is for the federal government to come back and bring forward what the community activists in my riding call the 1 percent solution. What we need is for the federal government to come back and commit an additional 1 percent of their existing budget to housing, so that people all through British Columbia can have safe and affordable housing.

I also want to say that we need the assistance of local governments. We have had good cooperation with the city of Vancouver, but we also need other municipalities to come into play. It is unacceptable, for me, to hear from time to time that some municipalities still harbour the not-in-my-backyard syndrome: "We don't have low-income people living in our riding. We don't have those people and that kind of people." The fact is that whether they're low-income or middle-income or high-income, people are people. People should be respected, and all people should have the right to housing. All municipalities need to take on the responsibility of ensuring that safe housing is being provided in all corners of our neighbourhoods.

There are some measures, though, I will say, where we can actually provide housing without additional costs. Some of it is simply a change of a bylaw, recognizing that a secondary suite is a legitimate form of housing, provided that certain safety measures are met. Those are very legitimate forms of housing, and municipalities need to recognize that.

We also need local governments in my riding, in the area of the single-room occupancy hotel rooms. . . . Those units are under threat. Over the last number of years we have lost a significant number of those hotel rooms through gentrification, through conversion and through demolition. When I first started in the community, back in 1991-92, there were over 13,000 units of SROs in the downtown east side and the downtown core. Now we have lost a significant number of those, and we now have about 7,600 units existing. We have lost all of those units, whether it be through conversion or through demolition or other means.

A couple of years ago we in this House made changes to the Vancouver Charter to allow the city of Vancouver to bring in an anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw to protect these units, to stabilize the community, to make sure that this form of housing -- which, by the way, is the lowest form of housing -- is actually still there, so that we don't have a wide-scale homelessness problem. To date we have not seen any action from the city of Vancouver. I would urge the city of Vancouver to bring forward this anti-demolition, anti-conversion bylaw so that those units can be protected and to make sure the community is protected.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Kwan: I know that the members opposite say that I should raise it with the mayor and council. In fact, I have -- on many occasions. Every time I see the mayor, I raise this as a critical issue for the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, and I know that my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard would also agree that is a critical issue as well.

There is tremendous progress being made on the housing front. I go down to my riding and look around at all the different projects that we have embarked on, sometimes in partnership with others -- the Portland Hotel, the CBA Manor, the Main and Hastings Society's Bruce Eriksen Place. These are all examples of what works. At the end of the day, I want to say this: governments do have a role to play, but the people who make a difference in our community are in fact the non-profit sector and the community members themselves. It is because of their hard work, because of their commitment and dedication, that we see these projects come to fruition, that we see the community developing and sustaining itself, that we see the communities building into healthy neighbourhoods.

[1730]

I want to take a moment now, as well, to talk about another issue that is equally important to the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Income assistance is a critical issue for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, and I was very glad to see that in our budget we increased the B.C. family bonus by 2 percent this year. This will provide additional assistance to every single child who is on income assistance in British Columbia.

I also want to say that there's recognition that there needs to be some work done around the earnings exemption component, and I know that the minister responsible has been working on this issue. The earnings exemption component needs to be reviewed, and changes need to be made there to ensure that people are encouraged to gain employment skills and training, to ensure that there are opportunities for individuals to engage with their community. Through the earnings-exemption component, there is a lot of benefit that accrues to the individuals themselves by their being out in the community and working in that way. Also, a lot of times it benefits the non-profit sector. It is a small per diem that is being paid to the individual, which will benefit the non-profit group itself through the assistance of those individuals. I'm very glad to see that it is being reviewed, as mentioned in the budget, and I look forward to the new changes around the earnings exemption piece in the next while.

Vancouver-Mount Pleasant is one of the most vibrant communities that I know. It is one of those communities where I've read recently in the newspaper -- although oftentimes you can't trust anything that you read in the paper to be true. . . . But it documented that there are some 65 ethnic groups that exist in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. We are a very multicultural community. We're a community that has a range of income levels, ranging from professionals to people who are on income assistance to students to single moms to double-digit earners and small business owners in our riding. It is one of the communities, I say, that is a reflection of the province in many ways.

[ Page 12111 ]

It was just last Saturday that I was at a memorial service. Over 150 people in our community showed up. We were remembering a community leader in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant who had made all kinds of changes in terms of employment training initiatives and in terms of housing initiatives -- initiatives for single moms and for the people of the downtown east side. But this activist, Lore Krill, passed away because she contracted hepatitis C some 20 years ago. As we were going through the memorial service and grieving the loss of this community leader, people walked by and asked us what was going on. When I told them that there was a death in our community and that we were grieving our loss, people said: "Oh, is it an overdose?" When I said no, the next question was: "Is it hepatitis C?" The answer was yes.

[1735]

But I also believe that we need to look beyond that, that we need to look at some unconventional measures in terms of dealing with the drug challenge. What I have been doing over the last number of years is researching this question to see what other jurisdictions are doing, how they have dealt with this drug question and how they have tried to minimize the loss of people in terms of the spread of diseases.

Perhaps the question that we need to ask is: can we look and see how we can reduce, from a health perspective, the suffering through overdoses and the contracting of infectious diseases? How can we reduce the likelihood of drug users engaging in criminal activities that actually cause these problems all the way across the board? How can we ensure that those who are using drugs and are addicted end up being responsible not only to themselves but also to their families and their neighbourhoods? How do we ensure that they have the optimum opportunities to continue to live meaningful lives in a number of different ways?

