Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12135 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today the new executive committee of the B.C. Association of Community Law Offices. They are Maggie Bello, the president; Marie Louise Garenkooper, the treasurer; Susan Hart, the vice-president; Chris King, the secretary; and Marie Irvine, the association's coordinator. Please join me in welcoming them and also applauding their commitment to communities across British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: Today in the gallery is one of the opposition's valued employees, Amar Bajwa, who also happens to be the new president-elect of the B.C. Young Liberals. I would like to introduce some guests he has with him today. Amar's mother Jaswant Bajwa is here. She is the president of the India-Canada Cultural Association of British Columbia. His brother Pawan Bajwa is also here. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: In the precinct today we have Dr. Heather Clarke, president of the B.C. Council for the Family, and Dr. Carol Matusicky, executive director of that council.

Also, somewhere in the precinct -- and I'm not sure if they're in the gallery or not -- we have members of the Provincial Child Care Council: the chair, Sheila Davidson from Surrey; Rita Chudnovsky from East Vancouver; and Chris Gay from Victoria. Would the House please make them all welcome.

C. Hansen: In the gallery today is a young lady from the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena who's developing a keen new interest in politics. I hope the House will join me in welcoming Alexia Tan.

W. Hartley: Visiting us today are some 25 grade 6 students, a number of adults and their teacher, Ms. Teague. They're from the Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, one of my favourite places in northern Washington. Would members please make them welcome.

R. Coleman: For the past ten years, both in business and as an MLA, I've had an exceptional executive assistant, who now serves as my constituency assistant. I would like to introduce to the House the lady who, in my opinion, is the best constituency assistant in the province of British Columbia: Sheryl Strongitharm.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are two of my constituents, and one of these people is very well known to members of this House. That's Alistair Grant, better known as "Red," who provided many services to people in this House over a whole lot of years. And accompanying him today is his wife Joan. I think they're both here to be a shining example to all of us, indicating that there is indeed life outside of these chambers.

E. Conroy: In the gallery today is my wife Katrine, who has been here all week to inspire me in my deliberations in this chamber. Would the House please make her welcome.

[1410]

Oral Questions

ICBC EXECUTIVES' MOVING EXPENSES

Hon. D. Lovick: How interesting that the member of this chamber who came from a plush corporate office would be the one to ask the question.

ICBC carried out an extensive process of searching for suitable office space, and they got indeed the very best price. They picked up a lease that somebody else had had -- in other words, they sublet. It's a ten-year lease. They got an extremely good price on it, I am told. Their building in North Vancouver was demonstrably no longer satisfactory. They had 300 more people required to be in the building than the building could accommodate. Accordingly, they moved to an office in downtown Vancouver. They're in the process of doing so. It's not plush office space at all; rather, it is very centrally and conveniently located so they can do the necessary business of the corporation.

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

G. Plant: Apparently North Vancouver isn't good enough anymore for ICBC senior executives -- no, no. ICBC senior executives needed to find a luxury office right smack in the middle of downtown Vancouver, with prize-winning views of Stanley Park. My question, again to the minister responsible for ICBC. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Speaker: Order, order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. It's difficult to hear the question.

G. Plant: Can the minister tell us. . . ? No, better yet, can the minister tell the people of Gold River how he can defend. . .

[ Page 12136 ]

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Plant: . . .spending $2 million moving ICBC executives into luxury offices at a time when whole towns are shutting down in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Lovick: Forgive me if I struggle, hon. Speaker, but that member proceeding to talk about the plight of people in Gold River, when he and his colleagues didn't even support Forest Renewal B.C., I find difficult.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: The expanded role that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has taken on in assuming the motor vehicles operation has necessitated that they require more space. I said that the building they are now using in North Vancouver. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

[1415]

FRASER VALLEY AIR QUALITY AND SUMAS POWER FACILITY

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. Hydro is under no negotiations with any company building a power plant in Washington State.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

M. de Jong: The minister may think that this is not a subject worthy of discussion, but the fact of the matter is that B.C. Hydro, through one of its affiliates, Powerex, is involved in negotiations for the purchase of power from a facility that is going to be located half a mile from the international border -- in an area where air quality year in and year out is a problem, where people are told they have to stay in their homes, where people are suffering deleterious health effects. What those people want to know from this government and from this minister is whether or not proper environmental evaluations have taken place, so that they know that the air quality, which in the summer is already bad, isn't going to get worse.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll repeat my previous answer.

K. Krueger: Let's have a straight answer, Mike.

The Speaker: Member. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Why don't you try giving a straight answer when it comes to power and wood fibre, hon. member? Because you can't.

The Speaker: Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. Hydro is not engaged in negotiations with a power plant south of the line. Neither is Powerex engaged in power negotiations south of the line. What I do find interesting is that that opposition says that things are so bad in this province. Then why is it that they have to go south of the line to get their news stories?

But to deal with another point in the member's question, we are concerned about air quality. That's why we're building SkyTrain; that's why we built West Coast Express; that's why we're making investments in Ballard Power -- all projects designed to improve air quality, and all projects they opposed.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR VANCOUVER-BURRARD

I know that this government has taken steps. . . .

The Speaker: And your question is? Hon. member, your question, please.

T. Stevenson: I'm getting to my question. I know there is a global budget for housing. But I want to know specifically what this minister intends to do in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard on housing.

[1420]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member asked if I can catch the ball. Well, I'll tell him this. He says there is no hope.

[ Page 12137 ]

We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the city of Vancouver to work to build more houses than we've ever built before. I want to tell the hon. member that of the 1,200 new units that we built in this province this year, his riding is going to get its fair share in the same way that we opened a project not too long ago -- the Wings Housing Society for people with AIDS.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a lot of good news coming.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

BULK WATER EXPORT TO SUMAS POWER FACILITY

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. Hydro and Powerex are not negotiating a deal -- public, secret or any other type of deal -- with a firm in Sumas, with any firm, to build a power station. And that's why I said before that we're concerned about things like air quality. That's why we're building SkyTrain. That's why we built West Coast Express. That's why we made investments in Daimler-Benz. That's why we have water protection in this province. We're concerned about air quality; we're concerned about water protection -- all those things they opposed.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. Coell: On the one hand, you have a minister who's making a secret deal to buy power from an American co-gen plant. On the other hand, you have a minister who's saying: "No bulk water exports." Can the minister responsible for Hydro, Powerex and the purchase of power from an American co-gen plant tell us why they're doing this, in blatant disregard of their own laws for exportation of bulk water?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Minister, one moment, please. Before you begin, I want order in the chamber.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The opposition is demonstrating today one of their key problems, and that is that they get a scripted question and they get the answer -- which is no -- but they've still got to stick to the script. They can't come up with an original question. Now, hon. member, read my lips: there are no power negotiations with a company in Sumas -- secret, behind closed doors or otherwise. Just none. Get over it. Go on to another question.

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a whole slew of you. One of you can come up with a different question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. There is still time for a question or two more. Order, please.

B.C. HYDRO AND SUMAS POWER FACILITY

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. We heard the question; we want to hear the answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to gaming, the hon. member didn't know about her colleague who lobbied on behalf of the casino in Kelowna.

There is no negotiation with a power company in Sumas. One of the brightest members on that side of the House can't get off the script either. Is there no one on that side of the House who can come up with an original question? Must I stand up here for the rest of the day and say that there are no negotiations with a power company in Sumas by Hydro to buy power? There are no negotiations. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .by Powerex to buy power from a company. . .

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

[ Page 12138 ]

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

C. Hansen: The amendment that was moved yesterday by the leader of the opposition is a very complex amendment. It covers a whole litany of areas where this government has categorically failed the people of British Columbia. But in my remarks today I want to focus on one specific aspect of the amendment the leader of the opposition put forward, and that's the area that deals with health care. Specifically, the motion refers to the fact that this government has allowed surgical wait-lists to grow and health care to deteriorate.

I want to focus my remarks specifically on health care and the impact that this budget has on the health care of British Columbians. I want to start by reading you a press release about an NDP budget. This is a quote from the Minister of Health. It says: "The challenge is to ensure this new funding goes to enhancing care for individual patients and improving the health of British Columbians." She goes on to say: "The best way to achieve that goal is by investing these new dollars into key priorities such as hospitals, wait-lists, preventive health care and doctors services."

I'm sure most members probably recognize these words, and it probably rings a bell, because we've heard them very recently in the context of the budget that was introduced. The only problem is that this is last year's press release, and it refers to last year's budget. What we have seen over the years is NDP Finance minister after NDP Health minister year after year coming out with the same kind of press releases, the same kind of rhetoric, that talks about how this government is going to put money into addressing the issues of wait-lists and hospital funding. And throughout, we have seen things get worse.

[1430]

And here's a quote from a Health minister. It says: "Initiatives over the past few years have shortened wait-lists and waiting times in some areas where they were unacceptable. The situation is getting better, not worse, as some would suggest." Well, you know who that was. That was the Minister of Health, but not this Minister of Health. That was the Minister of Health who is currently the Minister of Education, in a release that he put out on March 6, 1995.

Let's fast-forward a little bit to the current Minister of Health. On April 29 last year, in regard to last year's budget, she said that she will be "introducing a comprehensive package of initiatives to reduce patient waits in the weeks to come, particularly in high-pressure areas such as cardiac surgery." That was April 29 last year. She goes on to say: "Reducing patient wait times is among our top priorities." What we have seen since those press releases were put out, since the minister made those comments -- in spite of the extra moneys that were put into the Health budget last year and the year before and the year before that -- is wait-lists in this province getting worse. And we have seen health care deteriorate.

I go back to the year before, to 1997. This is now two years ago. They put out an ad. I guess it was probably a quarter-page ad. No, it was bigger than that. It was almost a full-page ad in the Vancouver Province, talking about B.C. Budget '97 -- you know, part of those hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Minister of Finance of the day put into advertising to tell the public how wonderful their budget was in that particular year.

Here's a quote from this ad which was put in the Vancouver Province: "Health care protected. New funding to reduce surgery wait-lists for hospitals, medical equipment, mental health and continuing care." It's the same story year after year. They come out with new budgets. They put in millions of dollars more into the Health budget of British Columbia. They put out advertising that they spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on. And do you know what happens? The problem gets worse, not better.

I've got a bunch of examples from then. This goes back to the previous Minister of Health, who's now our Minister of Finance, when she was talking in November of 1997 -- a direct quote from a press release that she put out at that time. She talks about the $120 million in new funding that was put in to address wait-lists. How many times have we heard that? And what we find is that for all of this money that's been put into dealing with wait-lists, the facts speak for themselves. Wait-lists have gotten worse.

