Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12159 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

J. Sawicki: With the indulgence of the House, my introduction today might be a little bit longer than usual. It being May 3, I rise to once again ask the House to acknowledge a very important and proud event in Polish history -- that is, the passing of the constitution of 1791, which was the first codified democratic constitution in Europe. It is very timely that on the weekend there was a companion event in our modern day, which I attended on behalf of the Premier, where the Polish and Hungarian communities gathered to celebrate their entry into the NATO western alliance. It was something they did with great joy, celebrating their hard-earned freedom and democracy in the modern day.

My guest this afternoon in the gallery is Hanna Jazlowiecki. She is a local poet who has written some 200 poems. She is also just finishing her autobiography, which tells of some of her experiences as a member of the Polish underground Home Army and as a prisoner during the Second World War. I would like to ask the House to welcome Hannah and to extend good wishes to the Polish-Canadian community for the historical event and the modern-day event as well.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today in the members' gallery we have some visitors from Germany. Peter Maier-Oswald is the consul general of Germany in Vancouver, and he is accompanied by Consul Rolf Papenberg, who will shortly be leaving B.C. for a posting to Poland. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Oral Questions

COST OF SKYTRAIN EXPANSION

[1410]

Hon. G. Clark: I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition: why are you opposed to everything? I want to know: why are you opposed to everything? SkyTrain is enormously popular in Vancouver. The latest poll shows that 74 percent of British Columbians want SkyTrain in the lower mainland.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: It makes sense. Why should the people in New Westminster and Burnaby get SkyTrain and the people in Coquitlam get a bus service?

We believe in SkyTrain technology. It works. Not only that, we've negotiated with Bombardier to build them right here in British Columbia and create jobs right here in our province.

The Speaker: Finish up, Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: The analysis shows that if we did conventional rapid transit with grade separation at busy intersections, the cost differential is small indeed. More importantly, SkyTrain works. It's successful. It's a British Columbia success story. It's time to reap the benefits of jobs here in British Columbia. We intend to get on with the job. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .and build SkyTrain all the way to Coquitlam.

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

G. Campbell: I'm surprised that the Premier would turn to the polls for a justification. Eighty percent of British Columbians would like him out of office, for goodness' sake.

I understand that the Premier has difficulty with some technical information, but I think it's important for him to take himself out of the political realm and listen to what the experts say. Those are the Sierra Club of British Columbia, the Fraser View Rate-Payers Coalition, the Better Environmentally Sound Transportation people, Burke Mountain Naturalists, the West Coast Environmental Law and Transportation 2000.

This coalition has made it very clear. They care about public transit in the region, as do we on this side of the House, but what they also care about is that we simply can't afford to continue wasting the taxpayers' money. This project is going to cost GVRD residents $2,400 per household. For the people that live outside of the region, it will cost $1,540 for every household. And this. . .

The Speaker: Your question?

G. Campbell: . . .is at a time when the government is saying to people in the province -- in the northeast, for example -- that they only have enough money for transportation maintenance; no improvements.

My question to the Premier is simply this: why on earth is the government wasting 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars on a system which will cost $6.9 million more a year to operate and won't even deliver on the services that they were originally promised?

Hon. G. Clark: Negative, negative, negative -- on everything. This Leader of the Opposition opposed commuter rail to Mission. They opposed every single investment in infrastructure. They opposed the Island Highway, and now they're opposing SkyTrain.

Anybody who knows Vancouver knows that we need rapid transit and we need it now. It's long overdue. Anybody

[ Page 12160 ]

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

[1415]

Hon. G. Clark: The Leader of the Opposition says that the fast cats won't work; they'll sink. Now he says that SkyTrain won't work. It's a Lamborghini, but it won't work. It works. Maybe you haven't taken it, hon. member. Maybe you drive all the time. But take SkyTrain. It works, and people like it. And it's about time it was expanded. The people of the lower mainland will have a clear choice in the next election between those who want to build the province with state-of-the-art technology, who want to build the province with SkyTrain -- that works, that is popular -- or those nattering nabobs of negativity on the other side that oppose every single investment in this magnificent province. I know which they'll choose: this side of the House, again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

R. Neufeld: I've got people in my riding who have to fly all the way to Edmonton to get a CAT scan. At the same time, they're being forced to pay $1,500 per year so you can buy a Cadillac transit system in Vancouver. Will the SkyTrain master tell us why the government is purposely choosing an option that is twice as expensive as other available transit options?

Hon. G. Clark: It is shameful for that member to try to divide this province, when that member knows that the Fair Share program. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . .for his constituency -- $113 million. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. G. Clark: . . .that we have given to that constituency, a special deal, because it makes sense for that constituency and makes sense for British Columbia. . . . Shame on him! And $600 million more for health care this year, when that party wants to cut health care. . . . Shame on him! Shame on him for not recognizing the investments we've made in his constituency -- in the road work in his constituency. He's setting up a false choice -- a false dichotomy -- by setting up that we should not invest in his constituency if we don't invest somewhere else. We will act in the public interest.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Clark: Whether that member likes it or not, we will invest in roads in his constituency. We will do Fair Share in his constituency, even though it's a special deal for his constituency, because it's in the public interest and it's right for British Columbia, just like SkyTrain is right for the lower mainland.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Well, shame on this Premier for saying that I would divide this province. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that if you took a poll where I live or anyplace in rural B.C., 74 percent of the people would not approve of a system that costs twice as much and does not deliver the service -- just like the fast ferry fiasco, hon. Speaker. Residents of the Okanagan, the interior and the rest of British Columbia are being forced to pay for an overpriced SkyTrain system that serves only this Premier's ego. Can the Premier explain why he is recklessly wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on an overpriced transit system, when a cheaper, ground-level transit system is available?