As I said, I have been doing some research in this area. I want to quote, actually, on an experiment that was done in Switzerland, out of a research summary on heroin maintenance treatment by the Lindesmith Center. In the summary it talks about the international developments in other jurisdictions. This is in fact quoting from and citing an experiment that was done in Switzerland. In July 1997 the government in Switzerland reported the results of the experiment. The experiment began in 1994 to determine whether or not prescribing unconventional drugs such as heroin, morphine, injectable methadone and others could reduce crime, diseases and other drug-related ills through their experiment.

They conducted this experiment with 1,000 volunteers. These 1,000 volunteers are heroin addicts who have, at least on two occasions, unsuccessfully got off drugs with conventional treatment programs. When they engaged in this experiment, the findings were as follows. Criminal offences and the number of criminal offenders had dropped by 60 percent. The percentage of income from illegal and semi-illegal activities fell from 69 percent to 10 percent. Illegal heroin and cocaine use decreased dramatically. Stable employment increased from 14 percent to 32 percent. Physical health improved enormously. Most participants greatly reduced their contact with the drug scene. There were no deaths from overdoses. No prescribed drugs were diverted to the black market. More than half of those who dropped out of the study switched to another form of drug treatment, including 83 who began abstinence therapy. A cost-benefit analysis of the program found a net economic benefit of $30 per patient per day as a minimum, most likely because of the reduced criminal justice and health costs associated.

That's one experience in another jurisdiction in terms of engaging a different way to deal with the drug question.

[1740]

A little while ago, the community in the downtown east side held an event called "the killing fields." It was a field in Oppenheimer Park, where a lot of our community members go. In this field, they put up a cross to remember every single person who was lost through the last number of years because of overdose. This park was filled with crosses. You know what, hon. Speaker? The people who have lost their lives in this drug battle are individuals who were family, friends and people that we know. Certainly, in many instances, they were people whose lives are just as valuable as yours and mine.

I know that there have been many people. . . . Some of them come to mind. I knew a person by the name of Russell for many years when I worked as an advocate in the community, and he recently lost his life because of the drug issue. There are others: Beth, Philip, Walter, Linda. The list goes on and on. So there is a challenge that we're faced with here on the government side -- and, I think, on the opposite side and by all of our community members -- to see and to examine that what we're doing is not addressing this issue and that what we need to do is to go outside of our conventional boxes to deal with the drug question.

That is not to say that we should encourage people to use drugs -- of course not. We should encourage people not to use drugs. However, we need to recognize that there is a segment of our community. . . . No matter how many detox

[ Page 12112 ]

I'd like to close by simply saying that this budget is a good budget. It has many components to it, some of which I've highlighted today, that benefit the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and, I would say, many people all across British Columbia. I'm very delighted to have the opportunity to speak in support of this budget, and I'd welcome comments from my constituents with respect to the work that we're doing as we work in partnership with the community to deal with the great challenges that we all face every day.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's very good to be rising in this Legislature to debate the 1999-2000 budget. For those who are watching our proceedings on television, they might be a little. . . . Let's just say that they've been getting a diversity of messages about what the debate in this chamber is about today.

The budget we have before us, which the Minister of Finance tabled at the end of March, has some very simple goals in it. This chamber needs to recognize them, and frankly, I believe that the people of the province are recognizing them as well. This budget simply is about improving health care. That's as important in the part of the province that I come from, in northern British Columbia, as it is for the major metropolitan areas. It's about improving education, something that matters greatly to me personally and to my family. We simply must do more to ensure that our young people have the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed. It's about diversifying our economy by giving some of the most creative entrepreneurs, who help small businesses grow and flourish, the break they need to help grow and diversify our economy.

[1745]

Let's first acknowledge very clearly that some sectors of our economy are having some difficulties these days. In my part of the province, in Prince George, we have high unemployment. We have had mills shut down to consolidate workforces. The amount of timber hasn't diminished, the amount of cut hasn't diminished and the amount of product produced hasn't diminished. But there have indeed been shutdowns of facilities in my community and other communities.

So while we have in some areas of our economy, really, quite good times. . . . I was interested to sit here and listen to the member for Peace River South talk about what he saw as a very buoyant economy in his part of the province, which is highly dependent on gas and oil, and actually praise the Minister for Northern Development for some of the measures we have taken to streamline approval processes for that industry and encourage further expansion. That's going well. High-tech is growing very rapidly in this province, and I know that the minister responsible is looking at measures to enhance that growth even further.

The film industry. Anybody who watches at all what is happening on the streets, particularly of Vancouver and Victoria, knows that you are constantly ducking sets as they are being set up and taken down. I am pleased to report to the House that at least part of that really significant new economy in British Columbia, the film industry, is even starting to make its way to Prince George. We recently had an extensive visit by a crew that was filming a Hollywood feature, "Reindeer Games." It resulted in the infusion of some millions of dollars into the economy, which a few years ago simply would not have been there.

Finally, my colleague the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture is always willing to stand and report on the real boom we have in tourism in this province, as we market all the natural resources, scenery and experiences of B.C. to the world.