Even this year we realize that the press releases they put out are full of empty, meaningless words. It's part of the media spin. It's part of the communications branch of the ministry -- or perhaps it's the Premier's Office -- that cranks out these press releases that have absolutely no relationship to reality, that are there purely for the benefit of a public relations spin. This is the press release from this year; actually, this is a quote from the current Premier. He says: "British Columbians expect health care to be there for them when they need it." Those sound like wonderful words, but the record of this government does not back them up. They can talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.

[1435]

Well, where have we been for the last eight years with this government? They will brag about the fact that we have the highest per-capita spending on health care of any province in Canada. They will also brag about the fact that in every single year that we have had to put up with this NDP government, they have increased the Health budget. Now, that's wonderful, and I would be able to applaud that if -- if -- there were tangible results that showed that health care in this province was getting better as a result of it, but the exact opposite is true.

The minister now, this year, talks about clear objectives. Where have we been for the last eight years? Why haven't we

[ Page 12139 ]

It's interesting when you compare some of the language from our press releases here. I'll read a direct quote from last year's press release. It said: "We're ensuring health services are there when people need them." Then we fast-forward to this year's press release that went along with the budget. It said: "British Columbians expect health care to be there for them when they need it" -- empty, meaningless words that they crank out year after year. They can't even come up with a better expression to spin out in terms of their public relations.

There were some elements of candour from the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance earlier this year when it came to their ineffectiveness to deal with health care issues in British Columbia and their ineffectiveness in making sure that the taxpayers of British Columbia get real value for their dollar when it comes to health spending. This is a quote from the Premier. He said this to a group of high school students at Heritage Park Secondary School in Mission on February 16 of this year. He said: "In health care we aren't doing very well at all." He goes on to say: "We have to pump in a bunch more money."

You know, hon. Speaker, that sort of sums up where the problem has been. There has been more and more money thrown at the problem without any strategic plan and without any sense of how that money was going to go towards better patient care in this province. I want to quote a comment that the Premier made. It was quoted in the Vancouver Sun the very next day after he made that statement to students in Mission. It said: "The Premier also said the new health care funding will not be enough on its own to solve the problems here." This is talking about the money from the federal government. It also says: "B.C. has increased health care spending this year by more than $300 million, and even with that, 'most people feel that the system is under more strain than ever' he said."

In another section of the same article it talks about the Premier saying that balancing the budget is still a priority. That's a big surprise when you look a this budget that came down. It says: ". . .but it comes after restoring faith in the health care system and getting the economy back on track." I think therein lies one of the problems with this budget and with this current Premier. He sees those three issues as being exclusive. Hon. Speaker, you can't get the economy of this province back on track if you're going to drive up the deficit in this province to double what it was when this party came into power eight years ago. That's exactly what's going to destroy the economy of this province even further and erode confidence in it. If we don't restore the economy of this province, we are not going to be able to fund health care in the future. That is the biggest threat to health care in this province.

[1440]

We hear a lot about the mantra that comes out of every single NDP member, and I've heard it time and time again. It doesn't matter what they do -- whether they're raising taxes or they're driving up our deficit in this province to record levels or they're pulling money out of some particular program -- they're doing this to protect health care and education. They're driving up the deficit of this province to protect health care and education.

This is a quote from our Minister of Finance when she brought the budget down this year. She said: "This budget is about improving health care, with more beds, more nurses and shorter waits. . . . We believe health care is a fundamental right that must be protected." Later on she says: "In B.C. health care is a right." Those are such shallow words, because their actions speak louder than these words. The actions and the track record of this government show that they have done more to destroy the public's confidence in health care than they have to solve the problems -- the very real problems -- that are out there.

I want to turn to the issue of the new federal funding that came as a result of the federal budget earlier this year. I made reference to it earlier in the comments that the Premier had made in February. I think the first thing we have to remember when we talk about tax dollars is that there's no such thing as federal tax dollars and provincial tax dollars and municipal tax dollars. These are all taxpayers' dollars; they all come out of the same pockets. There's not a federal taxpayer and a provincial taxpayer. We have to keep that in mind. In doing so, let's look at what happened in the federal budget. When the Premier was commenting on the federal budget, he said: "We're now in a position of having to fix health care. We need all those new federal dollars plus increased funding in our upcoming provincial budget to improve health care."

Well, there are two things. First of all, the Premier admitted that they're in a position where they have to fix health care. Quite frankly, if we want to look at why health care is broken in this province, we've got to look to the track record of this government. Secondly, there's an unequivocal commitment by the Premier that they're not only going to ensure that all of those new federal health care dollars go into health care in British Columbia, but there's going to be increased funding on top of that in the provincial budget. Let's look at what, in fact, happened.

The Minister of Health also reiterated those kinds of comments in February. The current Minister of Health said: "It is clear we are going to put in additional resources on top of what the federal government is providing." That's a pretty unequivocal commitment. But in fact, what we saw happen in this budget is that that is not the case. This government has failed to pass along even the money that was transferred to British Columbia in increased health care funding from the federal government. In this budget you will find that the Canada health and social transfer -- that's the health care dollars that come from Ottawa -- increased by $488 million this year. At the same time, the dollars that have been put into the Ministry of Health budget this year are up by only $478 million.

They have broken the very commitment that they made only in February of this year -- that they would pass on all of

[ Page 12140 ]

There is also, in the federal budget that came down, a one-time allocation of $350 million put forward by the federal government. It was called the CHST supplement. That $350 million was to provide for a three-year fund that could be drawn down by the provinces on a per-capita basis. The per-capita share of that $3.5 billion is $371 million for British Columbia. That's $371 million, transferred from the federal government to the province, to be used over three years for health care in this province. What we find in this budget is that this government has chosen to draw down, by far, the majority of those dollars in year 1. They are pulling, out of that $471 million fund, $350 million in the first year alone.

[1445]

One of the things that we know for sure is that the demands on health care are going to increase next year, not decrease. When you start looking at the changing demographics of this province and you start looking at the need for more seniors' long term care facilities, one of the things that we know for sure is that demands will be greater next year than they are this year. This is a government that is raiding the cookie jar in one year and failing to look forward.

Hon. Speaker, I want to look now at capital spending for health care in British Columbia. I want to go back to what was committed in last year's budget. It's interesting that in the budget that was before this Legislature a year ago, this government had committed $222 million for capital spending on health care facilities in British Columbia. That's capital spending that's vitally needed.

As I went around this province and met with hospital administrators, with doctors and with nurses in small and large communities, the one message that came through is that we have not kept pace with the capital needs of our acute-care facilities, in particular, in British Columbia -- that every year that goes by we are falling further and further behind. So last year this government allocated $222 million for that. But do you know what they spent? They spent $150 million. They underspent the capital budget last year by a total of $72 million.

But do you know what's interesting, hon. Speaker? You come down this list of capital commitments last year, and you come to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The B.C. Ferry Corporation was given a budget of $85 million last year for capital, and do you know what actually happened? They spent $160 million. B.C. Ferries overspent their capital budget last year by $75 million. Isn't that coincidental? Here we've got a Health budget for capital expenditures that is underspent by $72 million; we've got a capital budget for B.C. Ferries that's overspent by $75 million. Doesn't that tell you something about the priorities of this government -- where their priorities lie? It's clearly not health care. Their priorities lie with the Premier's pet projects of fast ferries and other grandiose economic failures in this province, and it is exactly those kinds of things that are jeopardizing health care in British Columbia.

[1450]

We even had an incredible quote from the Minister of Forests recently, which again was in February of this year. February was a big month for this government. This is the Minister of Forests. He is suggesting that if profitable B.C. Hydro were to give a break to its customers on the price of hydro. . . . This is the minister's quote: "We've got to take it out of health care and education." What absolute folly! What absolute nonsense! If you're going to bring in fair, competitive rates for hydro in British Columbia so places like Highland Valley Copper can stay in business and leave those jobs there, so other industrial users of power in British Columbia can be more competitive across this province, so hydro users of all kinds can get a break on their power, this Minister of Forests is saying that it would jeopardize education and heath care. I think it shows the absolute lack of understanding by ministers of the Crown of this government in terms of how the economy works, how economics works and how health care and education should be protected in the future.

The fiscal record of the NDP is probably the biggest threat we have to health care in this province. I want to read a quote from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia in commenting on this year's budget. They say: ". . .high debt levels are a deterrent to investment and economic growth. . . . The province's increasing debt will make it very difficult to lower taxes and make it very difficult to sustain current levels of spending on important services such as health care and education." That's how you protect health care and education, not by the folly of this government.

We've also heard that this is a health care budget and that this is one of this government's big priorities. But in fact, when you start pulling the numbers apart, you realize that it simply is not case. Again it's all talk, all rhetoric, all spin. The facts don't support it.

[ Page 12141 ]

The NDP also claims that this budget is all about choices. They are borrowing more to build new hospitals and schools. But the truth is that the NDP are borrowing almost twice as much to fund the politically expedient SkyTrain and B.C. Transportation Financing Authority than they are to build hospitals, schools and universities.

[1455]

We should have an election. We should get on with achieving the very goals that they talk about achieving, because we can protect health care and education. But we're only going to do it if we have an election in this province and we put in a government that is prepared to build a sound economy to make sure people are back at work -- make sure that British Columbians are paying taxes to the provincial government so that we can afford to pay for health care and education not just this year but next year, the year after, ten years from now and 20 years from now. We can only do that if we have a sound economic base for our province and a good, responsible government that's actually going to do what they say they're going to do.

V. Anderson: I rise today to speak on the amendment to the budget. Since we're in a new day and many people have not been listening, perhaps I should read the amendment so that they're aware of that which we're discussing this afternoon from either side of the House.

Mr. Campbell moved an amendment, seconded by Mr. Plant:

"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.' "

[1500]

The Minister of Finance has forgotten that we don't have NDP money or opposition money. We don't have money that belongs to them or to us; we have money that belongs to the people of the province. In their enthusiasm for their pet projects, the minister has forgotten that we haven't turned over to them all of the finances of the province as their own play toys. We have really entrusted to them the finances of the province so that they might be used for the well-being of all the people of the province.

It's discouraging to me to realize that in our province at this particular time we get headlines in the paper -- not that long ago, March 22 -- saying: "Gulf between Rich, Poor Widest in B.C., Report Says." The number of people who live in poverty in British Columbia has been increasing year by year over this last seven or eight years. According to Statistics Canada, 36 percent of Vancouver children are living in poverty, compared to 14 percent a decade ago. The rate rises to 49 percent for handicapped children and 79 percent for first nations children.

It's also true in our province at the moment that the highest tax rates are paid by the lowest fifth of earners in our province. We get caught up sometimes here in philosophical or ideological discussions, and we seem to forget that it's the individuals of the community that are suffering. As I've mentioned before, in this budget there's not even a mention of the some 20 percent of the people of our communities who live below the poverty line. Many of them are working full-time at a paying job. There's no mention of them. There's no mention of a decrease in taxes which will affect those people. The income tax decrease the government has suggested will have little or no effect upon them.

