Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12121 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yesterday, before we adjourned for another order of business at around 6 o'clock, I was commenting on some of the choices that had been made in the budget this year and some of the differences between the choices that are reflected in this budget and what that Liberal opposition has proposed. It was clear that the opposition places a high priority on balancing the budget -- deficit elimination above all -- on a huge program of tax cuts for business and high-income earners and around $3.3 billion in cuts to government services. They say they can do this without affecting health and education, but frankly, hon. Speaker, we've heard this before. We've heard it from Ralph Klein, we've heard it from Mike Harris, and we've seen that they were totally incapable of carrying out that sort of plan without massive cuts to health and education services in those provinces.

[1005]

Let's take a look at some of the specific achievements in health care that will occur as a result of this budget. Over 58,000 additional surgeries and procedures will be done in specialized hospitals in the lower mainland and in regional centres, such as Prince George Regional Hospital in my community. It means that we will increase the number of cardiac procedures by more than 700. It will increase screening mammography by 19 percent -- 38,000 more procedures. I know it's initiatives like that that really, really drive home the commitment to health care for people in my communities.

Another area where we have had a high need for more government funding and more attention is in long-term care. We are an aging population. Some of us feel we're aging faster than others. This budget will provide us with 480 additional and much-needed long term care beds across British Columbia. I will be talking to the Minister of Health, seeking to make sure that some of those beds are placed in the north -- in Prince George and other areas.

Let's see, though, what the people who actually provide health care have to say about this -- this government's vision of what we should be doing with health care versus that of the Liberal opposition. I happen to have a news release from the British Columbia Nurses Union. This is what nurses have to say about the Liberal agenda for health care, putting deficit reduction first:

"There is simply no place for deficit hysteria in a province that has managed to maintain health care spending while other provinces have slashed and burned their systems throughout the 1990s. You only have to look at the provinces of Alberta and Ontario, where these so-called pro-business governments have eliminated programs and laid off thousands of nurses and are now being forced to undo the damage by trying to bring their nurses back."

[1010]

Another area of the budget that is of great concern to people in my riding and, I think, to others in the province is: what's happening in education? As I said yesterday, I haven't heard anybody in this House who doesn't agree that education is one of the cornerstones to individual success in the future and to the success of our communities and our province. We need the best education system that we can have in British Columbia. We know that one of our competitive edges in the twenty-first century will be the knowledge and skills of our citizens, and we have to provide our children with the opportunity to attain those skills and that knowledge.

Here's what this budget does for education: it increases the K-to-12 funding by another $45 million. It has now gone up over 23 percent since 1991. A couple of the members opposite were asking about this yesterday. There was a little heckling and talking about school districts and their individual funding circumstances. We have been able to provide school districts with the highest per-student funding of any school district in Canada. This year that funding is $5,992 per student -- nearly $6,000 per child in our public education system. That is unprecedented. This is at record levels for per-student funding for education in British Columbia.

We have undertaken a variety of very aggressive measures to improve education in the kindergarten-to-grade 12 system. We are spending $150 million over three years to lower class size for kindergarten to grade 3. Why? Well, we're doing it for a very simple reason: every study I've seen says that if you give children more individual attention, particularly in those early years, they can master the basics of reading, writing and mathematics more fully and go on to greater success both in the school system and in post-secondary education. That's what this initiative is all about. You know, I think parents, teachers and students agree that that's the right direction to go.

We also know that we need to make sure our students are equipped for the technological age that is increasingly sweeping through business, government -- every facet of our lives. So we are spending $123 million over five years to hook up every one of our province's schools to the Internet, to make

[ Page 12122 ]

We've also continued our work to make sure that students have the opportunity to go on to post-secondary, to get the college or university training that they need. For the fourth year in a row, we have now frozen tuition fees in this budget. We're the only province in Canada with that sort of record. When we started this program a few years ago, tuition in British Columbia was among the highest -- the second- or third-highest -- and now we are either at the bottom or second from the bottom in tuition costs. We are sending the right message to kids in secondary schools: that education can no longer stop with a grade 12 graduation certificate, that post-secondary training or education is essential for individual success and that our province's success depends upon citizens that have those skills.

[1015]

You know what I didn't find, hon. Speaker? I didn't find any mention of reducing class sizes -- not one. I guess I'm not surprised about that, because last year they stood in this chamber and voted against smaller class sizes in K-to-12. But they're not coming clean on that; they're not admitting that they don't support smaller class sizes. It doesn't appear here anywhere. I thought I might find, in this update on education, some support for our initiative to get rid of half the portable classrooms in British Columbia over five years. I surely have lots of Liberal members coming to me and saying that there are too many portables at schools in their ridings and that they support this program. I thought I might see some support for that. Not a word about supporting the reduction of portables. Not surprising -- they stand here every day and say that we shouldn't borrow money to build new schools, to renovate old ones or to get rid of portables. Why don't they come clean? Why don't they come clean and tell the parents and teachers and students of the province that they have no intention of building the schools and getting rid of the portables? I found no support, in their update on education, for the tuition freeze -- none. That's not surprising. I think that if they, God forbid, ever occupy these seats, students in our colleges and universities would find tuition rising as rapidly as it has in Ontario and Alberta, where college and university students have faced tuition increases of 30 and 40 percent in recent years.

So what did I find was their priority? Well, you know what I found? They've appointed four critics for education -- not one, but four. That's the Liberal commitment to education: four critics for education. Well, it's a nice team. Frankly, I think the people they put on it do care about education. But I see no policies; I see no support for what I hear from parents that they want: fewer portables, smaller classes, better access to technology. I don't see any of that in the Liberal agenda for education.

The final element that I want to speak on briefly is this budget's measures to help stimulate and diversify our economy. At the start of my remarks on this budget yesterday I spoke of our government's determination to assist sectors of our economy that are having difficulty in an international market where commodity prices are greatly depressed. This budget carries on the work that we've begun. So far, we have been able to provide nearly $1 billion in cost relief for the forest industry. That is good news for people in my community of Prince George and for other forest-dependent communities in the north. We know that our companies compete in an international marketplace. We know that's a cyclical marketplace and that right now, for both pulp and lumber, the cycle is in a down phase. But we also expect that the government will come through and assist the industry in these hard times -- and it has, hon. Speaker.