But let's be clear: industries in British Columbia that rely largely on exports to an international commodity market have had and are having difficulties. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether it's ores that are being produced, where copper is at a record low or silver is in the sewer, or whether it's pulp and timber, where we see some positive signs of an upturn in their markets but very little, or whether it's agriculture, which is having the same sort of difficulty. There are some signs of improvement in those markets, but let's be absolutely candid: they have had difficulties. While we may see some turnaround in the near future, the result of those difficulties is that the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled at the end of March projects a revenue decrease from around $20.4 billion in the last fiscal year, 1998-99, to around $20.15 billion in 1999-2000. That is part of the situation we find ourselves in.

I really listen to the members opposite. And, frankly, what they're saying about the other part of the demands they hear from their constituents is not greatly different from what I hear. I hear concerns about making sure that health care is there and accessible for everybody. There is concern about waiting lists. That's as true in Prince George as it is elsewhere. Even after eight years of funding increases in health care -- eight years in a row -- there's more work to do. The cost of drugs keeps going up, and we keep having new drug therapies. Even though we have the most generous Pharmacare system in the country, it is under pressure from these new therapies.

[1750]

[ Page 12113 ]

The other thing that I do here. . . . Frankly, I hear, as Minister of Education, from many of the members opposite every day -- and I surely hear it from parents and others in the province -- that education is increasingly recognized as the key to individual success for our children and the key to our province's economic future as we move from a resource economy to a knowledge economy. That's as true in Prince George as in other places. We are very proud of our new university. We're very proud of the skill centres and the expansion to our college. We're very proud of the quality and diversity of our K-to-12 system. But we also know that we need to constantly improve it, both in Prince George and across the province.

The other thing that I think everybody acknowledges is that we need to help some of the communities and industries that have been in difficulties. I know that the Minister of Forests referenced the over $1 billion in tax reductions and cost reductions that we've been able to provide to the forest industry. We increasingly need to diversify. Those are some of the common things that I hear, from all sides of this House, about the situation we find ourselves in. I see the member opposite nodding. I think he agrees that those are the demands that they would face were they, God forbid, to sit on these benches and have to table a budget.

But there are some differences. We have a budget before us that enhances funding for health, enhances funding for education, gives small business and entrepreneurs a tax break so that they can diversify and expand. What would the Liberal solution be to this situation which we find ourselves in?

I have listened hard to what they've been saying; I have listened carefully to what they've been saying. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition stand up this afternoon. Here are their priorities. First, and above all: "We're going to get rid of the deficit and balance the budget right now." I heard that, and I hear them applauding. Very good. You know, when you stand up and say that, I believe you're going to put that at the top of your priority list. I believe that.

Second, they say that their great incentive here is tax reduction. I hear them applauding again. You know, I believe them when they say they're going to do that. In fact, the Minister of Finance took the trouble to actually add up what their tax reductions would be. She said: "Okay, we're going to cut capital tax by around a third of a billion dollars. We'll do another cut to business taxes of $768 million, and then we will cut income taxes to the lowest rates in Canada." That's what they said. That's a huge cost, too.

Now, there are a couple of little wrinkles that they didn't quite come clean on -- not quite. For example, if we are to reduce tax rates for individuals, who gets the breaks, according to this Liberal opposition? Well, we looked at it, and here's the reality. People who are watching this on television should be well aware of what this Liberal opposition is proposing. If you happen to earn $20,000 or less -- one of the working poor in our province -- guess what this Liberal opposition is proposing for you: a magnificent tax break of $44 a year. If you happen to be. . . .

[1755]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hear somebody over there.

That reduction is less than the reduction in medical premiums that we have provided to working poor people in this province. It is far less than the child tax credit that we've been able to provide. This is minuscule.

Now, if you're a middle-income earner, it looks a little better. You might get a break of $575 if you earn between $20,000 and $80,000. But guess who really benefits under this Liberal scheme. If you happen to be one of the 4 percent of British Columbians who earn more than $80,000 a year -- 4 percent out of 100 percent -- then you will get a tax break of $4,200.

An Hon. Member: How much?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's $4,200, I hear. That's the Liberal plan. You know, I believe they'd do it -- tax breaks for business and for the rich. Absolutely, I believe they'd do it.

The part that I don't believe, hon. Speaker, is the third part they say. They say: "We're going to maintain funding for health care; we're going to maintain funding for education." It doesn't add up. In order to do that, they've got two choices. They simply have to cut 60 percent of every program in government other than Health, Education and the Ministry for Children and Families -- cut 60 percent of all the colleges, universities, transition houses and all other provincial facilities, and lay off half of all the foresters, conservation officers, firefighters, etc. I believe they'd do it. That's the agenda I hear from the opposite side.

That's what this debate is really about, because we on this side have a very different vision of what the priorities ought to be in the circumstances we find ourselves. I intend, when this debate resumes tomorrow, to outline our vision of what those choices are.

For now, noting the time, I would move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

NORTH SHORE SEARCH AND RESCUE

All of these rescues and operations are provided by volunteers, who give their time happily. But, of course, it is just not their time. It is personal safety, family life and equipment that are also given. Stories of team rescues are fascinating and worthy of telling, but I will not do so here.