We go to the budget presentation itself. One of the comments of the minister in her budget speech was: "Let me be direct. Our fiscal situation is probably going to get worse before it gets better. . . ." Hon. Speaker, that is a fact. Our fiscal situation is probably going to get worse before it gets better.

[ Page 12142 ]

[1505]

We've been meeting with the individuals who are working with people with disabilities. We've been meeting with the people who are on the street. We've been meeting with single families -- mostly women, but some men, and their children -- who are trying to survive on inadequate income, whether they're working or not, and discovering that the options for them are extremely limited in this province at this moment.

When we come to look at this budget today, what we find is that it is a lot of promises but very little follow-through, because of our experience over the last few years. We hear the phrase that we want to do more with less, but what we find happening in this province at the moment is that we're doing less with more. Yes, the government is spending more money. Yes, the government is spending more money on health care -- and our health care is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. We are spending more money on education, but our educational system is becoming increasingly more inadequate. We are spending more on transportation, if they go ahead with SkyTrain and the other items that they have in mind, but while they do that, our roads fall apart and travel in the province becomes that much more dangerous. So we are spending more, but we are getting less for results. It's the people in the province who are having to suffer because of this.

We adopted the Child, Family and Community Service Act because there was a desperate situation for the children and families of our province, and the old act was no longer of use in our current situation. Part of that act was to establish a children's commissioner, who could review the activities of government and say to us whether or not the government was better to be helping children or ignoring the circumstances in which they lived. Ms. Morton gave her report. The sum and essence of that report is that the hopes and dreams of the Child, Family and Community Service Act are not being fulfilled by this government; that the resources are not there in the system to help families to care for their children when they have a difficulty of one kind or another; that the children, when taken into care, do not have a consistent plan of care, so they are suffering as a result; and that children in foster care are not given the consistent support that the foster care parents need in order to do their jobs. We're in a critical situation within our province, because the people's services, which they rely upon the government to help to provide, are not being provided for them.

[1510]

We have prided ourselves on being a province that leads in fiscal development and financial undertakings, in education, in health and in concern for people in need. But we have lost that status in our dominion at this time. Whereas in other provinces, the ratio of debt has decreased and taxes have decreased, that has not been the case in British Columbia. Again I quote from the report: "In contrast, personal income tax burdens in British Columbia and Newfoundland have climbed since 1989, with the B.C. government now levying the highest top marginal tax rate among the provinces."

An Hon. Member: It's not true.

V. Anderson: The member across the hall says that it's not true. So the member would argue with the Toronto-Dominion Bank in their report. But it's his option to do that.

I quote again from their report, regarding the 1999 budget:

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

[1515]

[ Page 12143 ]

Even before the House at the moment. . . . For a number of years now, they have been taking in taxes and probate fees from many senior citizens when a member of their family or their partner unfortunately dies. They're struggling through the difficult dance of re-establishing themselves and working out the wills and probating their wills, to find that this government is taking a very high probate fee from them. Nobody was happy with it. But because the government did it, you assumed that it was legal, even if improper. Then it was discovered that it was illegal. The court said that what they were doing was illegal, as well as being improper. So what does the government do? They bring before this House a bill to make the illegal action legal.

An Hon. Member: We phoned Mike Harris.

V. Anderson: You can't blame anybody else for your actions.

But that's the kind of thing that's happening within our province. People are asking: "What happens next? Where do we go from here? What is it that we're going to do to be able to change the disastrous situation that has taken place in our province?" A particular group of people, unfortunately having been given power, are using that power not for the well-being of the community but for the detriment of the community. Individual families are powerless against them.

This is something that has gone so far now that people are saying, unfortunately, that if this is democracy, then democracy has run its course. That's a dreadful thing to have happen, because democracy is the way of the people finding a way to express themselves in order that we can cooperate in living together with common respect, dignity and understanding. In our understanding of democracy, the widow and the orphan or any person who has need will be cared for by the rest of us as long as we have the will and the ability to do so. But that's not what they're seeing coming from this honourable building in which we meet at the present time.

[1520]

So I say to the people of the province that they must speak up. I know that they're talking about it individually in their families and in their communities and over in the coffee shops. But I say to the people of this province that they must speak up. They must write letters, make phone calls. They must get together in their own political organization and say: "We've had enough, because the budget is not fair to the people of this province. It's causing hardship and pain that the people of this province should not have to endure."

We talk about the variety of ways that these things might change. But one of the realities is that we collectively -- all of us in this Legislature, all of us across the province -- are stewards of the country in which we live. We're stewards of the environment of which we are a part. We're stewards of the water, which is part of our heritage. We're stewards of the forests, which help us to breathe and give us clean air. We're stewards of the land, which we farm in such a way that it continues to produce. We're stewards of the resources, the livestock and the wildlife that are a part of our land, which has been given to us to share collectively together and to have a good life.

Hon. Speaker, it behooves each and every one of us to come together to decide with each other, within the political process that we have established, how we will solve our problems in the circumstances in which we now live. It's up to everyone to come together with their neighbours and their friends and talk to them, to take on their own individual responsibility and to say: "I have a place not only to cast my vote in the ballot box at the time of the election but to prepare for an election. I have a place to participate in the political process, regardless of my age, my background or my circumstances."

I ask the people of this province to speak out, to write, to talk with each other and to band together so that we may change. . . . Not only will we vote against this budget, but it's a protest to say that we must vote against this government. We must establish a new government that cares here in British Columbia.

J. Sawicki: I am very pleased to rise in this House during the budget debate. I will be speaking against the amendment before us and in support of Budget '99. One of the earlier speakers from the other side of the House, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, actually did get the message of this budget. This budget is about health care. It's the number one issue in this province, and it certainly is the number one issue in my constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon.

Of course, the budget is also about continuing our leadership role in education by providing both the infrastructure and the learning environment that our young people need to get the skills and knowledge for tomorrow's world. This budget also includes targeted and prudent tax cuts in the areas where they can do the most good in terms of stimulating the economy, and that's in the small business sector.

[1525]

When I look at what my community needs, I can see where this budget will help. It will help people in my com-

[ Page 12144 ]

I want to talk a little about health care and education and tax cuts. Our government, in this budget, is increasing health care funding by $478 million, which is a 6.6 percent increase, and we are also increasing the capital budget by $137 million. Even the professor of economics at UBC's Centre for Health Services and Policy Research gives credit to our government and British Columbia. This is a quote from Mr. Bob Evans: "The national numbers, say the politicians" -- i.e., the British Columbia government -- "are right. B.C. spends more per capita than any other province, and particularly, the B.C. provincial government does." We spend about 15 percent more than the national average. So that's not us talking. This is validation that, yes, we do continue to lead every province in Canada in terms of our support for health care spending.

In Burnaby I have seen the evidence of that health care spending at Burnaby Hospital. Just today my two colleagues in Burnaby -- the member for Burnaby North and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds -- announced $1.5 million to upgrade Burnaby Hospital's emergency department renovations.

Interjection.

J. Sawicki: The member asks: "How many years?" And he's right. I have been fighting for that expansion for several years. A couple of years ago we managed to start it, and this year we will be able to complete the renovations for Burnaby. . . . Our community will also benefit from the other health care expenditure increases in this budget. Yes, it is true, as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena did mention. This budget is about more beds, more nurses and shorter wait-lists. We do understand that the wait-lists are longer that we can afford to have them be, but I also know that cardiac wait-lists have reduced substantially in the past year, and this year they will become shorter still.

[1530]

Let's switch to education. I'm very proud when I hear people call British Columbia the education province of Canada, because we worked hard in the last couple of years to make sure that we are at the front of the pack in terms of investing in education. Beginning last year, our government embarked on an ambitious strategy to build new schools, to hire more teachers, to reduce class sizes in the primary grades and to reduce the number of portables.

This year's budget not only puts more money into actual operating funding for schools, in terms of hiring teachers, but it is also adding $341 million in capital funding for new schools and new spaces. That is an important thing to do in all of our communities. Just to give you an example of how we have seen that on the ground in Burnaby-Willingdon, I was very pleased, earlier in April, to announce that Maywood Community School would receive $2.5 million. That will get rid of five portables at Maywood. Just a couple of weeks ago -- again, with my two colleagues from Burnaby on this side of the House, I was pleased to confirm $1.7 million to the Burnaby school district for renovations and upgrades in Burnaby schools, which will not only improve the facilities for the facilities' sake but will ensure that our schools are good places to learn, to teach and for communities to gather -- as is happening more and more in the community schools.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Post-secondary education. I always feel very proud that within my constituency, I have two very unique post-secondary facilities. They are BCIT and the Open Learning Agency. They are innovative, they occupy a very unique niche in our province, and they are tremendous facilities within our community in terms of cooperating and leading on so many issues. This year's budget will provide funding to create 2,900 new post-secondary spaces for students. In Burnaby-Willingdon, BCIT will get 226 of those spaces. I think it's important to acknowledge that 70 of those spaces will be in the high-tech field, an area that we know is creating a tremendous number of jobs and will be tied to our future economic prosperity. Eighty-six of those spaces will also be in trades training, because BCIT is a technology, apprenticeship and trades training centre. I am very pleased that we are targeting that area, as well, for extra dollars.

We are not only increasing spaces in our post-secondary facilities. We have also announced that the tuition freeze has been extended for the fourth year in a row, continuing the leadership role we have taken across this nation in ensuring that it is affordable for young people -- or, quite frankly, not so young people -- to go back to school and upgrade their education. I am very proud of that. You only have to look at what the tuition fees are in other places -- like Alberta and Ontario, where they're 30 percent and 35 percent higher than they are in British Columbia -- to know how important that move has been. That's why -- and the results speak for themselves -- enrolment at B.C. post-secondary education institutes has increased 10 percent since 1991, while it has gone down 4.4 percent in the rest of Canada. I think that, too, tells us that we've got our priorities right and that we've made the right choices in this budget.

[1535]

[ Page 12145 ]

That cut means that small businesses will pay $63 million less tax a year, and it builds significantly on the tax cuts we've given previously. We have done that because we wanted to target the tax cuts where they will do the most good: in the small business sector, where jobs are created all across this province, not just in my community.

But the Burnaby business community will also be helped by some of the other things that are included in this budget in terms of the business community -- that is, the increase in the corporate capital tax threshold and an extension of that corporate capital tax holiday to four years, from the existing two years, to encourage new business to start up.

Health care, education, small business tax cuts, community infrastructure, some housing -- those are the choices that we've made in this budget. I believe those are the right choices for British Columbia at this time. That is a far cry from the choices that are being described by the other side of the House, because their focus is clearly not communities, not ordinary working families, not the elderly in need of long term care beds, not young people in need of affordable quality education. Their focus, from listening to their speeches in this House, is clearly across-the-board tax cuts that include tax cuts for the rich, who don't need them, and tax cuts for the big business community.