[1420]

An Hon. Member: It works.

Hon. G. Clark: And it works. Yeah, it does work.

Now he's joined a party that wants to sell off B.C. Rail -- a lack of investment in his constituency and commitment from the people in the north. . . . Look at what has just happened. That constituency -- the northeast of British Columbia -- is doing extremely well because of what we have done with respect to natural gas. Last week we announced Louisiana-Pacific -- a huge investment in the north of British Columbia. Unlike those members, who want to play off one region against another and who want to pick and choose, this side of the House governs for all of British Columbia -- the north as well as the lower mainland.

[ Page 12161 ]

The Speaker: Order, members.

FAST FERRY ENGINE SPEED

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that member opposite gave away the answer when he said that he went to his usual reliable sources, which are totally unreliable. I can confirm that there has been no cheating at B.C. Ferries. The fast cat program is now on track and will come into service as planned. I think that member opposite should go back to his sources and tell them to check it out, because he's wrong again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. You're interrupting your own member.

First supplementary, the member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: Actually, I have more faith in my usual reliable sources than I do in the reliability of this government. The truth of that will actually come out when they're in operation, if they ever get to be. The manufacturers of that engine -- MTU -- placed those governors on the engines to prevent them from running at excessive speeds. I wonder if the minister would table in the House today all the engine warranties, so the taxpayers can be sure that if that has been done, they're not on the hook for more costs.

Hon. G. Wilson: That member knows that we have made open all of the information that he's requested of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. If he wants to take a look at the warranty provisions, all he has to do is pick up the phone and ask.

FOREST RENEWAL EXPENDITURES

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure which of the many thousands of Forest Renewal projects that have benefited communities he would describe as my pet project. It might be the one in his back yard, restoring the watershed.

But, you know, hon. Speaker, this opposition is loose with figures. Mr. Brinkman thinks we wasted the money because we haven't spent it for his industry. Forest Renewal dollars have been spent on retraining workers, on community economic development plans, on value-added and on restoring about 150 watersheds. Of course, those might not be Mr. Brinkman's priorities, but they're the priorities of British Columbians.

[1425]

Motion without Notice

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

The opposition has been totally fixated in its comments on the deficit and debt and in painting a picture of gloom and doom and trying to paint a picture that what we all want is what they've done in Alberta -- or so it seems, anyway. The record shows, of course -- and I use a January 11, 1999, Globe and Mail article -- that B.C. spends about $450 per person more on health care than Alberta and about $200 per person more than Ontario, which suggests that if we were to do like Alberta, we could save $1.8 billion; and if we did like Ontario, we'd save about $800 million. If we consider that and if we consider that our personal taxes for anything up to about $100,000 a year in income are the second-lowest in the country, then I think it paints a rather different picture. But I digress, so let me get back to the point.

As the Liberals often say, as they're fixated on deficits and debt. . . . I noticed, with some interest, that the B.C. Business

[ Page 12162 ]

My colleague the member for New Westminster made it very clear last week, in terms of the cuts or the costs, that the changes that the opposition wants to make involve a $3.5 billion cut in programs and services. I won't go into those kinds of details, because they were done very well by my colleague the member for New Westminster. So it's not enough to go into just the generalities; there is some obligation that members opposite have for being very specific in what they would cut in terms of programs and services.

[1430]

I know for a fact that the members opposite are getting similar letters. Yet last week the member for Kamloops-North Thompson spoke and pleaded for -- I should say, rather, demanded -- a subsidy or bailout for Highland Valley Copper. I use the term "bailout" because they're so fond of that term. We were supposed to subsidize them with cheaper hydro rates. Their hydro rates run at something like $36 million per year -- I think that's what he said. My reaction at the time was: maybe he's got a point. Interestingly enough, the government and the job protection commissioner are in fact negotiating some kind of an arrangement to assist Highland Valley Copper.

But, interestingly enough, ten minutes later in his address he talked about public money being squandered on SCI -- or Skeena Cellulose. Now, Skeena Cellulose involves about four times as many direct jobs as Highland Valley Copper does. I ask myself the question, of course: what makes the northwest of British Columbia so different that it doesn't get the same kind of compassion from the opposition Liberals as, say, Highland Valley Copper might? You know, you need to be a little bit consistent in terms of the applications and the pleadings that you make. If it's good enough for Logan Lake, then why isn't it good enough for communities like Prince Rupert, Terrace, Hazelton and Smithers?

It's the nature of the opposition that they would say anything, do anything and promise anything, and hope that nobody will ever remember what they said when they go from one community to another. But my constituents certainly are recognizing that, and of course, I do not hesitate to tell them the kind of comments they make in the House about Skeena Cellulose.

Twenty-five hundred jobs across the northwest -- those are direct jobs, and that doesn't include the indirect jobs that are related to it. The folks in Skeena and the folks across the northwest, I think, deserve the same kind of treatment.

I noticed that the same member, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, talked about debt and deficit, and in the same speech -- I made a list of them -- he asked for more money for municipalities, for government vehicles, for Highland Valley Copper, for MacMillan Bloedel, for something called the Ponderosa Lodge and for Royal Inland, for doctors, for a Clearwater multilevel health care facility and for research and development.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

So on the one side, they talk about cutting spending, and their economic plan is for a $3.5 billion cut in services; on the other hand, they ask for more spending. I think that kind of inconsistency is noted, and I think that people, certainly in the riding of Skeena, can understand that, based on their positions on Skeena Cellulose.