I must also mention that North Shore Rescue is not unique -- certainly not unique in this province. There are

[ Page 12114 ]

[1800]

For example, on the North Shore, the members attend the 911 annual relay. They attend the duck race in the Capilano River. They attend many public events where their profile can be raised. This is all done in order to raise the funds for these capital expenditures. Just recently, Tim Jones, who is the current team leader for the North Shore team, spent a Sunday morning, March 7, in the area west of Cypress Bowl -- that was early Sunday morning, so it was in the dark, of course -- rescuing a snowboarder. Mr. Jones spent the rest of that Sunday on the banks of the Capilano River at the annual duck race.

The funding issue is really a question of what sources of revenue, public and private, should be there, and that is a very serious question. I know that the volunteer rescue society members do not want to seek publicity. I talk to them regularly, and they are not publicity-minded. They are simply dedicated people in our communities. But I do believe that they deserve a platform to discuss funding sources. There's an excellent and informative document -- in fact, I have it in my file -- that was produced in 1996 by the search and rescue community. The title is "Land and Inland Water Search and Rescue Strategic Plan for British Columbia." Time does not allow me, at this moment, to do more than acknowledge the existence of that document, but it is an interesting read for any member who's interested in more background on some of these issues.

I do want to reflect on a February 22 submission that Mr. Jones -- who is, as I commented earlier, the team leader of North Shore -- made to the Attorney General, the title of which is "Capital Cost Item Funding Proposal." Tim acknowledges the PEP funding and goes on to point out in his submission that volunteer SAR teams as a whole, however, do not receive direct/full funding from the province for capital cost items such as command vehicles, 4-by-4s, snowmobiles and communications, safety and rescue equipment. Mr. Jones has quite properly listed all of the capital needs that, of course, every team needs in its efforts.

He then goes on to comment on a potential source of funding -- namely, a surtax on suppliers of services and goods to the tourism industry. User fees and cost recovery are discussed in that other document that I referred to earlier, and there is some very detailed discussion in there as well. I would suggest, before I move on to my last topic in this statement about education and other issues, that the funding question can perhaps be pursued in the estimates or some other appropriate venue.

The other aspect that I do want to specifically comment on is the training for volunteers. Typically, the volunteers are in paramedic professions such as ambulance and firefighting, or they are simply motivated to acquire the skills needed to take on the task of a volunteer rescue team member. However, with the number of teams in B.C. and the growing need for their services, a central training facility would be desirable. The member for Chilliwack, in his ongoing campaign to put CFB Chilliwack to good use -- a base which we know is now vacant -- has written to the national Minister of Defence, suggesting that the base be used as a western emergency preparedness college. I think that's an excellent idea and one that could accommodate search-and-rescue training.

[1805]

The Speaker: Hon. member, as you see, the red light is on. You'll have a chance to wrap up in a few moments.

In response to the first private member's statement, I recognize the member for Skeena.

H. Giesbrecht: I would concur with the hon. member who just spoke, in terms of the importance of search and rescue. I don't know as much about the North Shore search and rescue service as he does, obviously, but even in our part of the northwest we enjoy the service of these many volunteers.

I want to draw particular attention to a group of volunteers, the Kitimat Marine Rescue Society, who are auxiliary to the Coast Guard. As most people know, the Coast Guard is spread fairly thin up in our part of the world. For many years volunteers have provided that kind of service. Recently, the rescue boat wore out, and currently they are trying to raise $50,000 for a new rigid-hull inflatable. The Kitimat city council is on board and has contributed $10,000, and the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine has contributed $7,500. In the meantime, of course, they have a boat loaned to them by the Coast Guard. Duncan Peacock, the unit leader, has provided this service for many years, along with a lot of other people. I think they are to be congratulated for their efforts.

I mention that because it's a good example of the kind of service that volunteers provide. B.C. is fortunate to have citizens who volunteer their time and expertise in preparing for and responding to emergency situations. There are about 17,000 British Columbians that do that and about 4,700 volunteers for B.C.'s 77 search and rescue teams across the province. Search and rescue in B.C. is part of the provincial emergency program services. It spends about $380,000 each year for training individuals. With a nominal $550,000 each year in costs, they provide a very excellent service.

These volunteers are on call 24 hours a day. They are not paid for their services. They sometimes take great risks to help people in emergency situations. They are registered through PEP, so they are eligible for workers compensation, third-party liability insurance, out-of-pocket expenses and replacement of lost or damaged equipment. They also get training. Their training includes ground-searching skills, rope rescue,

[ Page 12115 ]

Search and rescue incidents are increasing at a rate of 15 percent annually. B.C. has an average of 15 search and rescue incidents per week. Clearly there needs to be a focus on prevention. In March of 1998, $260,000 was committed to additional resources for training staff and public education programs to help reduce the number of incidents. This funding is ongoing. We often hear discussion about who should pay if people get into a situation which requires a search and rescue response, if they have ignored the posted warning signs. We've all seen those stories in the news. Should a person be required to pay the cost of rescue if they are negligent or don't obey the rules about where not to ski or hike? We certainly would not want family or friends of a missing hiker to hesitate in calling for help, and in the end it may be one of the costs we accept in a beautiful province where people love the outdoors. Even if the occasional person goes beyond the limits of good sense, that might be a necessary cost -- and perhaps the subject for another debate.

To all those volunteers, I think they deserve a sincere thank-you for their assistance.