Actually, I want to say, hon. Speaker, that I have absolutely nothing against the business community. I am far from anti-business. They have a huge role to play in our economy. As I have been working on some initiatives in my spare time, wanting to promote and encourage environmental technology businesses and more environmentally friendly industries, I have met and talked with many very progressive and creative business people who do want to work with their employees, with communities and with this government to help build this province for the twenty-first century.

I don't even have any problem with sort of large multinational corporations in the big business community. There will always be the insensitive ones. Certainly we had a recent incident in our community, where Service Corp. International -- which is a cemetery company -- in a deliberate affront to both the neighbourhood and our city council, did destroy significant neighbourhood forests. But that has not coloured my view of the fact that we also have people like Trans Mountain Pipe Line, who have taken a tremendous leadership role in working with the community and validating the community and public values that we have.

[1540]

It sort of came home to me, admittedly in somewhat exaggerated form, when I saw the "Report on Business" section on Monday, April 26. I admit that these are the national statistics, so it doesn't really apply to British Columbia. But it talks about "Canada's Biggest Paycheques." It says that even when profits are down and job losses are high, the pay at the top keeps rising. And it gives the paycheques for senior CEOs. Peter Munk, who is the CEO of Barrick Gold Corp., is making $38.9 million a year. Richard Currie, who's the president of Loblaws, is making $34.1 million a year. My question is: why would anyone who makes $36 million or $38 million a year in salary -- or even the $1 million or $2 million a year that many senior CEOs in British Columbia make -- need a tax cut? It begs the question: what are these CEOs doing making those kinds of salaries when the companies they lead are laying off workers?

I mention this because these are the friends of those people across the way. That's who they are listening to in terms of their tax-cut policies.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

J. Sawicki: The fact is, the Liberals are still clinging to that tired, old, discredited trickle-down theory of economics. If you cut the taxes for the rich, if you get rid of environmental regulations, if you allow companies to pay the lowest wages that people will possibly work for -- in short, if government, the only institution we have that looks after the public interest, not the interest of moving capital, would just get out of the way -- then business, out of the goodness of their hearts, will create jobs, and we'll have prosperity for all.

That might have worked in past economies, when we believed that unlimited growth was possible; when we believed that there was no end to the forests or the fish or the minerals; when we believed that pollution didn't matter and that we could just keep throwing things out; and when we believed that people could and always would buy consumer goods as fast as they were produced. But you know, hon. Speaker, that theory doesn't work anymore, and the growing environmental costs, which the public taxpayer must fund or future generations must fund, and the growing social costs of unemployment, which the taxpayer must fund, are clear indications that those kinds of Reaganomic policies don't work.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order. It is really difficult to hear the speaker, and I'd ask everyone here to please show a little bit of respect for the person who has the floor.

[1545]

I want to read from this study done by Seth Klein and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: "Tax cuts do provide

[ Page 12146 ]

I have a couple of other quotes here from that nirvana next door, Alberta. The chairman of the Alberta oil sands project -- remember that this is Alberta, where government cut all those taxes for the big corporations and the rich -- is quoted: "Calling it a stinging indictment of government spending policies, a leading Alberta industrialist said the Klein government is failing to adequately fund education and research in the province."

Even the former Premier of Alberta Don Getty has finally broken his silence and said: "The government of Ralph Klein has blundered badly on health and education. I mean, they broke the system, and now they're pouring money in to try and fix it. Well, it's broke. It's busted. I don't know what it will take to get it back." Those are quotes from the former Conservative Premier in Alberta -- a devastating indictment of Alberta's policy of wanton tax cuts for the rich and cuts in social programs and government spending.

I want to read just one last quote that relates to the earlier issue around health care: the wait-list issue that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena was talking about. In Alberta, the Calgary Herald reports that there are such lengthy wait-lists for medical procedures that Calgary doctors are now taking action to protect themselves from being sued. That's how long the wait-lists are in Alberta.

If I do not believe that the traditional Reaganomic tax cuts that the opposition is recommending would work, one could ask: what can work to build a stronger economy, to create the jobs that we need, to maintain government revenue for social programs and, I would add -- because of course, I never give a speech in this House without mentioning it -- to protect the environment? I was very pleased to see in this budget, as well, that the Minister of Finance has boldly sent out a signal that our government is willing to explore some of the possible answers to that question: what does work? I'm referring to that part of the budget on the green economy and tax shifts.

[1550]

In the other jurisdictions where tax shifting and movements toward the green economy are already happening, they have found that far from reducing competitive advantage, it actually increases competitive advantage. It actually makes the market operate more efficiently. I would think that that is something people on the other side of the House would agree with. I'd like to know: are they prepared to look ahead to the kind of economy we're going to need in the twenty-first century? Are they prepared to take up the challenges of climate change in a post-fossil fuel economy? We are, quite frankly. . . . Energy costs will have to go up, not down. Are they prepared to put their emphasis, along with this government's emphasis, on encouraging our fledgling environmental technology business, encouraging environmental leadership and innovation and encouraging conservation, not the waste, of resources, whether it's energy or water or forests or fish? Is the opposition prepared to support the efforts of this government to begin that long, slow and difficult process to change our tax system so that it reflects our public values: to protect health, to protect the environment and to safeguard resources for future generations? I'd like to hear the answer to that, and I'm hoping that perhaps I will have encouraged members on the other side of the House to address that part of the budget.

I do see that my time is almost up, so I would conclude by saying once again that I reject the amendment that the members across the way have brought to this floor. I think this is a good budget. I think it's a good budget for people. I think it's a good budget for people in Burnaby-Willingdon. It does give priority to health care and to education. It does give targeted tax cuts. I suppose the one area of the budget that I am most pleased with is that it does send a signal and set a vision: to look forward to an environmentally friendly economy with the hopes that in the next century, we as a species would be able to reduce the impact we have on the environment upon which we depend. With that, I am very pleased to have taken my place in this budget debate.

B. McKinnon: I rise to speak to the amendment to the budget and the budget itself. This is the fourth budget that I've had the privilege to speak to since I was elected to serve my constituents of Surrey-Cloverdale. What is so alarming and disturbing is that not only is this the fourth deficit budget in my time in this Legislature, it is the most disgraceful budget in the history of British Columbia. What we have is a budget that fails all people living in this beautiful province. The NDP's plan to spend their way out of their financial difficulties and spend their way trying to stimulate the economy will ultimately lead to higher taxes -- higher taxes that will only drive business and people from the province.

I have sat in this Legislature listening to the members opposite pontificate ad nauseam about all the wonderful things this government has done for their ridings and constituents through this budget. This budget, with all the spending this government is doing in the ridings of the members opposite, is going to be a burden carried on the backs of my children, my grandchildren and their children. This is not a budget to speak of proudly. It is a budget that the members opposite should speak disparagingly of and hang their heads in shame. I read an editorial in the Province newspaper. They called this a budget of Dirty Thirties thinking. The newspaper also said that it wouldn't work here, because the NDP's economic policy would make sure of that.

[1555]

[ Page 12147 ]

The areas that this government says they're looking after. . . . The only thing that this government looks after is themselves and their friends. The Premier has chased business investment out of the province to the point where private sector investment is falling. We have seen investment in B.C. fall for the past five years, and the tumble just continues. Since 1995 investment spending in British Columbia has fallen 24 percent, to an estimated $14.10 billion this year. This has made us one of the worst performers in the country.

The gap between private and public sector investment in this province continues to widen. This has to stop. We have to reverse that trend and begin to encourage more business to invest in our province in order to get our economy on the right track once again. The Business Council found that business investment in the province was slipping long before the Asian economies began to flounder and long before world commodity prices began to tumble. This budget has assured everyone that public sector spending will continue.

When we take a look at the government's spending and see that $410 million is going for SkyTrain expansion, $186 million for the expansion of the trade and convention centre, $137 million for two new health care facilities and $45 million for school construction, it shows us that this government believes the public sector can sustain this province. What the government has given this province is all short-term -- short-term work and short-term jobs for people who want long-term work and long-term jobs. It is the private sector that gives us long-term jobs. In fact, 80 percent of provincial employment is in the private sector.

You can't spend your way out of a recession unless you are prepared to see a continuum of high taxes in this province. We cannot afford higher taxes, and we all know that's what will happen if the NDP does not change its ways. Governments cannot force economic growth through higher taxes. It has the opposite effect. What this budget is telling the businesses that would like to invest in our province is to go elsewhere, British Columbia is not open for business.

Alberta knows that falling debt and taxes attract business. They advertise in British Columbia. Let me tell you what they say. Let me tell the members opposite what Alberta is saying to our business community. They say: "We will take care of you. Just move next door. We will treat you far better than you have ever been treated before." That's what Alberta is saying to our business community. What is so scary is that this NDP government just doesn't get it -- or even worse, they do get it and don't care.

[1600]

In this budget, the NDP finally gave small business some relief -- a tax cut -- on one hand, but on the other hand, they cut $99 million in municipal grants. That's a 41 percent reduction in funding that will impoverish local governments. Not only will it impoverish local governments, but we will also see homeowners, renters and small businesses paying the price for these massive cuts. These cuts will wipe out the $38 million savings from the small business tax cut because they will pay through the nose in property tax increases.

Municipal governments have seen their grants cut by $800 million since the NDP have taken office. We have had our bond ratings downgraded twice since the release of this budget. Last year this downgrade cost the taxpayer $2 million a year in extra interest costs. The Canadian Bond Rating Service said that the NDP's latest deficit would only exacerbate the province's deteriorating fiscal position.

If we take a look at some of our other provinces and their economic outlooks, we find that Alberta and Manitoba are doing an excellent job in terms of fiscal prospects. The Alberta government has been successful on all key fiscal fronts. They have reduced their debt and provided tax relief. They have budget surpluses, and the province now boasts the lowest provincial debt and personal tax burdens in the country. In spite of the slump in crude oil prices in 1998, the province of Alberta bettered its surplus target for the sixth year in a row and announced plans to overhaul its income tax system and lower the personal income tax burden. Alberta also enjoys the highest bond rating among the provinces.

Manitoba has strict debt requirement legislation backed up by a fiscal stabilization fund and is in good shape to balance its budget for the fifth year in a row. Manitoba also had its bond rating raised by two major rating agencies.

The economic outlooks of Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick rank well, with Saskatchewan being rewarded last year and this year with upgrades in their bond ratings.

British Columbia's prospects are only rated as fair. This government opted in the 1999 budget to boost spending and to post significant budget deficits over the next few years in an effort to stimulate our economy. This will result in British Columbia's fiscal position deteriorating relative to that of other provinces. Its debt burden will rise markedly, and we will have little room to cut our high tax burden.