But we also want, in Prince George and in other forest-dependent communities, to be able to stimulate and diversify our economy. We know that the backbone of our communities will continue to be forestry and mining; it will continue to be dependent on international markets. But we need to spread out and diversify, and that's why the measures in this budget -- to spend $20 million on high-technology initiatives and the initiative to spend $10 million on economic diversification in rural areas -- are so important in our communities.

[1020]

I was listening to the member for Richmond-Steveston yesterday, who talked about his excellent adventure going to Prince George and visiting the university there. He had some kind words to say for it. He met with the chamber of commerce. He had kind words for the chamber. I think I will send him a clipping from the Prince George Citizen, the day after our Minister of Finance tabled this budget.

You know what the chamber of commerce said about this budget? They applauded this government's initiative to reduce small business taxes. They said: "That's exactly the sort of measure that will be welcomed by entrepreneurs who want to start or grow a small business in our community." They saw this as exactly the sort of measure that government ought to be doing in these difficult economic times for those of us who live in resource industries.

There were choices here. Yes, we have chosen not to put elimination of the deficit at the top of our priorities. We have said that health care and education and a stimulus for the small business person are more important. Without those measures, we could have balanced this budget. We chose not to, because these measures are important to people in my community. . .

The Speaker: Minister, you'll see that the red light is on.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .and important to the people of British Columbia. I intend to fully support this budget.

The Speaker: We are all aware, I know, that we are speaking to the amendment that is currently on the floor.

G. Bowbrick: I want to take some time this morning to avoid, at least for the first part of my remarks, too much

[ Page 12123 ]

Budgets are, after all, all about choices. And I think it's important that we take a look at the choices that would be offered by the Liberal opposition in this province. I think that by their comments on the record, they've certainly indicated fairly clearly to British Columbians -- not in a way that has been consolidated into a vision that they have offered, but we've kindly done that for them. . . . But certainly it represents their choices. The choices that we've made in this budget, I think, have been quite well outlined by my own colleagues on this side of the House, so for the most part I'll leave that to my colleagues.

I want to start by saying one thing, which will become apparent by the end of my remarks. That is that there is no government -- I emphasize "government. . . ." No governing party in this country of any political stripe has the temerity to tell the people that they can do it all -- that they can balance the budget, that they can have the highest level of health care and education spending in Canada, that they can pay down the debt and that they can have the lowest taxes in Canada. I want to emphasize that from the outset. No government in this country has made that commitment.

I'd like to move to a bit of a comparison on the issue of taxes and taxation. For the purposes of my remarks today, I'm going to focus only on four provinces, because they are the ones that seem to keep coming up in this House: of course British Columbia, but also Alberta, Saskatchewan -- the Liberal opposition is quite fond of raising Saskatchewan now; they seem to have great admiration for social democrats in that province -- as well as the province of Ontario.

[1025]

For example, I think it's important. . . . The average family doesn't much care about only one particular tax. At the end of the day, they care about what the overall taxation level is for them. Suffice it to say -- and I'll outline this a little -- out of the four provinces that I named, British Columbia has the second-lowest level of taxation for that family. Taking into account all provincial taxation such as sales taxes and property taxes -- which, of course, aren't levied by the province -- everything that would be particular to living in a particular province, British Columbia is second. Saskatchewan is the highest of the four; Ontario is the second-highest. Alberta is lower than British Columbia by about $1,100 a year for that family.

I think it's interesting to note that the same ranking holds true for an unattached individual who makes $80,000 a year. In this province the number of individuals who make that kind of money is only 4 percent of the total population. They are the people that we hear concern raised about in terms of brain drain -- people who leave this province because they're taxed too highly. If you look at the overall level of taxation they face in this province -- that is particular to this province -- the only province that's still lower than British Columbia is Alberta. Ontario -- the Ontario of Mike Harris, who I know the opposition leader admires so greatly -- has a higher level of taxation for that individual.

When it comes to a two-income family of four, a lower-income family -- whether they have a $55,000-a-year total income or a $30,000-a-year total income -- British Columbia is still the second-lowest tax jurisdiction in this country. Ontario and Saskatchewan are reversed for those. In both those cases, Saskatchewan has lower taxes than Ontario does.

It's interesting to note that the much-vaunted tax advantages in the province of Ontario disappear when one considers two things. One is property taxes. It's important to note that relative to all of these provinces, British Columbia has the lowest property taxes. With regard to Ontario, there's an important reason for that, and that is that in Ontario local government is called upon to provide much more in the way of services than local government is in this province.

For example, in Ontario local government is required to provide welfare, which is something that is taken on entirely by the provincial government in this province. What happens is that in Ontario, because they provide fewer services, they can have lower taxation directly from the provincial government. But because another level of government is expected to pick up that taxation or those services, what happens is that in Ontario property taxes are substantially higher. For the family of four that has a $90,000-a-year income, property taxes in Ontario are $2,800 a year; in British Columbia they're $1,168. At the end of the day, what matters is the overall level of taxation that families feel.

I guess the conclusion to be reached is that it is a bit of a myth that British Columbia is this high-taxed jurisdiction relative to the jurisdictions that the opposition likes to refer to. At the end of the day, what we end up seeing. . . . It actually ends up being a bit of a shell game. You may pay lower direct taxes to the provincial government in Ontario, but you'll pay higher property taxes because, at the end of the day, Canadians across the country expect reasonably similar levels of service. Of course, when it comes to health care and education, they get a higher level of service in this province than in any other.

[1030]

[ Page 12124 ]

It's worth noting, in summary on taxation, that we in British Columbia have the lowest small business income tax out of the four provinces. We have a general corporate income tax rate that is comparable to the other three provinces. The corporate capital tax is, of course, higher -- many would argue substantially higher -- than in Alberta, where it doesn't exist, and in Saskatchewan, where the threshold is much higher than in British Columbia, but it's better than in Ontario.

We have to move to the services side of the equation. We know that on per-capita health care spending, British Columbia leads this country and has led the country for quite some time now. We also know that in Alberta. . . . I believe it's the Alberta Medical Association that kindly took out ads in that province's newspapers and pointed out that Alberta has either the lowest or the second-lowest per-capita funding of health care in the entire country. While Alberta does have the lowest overall tax burden -- British Columbia has the second-lowest -- Albertans pay for that by having far fewer resources devoted to health care than British Columbia has.