The Speaker: In final response, I recognize the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: I thank the member opposite for relating an example from his own community. Probably most of us are in the fortunate position that we can do so.

[1810]

Their services are provided to PEP, the RCMP and municipal police, fire services, ambulance services, coroners' services and other SARs in B.C. and Washington State. I mentioned in my previous statement that they were down at Mount Baker earlier this year. Unfortunately, they had to search for someone who had perished in an avalanche. North Shore Rescue provides guest speakers and goes to schools and public events. It will speak at service clubs. They're more than happy to spend their time not only on rescuing in the wilderness areas but also on promoting the cause towards education of the public. They volunteer, they fundraise, they educate and they serve.

We must thank all SAR members, wherever they may be in this province. A special thank-you to all the North Shore Rescue Team Society members. I cannot name them all. I would like to, but I will certainly read into the record some of the principals of the North Shore team. Thank you to Don Jardine, Jerry Brewer, his brother Dave Brewer, Ron Royston, Tim Jones -- who I mentioned previously is the current team leader -- and Allen McMordie, just to name a few.

Finally, in the very wise words of the current team leader Tim Jones, who said recently, after rescuing someone from Cypress Bowl: "If you get lost, hug a tree." I think that's excellent advice for all those who may be using the wilderness.

DAY OF MOURNING

In 1984 the Canadian Labour Congress declared April 28 as labour's official day of mourning. April 28 was chosen because it is the anniversary of the day on which workers compensation legislation was passed in Ontario. In 1991 the Parliament of Canada passed an act respecting a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace. In 1992 this province issued a royal proclamation designating April 28 as an ongoing day of mourning for workers killed or injured on the job in British Columbia.

Last year on this date government introduced occupational health and safety legislation aimed at saving lives and preventing workplace injuries. That legislation had four aims: to send a clear message that occupational health and safety is important to every one of us; to make government clearly responsible for the broad area of workplace safety; to establish an appropriate legal basis for the health and safety work of the compensation board; and to establish a legal requirement that employers create and maintain workplace-based health and safety programs.

Clearly it reminds us all that all parties have a responsibility for workplace health and safety. The employer manages the workplace and hence has a primary role in ensuring that the safety of the workplace is paramount and that the workplace itself and employees comply with safety regulations. Of course, the safest workplace is one where employers and employees work together to address safety issues. Promoting workplace safety is an investment. British Columbia has had an abysmal record of workplace deaths and injuries compared with other provinces in Canada, but we are making significant progress to improve that picture.

[1815]

It's always a pleasure for me to be able to celebrate the work in the community I represent, the Comox Valley -- the work that goes on to bring to the attention of all citizens the role of working people and organized labour, to remember those who have died or been injured in the workplace and to improve conditions for all working people. Tonight, in recog-

[ Page 12116 ]

That toll is for one small village, but it stands for thousands in B.C. and Alberta collieries. In 1887, 157 men perished in a single blast in Nanaimo; in 1901, 64 died in Cumberland; in 1902, 128 died at Coal Creek, near Fernie; in 1914, 189 died at Hillcrest; in 1917, 34 died at Coal Creek; in 1923, 34 died at Cumberland -- and so on. Let's not forget that all these people were just doing their job.

The Speaker: I recognize now, in response, the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: I thank the member for Comox Valley for presenting this very important topic by way of a private member's statement tonight.

It is always shocking to everyone when a worker is killed on the job. People go to work to provide for their families -- for the necessities of life for themselves, for their friends and for their charitable giving. The last thing anyone expects when they go to work in the morning is that they're not going to be able to come home at night because something has gone wrong on the job. It's always shocking; it's often sudden. In the case of disease brought on by issues at the workplace, it's not as sudden, but it's still a dramatic and terrible loss of life and a grievous loss to the families.

We think of the spouses who have to soldier on alone without a loved one that they planned their lives with. We think of children whose parents never come home at the end of a working day and who have to learn to live with the reality of being forever without that beloved parent. We think of parents who quite naturally expect that their children will outlive them and, perhaps, have children of their own. They have to deal with the grief of knowing that their child died at work or died because of work and never returned. And we think of grandchildren who will never have the blessing of a relationship with a grandparent who could have added so much to their lives.

These awful events are very traumatic for the fellow workers of the workers who die as well -- a situation that they'll never forget and a traumatizing event. A colleague of mine died of a heart attack in the workplace. While that wasn't necessarily a work-related injury, I've certainly never forgotten it or the terrible feeling of not being able to help him, of finding him collapsed in the back of our truck bay at an ICBC claims office. No one had found him in time. We don't know if we could have helped him if anyone had found him in time. It wasn't really considered to be a matter of any negligence on anyone else's part, yet I'll never forget the sadness of that event.

[1820]

Personally, in a different Crown corporation than WCB -- at ICBC -- I spent 18 years handling claims out of motor vehicle accidents and then three years in the loss prevention division of ICBC. I wondered why I'd devoted so much time to dealing with the consequences of motor vehicle accidents before I began to devote myself full-time to preventing them in the first place. Every step that a government takes -- the federal government, any provincial government and certainly this one -- to safeguard workers in the workplace and to prevent situations from arising where they're going to be hurt is encouraging to me. I commend governments for any such efforts that they make.