The Finance minister talks about making choices. The choices that this Finance minister has made will be very costly to the British Columbia taxpayer. This government will give B.C.'s taxpayers $440 million more in debt interest costs than they had six years ago. Alberta's taxpayers will pay $565 million less in interest costs, due to their fiscal surpluses.

This NDP government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. We were one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada until that fateful day when the NDP were elected to govern our province. In 1996 the NDP had to lie about their budget to get elected. Our fiscal tree is ready to topple under the weight of additional debt interest. When will this Finance minister have the courage to make the right choices for British Columbia?

[ Page 12148 ]

[1605]

Let's take a look at B.C. Ferries and the debt load they are carrying. We have to ask ourselves: "How did the B.C. Ferry Corporation become so insolvent?" Ten years ago the debt load for B.C. Ferries was $15 million. The latest estimate in this budget brings the B.C. Ferry Corporation's debt to $1.35 billion in the very near future. This debt is bigger than the value of our entire ferry fleet.

This government has continually tried to spin to the taxpayers of this province that they are the only ones who are the great protectors of health and education in this province. Yes, they spend more per capita on health care than any other province, but we have to ask ourselves: what is happening to all that money we put into health care? It certainly isn't going to the patients. We still continue to have unacceptably long waiting lists for surgery that definitely compromise patient care. The total number of patients waiting for surgery has increased from 45,637 patients in 1998 to 54,316 patients on January 1, 1999. That is an increase of 8,679 patients. Shame on this government!

The federal government gave B.C. an extra $471 million for health care over the next three years, yet the Finance minister is spending over three-quarters of that money in this year alone. We have to ask: is that not shortchanging needy patients over the next two years? Do they care? Or has this government realized that they will no longer be sitting on that side of the House and that it will become somebody else's problem?

We have a government that brags about tuition freezes for students. What they fail to tell the students is that tuition freezes make it harder for universities to provide all the courses they wish to give the students. It makes it harder to balance their books and provide for the needs of their students.

If we want to compare the rhetoric of compassion to the reality of delivering poor services such as education and health care, we only need to look at the budget put forward by this incompetent government. This government is telling the rest of Canada that they are wrong, yet what I see are provinces now flourishing because they have had the courage to take the bull by the horns. They have had the courage to get their houses in order.

We have a welfare system that is swollen with kids in care. Social workers falter under huge caseloads, top-heavy bureaucracy and a ministry determined to portray the image that children are safe and protected by this province. Our outgoing children's commissioner said that most children who are wards of the province fail to meet provincial standards. Only 8 percent of 294 care plans that she evaluated complied with the legislative requirements of the Ministry for Children and Families.

Ms. Morton told us in her report that the ministry desperately needs to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with troubled teens. The ministry also needs a strategy for prevention and early intervention in situations where children are at risk. Unless more emphasis is put on dealing with problems before they become severe, the problems of deeply troubled children and youth will never improve. We will only have generation after generation showing the same problems and needing the same services. We only have to look to our neighbours to the south to make us aware of what our troubled youth are capable of doing -- or to our own back yard to the murder of Reena Virk and what has happened in Taber, Alberta.

Social workers have been warning this government for more than two years that they cannot adequately look after the safety of children in need of protection. Social workers' concerns range from extremely high caseloads and lack of staff to life-and-death decisions because of lack of resources. The child and youth advocate, Joyce Preston, reported that the ministry is in a severe state of crisis due to underfunding and misdirected resources.

[1610]

The children of this province deserve better than this government is giving them. Through Judge Gove's inquiry, the responsibility to better protect children was left to this government. The Gove inquiry was Matthew Vaudreuil's legacy. This government has to ask: are they doing everything possible to protect children in this province? The answer is a resounding no. It is time the Premier of this province gave up some of his photo shoots and advertising and helped protect our most vulnerable resource.

There was a time when British Columbia led in Canadian job growth -- for most of the last ten years -- and then all of a sudden, we became the worst in job performance across Canada. If we stop and ask ourselves what happened, the answer is simple: people are fleeing the province en masse.

And 1998 was a miserable year for our forest industry. Ten mills shut down and over 16,000 jobs were lost. The industry faced a record loss of over $1 billion. The Gold River mill closed, 382 workers lost their jobs and a whole community lost its future. The company auctioned off their homes last weekend.

People in this province are losing their homes. Children are neglected. We are overtaxed and overregulated. And what does this government do for itself? The NDP caucus operations gave themselves a 31 percent raise for advertising, spin doctoring and polling. I say shame on them -- spending more of our tax dollars so that they can tell you what a good job they are doing spending your hard-earned tax dollars. When will the taxpayers of this province get a break?

It doesn't take a genius to know that when your income drops and your debt goes up, you have to cut your overhead -- whether you like it or not. You have to decide to cut costs

[ Page 12149 ]

We need a competent government that is prepared to build a competitive economy that isn't dependent on our dwindling natural resources. When we take a look at the global economy, we realize that investment can go anywhere in the world. Add red tape, overregulation and taxes, and a noose tightens around the neck of investment; it disappears from our grasp. Red tape is like putting a red flag in front of a bull. That is what the NDP has done to business and investment in this province. They have tightened the noose on British Columbia.

Let's try and look on the bright side. Is it possible that there is some good in this budget? Well, let's see. Shampoos and other products for treating head lice are now tax exempt. Forestry companies will no longer be charged provincial tax on broomsticks. That is the good news in the budget, hon. Speaker. The good news is very sparse -- but then, who said this was a good-news budget?

The principal cause of B.C.'s problems is the failure of the NDP government to confront fiscal reality. While every other province, and even Ottawa, have had to pare costs and programs, B.C. has kept the government engine chugging along to pay for the support of friends in the unions, the environmental movement and the bureaucracy. What we have is a government out of control and out of touch with the rest of the world and with the people of this province.

[1615]

It amazes me every day in this chamber to listen to those negative comments from people opposite so desperate for power that they want to make sure that the public believes that things aren't doing well in British Columbia. It was stunning the other day to come in this House and look at them looking so depressed after the government announced the deal with Louisiana-Pacific to create 500 to 1,000 direct jobs in northern British Columbia and get that economy, which is doing well up there, doing even better.

Take a look up there. Unemployment is about 3 to 4 percent -- a remarkable success story in terms of this province and that region of the province. Not one of them over there stood up once to congratulate this government for the remarkable leadership that it's showing in bringing investment to British Columbia.

Let's take a look at what's happening in terms of the economy in this great province of ours and take note of the kind of positive changes that are occurring in our economy from one sector to the other here in British Columbia. Take a look at the forest sector here in British Columbia. We all know that there are cycles with all elements of the economy. It's important for government to respond when there's a downturn in terms of the forest cycle in British Columbia. Last year, given some of the difficulties that the forest sector had, we as a government said: "Now look, we've got to make some changes in terms of our domestic policies." What did we do? We reduced stumpage rates in British Columbia by about $600 million; we streamlined the provisions of the Forest Practices Code to make it cheaper for companies to do business; we made changes in the ways value-added producers are provided with lumber products -- all steps designed to encourage the forest industry to find its way through the economic turbulence the province found itself in back then, in the winter of 1998.

Take a look at what's happening now with the forest economy here in British Columbia. In January, I guess it was, Doman Industries announced that 1,100 workers in central Vancouver Island were going to go back to work. Just this past month they announced that 300 workers in the Tahsis division are being called back in addition to the other 600 that they had already called back. People are starting to come back to work in the forest sector.

Not only are people working and building on that fine record of investments that we're making through Forest Renewal British Columbia from one end of the province to the other, not only are they coming back to work, but profits are returning to the forest sector. Take a look at what's happening with the balance sheets of the forest companies in British Columbia as a result of some of the changes that we've made as a government. Last year at this time, TimberWest reported losses of about $14.2 million. Now they're showing a profit of $1 million -- a small but significant turnaround in terms of that company. Take a look at some of the other companies. This month one of them reported an 86.2 percent increase in terms of its bottom line, in terms of profitability. They've gone up in terms of a profit of $24 million this year, up from about $13.2 million last year at this time. MacMillan Bloedel is showing an increase in profits, up from $16 million last year to $33 million at this time in the first quarter of this year -- an increase in excess of 100 percent.

Take a look at it: we're starting to bring about changes in our forest sector. We're seeing people go back to work. We're seeing companies return to profitability. We're getting out of the problems that we had a year ago, in part because this government, through the Premier of this province, showed remarkable leadership in making changes in terms of forest policy and, as the members opposite would never want to admit, in part because the situation in Asia is turning. The situation in Asia is changing and improving. As a consequence of that, our customer base is returning from Asia. We're flowing more product to that part of the world. Inventories are being reduced. Profits are being returned. People are starting to work. People in British Columbia are smiling everywhere, except on that side of the House. It's important, however, that we continue to show leadership in terms of the forest sector.

[1620]

It is important, however, for all of us to recognize that the most significant challenge in terms of the forest sector today really is what happens with the softwood lumber agreement. There this government is looking for industry to come to some

[ Page 12150 ]

I notice, for example -- just reading last week in the paper -- that Lignum has one view of the softwood lumber agreement; MacMillan Bloedel has another. If I can say so publicly, one of the things that we're looking for as a province is for industry to get their act together and come to us around the provisions of the softwood lumber agreement, so we can take that message to Ottawa and help resolve what I see as the most significant impediment in that regard.

So forestry is starting to pick up in this province. There are good signals in terms of the economy coming back to the fore. In fact, I'm sure other members of the House were as pleased as I was today to read the latest forecast of the Royal Bank of Canada, which indicated that British Columbia was going to show positive growth again this year, building on the positive growth that they've had over the course this decade while this province has been governed by a New Democratic government.

It isn't just forestry that's doing well. Take a look, hon. members opposite, in terms of what's happening in the housing sector in Victoria, Vancouver and Kelowna, in particular. We're seeing a 20 percent increase in terms of housing construction starts on the residential side here in the greater Victoria area. Particularly in terms of multifamily, multi-unit dwellings, we're seeing a significant increase -- in fact, a 59 percent increase provincewide this year in terms of construction activity on the multi-unit housing side. We've seen 18,000 new residential units start up already this year in this province. In most areas of the province, particularly in areas like Victoria, we're well ahead of the pace that industry and economists had forecast. Again, we're seeing spring in the step of British Columbians in the housing construction sector, and we're seeing people go back to work in that sector -- a 59 percent increase in terms of housing activity.

But that is on the residential side of the housing equation. You have to take a look at what we're doing provincewide on the non-residential side of the equation. Because of the kind of investments that government is making in constructing new hospitals, highways and educational facilities, the non-residential construction side of the equation is doing remarkable well. In some areas of the province we would say, in fact, that it is booming in terms of non-residential.