On per-student education funding, once again British Columbia leads the way. There's no question about that; the facts speak for themselves. I should add, as well, that because of the tuition freeze in this province. . . . If we go back to that family of four, assuming a couple of children and an income of $90,000 a year, I said that the overall tax burden difference is about $1,100 a year, in terms of taxes that are specific to that province as opposed to this one. However, if you have children who are of university age and you'd like to send those children to university, because we've had a tuition freeze in place in British Columbia for four years now, we have the second-lowest tuition fees in the country. Alberta's are substantially higher. They're on the order of $1,100 or $1,200 a year, and the gap is growing. All that family has to do is send one child to university, and the so-called Alberta advantage is gobbled up. If they send two children to university, the Alberta advantage disappears, and in fact, you see a British Columbia advantage for that family.

[1035]

I have a few conclusions, in terms of that factual overview, that I want to offer this morning. One is that on the issue of taxation, I would suggest that a bit of a phony war has been created, when it's been suggested that British Columbia is horribly uncompetitive and is an awful place to live because tax rates are so high. In fact, as we've seen, business tax rates are substantially similar among the four provinces that I've discussed. On the personal taxation base, in terms of the overall tax burden -- property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, medicare premiums -- British Columbia has the second-lowest taxes in Canada. If there's a member of the opposition who disagrees with that, I'd invite them to get up in this debate and point out factually to me the reason for their disagreement. And if they don't, I would have to assume that they concur with the conclusion that I've reached.

Of course, in spending on health care and education, B.C. clearly leads the way in this country. On the issue of a balanced budget versus a deficit or a surplus, British Columbia is between Ontario and Alberta. Alberta is running a surplus; Ontario is running a bigger deficit per capita than British Columbia is.

As I said earlier, it's all about choices. In Saskatchewan they're very much in the middle of the pack. They're certainly in the middle of the pack when it comes to Canadian provinces and their spending on health care and education. They have among the highest taxes in the country, certainly substantially higher than in British Columbia. And when it comes to the issue of deficit or surplus, they've clearly made a decision that they want to run surpluses.

Ralph Klein in Alberta has made a clear decision to have somewhat lower taxes than in British Columbia. British Columbia is second only to Alberta, of course. But at the same time as he's chosen to have the lowest taxation level in Canada, he's also chosen to have among the lowest, if not the lowest, levels of spending on health care and education in the entire country. So Ralph Klein understands that choices have to be made. He's made some different choices from us. Alberta is in a surplus position, but they have chosen to finance their tax breaks at the expense of health care and education, which is something that we've decided not to do in this province.

Once again, Mike Harris is someone who I know the Leader of the Opposition greatly admires. Strangely enough, when you look at the choices, Ontario loses on all fronts. They have higher overall taxation levels than British Columbia has, they have lower spending on health care and education than British Columbia has, and they have a higher deficit. On all counts Ontario comes out behind British Columbia, so I'm not sure of the basis for the Leader of the Opposition's admiration for Mike Harris. Maybe he's not aware of these facts; I'd refer him to the budget reports for some of those comparisons. But I'm not quite clear as to the basis for his admiration.

I think what's important to do now is to take a look at what a Liberal budget might look like, how it would stack up against the current B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario situations. I want to point out, in the interests of brevity, that all of this is substantiated. I'd be happy. . . . I think that the official opposition has copies of this already. The commitments that we say they've made are all on the record, and we've documented them. We've been very careful to do that, because we certainly wouldn't want to mislead anyone or misrepresent in any way what the Liberal opposition in this province stands for.

[ Page 12125 ]

[1040]

The problem with this, of course, is that people know that the Leader of the Opposition can't do that. Mike Harris can't do it, and Ralph Klein can't do it; we can't do it. But for some reason, the Leader of the Opposition thinks he's so immensely talented that he can do what no one else in this country has ever been able to do. I would suggest that Ralph Klein and Mike Harris would blush if they were to stand up and try to keep a straight face while they told the people of their respective provinces that they were going to be able to do everything for them that the Leader of the Opposition says he's going to be able to do for the people of this province.

Something has to give. The bottom line -- and I'll go through this in a little bit of detail -- is that the Liberal opposition, in terms of their fiscal plans for this province, have a $3.6 billion problem. We're accepting, in our version of their budget, their commitment to maintain their. . . . They say they'll maintain health care and education spending. So I know they'll be delighted to hear this: we have put into the budget. . . .

Interjections.

G. Bowbrick: The members opposite laugh. But the truly sad part of all of this is that for some reason, the people of this province can't expect this opposition to spell out exactly what they would do. For some reason, this opposition is scared to spell out its alternative. For some reason, their Finance critic and their House Leader have said in this House that the only way they would release a detailed financial document is when two weeks into an election campaign. That suggests to me that maybe they don't have full confidence in their position and that just maybe they realize how ludicrous their position actually is. They're hoping to hide it from British Columbians.

I feel honour-bound and duty-bound to let British Columbians know what they would do, based upon the commitments that we have on the record from that opposition. We accept them at their word when they say they'll maintain spending in health care and education and in the Ministry for Children and Families. They say they won't cut those things. So we put all those things into the budget. They also said that they disagree with the way we capitalize assets around highways in this province, so we made sure that we included that in the budget.

They also have some unfunded spending promises, of course. They committed $100 million to northern doctors. They also have $100 million in other spending demands, including transportation and highway rehabilitation. Once again, this is all documented. I'd be happy to share with the members opposite, to refresh their memories, the statements they've made publicly that we're aware of. We've got about $200 million in Liberal spending to deal with -- priority spending areas maintained in that Liberal budget.

This is extraordinarily interesting if we take a quick look at this. On tax cuts, the Liberal opposition has committed to eliminate the corporation capital tax -- we want to be fair about this -- but not on financial institutions. That would result in a loss to the provincial treasury of $338 million. That's a $338 million promise; that's a $338 million budget item, something that reduces. . . .

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: The member opposite says that the economy will grow and what have you.

In the spirit of complete fairness, we have included corporation income tax revenue, on the assumption that by eliminating the corporate capital tax, what will happen is that there will be higher profits for those corporations. So we've included the revenue that would come in. We're only calculating the net effect of that particular promise.