I do believe that it's incumbent upon us to ensure that those that we have empowered in our society to deal with the consequences, the terrible results, in families when a worker has been injured or killed must be taught to be tender and compassionate and very service-minded in their responses to the injured workers and their families. I also believe that it would make sense for the Workers Compensation Board to follow the lead set by the Insurance Corporation of B.C., which reduces premiums for excellent loss experiences -- that is, for individuals, companies, premium-payers who have demonstrated an awareness of loss prevention and have not had claims records.

Reward them by reducing their premiums rather than by having one large generic class. For example, in the case of mining, every mine pays the same rate, regardless of the fact that some have wonderful safety records and some have terrible safety records. I hope no one would consider it partisan of me to mention that Highland Valley Copper, for example, has won safety awards every year for its achievements in protecting its employees. The employees themselves win awards year after year in competitions with regard to mine rescue and mine loss-prevention-mindedness.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you will notice that the red light is now on, and your time is now up. Thank you for your comments.

K. Krueger: I look forward to the balance of the member's comments.

E. Gillespie: I thank the member opposite for his comments. I feel very fortunate to live in a community that celebrates workers and workers' history in a way that is not celebrated in our society at large and certainly not through our educational system. I'm certainly not aware, in British Columbia or in other jurisdictions, of where our children have the opportunity to learn about our workers' history or labour's history, which has helped to build the great country that we live in.

Just following very shortly on the heels of the National Day of Mourning is May 1, which in many places around the world is celebrated as Workers Day or as Labourers Day -- celebrating, initially, the achievement of the eight-hour workday. But once again, this day will be marked in the community of Cumberland by a bean supper, as I've spoken about in this House before, in remembrance of the great strike in the Cumberland mines. This bean supper, now in its third year, is growing as a celebration of organized labour and of labour history in our province.

[ Page 12117 ]

[1825]

PRIORITY FOR HEALTHY CHILDREN

Children, to be healthy adults, must first be healthy children. So where to begin? At the beginning, of course. A child should be born into a healthy environment with a healthy mother and a healthy father living in a healthy community. A child can understand this, but apparently we adults find that more difficult. Why are so many children born with disabilities? Often it's because adults -- their parents or others in the community -- have not cared for themselves, or it's because of unavoidable circumstances. In either case, the children suffer.

Today many birth difficulties can be overcome if they are treated in the first, second and third years of life. Instead, children of our modern generation often have to wait until they are of school age to have their needs assessed and perhaps, then, to find the response. For many, this is too late. Studies abound that tell us what every living parent already knows is true. From the moment of conception, love, care and nourishment enable a child to grow physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and socially.

What, then, is the first priority for children? It is simply to nourish them intellectually, physically, emotionally, spiritually and socially for the first three years and nine months so that they may become healthy, wholesome three-year-olds. That is their foundation for living. It is the gift that we owe to them. It is a responsibility that is upon all of us for all of our children, for if this basic foundation is not accomplished by three years of age, the task becomes much more difficult, much more costly and much less successful.

Recently our caucus committee on children asked a field worker for children and youth with problems, one who works with incarcerated adults: what would be a means of overcoming the problems of such persons? He had three words: prevention, prevention, prevention. He said that the best prevention is a loving, caring, sharing family relationship, along with strong community supports. It is fundamental that every child must be treated with respect and receive love and care from others in order to become a loving, caring and competent person in their own right.

Given these irrefutable facts, what part does government have to play? What part does government have to play in those early years? Some people would say none at all, that this is the sole responsibility of the parents. Yes, if your family lives in isolation from society on an isolated island, perhaps that's true. However, we do not normally live in isolation from others. For better or for worse, we live in communities that are influenced by all of the community interactions.

[1830]

We glibly say that governments do not create jobs; rather, that governments create an environment where business may flourish, which then creates the jobs. Likewise, governments do not create healthy children. Governments can, though, help create the environment where parents and neighbours may nourish their children to their full potential. For years we have assumed that our joint responsibility begins when a youngster is five or six years old, when they go to school. Yet when we neglect the first years of life, we have created devastating lifelong results and damaged lives.

It is urgent -- past urgent -- that the light go on in our heads, to realize that the foundation blocks for children must be put in place piece by piece from the time of conception to three years of age. It is in this time frame that the brain functions are formed. Personality and physical, emotional and spiritual characteristics are put in place.

The Speaker: Member, you'll see that your time is up. Thank you for your comments.

I recognize, in response, the hon. member for New Westminster.

G. Bowbrick: I'd like to begin by thanking the member for his comments, because I think they're perceptive and certainly very sensitive comments. The reason I want to respond to this statement is because this is very close to home for me. As a young member of the Legislature, I also have very young children. I have a son named Colin, who is three and a half years old, and I have a son, Adam, who is six months old. They're the most important things in my life.

I have to say that I approached this kind of issue in a very intellectual way until three and a half years ago. When you're a young parent, you see every day the importance of the things that the member opposite talks about. I've certainly given this a lot of thought as I watch my children grow up, as I've watched them in the last few years.

I'm not going to start by talking about the role of government, because I want to step away for a moment from. . . . Shall I call it ideological stereotypes that assume that someone who comes from the Left wants to talk first, or mostly, about the role of government in helping our children? I speak as a parent and a pragmatist, and what I see too much of in our society is a tendency, when we're concerned about what's happening to our children, to blame others or to blame teachers. We say there's something wrong with the school system or that there's too much violence on TV, or what have you.