Members opposite continually stand up in this House and criticize this government for the investments that they're making in building new highways, hospitals and educational facilities in British Columbia, hon. Speaker. But you know what? They don't go out and talk to the construction workers that are happy, that are smiling and that are bringing paycheques to their families and to their homes, ensuring that their saving accounts are building up. We're helping people in the construction industry make it from month to month, get those paycheques in and contribute to maintaining a vibrant economy. It's one of the reasons that banks and credit unions across this country are now forecasting that the GDP will grow this year over last year in British Columbia. There is movement in this province around our economy.

Take a look, hon. Speaker, at what's happening in the mining sector. Take a look at Cominco, a company that I know you're familiar with. This quarter, compared to last quarter, they're showing a significant increase in their profits, in part because of the kind of profits that are flowing from zinc processing. In fact, in most of the commodities we're now beginning to see increases in commodity prices, and as a consequence of those increases, we're seeing operations maintaining their activity or operation, bringing workers back to activity. If you take a look at the stock market, it's interesting to note that in relation to investments on the stock side, particularly with senior producing mining companies in British Columbia, the market prices for those companies are moving up.

[1625]

Perhaps the best indicator of what's happening in terms of our economy is what's happening in terms of exports. This year, exports in British Columbia are up a full 7 percent over the same period last year. In fact, if you take a look at the breakdowns in terms of exports, forest exports are up 10 percent this year over last year. In addition to that, machinery and equipment exports are up 17.5 percent over last year. Interestingly, agriculture and fishing exports are up 11 percent over this time last year. Again, all of the indicators in terms of our economy right now are positive, positive, positive, and that's why we hear so many sighs from the members opposite. They're beginning to realize the economy's turning around, and they know full well that British Columbia is about to embark upon another cycle of prosperity.

Speaking of agriculture and fishing products, it's important to note again what's happening in that sector. For the first time in the history of this province, we've seen exports in terms of agriculture cross the $1 billion mark. That's never happened before in this province. People don't recognize what's happening in our agricultural sector; they don't recognize the way in which we've been able to deal with world demand for value-added, high-quality products. The Minister of Agriculture has shown remarkable leadership in that regard by trying to take that economy to a new sort of agricultural economy -- for the first time ever, $1 billion in exports from British Columbia.

What's fascinating about that is this: this year, exports from British Columbia to the United States grew by 21 percent in terms of agricultural commodities -- a 21 percent increase. When you take a look at every other province in the country, their exports have decreased by 7 percent. They've maintained their traditional way of dealing with exports on the agricultural side; we've brought forward a revolutionary change in the way we deal with agricultural commodities, prices and products. As a result, our exports have increased by 21 percent.

The members opposite should go down and take a look at the port of Vancouver -- an unbelievable and remarkable success story. In fact, shipments this year over last year at the

[ Page 12151 ]

I hope that hon. members opposite have noted that Zim, an Israel-based company which is one of the larger transatlantic shipping lines in the world, had to make a decision this year in terms of where it was that they were going to start their transpacific operations. They had a choice between establishing themselves in the cities of Seattle, Tacoma, San Francisco or, of course, the city of Vancouver. And they chose the city of Vancouver, because we are the lowest-cost producer in that sense. . . . A 44 percent increase. We've got the Zim line operating, starting May 24, and as I notice in today's paper, another Italian, I believe. . . .

An Hon. Member: Swiss.

Hon. M. Sihota: A Swiss-based company is making. . . . I'm sure that if it was Italian, the member for Burnaby North would have told me. A Swiss-based company, one of the larger shipping lines out of Europe, has now also made a decision to establish itself out of the port of Vancouver. We are seeing a significant increase in terms of port activity in British Columbia.

Combine this, hon. Speaker, with all of the other good things that are happening in our economy. Members opposite should know and ought to be on their feet congratulating this government for the kind of structural taxation changes that we've made in terms of film. Last year the Premier of this province went down to California. He went down to Los Angeles, and he took a look at what was happening in Ontario and Alberta and what our competitors were trying to do in terms of trying to lure business out of Hollywood away from British Columbia and into their provinces. As a result of a small change that we made in our budget to provide tax credits for the film industry, what happened? We made changes to our tax system, outperforming both Ontario and Alberta in that regard. As a consequence, we saw $800 million to $900 million worth of activity on the film side last year -- 64 new productions -- and we're already on a trend line to beat the record that we set last year.

[1630]

Let's take a look at another symbol of growth in British Columbia -- another index of prosperity in this province. Take a look at what's happening on the high-tech sector in British Columbia. We are the fastest-growing jurisdiction in terms of high-tech investment in North America. More high-tech investment is coming here to British Columbia than to any other jurisdiction in North America. The reasons for that are obvious. What we've done as a province is we've invested in the kinds of things that attract that industry to a province.

First of all, we've invested in our educational institutes in British Columbia. We've established the best educational system anywhere in the country, and I'll talk a little bit more about that. Take a look around here in Victoria: Camosun College, Royal Roads University, the University of Victoria. Take a look across the water: Simon Fraser University, the new Tech U coming on line, UBC. Take a look at what we're doing in terms of UNBC.

As a result of that, combined with the fact that we have created a province where we have the best quality of life anywhere in the country because of the environmental policies we have, people want to come, live and recreate in an area that offers remarkable amenities -- clean air, clean water and parks. Take a look, again, here in Victoria. You have the Galloping Goose, the Sooke Hills, the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail and Finlayson Arm -- all investments that we made as a province that attract people to come here and live.

What's happening here in Victoria? We're seeing companies like EDS -- that's Ross Perot's old company. We're seeing companies like IBM, which everybody knows. ISM-BC established 400 jobs here in the province last year. We've had MDA announce that they're establishing operations here in Victoria. Similarly, in Vancouver, we're looking at high-tech companies -- be it Ballard, be it Sierra Systems, be it DMR or be it Avcorp, the aviation company. . . . Again, they're coming here and investing in British Columbia, and as a result, we are the fastest-growing high-tech sector in the country. You never hear the members opposite stand up and congratulate this government on what we're doing in the high-tech sector. That's fair enough. British Columbians are seeing the kind of growth that we're having here in the province -- second to none.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I mentioned Ballard, hon. member.

In addition to that. . . . It's not just high-tech; it's not just film; it's not just housing; it's not just the turnaround in forestry. Take a look at what we're doing in terms of tourism, hon. Speaker. When this government took office in 1991, tourism was about a $3-billion-a-year industry in British Columbia. I believe it's now $8 billion.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The Minister of Tourism is now saying that we're going to go for $9 billion a year in 1999. It's unbelievable -- the kind of prosperity and the foundation that we're building for British Columbia. It's an economy that will be there not only for us to enjoy as individuals but for future generations -- our children -- to prosper from.

At the same time, hon. Speaker, take a look at the steps that this budget implements to protect the integrity of our education system and our health care system. Take a look around, first, at health care and at what we're doing here in the greater Victoria area to make sure that future generations and our current population have access to a health care system that is second to none. We've already announced $50 million this year to establish a Vancouver Island-wide cancer clinic right here in Victoria with a research and diagnostic

[ Page 12152 ]

[1635]

We're improving the integrity of our health care system -- $615 million provincewide allocated both in operating and in capital expenditures this year for health care. When Maclean's magazine went across this country from one end to the other and looked at the health care systems that are offered in Canada, they rated British Columbia No. 1 -- the top health care jurisdiction in the country. When you think about it and when you look at the world, hon. Speaker, and see that the world looks to Canada for health care and that they recognize the kind of universal health care system that we have, founded upon the principles of our political party and Tommy Douglas in a speech that I won't get into. . . . If you realize that the world looks to Canada and that Canada looks to British Columbia, we probably offer the best health care system in the world right here in British Columbia.

It's not just health care that this government invested in, in terms of this budget. We made a fundamental decision in this budget to incur a deficit not only because we're investing in health care but also because we're investing in education. Take a look again at what we've been able to do in terms of education. Not only have we now started to construct, here in the greater Victoria area, some first-class facilities -- a new school at Belmont high, a new school committed to View Royal Elementary School, a new facility at the Young Building announced today at Camosun College and hundreds of millions of dollars of construction in terms of new educational facilities at both the post-secondary and the secondary level -- but we have made a commitment to reduce the number of portables that we have in our system by half and to reduce class size for K-to-3 over the next three years. On top of all of that, there's a commitment to hire up to 900 new teachers in our education system in British Columbia, an unbelievable record that nobody else in this country has been able to match.

But the crowning piece of the work that we've done in terms of education is this -- it's the decision that our government has made that distinguishes us from every other province in the country -- namely, our decision to proceed with yet another year of tuition freezes here in British Columbia. Here the Premier has taken the leadership in terms of insisting that this be a cornerstone of our policy. Everywhere else that you go in this country, families are losing sight of the dream of ensuring that their children have a decent post-secondary education. All of us as parents want to make sure that our children do better in life than we did.

In other provinces -- be it Alberta or Ontario, two provinces that the opposition likes to refer to from time to time -- tuition fees are as high as $11,000. For example, in Ontario, access to a law school is about $8,000 a year for an Ontario student. Here at the University of Victoria -- which has the best law school in Canada, if I may say so -- the tuition fee is $2,300 a year. We've been able to keep that dream alive. We've been able to make it clear to all British Columbians that a post-secondary education system is going to be available to their children, so that their children can enjoy a better life and have access to better skills training than they did during the course of their time as citizens. Here in British Columbia, we're doing better than everywhere else in the country on that front.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

When you take a look at it -- and I live here in the greater Victoria area, you know -- things are just doing well. We've got a great economy, a great health care system and a great education system. Government is making all the kinds of investments that the public asks for.

I'm always stunned by the silence of the Liberal members from greater Victoria. I often wonder where they are. You know, "Invisible Ida" and "Mushroom Murray" -- where are they? We never see those members in. . . .

An Hon. Member: The voiceless ones.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right, silence, because they know that we've done remarkably well, particularly here in Victoria, because of the decisions that we've made here in Victoria. We protected the integrity of the public sector. By protecting the integrity of the public sector in this province, we've prevented the kind of chilling that would occur if the members opposite got into power, because they would make significant cuts in the public sector.

[1640]

They've indicated that they would have $3.6 billion in cuts if they were in power, based on the commitments that they've made to date. But they won't stand up in this House -- and I challenge them to do so -- to explain what cuts they'd make to the health care system and which schools they would not fund. All we know about them is that they're negative and that they would provide tax breaks to their corporate friends who, we all know, donated handsomely to their campaign -- large tax breaks to them. They've never left Howe Street. We've never left Main Street. Come the next election, I guarantee the members opposite that they'll look more depressed then than they do now.