[1045]

The biggest item of all, of course, is that on personal incomes taxes they say they will have the lowest taxes in Canada. So we've assumed that they will reduce the top marginal tax rate to match Alberta's -- not to lower it to be lower, but to match it at 45.6 percent. The basic income tax rate would go down to 40.5 percent, which is Ontario's level. That is a $1.2 billion loss to the provincial treasury.

I think it's worth pointing out that with that tax cut, 50 percent of the people, the tax-filers who make less than $20,000 a year, will get a total of 5 percent of that tax cut. So if you're a lower-income person in this province, don't be looking for your fair share of that piece of the pie. If you make more than $80,000 a year -- that's 4 percent of the people in British Columbia -- that 4 percent will get 35 percent of the money that the Liberals are "giving" to the people of British Columbia. So that's $1.2 billion. What we have, then, are substantial tax cuts.

I've outlined the various spendings that the Liberal opposition would do. We take into account that they say they'll balance the budget. That's another $890 million that has to be taken from somewhere. What it adds up to is a $3.6 billion problem.

The question is: does the Leader of the Opposition simply make cuts? Those cuts would amount to 60 percent of all other programs that government offers. Would it be Human Resources? The Leader of the Opposition could say: "There's no more welfare in the province. Eliminate the whole ministry -- $1.5 billion." But even then, with $1.5 billion being eliminated, that still leaves $2.1 billion to go. The Ministry of Environment, $194 million, and the Attorney General ministry, which includes courts and jails, $917 million. . . . When we've cut all those things, there's still a billion dollars to go. So we could eliminate the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways entirely, and that would about do it. That would allow the Liberals to keep all of their promises to protect health care and education spending, to cut taxes to the lowest in Canada, to have no deficit. Hon. Speaker, that's what they could do.

[ Page 12126 ]

Or does the Leader of the Opposition break his promise to balance the budget? The Leader of the Opposition already seems to be fudging on that promise. He's now saying: "Well, it might take three years to balance the budget." You know, he looked committed. Maybe he's not quite so committed. He might have to break that promise.

I anticipate -- and I've seen it in here, unfortunately -- a facile opposition response. They'll say: "Oh, we'll just eliminate that fast ferry program, and that takes care of a big part of it." Of course, if the members are going to be honest with it. . . . I'm not going to suggest that they're being dishonest; I'm sorry. Maybe they're just. . . . I don't know. Some aren't as wise as they could be, to put it subtly. The fast ferry program, of course. . . . The only thing that has an impact on any operating budget is the debt-servicing cost, which would maybe be about $8 million a year, and that's taken care of by revenues from the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It has no impact on the deficit in this province, no impact on the deficit of $890 million.

They also say: "Well, we'll get rid of government advertising." I don't think anyone seriously believes that this opposition, if they were in government, would eliminate all government advertising.

Furthermore, then they'll say: "Oh, what about Skeena Cellulose?" They have a wildly dishonest figure of hundreds of millions of dollars. If they annualize the actual cost of Skeena Cellulose, they'd see that it's substantially lower than that. I think they know that. But even if you took into account all of those things, on an annualized cost basis they'd only have -- oh, I don't know -- just over $3.5 billion to go. So, you know, it's less than $100 million and counting. We have a long way to go before we meet that $3.6 billion figure.

[1050]

At best, Liberal promises are an insult to the intelligence of the people of this province. At worst, I'd suggest it's lunacy. Ralph Klein and Mike Harris wouldn't dream of putting their names to this set of promises, and I have to say right now on the record: I apologize to Ralph Klein and Mike Harris for drawing comparisons in the past between them and this opposition. That was unfair, because Ralph Klein and Mike Harris are moderates in their prescriptions for their provinces compared to this opposition. I didn't mean to insult Ralph Klein and Mike Harris in the past. I didn't realize at that time that it was a relative compliment to the official opposition, so I apologize to both. I know that the Liberal opposition will object to this Liberal budget, and what I say to them is: "Then you tell us yourselves. Let the Leader of the Opposition tell us. Give us your numbers. Tell us exactly what you would do." If they don't, I as a member of this chamber have an obligation to do it for them.

L. Reid: I'm responding, in fact, to the amendment. The amendment reads: "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. . . " and it goes on ad nauseam. That is the reason we have chosen to amend today, and that is the reason this province is in such dire straits. Frankly, members opposite cannot be forthright and honest about the budget. They indeed led British Columbians to believe that they had balanced the budget over successive years. It's abundantly untrue.

The Minister of Education had the temerity to suggest that he chose -- this government chose -- not to balance the budget. What rubbish! They absolutely did not have the skill set to balance the budget. It was not a choice amidst an array of choices. If they could have balanced the budget, frankly, they would have. That is indeed the election promise they've made over the last number of years: that they would deliver a balanced budget. If, as the Minister of Education suggested, that was never the intent, they are in fact truly guilty of having misled the public -- if he was correct when he said: "It was a choice; we chose not to balance the budget." Those are tremendous issues in terms of candour and forthright behaviour. The public has learned not to expect a great deal from the members opposite. It's an enormous dilemma when we talk about individuals that would choose to lead. Frankly, the leadership is not evident on the benches opposite.

I want to state for the record today some words of Mahatma Gandhi. He talks about the seven sins: (1) wealth without work; (2) pleasure without conscience; (3) knowledge without character; (4) commerce without morality; (5) science without humanity; (6) worship without sacrifice; and (7) -- which is one that I think applies to this government today -- politics without principle. That is No. 7 on the list, in the words of Mahatma Gandhi. This is an interesting discussion today, because we have a government that, frankly, is proud of the fact that it failed to balance the budget and proud of the fact that it misled the public about its intention to balance the budget. That, to me, is a fine example of politics without principle.

[1055]

An Hon. Member: Shame!

[ Page 12127 ]

What does the government have to say about those that are most vulnerable in society? I speak today as the critic for Children and Families. April 24: "Families Ministry Plans Program Cuts. Proposed reductions to cover projected shortfall of $72.9 million. . . ." The comment is that it is counter to a promise made by the Premier. The Premier promised reasonable service delivery for young people in the province -- in fact, he's the Minister Responsible for Youth -- and has again let down British Columbians. But in this case, he's let down the children of this province. There's no question about that.