This budget is about making choices. When the economy is struggling and when markets and commodity prices are poor, then I think that government has an obligation to invest in people. That's what most of the experts tell us. And you invest in those essential services that people rely on. I think that's what making choices in budgets is all about; I think that's what good government is all about.

J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, sometimes people who are observing the debates notice that MLAs may be wearing a particular ribbon or a pin. Today I just want to mention that this white ribbon is in recognition of Youth Week, which has been proclaimed in British Columbia. That's why we're wearing a white ribbon today.

[1435]

An Hon. Member: Is this it?

J. Cashore: The hon. member asked the question: "Is this it?" Yes, hon. member, I have indicated publicly that I will not be seeking re-election; I indicated that about 14 months ago. But lest he get his hopes up, I know that we are going to find an outstanding member who will someday be in cabinet and who will be able to carry on what I think has been a very significant service to the people of the Coquitlam area.

During the time that I and the member for Port Coquitlam have been in a position to recognize the needs of a long-neglected part of our province. . . . At the time when, prior to a fairly recent metamorphosis, the members opposite had existed in their earlier lives as members of the Social Credit government, the people in that area knew just to what a significant extent -- even when they had a Social Credit MLA -- they were utterly ignored. Their needs were ignored by the government of the day.

It's a great privilege for me to represent the citizens of Coquitlam-Maillardville. I just want to say to hon. members that through those years I have enjoyed outstanding support in that area. I think it's a result of following a very basic approach. I've always taken it as my position -- even during my years in cabinet -- that it was my role to represent the citizens of Coquitlam-Maillardville to Victoria, and not the

[ Page 12163 ]

I think this approach comes through in the budget that I'm very honoured to support in the House today. After all, it boosts health care investment $615 million, it boosts education funding $39 million, and it reduces small business taxes to an amount that's lower than that which is found in Alberta. I think this is the result of a government that listens to its citizens. Government has listened, and government has responded.

As a result, we will see more nurses, more beds and shorter waiting lists within our health care system. Indeed, health care operational funding is increasing by $478 million and capital funding by $137 million for much-needed facilities. In the same period, education funding is increasing by $45 million.

In the area of health we will see 58,000 more surgeries, up to 10,000 new chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments, 700 more cardiac operations, 1,000 more hip and knee operations, breast cancer screening for 38,000 more women and $15 million to hire 400 more nurses. Health care funding in the province has increased every year for the past eight years in a row, and this is in the face of drastic cuts in funding from the federal government at a time when all of the other provinces have been cutting back, raising tuition fees, cutting health care, closing hospitals and indeed, in some instances, cutting kindergarten. This province has been maintaining those services and expanding because of the importance of investing in the future with regard to a healthy community and with regard to a very outstanding and effective education that ensures that our young people will be able to take their place with regard to stimulating a healthy economy and protecting a sustainable environment. So in the area of education, we see more teachers and smaller class sizes.

[1440]

Education is about our future, and nowhere in the province is that more significant than in district 43, in the Coquitlam area, where we have seen one of the most rapid growth areas in Canada over the last 20 years. When we turn to Coquitlam, we realize that in district 43, in this budget year alone there will be a significant reduction in the number of portables in schools. This will indeed address the issue of crowding. I know that the people of Coquitlam-Maillardville are very happy to see that happening.

If we look at infrastructure and capital improvements in the area of education and we look back at the capital improvements from 1973 until 1990, we will find that district 43 was a hotbed of activity because of the unrest among parents. Parents were holding angry meetings. They were meeting with government officials and expressing a great deal of anger, because the growth that was taking place was rampant and the infrastructure being provided was almost nonexistent. Parents were meeting, they were having rallies, and they were sending petitions to Victoria. Very little was happening during that time.

Since I became the MLA and then a member of the government in 1991, and since the member for Port Coquitlam -- the minister responsible for economic development. . . . Since he became an MLA in 1991, we have seen more in those eight years in terms of providing school construction in that area for some very significant needs than in the previous 30 years -- a very significant accomplishment. This resulted in significant new schools at every level. It resulted in eliminating portables. It resulted in renovations. Renovation of some schools to make sure that we make the best use of what we already have is very significant. I just point out that during my time we have seen the fire at Roy Stibbs Elementary School and the fastest rebuilding of a school after a fire in the history of the province. We have also seen the renovations at Mountain View Elementary School and at Millside Elementary School.

I turn now to transportation, a topic which is always able to evoke a great deal of interest -- witness question period today. I want to give a great deal of credit to the Premier for the leadership he has shown in this area. Were it not for the Premier and his legacy during the past eight years, we would not see the West Coast Express. We would not have seen transportation issues addressed in the way that they have been. Indeed, if residents of the area stop to think about it, if some of the infrastructure needs that have been addressed had not been addressed, it would be an absolute nightmare for the people of the area because of the way in which previous governments allowed rampant growth without providing infrastructure.

We come to the issue of SkyTrain, which has been in the news and was indeed in question period today. We have heard the reassurance from the minister responsible for SkyTrain, who is also the Minister of Finance, that the province is going to build SkyTrain and is going to ensure that that building is done from the Glen Drive area of Broadway to New Westminster and that the addition to Coquitlam Centre will be in place by the year 2003.