J. Wilson: There is one thing I will give this government credit for. They are extremely creative and imaginative, and every year they put out a literary work. It's called a comic book. This is the eighth in a series. Each year you read it over

[ Page 12153 ]

I'd like to start out and touch on a few things in the eighth edition of this comic series.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: I see I have the attention of the members opposite, and their ears are perked right up. Well, that's good, because I'm about to give them some facts here and point out a few things that they don't know yet or don't understand.

Let's look at this. There's a statement here: ". . .we have led the country in job creation." Now, that is quite a mouthful. What they haven't said is that they've led the country in job destruction. That's a whole different thing, isn't it?

The jobs they've created fall into two categories. One is taxpayer- and government-supported jobs -- and yes, they have created quite a few there. The other area that they have created jobs in is small business. They have put thousands upon thousands of people out of work in this province. What recourse do they have? They try and hang on. They try to establish a business that they can operate out of their home, or they start up a small business, in an effort to make a living. Every time some poor individual starts up a small business because he or she has lost a job, the government throws up its hands. They clap and say: "Hey, we got a new job created here." They don't count the ones they've destroyed.

Another thing that really comes off this page and strikes you is the fact that every time something happens, they blame it on the Asian crisis. That excuse has worn a little more than thin. They go on to admit that, yes, copper and lumber prices did fall last year. "But that's okay; we're going to deal with that. We're going to look after these people. We're going to put more money out there. We're going to spend enormous amounts of money. We're going to protect things like health care and education."

[1645]

Hon. Speaker, I see that the member opposite would like to intervene here for a minute and make an introduction.

H. Giesbrecht: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Giesbrecht: I thank the member for taking a short pause.

This is a rather historic occasion in the sense that it's the first time I've had a chance to introduce a very large group of constituents of Skeena. We have, visiting us today, 37 students from Centennial Christian School in Terrace. They're accompanied by seven adults. One of the adults just happens to be a former student of mine. I assured him that this House was much more exciting than any of my math classes, so I'm hoping that members don't disappoint them. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Cariboo North continues.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I noticed that the light wasn't shut off when the member was making his introduction, so I just thought I'd bring that to your attention.

This government makes a concerted attempt to point out that other provinces have cut down hospitals, reduced the number of beds and laid off staff. Well, what's happened in this province in eight years? Have we seen any hospitals close? Have we seen any bed reductions in this province? We've had so many beds cut in this province in eight years, the number is staggering. Every hospital you go to has had bed closures -- every single hospital. Who caused these bed closures?

Interjection.

J. Wilson: None other. To sit in this House, point the finger at provinces like Alberta and say: "Look, they don't have a health care system. We spend more money in this province per capita than anyone else. . . ." You can just be thankful that there is a province next door that takes our overflow -- takes all the emergencies out of northern British Columbia that we can't handle in this province. Our waiting lists are huge; they're staggering. And they don't change; they get worse. Every week they get worse.

They make a point in here, and really they have finally twigged onto something that's going to come down the tube here in a few years and really going to be a problem. They say: "We're going to hire 400 more nurses." Well, that's really good; it really is. We need more nurses. Do they know how many nurses we need in the next five years? I don't think so. They're going to hire 400 a year.

[1650]

So if we think for one second that we can call on other provinces to supply us with nursing people in the next few years, we'd better guess again. If we think that we can bring in people from overseas, from other countries, to fill our needs in this province. . . . It will not happen. No one will come and work in this province today because of the horrendous tax burden that this government has placed on them.

[ Page 12154 ]

This government says that we need to get along and form a partnership with the people that provide health care service and form a lasting solution. "A lasting solution depends on the full cooperation of all the partners in the health system. And in particular, it depends on a resolution of the ongoing differences between British Columbia's doctors and our government." Again, they have laid the blame squarely at the feet of the doctors if this program that they've instituted doesn't fly. Isn't that just great? I want to tell you what they've done. They are such a bunch of geniuses when it comes to making things work that it's no wonder that this province is in the mess it's in.

They brought in a northern allowance for doctors. We have no rural doctors in the north. We were so short. . . . It was terrible. So they brought in a northern allowance. Do you know something? It actually helped. We filled positions, for one year. Then what did they do? "Oh, it's working. Let's cut the funding." So they cut the funding in half, and next year there will be no funding. Where will we be at? We're going to be right back at square one within a year. They call this dealing with a problem and providing a solution. And now they pull this. Now they're going to lay the blame on the doctors again.

When I read this comic book, I was kind of interested in what they were going to do to address the number one problem in this province, which is our economy. What did they say? What did they do here? They're going to help small business, and they're going to diversify the economy. The only thing that they can see that's happened in the last couple of years is that small business has actually hung in there and tried to survive, so now they're going to help it. How do they help it? They cut the income tax to small businesses by 3 percent. If small businesses were actually making money, that would have helped, but they're not making money. Most of them are hanging on by their fingernails. If they've got some savings put away, half of them have spent that just trying to keep their businesses afloat, hoping that next month or next year things will turn around, and they can start to show a profit again.

[1655]

And they're making things really easier on families. Choices -- that's what it's about. They've said this budget is all about choices. What have they done for families? What have they done for the average working family out there? They've pulled their municipal grants. They can expect a 30 percent increase in their tax rate next year. Your taxes keep going up. Next year there'll be another big slash in municipal grants, so you wait. . . . How they put money in the pockets of every ordinary British Columbian is increase their taxes.

Interjections.

J. Wilson: I hear some murmuring coming from the opposition -- or the government. I guess you could call them the opposition, because that's what they act like nowadays. They act just like opposition; they're always defensive. They're always attacking this side of the House to try to justify what they've just said.

What have they done? We froze hydro rates, but we froze them at an inflated rate. Isn't that just great? We jacked the rates up, we froze them, and we are going to take it right out of the pocket of the average working family. If they wanted to do something, why didn't they cut the fuel taxes? People need to drive automobiles to get to work, but look at the prices of fuel today. They're elevated. They've gone up and up and up. Why didn't they cut some of the fuel tax? That would have really helped. And another thing: why didn't they reduce the insurance premiums, so that people could actually afford to drive an automobile?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, it's difficult to hear the speaker. The member for Cariboo North has the floor.

J. Wilson: I know it really hurts the government side when you point some of these things out -- where they have made some really big blunders. But they know what's best, and it's their choice.

Their economic plan -- what a joke. Business has consistently told this government what needs to be done in this province. If they've been told once, they've been told a thousand times: cut taxes significantly, reduce red tape and put some flexibility in the labour laws. They got two of them right. But the third one? They don't have it right, hon. Speaker. If they want flexibility, what they should do is make the union leaders accountable to the rank and file. That's what they should do, but that wouldn't fit the agenda.

[1700]

I'd like to read a quote here to the Minister of Labour that perhaps he can explain. "The cost of provincial Crown leases for small freshwater fishing resorts has soared from $1,200 in 1994 to $12,000 in 1994 to $12,000 in 1998." It is interesting that the Minister of Tourism is bragging about this budget, saying

[ Page 12155 ]

It's amazing that they could cut jet fuel taxes to create 25,000 jobs. What's going to happen next spring when tourists ask: "Well, where are we going here?" The harassment that some of the pickup drivers have had this winter with DOT on overloads is going to kill the tourist industry. All it'll take is for that word to get out at the border, and these people with campers and fifth wheels are going to say: "Well, maybe we shouldn't go there; we may not escape from that province. It might not be a good place to spend our money." That's the kind of advertising this government does for the tourist industry in British Columbia.

Interjections.

J. Wilson: I hear the members opposite heckling me, but they don't realize what goes on. In February we had a big skidoo event in Wells. A thousand people show up. It's the only time of year any money to speak of comes into that community. A thousand people come to this hill climb. The scales at the border turned ten pickups back that were coming to that hill climb. They said: "You can't come in; you're overweight on your pickup." That is what you call promoting tourism in the province of British Columbia by the NDP government.

Business tax cuts. Well, we got to jet fuel. Here's a great one: cutting red tape. It says: "We've made a lot of progress in cutting red tape, thanks to the efforts of the Business Task Force." They go on to say what they have done to "get rid of unnecessary regulations as part of our economic plan. And the results of that broader effort speak for themselves." They have 33 provincial laws that have been streamlined. Can you imagine that? Since this NDP government took office in 1991, they have brought in an additional 3,000 regulations -- 10,000 pages of them. They have streamlined 33. What a success story that is. I'll tell you, if they keep going, in another 2,000 years they might get to the end of the pile. That's a really good performance.

[1705]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

They've got a business lens, which is more or less a regulation on regulations. But that's understandable, considering the regulatory mind of this government.

Then we've got regional economies and the things that support them. We've got Forest Renewal. Forest Renewal started out. . . . It was a great idea; it was going to put some money back into the communities. But what happened to Forest Renewal? People started putting in projects. They got some money coming in. They set up companies. They hired people to go out and do silviculture work. This year, there's no money available. Instead, crews aren't working and companies aren't working -- nothing is happening out there. It's been the biggest abuse and misuse of money that anyone has ever seen in this province.

They had to do something. They had to come up with another plan to help the forest industry, so they are going to extend the accounts receivable to the major licensees, because they haven't got the money to pay their stumpage bills. So they're going to make their accounts receivable over a year. That's just great. It shows you what a terrible mess our finances are in, in this province, when you can't pay your bills when they're due.

They've had summits and meetings all over -- with industry, with people. They set up a northern development commissioner with an office, a budget of $1 million and a salary of $100,000 in an effort to find out what the north needs. Here is what they found out. The northern development commissioner went out into these northern communities. He looked around, and he found out that we have no Internet service in rural and remote areas in British Columbia. What a discovery. He came back and told the government: "We've got no Internet service in remote areas in northern British Columbia." They said: "Is that right? We'd better do something about that. We're going to give you $10 million to get it up and running. That's going to save the economy of northern British Columbia."

It doesn't matter that we are sitting in an area that is rich in resources, fishing, mining, logging and tourism -- but the tourism doesn't exist yet because it's not on the map; hopefully, they'll get it on the next map. What happened? They put $10 million into this. That is a real accomplishment for northern British Columbia. Perhaps next year the northern development commissioner -- maybe somebody's going to scoop his job here -- will come back and say: "They need computers this year. They don't have any up there." Maybe he'll get another $100,000 for that suggestion. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, the way they operate just blows your mind.

And they're going to put more money. . . . They're going to build more hospitals. They've closed a bunch down, and they've shut down beds right across the province. They have taken all our northern hospitals and have literally made them so they don't function. They are now nothing more, in some cases, than band-aid stations -- first-aid posts. We had 44 beds in G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital. This year this government comes along and says: "We will carry your deficit, if you'll cut six beds out of acute care." Is that adding beds? It doesn't sound like it to me. Then, on top of that, the chair of the community health councils says: "Our objective would be to get it down to 20." That's what you'd call supporting the health care system in the north. Cut, cut, cut, and they're still cutting, and they're going to keep right on cutting until we've got nothing left.