I'll quote into the record: "The Ministry for Children and Families has proposed across-the-board cuts in most of its social service programs to cover a projected budget shortfall of $72.9 million." The next comment: "The ministry was supposed to get an additional $60 million this year, but most of that was swallowed up by a $45 million budget overrun in the 1998-99 fiscal year." So it's not just that they're proud of the fact that they didn't deliver a balanced budget; they're equally proud of having mismanaged the dollars they did have at their disposal.

"The proposed cuts in the current fiscal year run counter to a promise Premier Glen Clark made in 1996 to preserve social services." That was a significant election promise: that he was there for the young people of British Columbia. Every single photo op was all about him being seen to be the champion of young people in this province. It's abundantly untrue. The talk is evident, but the walk is absolutely not there. There is no commitment when it comes to delivering on the bottom line. The talk is there, and the photo op is there, but frankly, that's where it ends.

"Cuts of $10.9 million in community living support services. . .include residential, training and support programs for disabled adults and services to children and families." The member for North Vancouver-Seymour and I have spent many days in the last number of weeks visiting with the parents of mentally handicapped adults. The government's gift to them this year was to reduce the number of respite-care days they have to support their families. We're not talking an enormous number of days. We were talking to people who were on task, caring for these individuals in their families seven days a week, 340 days of the year. They got one weekend off a month -- two days a month or 24 days a year -- and in the past they had a seven-day vacation in the summer. The rest of the time they were on task full-time -- no breaks. No coffee break, no hours of work. . . . They were on task full-time, delivering service to their family member, which was an enormous cost saving to government. Was that acknowledged? Was that respected? Was that regarded? Absolutely not.

The decision came down a few short days ago to reduce the number of days that those families would have at their disposal. Why? How can a government be that thoughtless to someone who is prepared to give an enormous gift to this province? Why would we disenfranchise those individuals? In some cases, these family members have looked after their mentally handicapped adult for upwards of 20 or 30 years -- in some cases without a single day of respite care. Today these are individuals who, as parents, are aging -- who are 60 or 70 or in some cases 80 years of age. They have a 40- or 50-year-old mentally handicapped adult at home, and they require some support.

That is what this government said they would do: they would support families. But a $10.9 million cut in community living support services. . . . So that promise evaporated, along with many others.

[1100]

The majority of these agencies are taxed beyond measure today. They produce some fine services in our communities. Probably each and every member of this Legislature has a community agency that delivers superb service. Do we acknowledge that? Do we thank them for that? No. Yet again we have a government that cuts their budget and does not deliver on the promise that the Premier made to British Columbians in the last election, which was: "I will be there for young people in this province." Again, he has not delivered on the promise.

It's not a very complimentary release. In fact, the deputy minister has said that he's going to look at ways to narrow the impact that these cuts are having on communities. I believe that the role of the ministry is indeed to address the promises the Premier made. If indeed they're saying that the promises the Premier made are no longer valid, have the gumption to come forward and state that. Don't nickel-and-dime every single agency in this province to death. For once, keep a promise that was made to the young people of this province.

I believe fundamentally that the vulnerable in our society -- whether they be very young children, the mentally or physically challenged, the individuals who are seniors in our society -- deserve an extra measure. I believe that's important. I don't see this government believing in their heart of hearts that that's indeed a priority. We didn't debate the cost of the fast ferries in this Legislature. We didn't debate the purchase of Skeena Cellulose in this Legislature. There was no discussion about the taxpayers' ability to fund those enterprises. Yet the Minister for Children and Families will get to her feet and talk about the care of children and about it being dependent on the taxpayers' ability to pay. That, to me, suggests that that's a priority that's well down the list. It comes after the fast ferries; it comes in after the purchase of a pulp mill; it comes in after the expansion of the Island Highway.

For a government that has repeatedly said that children in the province are a priority, they don't act on that commitment. Their actions in this instance speak louder than words. Indeed, children are not the megaproject for this province. They fall well down the list. There are days I'm not convinced they're in the top ten of this government's stated priorities. Frankly, this government's stated priorities are like the shifting sands. There is very little follow-through in terms of

[ Page 12128 ]

A debt management plan. . . . There is absolutely no pretence on behalf of this government having a debt management plan -- no pretence. They've changed the name of the debt management plan two or three or four times now. They have never once reduced the debt. They can't, in all good conscience, say they're managing the debt. It simply does not exist.

[1105]

The Minister of Finance -- yesterday, I believe -- talked about "our money" -- that they were spending "our money," in terms of government dollars. I would caution the minister that this is indeed about taxpayer dollars. It never stops being taxpayer money. It's not magically, at some point, government money. When it's taxpayer dollars and when the commitment to recognize it as taxpayer dollars is there, it allows for some accountability. It promotes some level of accountability, some checks and balances in the system. There are no checks and balances on the spending of this government today. Special warrant to special warrant, cost overrun to cost overrun doesn't speak to accountability.

We've had deputy ministers squirreled away for many months coming up with a cost accountability matrix for this province. Who on that side pays any attention to the work that's being done? And it's very good work that's being done. The Public Accounts Committee in this province does some very good work. Who on the benches opposite pays attention? They do not deliver an accountable product to the taxpayers in British Columbia. That offends me. It offends me to the point that our motion has come forward to suggest that there is zero accountability on the benches opposite when it comes to delivering a reasonable product to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Frankly, it is not the case today. This government is spending other people's money. They're spending taxpayers' money wantonly in many regards. They're not being accountable for it. They're not being forthright about the expenditure.

I believe that this government has mortgaged our province for all time. We're not talking a five- or ten- or 25-year mortgage. We're talking the entire lives of probably our grandchildren -- probably the next 50 years and beyond. The reckless behaviour that this province, under this management, has engaged in has only reduced the opportunities for all British Columbians. It has not enhanced our opportunities. It saddens me greatly that all we have today to look forward to is a lifetime of debt. The New Democrats in this province have left a terrible, terrible legacy. It's an enormous debt load for every single British Columbian, for every little kindergarten child today, for the children those kindergarten children will have. Every new baby in this province will get a gift from this government. It's called debt and deficit. It's not about new opportunity.

I firmly believe that we have an obligation to safeguard the next generation. I believe that fundamentally, as an educator. I believe it as the critic for Children and Families. I believe it as a politician, as a legislator. We are here to make lives better for those who will come after us. That is my fundamental belief. That is what brings me back to this chamber every single day. I don't see that same heartfelt passion from the members opposite. I don't know any longer where children sit in the priorities of this government. I know it's not in the top ten.