[ Page 12118 ]

As parents, we have to take the time to talk with our children, to realize that we can reason with our children when they're very young, when they're two and a half or three years old. I'm stunned by the things that come out of my son's mouth and the thought that he obviously gives to things. If we are concerned about violence on TV, we have to watch what they're watching. We have to take the time to sit down with them and talk about what they're watching, as they watch it. We have to read to them. Also of fundamental importance is that we have to think about their education from a young age -- definitely prior to five years old. In our household that means that we are involved in a parent-participation preschool.

[1835]

I want to talk very briefly about education, and I want to propose something that I've been thinking about for a long time. I want to emphasize that I recognize that there isn't money to do it right now. I think that the next great social program in this country will be universally accessible preschool for our three- and four-year-olds. We've made great strides with programs like universally accessible medicare, but we haven't done enough in the last 30 years. If we truly want to have a better society, I think we have to take better care of our children.

I am struck when I talk to teachers who work with five- and six-year-olds who come from very difficult backgrounds, who tell me that for these kids the school is their only sanctuary. While I say that parents have to take primary responsibility, we have to recognize that there are parents who don't do that, and we can't as a society abandon those kids. As a society we have an obligation to help. I think the most important thing we could start to think about is: what can we do to give kids the best start possible -- to make sure that from the age of three these kids are going to have relatively equal opportunities in their lives with children who come from families where they get all the love, warmth and security they need? If that's not happening in some families, it's important that we take the first step to ensure that we can have that with all children in our society.

The Speaker: The member will see that the light is on and his time is up.

With concluding remarks, I recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: I thank the member for New Westminster. His experience as a parent and mine, also, as a grandparent, bring it home to all of us in a new vital way again, and it reminds us. . . . I would like to stress that if by three years old we haven't laid the foundation, we have missed the boat with children. What I'm trying to say, in short, is that we need to have a consciousness that the time from when a child is conceived until they are three years old is the crucial time in their lives. If we lay that foundation, then they have some hope. If we miss that foundation, then life will always be difficult for them.

Everything else in their development depends on the adequacy of this foundation. We must, then, encourage programs that enable parents to be prepared physically, mentally, socially, emotionally and spiritually to take on what the member opposite has said is the greatest task in their lives: nourishing their children. We must follow that up with communities that give programs to support the children and their parents as they nourish themselves in this opportunity. I think we will be amazed when we discover, if we focus on children, how much more healthy and harmonious the lives of all of us will be in our communities.

The question many people will ask is: how much will it cost to have this kind of focus? My quick response would be: a lot less than the present medical, educational and police costs we now pay to overcome our earlier failures, a lot less than the woes that come as a result of our forgetting or neglecting to focus on children and a lot less than our wasted dollars on adult diversions in striving to be one up on our neighbour.

If we have a mission statement for government in this regard, I suggest that it might be something like this: "Our mission is to build a foundation for the future by ensuring that every child has the fullest possible nourishment, love, care and opportunity from conception to three years of age, so that the whole of each child's life can be built on a sure foundation."

[1840]

It's not the money that it will take. It's our will. That's what it will cost us.

FLOOD CONTROL

The government is taking action to make sure that we're prepared for possible flooding. Obviously we can't control natural events such as a flood. But we want to reassure people that we're doing everything we can to prepare, and that is our top priority. B.C. has a flood response plan that will be activated to help protect lives and property from flood devastation. We're prepared to assist communities through deploying

[ Page 12119 ]

In addition to these measures and the close to $5 million that the government has provided for flood prevention work, I'd like to take this opportunity to tell members of the House and the people of British Columbia what additional steps we're taking to protect the communities from the possibility of floods. The primary responsibility for flood protection lies with the local governments. In the event of flooding, local governments respond first by activating their emergency plans. I know that in Maple Ridge there was a news item today, where their local emergency planning committee, a multi-agency group, meets regularly to prepare for any event in Ridge Meadows. They're prepared to add 10,000 sandbags, and of course, if they need more, they'll be applying for more funding for that.

The role of the provincial government is to act in support of those local government initiatives. Provincial support will be coordinated through the British Columbia flood plan, which details how the province will respond to both major and minor flooding. A central coordination group consisting of senior management personnel from the provincial emergency program, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has been established. The central coordinating group is responsible for monitoring and coordinated planning of floods, establishing a provincial emergency coordination centre as well as six provincial field response centres in Nanaimo, Surrey, Kamloops, Prince George, Terrace and Nelson, and coordinating recovery and rehabilitation as well as administering the disaster financial assistance program.

The Ministry of Environment is responsible for flood forecasting and for establishing priorities for dam or dike improvements or repairs. To this end, the ministry has approved close to $5 million for urgent flood prevention work to strengthen dikes and riverbanks. With this new funding, the province has spent more than $11 million over the past three years on flood prevention throughout British Columbia. A lot of high-risk areas have been addressed, before and after flooding in 1997. Staff at the ministry are continuing to monitor snowpacks and melting rates. As the river levels begin to rise, the information will be made available to local residents.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways coordinates floodfighting, manages the provincial field response centres and distributes equipment and resources.