[1445]

But the fact is that I find it absolutely amazing that we saw the kind of question that we saw here today from the Leader of the Opposition, when polling has indicated that 94 percent of the public want to see improvement in transit in that area and that 74 percent want to see the SkyTrain extension to Coquitlam. Why would he be taking the tack that he is taking, in the face of those kinds of wishes being stated by the citizens of the province? And why would he undermine the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain by standing up and calling for a system that would be, simply, hopelessly inadequate? If he had taken the time to talk to those who he likes to call his friends in business. . . . If he went and talked to all of those who operate businesses along those corridors about the way in which business is shut down, sometimes for over a year, during the construction of light rail transit, I certainly don't think he would have been asking those questions that he was asking today. Indeed, when you have the

[ Page 12164 ]

There has been some discussion by municipal politicians with regard to the level of support the province is putting into this. I just want to point out that if we look at the annual provincial contributions for the year 1996 that have gone into building transit systems such as SkyTrain, in Toronto the Ontario government has put in 34.9 percent; in Ottawa the Ontario government has put in 21 percent; in Calgary the Alberta government has put in 10.3 percent; in Montreal the Quebec government has put in 3.9 percent; and in Vancouver the provincial government has put in 41 percent. This is a recognition of the need to address the needs of the citizens, and those needs are also the health care needs that relate to the very important issue of getting people out of cars and ensuring that we are able to improve air quality -- and we all know there is a direct relationship there.

Within those same jurisdictions that I just mentioned, the stats that I have are for 1996. For both Ottawa and Toronto, the Ontario government has already eliminated operating-support funding and has indicated that capital-support funding will be eliminated within four years. Again, as in the case of health care and education and also transportation, this government is making the choices to keep faith with those very urgent needs, which are also needs that address air quality and therefore our health.

I want to talk about some of the accomplishments in the area of transportation infrastructure that have taken place since I have represented the area, and that includes the building of the Broadway connector, the Johnson-Mariner connector, the Mary Hill bypass improvement where there was a bottleneck under the rail overpass, the high-occupancy vehicle lanes on the Barnet Highway and on the 401, the recent announcement of a fifth lane on the Port Mann Bridge and the work that is ongoing on the Cape Horn interchange.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways has announced that there's more to come with regard to that. He has announced that new work that is soon to be underway will see the new Lougheed on-ramp to the westbound 401 Trans-Canada Highway built near Coleman Avenue. Therefore traffic will be removed from the Cape Horn interchange, having quite a significant impact on that. Also, there is other design work going on so that we will be able to proceed with other changes that need to take place there. Also ongoing is the work on the Braid-Leeder connector, which is going to be supported by a federal-provincial infrastructure grant. Because of some federal Fisheries and Navigable Waters Protection Act issues, that issue has been held up, but it will still be proceeding. So again, after 20 years of neglect by the previous governments, our government has be able to bring forward those kinds of amenities that recognize the needs of the local region.

[1450]

Just some of the things that have taken place in the Coquitlam area. . . . I made a commitment after the Social Credit government was planning to sell off the Colony Farm lands -- that beautiful green space, an island of emerald in a sea of urban sprawl -- and I was able to advocate on behalf of Colony Farm. Guess what: now it's a park, enjoyed forever by the people of the region.

Across the road at Riverview, we have made a commitment to protect the arboretum there, those historic trees. Some of them were planted around the turn of the century. While the government continues to determine what the health care needs will be for that facility, I continued to maintain that the future of Riverview is one which will ensure the protection of the green space, the protection of the trees and the integrity of the ecology, which is going to be very important for that region.

Also, we have seen the protection of the Burke Mountain-Pinecone Lake area, which has become a very popular destination location for those who want to enjoy the wilderness in one of our outdoor areas that has been protected, which people can reach within a matter of less than an hour and be enjoying what is a very pristine wilderness. There's also the protection of Widgeon Marsh and Douglas Island. Then there are other environmental initiatives, such as the deal that we worked out with B.C. Hydro to control the water flows coming through the Coquitlam River so that the Port Coquitlam Fish and Game Club and other environmental organizations could carry on their salmon and trout enhancement work and continue to be keepers of the river.

I just want to take this opportunity to mention Fin Donnelly of the Rivershed Society of B.C. Fin is a local man who has really dedicated his life to protecting the ecology of our rivers. To that extent, he has actually made a historic swim down the Fraser River, stopping at various communities and raising public awareness with regard to the issues of the quality of the water, discharges from mills and other plants, and the impact of septic tanks along the waterway. He continues, with his Rivershed Society -- to which he has appointed me as an honorary board member -- to make a very significant public contribution through his volunteer work. The Spirit of the Salmon Swim, which is an event that they continue to present, is one of the ways in which public awareness is raised.

I also want to mention at this time, while I have the opportunity, that Dr. Crosby Johnston, a man that I have known since 1972 -- a retired psychiatrist -- is today receiving an award from the Governor General of Canada. It's the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award for exemplary public service. One cannot begin to list all the work that Crosby Johnston has done in the community in counselling

[ Page 12165 ]

[1455]

One event that the Burke Mountain Naturalists happen to be planning will be taking place on Tuesday, May 11, at Como Lake United Church. The guest speaker will be. . . . Actually, according to my notes, it will be myself. I will be speaking as the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville and also as the chair of the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board. I will be giving a talk on the new project, which is the Muskwa-Kechika in the northeast part of the province. I know that the members for both Peace River North and Peace River South are very interested in it, because it's an example of the kind of work that can be done when you enable people of an area -- such as the people of the north, in this case -- to work together and bring people with many different perspectives and many different interests to a table where they can work for five years and hammer out a position where they're able to say: "This is how this region of the province should be handled from a land use planning point of view."

These two planning tables at Fort St. John and Fort Nelson were given the task. . . . In addition to addressing all those planning issues in the northeast corner of the province, on the other side of the Rocky Mountains in the north, they were also asked to address the special considerations of the Northern Rockies, or the area that has become known as the Muskwa-Kechika. They have recommended to government that that become a special management area. It consists of 4.5 million hectares, and one-quarter of that is to be an area that is protected. Some of that area is protected as park at the present time, and the plan of the local people who had input into that was to expand that to 1.2 million hectares.