[1710]

[ Page 12156 ]

High tech. This is interesting. I had a conversation with some students that are in high tech.

Hon. D. Lovick: John cares a lot about high tech. He doesn't think they should have the Internet in the north.

The Speaker: Members, members.

J. Wilson: Only 10 percent of high-tech students this year have jobs in their co-op programs. That shows you how many high-tech jobs we have in this province. And there's something else that's very interesting: almost all of those high-tech students that are in computer-designing courses have applied for their green cards. Does that tell you something? It should.

An Hon. Member: Go south, young men.

J. Wilson: It tells you: "Go south."

The Speaker: Hon. member, I draw your attention to the fact that the red light is now on, and your time is now up.

J. Wilson: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker.

H. Giesbrecht: This budget debate, like almost all the others that I've heard since I've been here, has always seemed to split along the lines of whether the glass is half full or half empty. The opposition argues that it's half empty and focuses on that alone. One would expect that somebody over there would occasionally acknowledge that some specific parts of the budget are certainly worth noting. One would expect, for example, that they would say that the $650 million in health care that's extra this year was at least a good thing. I mean, one would at least expect them to say that it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but they won't even acknowledge that.

We might expect that they would say that having the lowest business tax in the country would be a good thing, but they can't even acknowledge that. So as I listen very carefully to some of the debate here, I can't quite understand why there is nothing about this budget that at least would be recognized as positive, considering the tough economic times that the province finds itself in. They're focused on the deficit and the debt, and they have been for years. No matter what a comparison of taxpayer-supported debt among the provinces shows. . . . You know, if it shows that ours is the second lowest in the country, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the public says, time after time, that health care and education are above the concerns for deficit and debt. That doesn't matter either.

Of course, during tough economic times, people don't want to hear about fiscal restraint when they are on a wait-list for some major surgery. It doesn't wash. You should try it in your office some time. Here on this side of the House, we don't have the luxury of one day demanding more services and capital expenditures and the next day demanding less spending. That's a luxury only the Liberal opposition seems to be able to indulge in, and they indulge in it day after day in this House. In the last election, they went around saying that they were going to cut $3 billion in spending out of a $20 billion budget. Some 75 percent of the spending of government goes to health care, education and social services, and they were going to give a billion-dollar tax break to big corporations. Then they were going to balance the budget on top of that and pay down the debt.

[1715]

Their rhetoric is great. The facts and the truths are to be twisted and cut in half and even quartered, then flung around like confetti in this chamber and elsewhere in the province. I recently received a Liberal pamphlet in the mail, which arrived at my house and even had my name on the envelope. They must think I'm a member of their party. There's an interesting quote on the very first page, which I thought I would draw your attention to. But before I do, the leaflet has a lot of stuff in it. It has "Fewer Financial Options for B.C. Taxpayers." That's an issue that's been addressed in many of our past budgets. I'll say more about the results and the tax comparisons later.

It mentions cardiac surgery lineups. You would expect, then, that they would be happy about the $615 million lift in the health care portion of the budget -- but no. There are important safety tips for seniors -- good, non-partisan advice. Of course, there are vague promises in terms of their nine-point economic plan. On the back there is an article on the International Year of Older Persons. Good, but it doesn't say anything about what they would do. In fact, nowhere on this sheet does it say anything, in specific terms, about what they would do. I've looked at it carefully; you can see it's quite marked and highlighted.

On the front page there's an interesting quote. I can't say the first word, because it's the Leader of the Opposition's name. It says that he said: ". . .Alberta is luring skilled B.C. workers and businesses with low taxes and an attractive business climate." And then: "Does Alberta have a magic formula? Of course not. It is simply practising the kind of economic common sense that B.C. Liberals have been advocating for years." I became intrigued. If Alberta doesn't have a magic formula, then what is it?

Let me just talk about Alberta. I think it does have a magic formula that we need to consider. Alberta is being held up in this House by the opposition as some kind of wonderful place where everything works and everybody's happy. Well, not so. We need to take a look at what Alberta does that's so wonderful in the eyes of the Liberal opposition. I have here an article dated Wednesday, April 28, 1999 that came out of the Calgary Herald. It's written by Robert Walker. There are some interesting comments here:

[ Page 12157 ]

"The Calgary Regional Medical Staff Association, representing 1,700 doctors, is drafting a letter for patients to sign that absolves doctors of blame if someone dies while waiting for surgery or other life-saving procedures. And with waits of up to seven months for some treatments, the association may also soon tell patients facing long waits that they could consider going to the U.S. for treatment."

[1720]

"Calling it 'a stinging indictment' of government spending policies, a leading Alberta industrialist said the Klein government is failing to adequately fund education and research in the province. 'Out of 18 major Canadian universities, the University of Alberta ranked sixteenth in terms of salary level, and, worse, the University of Calgary ranks dead last,' Syncrude chairman Eric Newell told a provincial Conservative policy conference Saturday."

"Class sizes have also increased, and salaries for teachers and university faculty, adjusted for inflation, are today lower than they were seven years ago."

"Newell said elementary and secondary education has not fared much better than advanced education. He notes that even with an injection of new dollars in the last budget, per-pupil spending will remain below the pre-cut levels of 1993."

Look no further than the January 11 article in the Globe and Mail. It has a photo where the old Calgary General Hospital magically comes crashing down -- demolished, part of the restraint in terms of the health care in Alberta. And if you look at the graph on the right, it's very easy to see that if B.C. applied the same Alberta magic to its health care funding and the same per capita spending, do you realize that we would save $1.8 billion? It's simple arithmetic. There is no rocket science in this. It's not even magic. That alone could pay off the deficit twice over.

Now, if B.C. applied the same cuts, the same Alberta magic, to post-secondary education as Alberta does, we could save another $60 million. You can do these calculations. Just look for the article. And if we had Ralph Klein's gaming policy -- you know, that free and easy gambling in Alberta -- do you realize we could get additional revenue worth $500 million? Let me read what the Leader of the Opposition said. Again, I repeat, this is a quote: "Does Alberta have a magic formula? Of course not. It is simply practising the kind of economic common sense that B.C. Liberals have been advocating for years."

Do you want to know what the opposition stands for? It's right there. And if you look at what Alberta has done, that tells you very clearly what their options are. On this side of the House, we reject that type of Alberta solution. Certainly I'm not advocating getting $500 million more in gaming revenue -- or any of those cuts that I talked about. The opposition must be truthful about what they would do, but they are scared to death, and the truth will eventually come out.

In this budget, we've increased health care spending eight years in a row in spite of drastic cuts in federal transfers. We're giving patients the surgery they need sooner. There's $615 million more this year -- 58,000 more surgeries and other procedures, a 13 percent increase; $15 million more for 400 more nurses; $21 million for 480 long-term-care hospital beds to free up acute-care beds; shorter waiting lists for children needing pediatric surgery; 5,000 chemotherapy treatments; and 5,000 more radiotherapy treatments to shorten waiting times -- and the list goes on. That's why we reject the Alberta magic.

Let's look at taxes. You hear a lot from the folks across the way about taxes. We've cut the small business tax down to 5.5 percent, lower than Alberta. The minister has even said that if Alberta reduces theirs, we'll reduce ours even more. This cut will leave tax savings of $63 million in the hands of 40,000 small business owners so they can grow and diversify B.C.'s economy. The corporate capital tax threshold will increase to $3.5 million. Ninety percent of B.C. businesses don't pay the corporate capital tax. Personal income tax cuts amounting to 8 percent since 1995 have put $385 million back in the pockets of British Columbians.

[1725]

Interjections.

H. Giesbrecht: No, they don't believe me. I recently came across a magazine called Moving To and Around, and this particular issue last year was Vancouver and British Columbia. On June 30, 1997, the firm of Weinberg and Gaspirc, chartered accountants in Toronto, did a comparison of salaries and taxes paid. Lo and behold, some independent accountants -- I haven't the foggiest idea who they are; they're in Ontario, and that's all I know -- analyzed that if you're in the $25,000 bracket, B.C. ranks third-lowest. Remember that this is as of June 30, 1997. If you're making $50,000 a year, it ranks second-lowest, and at $100,000 a year, fourth-lowest. That was in 1997, and there have been tax cuts since then.

Look at some of the tax cuts and the tax comparisons that are available now. We recently had the previous speaker talk about the horrendous tax burden that British Columbians are under. Well, I agree that nobody likes to pay taxes. When I make up my income tax, you know, it's troublesome -- right? My constituents feel the same way, so that's understandable.

Here, for a two-income family of four making $90,000 a year, the total provincial tax is the second-lowest in the country. Alberta is $1,000 less. Would somebody move to Alberta so they could make $1,000 more? It would cost you more than that. You know, you wouldn't get that back in -- how many years? -- if you did the move. A two-income family of four making $55,000 is still the second-lowest.

It's a horrendous tax burden, the member who spoke previously said. Members say they're leaving in droves. They're leaving in droves because in Alberta you can save $600 a year in income tax, when you have to put up with a

[ Page 12158 ]

I did talk about education. In this budget, it's the fourth year in a row for a tuition freeze. That's important to students. You may ridicule it, but talk to a student for a while -- right? They'll tell you what they need in terms. . . . Sure, the ones that come from up north would like some greater support in terms of accommodation costs and stuff -- fair enough. But tuition freezes are a start.

We're going to have $45 million more for core educational funding for 300 more teachers -- reduced class sizes -- and $340 million for new schools and renovations for another 103. Surely you can find something in this budget that is good. I mean, after all, the glass is at least half full, maybe more than that. But the opposition wants the magic of Alberta on education as well as health care. The alternative that was suggested, of course, I can't understand.

In Skeena, for example, we have approved the construction of a new $34.7 million health care centre or a hospital, if you like -- multi-care. We were fortunate to have the renovations of a psych wing at Mills Memorial Hospital approved. But where is the difference between the opposition and this government?

Hon. D. Lovick: Helmut, let's adjourn debate and then pick it up Monday. We've got lots of good stuff.

H. Giesbrecht: That's it. Hon. Speaker, considering the time, I wish to take my place in the debate when it resumes on Monday. I move adjournment of the debate.

[1730]

Hon. members, come to order. The motion at this time is on the amendment to the budget, moved a couple of days ago. I'll put the question.

A division has been called. I would ask hon. members to please take their seats, so we can record those who are present for the vote.

[1735]

YEAS -- 19
Whittred	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	L. Reid	Coell
Chong	Jarvis	Anderson
Nettleton	Penner	Nebbeling
Coleman	Hansen	van Dongen
Dalton	J. Reid	McKinnon
	J. Wilson
NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	Kwan
G. Wilson	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Sihota
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Goodacre
	Janssen

H. Giesbrecht: I now move adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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