I believe this government has chosen to saddle the next generation with crippling debt. I personally believe in free enterprise with a human face. I want very much for us to acknowledge and reward young people in our province who have wonderful ideas, who wish to be the world's finest entrepreneurs, who wish to bring high-technology solutions to some of the world's more complex problems. I want a cure for Parkinson's disease, for Alzheimer's, for breast cancer -- all of those questions -- not just because they're medical questions but because they impact fundamentally on families and individuals, whose lives are not enhanced by the fact that we have not found practical, pragmatic solutions for caregivers who care today for people with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's -- or the long-term cure for those very, very grave illnesses.

[1110]

I don't know anymore what motivates some of the members opposite, and it continues to sadden me. I don't think the legacy should be about crippling debt. I don't think the legacy should be about ripping the rug out from under families who are caring for mentally handicapped adults at home. Yet those are all actions that this government is taking. Hon. Speaker, you have members who leap to their feet and talk about how proud they are of this budget. Bring it back to the humanity of what this Legislature should be about. For me it should be about improving the lives of those who come after us -- about safeguarding the next generation. That needs to happen.

I don't have the patriarchal belief that only government knows best. I don't have that belief, yet the inconsistency of members opposite when they suggested a different approach for the Nisga'a debate than for every other British Columbian. . . . The government didn't know what was best for the Nisga'a; only the Nisga'a knew best. But this government knows best for every other British Columbian -- again untrue, unfounded and, frankly, a huge problem for me as a British Columbian. I resent, I resist and I'm offended by the hypocrisy of some of the individuals opposite. I am not naming names. I know who they are. I know how offended I am, as a British Columbia taxpayer.

I have the strongest belief possible that British Columbians know best how to spend their dollars -- that more

[ Page 12129 ]

That's not a road I want to go down. I want people to be in a position to pay their mortgages, to fund their children, to look after their grandparents, to look after their parents -- if that's their desire. I want people to have choices in this province. Liberalism is about choice, and it is about believing in and putting in place opportunities for people to make the choices that suit them best. I believe that. Again, that is what brings me back to this chamber every single day.

You read about credit downgrades. You read about this province being on the road to ruin. It's only shortsighted action by the members opposite that doesn't allow this province to be in the number one spot -- the number one economy in the country. From first to worst in eight years in the hands of this government -- I don't take pride in that. Yet I know that when the members opposite leap to their feet, they will take pride in this budget. It confounds me how that can happen. It confounds me that that level of pride is in place for a legacy that is so damaging to the majority of British Columbians.

[1115]

Interjection.

L. Reid: It is absolutely true, and if the hon. members opposite were doing their jobs, they would know that indeed my comments are factual. I would invite the member opposite, hon. Speaker, to get to his feet, if he can take some pride in what his government has done to the province of British Columbia. I cannot. It saddens me greatly.

I'm concerned; I'm saddened. It concerns me, not just in the special warrant spending debate but in the amendment debate today and in what we will see in the next day or two around the budget, that the government continues to take pride. There are some terrible, terrible legacies that have been left in this province.

Where I wish to see us go is to a candid, forthright exchange of ideas and some honesty in the numbers that are presented. I want to see at least one ministry where the budget is an appropriate reflection of expenditure -- not an after-the-fact discussion around special warrants: "Well, we're $45 million short here and $75 million short there." I want to see a year from now at least one ministry where the budget is a reasonable reflection, an accurate reflection of expenditure. That's not a bizarre request; that's a valid request. Frankly, it's an obligation on behalf of government to return that product. This government has been entrusted with the tax base of this province. They are managing the province of British Columbia. I don't believe they're doing a reasonable job.

I believe we have issues around the government somehow suggesting that this budget is a people budget. What were the last seven budgets? Government should be about people, but you saw the Minister of Finance take great delight around the time that the budget was introduced, saying: "It's a people budget." I'll ask the question again: what were the last seven budgets, if they weren't about people's lives and livelihoods? That's all we ask of this government -- that people somehow figure prominently and can go forward without enormous legacies of debt. That is not a gift that British Columbians will thank this government for.

Norman Ruff, a frequent visitor to this chamber whom members opposite take great delight in introducing. . . . His comment was that this government has abandoned any pretence of debt management. It's somehow a political budget and not an economic budget. Is this simply electioneering? Is this simply where we're heading with this government -- that they're going to make enormous promises, craft enormous debt loads onto the backs of future citizens of this province?

The government members opposite don't leap to their feet and talk about the cost of debt servicing. They should. Again, it's a terrible legacy to leave this province, to leave the young people of this province. We can't afford the debt load that we have. Yet it's quickly moved off by the members opposite. I believe this government has shortchanged the citizens of this province. For the amount of tax that British Columbians have paid, they have very little to show for it in terms of the vibrancy of this economy.

One of the other comments around the budget was: "We're all in the boat, and we're all bailing." I would suggest that the members opposite are not in the boat. One of the other best-ever statements was: "When you're truly in a hole, it's time to stop digging." These folks are still digging an enormous debt load in this province. They're still saddling future British Columbians with enormous debt. Frankly, I don't believe that they made any effort to address the uncontrolled spending. This government continues to spend, continues to craft debt and deficit, continues to leave that legacy for British Columbians.

[1120]

It concerns me greatly that the government doesn't take a lot of pride in adequately budgeting. Every year we indeed are saddled with a special warrant debate, interim supply -- every year. Why is it that we can't have a single ministry in government where the budget reflects expenditure? Why is that? Is there any ministry in this government where the members opposite have adequately reflected expenditure? Is there any ministry where this government has delivered on a promise?

[ Page 12130 ]

An Hon. Member: It's about downloading.

L. Reid: Certainly it's about downloading. It's about shifting all kinds of responsibility and accepting no accountability for the gift that this New Democrat government has given to British Columbia, which is only debt and deficit.