Here we have a very significant area that's larger than Nova Scotia and larger than Switzerland, but with the difference that if you looked inside that area right at this very time. . . . The members for Peace River North and Peace River South could correct me on this, but I would guess that at this moment in time there are probably fewer than 500 people resident within that area.

In the summer that will be different, and there will be a great many people who live in the area and a great many visitors to the area who will be going up into that region in riverboats, on backpacking and horse-packing trips. Again, compared to almost anywhere else in the world, it is an area that is relatively untouched. It is a tribute to the people of the region that they want to ensure that the predator-prey relationships between the grizzlies, the moose, the elk, the caribou, the goats and all of those animals that are part of a balanced ecology will continue to be valued so that they will be available for future generations, while at the same time developing ways that will ensure that the planning for resource extraction in the area is done in a way that supports that.

[1500]

I had an opportunity to take my place recently and speak in third reading of the Nisga'a debate. I pointed out that that debate has occupied four and a half years of my life. It was a great privilege to have had the role of shepherding that file for part of the time, along with the times that it was shepherded by other Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs. I want to mention that our Member of Parliament, Lou Sekora, a Liberal, was there at the celebration when the negotiations were concluded. He was up on the Nass River. I know that he will be speaking passionately in support of the Nisga'a treaty when it finally comes before the House of Commons. I know that in doing so, he will obviously be disappointed in those provincial Liberals here in this House who have spoken against it, following what is obviously a political compass rather than the compass that would advise them that doing the right thing is achieving a settlement through hard-nosed negotiations such as those which did exist and then finding the kind of future that provides profound hope.

In conclusion, as I said, this is the thirteenth time that I have risen in this House to speak on the budget. Last week, when some reporters from Coquitlam were here to find out about a day in the life of three MLAs, it was kind of interesting to point out to them the contrasts that you might find by observing the chamber here, which some have likened to a Roman circus from time to time. School classes come and see the kind of excitement that takes place during question period, and they wonder if we can ever get along. Yet I do advise these people that you will often find members of opposition and government talking together -- having friendly words together -- and indeed working cooperatively on a number of things.

Because that is perhaps not all that newsworthy, the public doesn't see that much of what goes on here, but it is my reflection that in a way we have three solitudes here: government, opposition and the media. All of us, in a way, have problems with each other, and all of us, in a way, depend on each other. When you look at what's happening in other parts of the world, it's in those places where people don't have the opportunity, through democratic process, to negotiate or deliberate or deal with those issues that are so important in the human arena that we see the tragedy of refugees. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time is up.

J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, it's a great privilege to be here today and to be able to comment on the pleasant vistas outside the parliament buildings, which remind us of the true beauty of British Columbia and all that we have to protect.

[1505]

[ Page 12166 ]

As an MLA who works hard for people living in Surrey and as the Minister of Women's Equality, I meet all sorts of people: single moms working on their high school diploma or university degree; senior citizens trying to get by on a small pension; and people working in all sorts of jobs, ranging from the service sector to professionals and from small to big business. But most of all, I meet with members of families -- individuals who are doing their best to pay off that mortgage, save for a summer vacation and be good role models for their kids. As I meet with these people both in Surrey and throughout the province, certain issues are constant. Those are: protecting our health care, improving education for our children and making it easier for small business to develop and grow and provide the jobs that are always needed.

I am proud to say that this government has listened to those concerns, and in this budget we are responding. This budget is about improving health care. We've made a lot of progress in the past eight years to improve health care in B.C., in spite of drastic cuts in health transfer payments by the federal government. B.C. has maintained its commitment to health care funding, despite cumulative cuts in federal health transfer payments of $778 million since 1994-95.

This year we are increasing funding to health care by $615 million. This money will go toward more beds, more nurses and more surgeries. We will have shorter wait-lists, more chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments and more money for Pharmacare spending. In Surrey $3.7 million will be available for funding the fifth vault of the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre. That's on top of the $62 million addition to Surrey Memorial Hospital. This is good news for individuals and families having to deal with this difficult and stressful disease.

Another one of our priorities is education. All provinces have had to make difficult funding choices in this area. Some have chosen bigger class sizes, more portables and fewer teachers. Schools have even been closed in some provinces, and I believe that in Alberta, parents are asked to pay for kindergarten. But not in British Columbia.

For this government the choice was easy. We believe every child deserves a quality education, regardless of their parents' income. Education is the great equalizer for all our people as well as for new immigrants who are establishing themselves here. It provides us as a society the opportunity to draw on the best from all the talent available. That's why we are reducing class size in the primary grades, for nowhere could we better spend our tax dollars to provide a strong foundation for our youngest learners. We are hiring 300 more teachers, building 13 more schools, renovating 103 others and retiring 560 portables, giving students more room to learn.

This year the operating budget for the Surrey school district is $313 million. This represents a 2.17 percent increase over last year. Per-student funding is $5,502.25 -- an increase of over $30 from last year's budget -- and we are reducing portables to boot. In September 1998, Surrey had 365 portables. We all agree that that is many, many too many. With this budget it is anticipated that the number of portables will be reduced to 285 in September 1999 and 205 in September 2000, and will be cut more than in half by September 2003.

[1510]

This year, building on this growth, the Surrey school district will see $4.5 million to fund school renovations and upgrades. Renovating our schools helps us upgrade learning environments efficiently and effectively. These projects will breathe new life into our schools and give our students, teachers and community a better learning environment -- all part of our plan to continue improving education in B.C.