The provincial emergency program manages the provincial response to the consequences of flooding, including implementing the emergency flood plan, registering volunteers, issuing task orders as well as issuing public information advisories and warnings. The provincial emergency program has prepared for potential flooding by increasing the inventory of sandbags to 5.5 million bags and putting mobile sandbag-filling machines in Kamloops, Osoyoos, Abbotsford, Nelson and Prince George.

[1845]

The federal government, at the request of the province, has also recognized its responsibility for protecting Indian reserve lands from flooding. We invite and encourage the federal government to do its share and contribute even more dollars to the province's general flood response plan. I know that the local Katzie Indian band in Pitt Meadows has a real concern. They have a long riverbank front that is not protected and that has never been protected. In fact, in 1972 the Fraser River rose to more than 22 feet, and the band had only inches to spare. So they're watching that very closely, and they're ready to move people out if necessary. It's probably too much riverfront to actually dike, but they're making sure that their people are prepared. There are some 60 homes and 150 residents there that are concerned.

I notice that my time is nearly up, so I look forward to hearing from my colleague across the way. I will continue, when I have the chance, to address some of the work that's done at the local level and how homeowners can make sure that they're protected.

The Speaker: I recognize, in reply, the hon. member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: I thank the member opposite for a timely topic.

I might say that I've lived along watercourses all of my life, starting with a farm in the Pitt Meadows area along the Alouette River. I lived along Boundary Bay in the sixties and had the experience of the Pacific Ocean rolling over the dike for about 36 hours. That's kind of an interesting experience. I've also operated a farm on Nicomen Island in the Mission-Kent area, on the north side of the Fraser, and now we have a farm on the south side of the Fraser -- again, right along the river. So it does make you conscious of the issues of flooding.

When I watched the spring runoff on the Fraser in 1997, I think it probably gave me the most graphic indication, personally, of the real flood potential of the Fraser River. In fact, the river ran at an elevation of approximately 20 feet for six or seven weeks, at the Mission gauge. If you flew over from Vancouver, you could see the amount of grey water out on the Pacific Ocean, all of it water pouring in daily from the Fraser River. It covered a very significant area. As a farmer, I've learned that you cannot control nature; you cannot control the weather. You can certainly do a lot of creative things to intervene, but ultimately you cannot control these natural events.

I think the member opposite did a pretty good job of explaining some of the efforts of the provincial government to deal with the current situation. I am going to mention what I think are a few critical issues with respect to diking and the management of water, the first one being that a few years ago -- I'd say it was five or six years ago now -- the two senior governments, the federal and provincial governments, discontinued the Fraser River flood control program. This was a federal-provincial-local government partnership which maintained dikes and did a lot of, I think, very good work in terms of upgrading dikes in the lower mainland over the years. Certainly through the sixties and seventies there was a lot of that kind of work done.

In recent years the responsibility has been basically left to local governments, and I don't feel that local governments have the capacity to look after the kind of structural maintenance that we see the provincial government addressing now on an emergency basis. If you look at municipalities like

[ Page 12120 ]

[1850]

The other area I want to mention is areas where we have conflict between fish habitat concerns and flood protection. There are many examples where this happens. Again, it's part of the sort of long-term maintenance issue that we face on flood control.

The Speaker: For closing remarks on the fourth and final private member's statement, I recognize the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

W. Hartley: I thank the member. As he always does, he's taken the high ground on this issue. And that's appropriate because, of course, natural disasters do transcend politics and we need to emphasize that everyone has to work together on this issue.

You mentioned the important issue of dike maintenance, and I would agree with the member. Certainly there are farming areas, especially, that require the upgrading of dikes, and it's something, again, that we all have to work on, both at the local level with the diking districts and also at the provincial level.

For example, Pitt Meadows is a very low-lying area as well. I note that there are some 2,000 beef and dairy cows and heifers which live on those farms that could be affected by flooding. Dairy cows need to be milked twice a day, and you have to be able to provide for that and plan for that. Also, of course, the feed crop for those animals, which is needed in the coming winter, could be wiped out.

In the local farming community, the Pitt Meadows Farmers Institute is working hard in a neighbour-helping-neighbour process, and I'm sure that the farmers throughout the valley are working together in that sense. There are a number of community groups which I'll get into. I just want to emphasize that we need to have every British Columbian working with local governments and the province in order to protect the high-risk areas and taking steps to prepare themselves and their families for the floods. In that respect, there is information available to families -- brochures from the provincial emergency program on flood precautions, flood-proofing for homeowners and the disaster financial assistance program, as well as a video on sandbagging.

What do ordinary British Columbians do to protect their houses and families? There are some tips that are made available. Everyone should learn which areas are safe and which are prone to floods. Municipal offices and regional district offices have copies of flood plain area maps. Become familiar with the local emergency plan, and volunteer if possible. Be prepared to raise goods and appliances from your basements and locate equipment on high ground -- for instance, furnaces in basements. When basements flood, they're lifted, the piping that joins that furnace, which has a flow of gas through it, breaks, and there's a gas leak. These are things that you need to carefully consider. At what point do you turn off the power to your house? At what point do you turn off the gas to your house?

You need, of course, to ensure that your children don't go near swollen streams and that you have some kind of family action plan, in the event of flooding.

[1855]

I thank all members for their statements today.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members for their thoughtful statements on the issues of the day, and I move this House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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