E. Gillespie: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: Following on the words of the member for Richmond East, I do acknowledge the privilege of being able to sit in this House and represent the constituency of Comox Valley. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to this House some 50-plus students from grade 10 at Highland Secondary School in Comox, school district 71, and their teacher Ms. Van Dinter. I ask my colleagues here to welcome them into the Legislature today.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to offer some comments on the amendment to the budget. It's interesting to see that many of the speakers have tried to drive home the debt and debt-servicing and the idea that the government hasn't balanced its budget in eight years. The government seems unmoved, I would say, by these comments that we're now paying $2.6 billion a year in interest that goes to big banks and investment houses all over the world. That money could be well spent in British Columbia on health care and education. Members have mentioned that $7 million a day in interest goes out the window in British Columbia -- every day, again, paid to big banks and investment houses throughout the world.

Some members have even stressed to the government that $5,000 a minute. . . .Yesterday I listened to the member for. . . . The Minister of Energy and Mines, I think, spoke for half an hour. During that time we would have spent upwards of $150,000 on interest -- during his speech. The government seems unmoved by that. They seem not to pay much attention to the fact that $2.6 billion a year in interest is going out the window. This government actually has increased the debt by 133 percent since it took power eight years ago.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

[1125]

The Premier, I think, just had a deck built for $12,000. Well, you know, if you were to take the deficit of $1.5 billion this year, do you know how many decks you could build for the Premier? You could build 125,000 decks. That would be a deck on every house in the capital region. That's a lot of decks. If you had to pay the full labour cost on the decks, you'd have fewer decks, I agree. You'd have a lot fewer decks if you had to pay the labour costs. I say that so that the Premier can understand the depth of the deficit. I hope the government takes that into consideration. If they won't listen to the pleas from members over here about the spending and about the huge $2.6 billion interest charge that we pay, just think of it as in decks -- 125,000 decks. That may help the government.

When I look at the debt and debt package that we have before us. . . . We've got debt up 133 percent since '91, when the government took office. The true debt this year of over $3 billion, a deficit that accountants agree -- and those who know how to balance books. . . . At $1.5 billion, that's really the mother of all debt and deficit packages in the history of British Columbia. No one has come anywhere near that.

I look over at cabinet, and I know that some of the cabinet ministers may not have had much to do with the budget. Maybe it was a select few -- maybe the Premier and a few select ministers -- who put the budget together. The select group. . . . I look at them, and I say to myself: "Never have so few done so much damage to so many people in British Columbia." That's exactly what's happening. The damage to this province is not going to be repaired in our generation. As my colleague said, the deficit will be repaid by these young students who are here today. They'll be paying for your debt, and the spending that you made as a government, for all their working lives. Somehow, to saddle these young people with that kind of debt to pay for your government's desires doesn't seem right.

Eight years of deficit budgets -- and every year we have a government that says it's going to balance the budget. They're going to show us a way to balance the budget. They change the name of the budget deficit plan yearly. This is the first year, actually, that they've given up, and I think they've given up because they don't have the skills, the know-how or the management to balance a budget and start to pay down the debt. It's symptomatic of a government that doesn't know when it has to balance a budget. We went through 20 years in Canada of governments running deficit budgets. One by one, including the federal government, they have finally caught on that you can't do that forever. You can't just run deficits forever. This is now the only government in Canada -- and one of the few on the North American continent, except for probably Cuba -- that continues to run deficit budgets.

[1130]

We're going to be number one when we change the government, and we're going to move this province back to where it should be. But the government seems to forget that when you have a downgrade, it costs you more to borrow money. And when you're borrowing money at the rate that this government is borrowing money, you just end up with more debt.

The B.C. ferries are important to my riding, and I know they're important to other members in this House as well. This is another year where we see the fast ferries budget overrun

[ Page 12131 ]

I've never heard that, Mr. Speaker, but I have to tell you that it's a shame that this government took a proud corporation -- a corporation that its employees were proud of, the people of British Columbia were proud of -- and financially drove it onto the rocks. They couldn't find a minister on their side of the House to manage it, so they got a minister from this side of the House. I wish him well, because it's important to his riding, as it is to my riding. But I've got to tell you, for nine years we've seen mismanagement in that corporation at the political level. I see mismanagement at the corporate level with their board of directors, who have been replaced. I wish the new board of directors well. They certainly couldn't do much worse that the last group.

This government has attacked municipalities almost from the day that they were elected. They've continued to cut revenue-sharing grants, policing grants, infrastructure grants. We all know that municipalities perform functions for the municipal government. For a long history in this province, they shared in the revenues of this province to deliver services that were approved and desired by provincial governments. We've now seen a total abandonment of any kind of financial assistance to municipalities. In my riding -- it's a rural riding -- they have downloaded the secondary roads to the municipalities, with no assistance. They've downloaded policing costs and have continued to abandon a longstanding principle of assistance to municipalities. That is simply wrong.

From 1992 through to now, we've seen an exodus of people from this province -- an exodus of young people, an exodus of our future, an exodus of people who may not come back. The young people who leave this province for work, whether it be in Alberta or Saskatchewan or anywhere, may start their lives and invest their lives in those provinces. We'll lose those youth, and with them a good part of our future. Last year 16,000 people left this province. That's like the whole of Central Saanich packing up and leaving. Mr. Speaker, any loss of future is wrong.

[1135]

One of the interesting things in the budget was the increase in gambling revenue of $57 million. I know the minister has just looked throughout the province for ideas for increasing that revenue. And I can say that I hope that the minister doesn't just talk to people who want to see gambling increased in the province, and that he talks to municipalities and to people who have addictions to gambling, and that it is a balanced approach when it comes in -- a balanced approach, not a one-sided, expand-gambling approach.

In watching this government, the management of government amazes me. They don't admit when they're wrong. They're very seldom right in how to manage the people's money, and I think that sometimes they consider it their money. When people pay taxes, it's still their money. Government is just there to manage that money, to manage it for all British Columbians -- not just for friends and not just for insiders, but to manage it for the benefit for all. I don't see this government doing that. I see the government, year in and year out, failing to meet its needs, failing to meet its obligations and failing to meet its promises.

I want to talk about education in this budget. The government continually brags about the amount of money they put into education. I have two school districts in my riding: the Gulf Islands school district and the Saanich school district, both of which have fine school boards and both of which have people who are dedicating a portion of their lives to serving their communities through school board participation. My hat is off to them, because since this government took power, every year those school districts have had to make cuts, and every year those school districts have told the ministry that it's not funding its contracts with teachers and it's not funding its obligations. And every year they've had to come to the minister and say that they don't have the money to provide the education that the ministry has told them that they have to. This year both of those school districts have to run deficits, because the ministry isn't funding the contracts that it signed.