In Surrey-Green Timbers this new funding means that Fleetwood Elementary will have improved access for students with special needs, Harold Bishop will have a four-room classroom wing replaced and Green Timbers Elementary will have a major addition. Three other schools -- Kirkbride, Simon Cunningham and Lena Shaw -- will also have additional classrooms built in order to reduce the class size for children in kindergarten-to-grade-3.

In this budget we are also continuing to improve access to post-secondary education. This helps to further support building B.C.'s economy as a well-educated and trained workforce, which is critical to our success in the global marketplace. I know that the continuation of the tuition freeze was welcome news to many of my constituents attending Kwantlen University College. By freezing tuition fees for the fourth straight year, we are keeping tuition affordable for B.C. students, and we are making history of a sort. Think about it: a student who began their post-secondary career in 1996 and who graduates in 2000 will have finished their studies without ever having a tuition increase. How many of us can say that about our university days?

Another area we have focused on in this budget is small business. We've cut taxes for small business to help create jobs for people and to diversify the economy, because that's where the opportunities are for the future. We're lowering the small business tax rate to 5.5 percent effective July 1. B.C.'s rate will be lower than Alberta's, and we're going further. We will keep our small business tax rate lower than Alberta's, and any further reduction in Alberta's rate will be matched dollar for dollar in B.C. We're working with business to cut red tape, including streamlining over 30 provincial regulations, opening 23 one-stop business registration centres and developing a more straightforward environmental assessment process. The new approach, called the business lens, will make government ask the right questions before we introduce or amend significant regulations. Communities have told us that they need a strategy to help them strengthen and diversify. We've listened. The budget includes $10 million to support communities to build and diversify local economies.

[1515]

[ Page 12167 ]

I am pleased to report that the ministry has received a small increase this year. Our priorities for the coming year will be to continue the important work we do in the areas of violence prevention, women's health and women's economic equality. But the global budget also has much to do with women.

Part of the Health budget includes increasing the number of screening mammography procedures by 38,000; reducing waits at the B.C.'s Children's Hospital by funding up to 800 more surgeries a year; investing $10 million in a new mental health plan; and launching a new tobacco program in schools, to encourage healthier lifestyles and help reduce smoking-related medical costs over the long term -- all of which affect women living in this province and their children.

A component of the Education budget allows for the hiring of another 300 teachers to work in grades K to 3 so that our younger children get more attention during their critical learning stage. A $50-per-week increase in student financial assistance for students with dependents and an additional 2,900 student spaces will open the post-secondary doors to more and more single moms.

Economic equality between women and men and economic security for women have been the major focus for my ministry. I am pleased that this budget helps small businesses, many of which are owned and operated by the women of this province. We all know that small business is one of the underlying strengths of B.C.'s economy. But are the members opposite also aware that women-owned small businesses are the fastest-growing sector? Women are opening up businesses at a rate three times that of men. Of the 379,000 self-employed people in B.C. in 1997, approximately 137,000, or 36 percent, were women. The growth rate for women entrepreneurs in B.C. was 63 percent between '91 and '96. In 1997 women owned more than one in three of our province's small businesses, and between '91 and '96 they started up two out of three of all small businesses.

Despite this, women continue to tell me that they cannot get basic financing and startup information. That's why the ministry, in partnership with the Royal Bank and the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism, produced a business women's startup guide. This guide is a one-stop resource that provides the basics and will save women time and money in researching business startup information. Once women have made the decision to open a small business, they will benefit from the small business tax cut.

[1520]

Another area of concern to this government is the issue of child poverty. We recognize that for some families, it is difficult to make ends meet. That's why, in 1996, we introduced the B.C. family bonus -- a monthly payment to low- and modest-income families to help them stay in the workforce. This program was the most generous of its kind in the country. In this budget, we are renewing our commitment to the families in this province by increasing the benefit in the combined family bonus and national child benefit by 2 percent. That's $8 million more into the pockets of those families.

That's our agenda. Our priority is the family, those needing medical treatment, our children's education and the economy. If I may, I'd like to speculate on what a budget from the members opposite might look like. What would they do to health, education and small-business funding? What would be the impact of their budget on the women of this province? I would guess that the budget presented by the members opposite would do little or nothing to help women. As we've seen in Ontario, it is women living in that province who have been hardest hit by the Harris agenda. Women are the ones who end up filling in the gaps and falling through the cracks caused by government's cuts to health care, education and communities.

I have to ask: would the opposition fund health care and education in our communities, or would they, rather, reward the wealthiest people of our province with huge tax breaks? Would they guarantee a budget with programs created to support the kind of communities that people of our province want and that the women of our province need? I am doubtful that they would.

The Leader of the Opposition has publicly promised tax cuts which see 35 percent of the benefits going to the wealthiest 4 percent of the population. But he has promised to do this while at the same time funding health care, education and child protection services, changing transportation accounting and balancing the budget. How will he do this without cutting from the budget? Where will these cuts come from? How many transition houses would be closed? What schools would be locked? Which conservation officers, foresters or firefighters would lose their jobs? How many small businesses would suffer?

In conclusion, let me say that this budget is about choices and priorities. Our priorities are clear and focus on things that matter to the people of this province: health care, education and economic growth. Our budget choices reflect those priorities. I am confident that this budget will enable us to make progress in achieving equality for women and making British Columbia a good place in which to live and work. I am proud to support it.

[1525]

I'm going to picture a heroine, and I'm going to call her British Columbia. She is standing on the tenuous edge of a

[ Page 12168 ]

Beyond financial equilibrium, beyond hope of regaining balance in her budget, B.C. falls, weighted by the lead burden of eight years of deficit and taxpayer-supported debt that this government has brought in. B.C. is in free fall. And as she spirals down, down, down into the economic abyss, she pictures, in her mind's eye, the smiling, bodiless talking head of the Minister of Finance chanting the current NDP mantra: "This is a budget of choices; this is a budget of choices; this is a budget of choices." And they are choices: they are the choices of nightmares.

Let's look at the organ music, if you will, to this horror flick: the summary financial statements. The analysis of these figures is not for the economist or taxpayer who's faint at heart. Here's why: a total debt of $34 billion -- a 101 percent increase since this government came into power; a debt load of $8,582 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia -- up over $3,000 since this government came into power; a projected deficit of $544 million for 1998-99 and $890 million for 1999-2000; interest on the debt of $2.6 billion; no plan to balance the budget till 2002-03; no additional tax cuts for the next five years beyond those already announced; a plan to increase taxpayer-supported debt by 27 percent in the next five years -- up from 12.5 percent in 1991, when this government came into power. Some choices!

The Finance minister says that this is a budget that chooses health care and education. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's look at this MacFailure that's put taxpayers on the hook for $7.23 million a day in debt servicing alone. There is absolutely no way to siphon money out of health care and education faster than to owe it to the big banks in debt-servicing charges. For those who kind of glaze over when the figures commence, that particular dollar figure -- $7.23 million a day -- could pay, under a different government, for one elementary school a day, three and a half high schools a week, 35 beds in the Vernon hospital that will not be built because of the interest payments that have to go to the big banks from the NDP government.

For the record, a hefty proportion of the new dollars earmarked for health care spending is actually coming from the federal government. Transfer payments are up $228 million over the budget forecast last year and up $500 million in additional money this year from the federal government. Let's hear the NDP credit the federal government for this year's increase in health care. So much for bragging.

[1530]

How about the choice to use legal aid taxation? This government that does everything for women used legal aid taxation as a profit-generating cash cow, a venture that government is taking money for general revenues from, rather than putting it into the legal care and legal justice for women, children, the disabled, WCB patients who need help and the mentally ill.

Then there are the choices that this government has made to leave the sick on gurneys in the hospital hallway, some in broom closets, and the elderly in acute beds when they don't need them, and the ill on surgical wait-lists. The rhetoric of compassion versus the actuality in service delivery that this government has done is beyond belief. Just think of the Vernon surgical wait-list; don't look at anything else. We have over 1,600 patients on the surgical wait-list. If you stand each patient on the shoulders of the next one, pile them up, you're going to have a surgical wait-list a mile and a half high -- just from Vernon. What about the other communities in British Columbia?

Here are the choices you give poor families in this budget. An extra $12 this year in the family bonus -- I'm sure the families are just kicking up their heels in anticipation of the windfall they're going to get. What can a parent buy with $12 this year? Let's ask the Finance minister.

This is a budget of choices. Let's look at some of the other recent choices the government has made that further gut health care and education and make this budget's promises even more fictitious. There was the choice to spend $300 million on Skeena. There was the choice to build Ferrari ferries, with a $200 million overrun.

There was the choice to censure debate on Nisga'a, when one single question uncovered a $71 million road expense that was not covered in the treaty. It's coming out of the budget. What other questions would have come out that are about money that will go into the budget from Nisga'a? Who knows? In this Legislature there are no questions, no answers, no debate and no democracy.

How about the choice to loan $25 million to a private company for the development of a theme park in Burns Bog? The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was talking about how wonderful the NDP has been with the ecosystem. That's an interesting one, I must say.

It never ends. Now we're talking about the choice to build SkyTrain for around $3 billion instead of light rail for $1.2 billion, an overrun of close to $2 billion from the original recommendations and estimates. Then there's the choice to spend $10 million on Raiwind, a defunct or non-functional power plant in Pakistan.

It is a budget of choices -- Raiwind, SkyTrain, Skeena Cellulose, Nisga'a, Burns Bog, convention centres, you name it -- made by this government. There's $3 billion worth of choices just in those projects -- $3 billion that is not available to build 500 elementary schools, 250 high schools, 1,000 additional hospital beds for 18 years in Vernon because of the $3 billion spent elsewhere on what you could call the PPP list: the Premier's pet project list.

[1535]

[ Page 12169 ]

Who do we blame -- the Premier? Premiers do come and go in British Columbia, especially in this government; but yes, I do believe that I would blame the Premier. The Finance minister? Yes, she should have stood her ground. She knew that this budget was the wrong thing to do, and she did it anyway. The cabinet -- smug faces regurgitating the script they were given? The back bench, glazing over their eyes to chant the mantra of choice: "The budget of choice, the budget of choice"? I blame them all. I blame them all for seeing without vision, for hearing without listening, for experiencing without feeling the emotions, the worry, the anger, the frustration of their real boss: the voter, the taxpayer, the youth, our working people. Listen to those people, hon. Speaker. Those are the people that are stuck with this government's choices. They are the ones who pay the bill.

Let's stop this madness and look for solutions. There are solutions, and the NDP must amend this nightmare budget. B.C. needs a bold plan for economic renewal, with open, honest and competent government. We need to stimulate B.C.'s economy, create jobs, and protect health care and education. It can be done. It's being done in provinces across Canada -- except for British Columbia. Can this Premier achieve this? After eight disastrous years, the answer's painfully clear. Does this side of the House have solutions? Absolutely.