I suspect that most members of this assembly have similar calls in their constituency offices on health care. I don't think I've had one call this year saying that the government is doing a great job delivering health care services. The vast majority of calls and letters I get are from people who have been on waiting lists far longer than they need to be, who can't get the treatments that they need; and when they do, they feel rushed, and they feel that the government isn't managing health care. I think this comes back to what I said earlier -- that health and education are important to all British Columbians.

[1140]

I heard the Premier say a month or so ago: "We keep throwing money at this, and there's still a problem." Well, the problem isn't the amount of money; the problem is the management of that money. The problem is this government's inability to manage health care and education in order that students get a quality education and patients get the treatment they need. I hope that changes. I hope that we can see a government turnaround, because that's what the people are paying for. They're paying for those services for their children, their families and themselves.

Mr. Speaker, apart from saying what government is doing wrong, I want to tell you what government could do to improve. One of the things that I've seen. . . . I worked for some time as a civil servant -- as a social worker for the

[ Page 12132 ]

We need to turn back what has happened. We need to make sure that people who work for the provincial government know that they are respected and that their skills and professionalism are needed. We need to know that they are not directed in political, partisan ways. They don't work for the government; they work for the people of British Columbia. We need to turn that around. We have seen a province and a government with total disregard for the professionalism of the civil service and with only one regard -- that's to use the civil service to get them out of jams and out of problems. Finally, you need a government that asks the civil service to help you solve problems, not to help you save your own bacon, which is what's happened in the last eight years.

We need to follow what the auditor general and the comptroller general have been saying for years. We need to have a new look at how the books are done in this province. We need to have legislation to ensure that every government that is elected can't cook the books. We need to make sure that the books are kept the same way that British Columbians -- individually, small business or large business -- keep their books.

People want to know what the real story is. They want to know how much money is in the bank, how much real debt there is, what the plan is for repayment and how you are going to provide the services in this year's budget. That's all people want. It's not very difficult at all, but it's something that must be done.

We need to have fair labour laws in this province. This province has a long history of a community divided between business and labour. We need to have labour laws that reflect the reality of the economy, that are fair to people and that encourage business. For far too long, we've seen two types of government in this province; you either get the left or the right. It's time for middle ground in this province. It's time for a government that understands the needs of workers and the needs of business. That's possible. You don't have it today, but you can.

[1145]

I can't see another two years of a government that governs by division -- that always pits workers against business people, health care workers against doctors, teachers against parents. It's time that we all work together, because the problems that we have seen in this budget are great. The debt is going to take all of us working together to pay it off. The debt is going to take 100 percent of British Columbians to finally pay it off. If future generations are going to have a positive future in this province, we've got to work together. We've got to work together as business people, as union members, as workers and civil servants -- be they teachers or doctors or nurses. It's time that we work together. It's time that government governed for all people, not for a selected few, not for a division.

I believe that we have a bright future in this province and in this country. We have, in the past, been leaders in this country, and we've been leaders in the world. We have had a bad run of government in this province, and it will change. It will change around, it will come around, and we will once again be number one. We won't have to yell: "We're number two" or "We're number three." We in this province will be number one on job creation. We will be number one on health care and education. We'll have a non-partisan civil service that is respected by the people. You know, we don't see that in this budget, but we get a glimmer of it in the amendment -- as to where the Liberal opposition would go if it was in power.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendment and to the budget. I'm sorry that the government decided to cut the throne speech this year, because they have obviously cut the direction and the vision that they should have had before now.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my pleasure to join in the debate this morning, particularly following the member for Saanich North and the Islands. As he wrapped up his speech, he indicated exactly who we have across the way. I think there was a movie about it one time -- The Glimmer Man.

In fact, this budget is about choices. We know that we consciously made choices to continue our support for health care and education in this province and to continue our support for small business in this province, unlike other provinces across the country -- as we've heard other speakers reference -- who, in order to balance a budget at all costs, have sacrificed the integrity of their health care systems and their education systems.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

We've chosen not to do that -- and I think we do that with a certain amount of pride -- in a time when we know that our economy has had some difficulties in the primary resource sector. We know that influences from foreign markets have not been kind to our bottom line and to our primary resources. We've decided, as a government, that we will still carry on our support -- for the eighth consecutive year -- for increased health care funding and increased education funding -- opening up post-secondary spaces that will give our young people the opportunity to take advantage of a changing world and a changing economy.

[1150]

[ Page 12133 ]

In the community I come from, small business is quite important. It's generally known as the home-based business capital of British Columbia. That's important to me and important to my constituents. It's important to know that if someone opens a small business or home-based business, their tax rate is lower than in Alberta. In fact, they have a four-year holiday on corporate taxes. I think that's important.

When we look at the supports that we've brought to health care and education through this budget, we have to compare them to what the opposition has to offer. As they refuse to expose their financial plan or their level of financial support for education and health care, then we can only reference historic documents. We go back to the last election campaign, when they said that $6 billion was enough; that was enough to fund health care. The Liberal opposition would seem to have walked away from that in some of their latest utterances, where they say that they would support health care and education at the same levels as, at least -- or higher than -- this government.

Where will they come up with the $3.5 billion in cuts that they have promised to make? I guess we can only draw a conclusion that somewhere the two ends -- or the twain -- won't meet within the Liberal philosophy. I even more strongly support the member for Matsqui's comments that, yeah, we are 180 degrees opposite in philosophy. This budget shows it in ways that we haven't in the past, and I think that's important as well.

Some of the issues facing me in my riding -- the same as the member for Matsqui and the member for Abbotsford -- are flooding issues. We have allocated $4 million to prepare and repair and guard against damage from floods and to mitigate any problems that may happen in an excessive snowpack year. It saddens me to think that the members opposite voted against that.

They voted against the warrant to run this government while we work through our budget debate. I find it increasingly odd that in fact they would try to pick and choose what are really their levels and areas of support within a budget that will supply more beds, more nurses and shortened waiting lists and that will bring about more teachers, more classroom space and fewer portables. We look at some of the effort that we've gone to, to ensure that our post-secondary education system is there for students when they need it, so they can come forward with the skills and the level of education they need in order to address the future and meet the future head-on in a changing economy.

[1155]

We're very close to the noon hour. With that, I would adjourn debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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