There are ten things that we could do in British Columbia today to make B.C. number one. How about starting with restoring a professional, non-partisan civil service, getting rid of all the friends and insiders that the NDP has put in place and putting in people who are there because they are professionally the best? There are many in the civil service now, but some of them have been put there for political reasons.

How about passing truth-in-budgeting legislation, so we could get back on the books all that are money off-loaded onto the Crown corporations, so the taxpayer would actually know the financial status of this province? Let's use some honest accounting practices when we do that.

How about balanced-budget legislation so that government couldn't spend money if it didn't have it? How about cutting personal income tax to encourage investment and job creation, and protecting health care and education with services focused on patients and students? How about enacting fair and balanced labour laws? There's a good one.

Cutting the regulatory burden. . . . The members of cabinet have said: "We're cutting the regulatory burden this year." Well, who brought in the burden? Who brought in those regulations? It was the NDP government, since 1991. It just about put the forest industry under water. Red tape, red tape, red tape -- red tape from the Red government.

How about protecting private property rights and increasing access to Crown land and resources -- not allowing expropriations? How about fighting for B.C.'s fair share in federal taxes and negotiating workable, affordable open treaties -- all things that we would benefit from in an economic way?

[1540]

Interjection.

A. Sanders: The former Minister of Finance is talking about honesty. What's that about the pot and the kettle? Let's get some leadership, hon. Speaker. Let's get a new way.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: The former Finance minister says: "Let's get a plan." I would love to have you bring in a plan for once -- a plan you stuck to, something that actually stimulated the economy and brought jobs to B.C. Let's have a new government that is willing to control B.C.'s destiny and not let the big banks do it -- the way the NDP have this year, the year before and the year before that -- with debt servicing.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in this budget debate. This is the eighth budget that this NDP government has produced. There is one thing, certainly, that we can say for this government and its budgets: they are consistent -- maybe consistently bad but consistent. Throughout the eight years -- regardless of whether times were good, bad or indifferent -- one could always count on the NDP to produce another deficit budget, and that's certainly been the case again this year.

There has been a lot said about this budget. I hope I can add a little bit that's fresh, but I'm sure that my colleagues -- and perhaps members across the way, as well -- have made some of these points about the budget. Much has been said about it -- very little of a positive nature, regrettably. We've heard, for example. . . . The member from Burnaby has given us a little bit of positive. . .about the budget, but outside of this chamber and apart from the members across the way, we have seen in this province remarkably little of a positive nature in respect to this latest NDP budget. It has been widely condemned, certainly, by ordinary people. My constituents have found the increasing debt load and the persistent deficits entirely objectionable.

I'm sure the members across the way wouldn't agree, but I think that ordinary people across this province have said no to the economic approach of this government and that they are increasingly fed up with the way this province has been managed -- or mismanaged, to be more accurate -- over the past eight years. Media commentators have widely condemned this budget. Financial institutions and even bond-rating services have obviously given a thumbs-down to this budget.

Now, I know that members across the way would probably take great exception to the commentary of organizations

[ Page 12170 ]

An Hon. Member: That's what Tommy Douglas used to say.

G. Abbott: Yes, exactly -- that's what Tommy Douglas used to say in Saskatchewan. I think that's what Roy Romanow, as well, says today in the province of Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, this government still seems to be trapped into a much earlier way of economic thinking -- nineteenth-century, I guess, is the way one might characterize it.

A couple of other quotes from the B.C. Central Credit Union that I think hit the mark: "Over the long run, an unabated spending-and-debt approach will result in poorer economic performance." I think that is certainly right on the mark as well. We are seeing, every day, the consequences of long-term mismanagement of the economy in British Columbia. We see it in our resource industries; we see it in all industries. We see it in people losing their jobs -- unnecessarily, I think -- in British Columbia.

[1545]

A final quote from the B.C. Central Credit Union: "Most provinces are running budget surpluses and reducing debt, at least relative to GDP, while B.C. is heading in the opposite direction. This unnerves and puts off investors. . .and the result is less investment spending." So that -- from a very fine and, I think, non-partisan institution, the B.C. Central Credit Union -- is some very incisive analysis with respect to where this latest NDP budget is taking this province and our economy.

I think that another -- I hope members opposite would agree -- fine and non-partisan institution is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. Again, I won't read into the record all they had to say. But I think one quote here would be useful to make the very important point that is provided by the chartered accountants. 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." This is the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Again, I think the point is a critical one, and I'll be making it elsewhere in my comments today. It's that if we really want to protect health care and education in this province, as members opposite have said over and over again, we can protect those services in both the short term and the long term only with sound financial and economic management. We clearly are not getting that from this government.

The bond-rating services -- again, these obviously are fiercely non-partisan -- look only at the issue of financial and economic performance of governments and economies in making their decisions and recommendations around bond rating. The Canadian Bond Rating Service had this to say about the NDP's latest budget: "CBRS further believes that B.C.'s deficit spending during this period. . .may not necessarily stimulate the economy as intended and will exacerbate the government's deteriorating fiscal position." Of course, both bond-rating services now have done a downgrade on B.C.'s credit. We are now double-A-minus, from AA prior to this budget. I think that is most unfortunate in a number of ways. It tells us what the rest of Canada and what the rest of the world see when they look at British Columbia as a place to invest. They're saying thumbs-down to this NDP budget.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Absolutely.

The Finance minister is here, and I'm delighted to hear her cackling her contribution to this debate. She says: "It's just a few million bucks -- big deal. It's just a few million bucks; it's not a big deal." Who cares if our credit rating is downgraded? It's not a big deal. The cost of it wouldn't even cover the overrun of the Nisga'a propaganda campaign, for heaven's sake. It can't be a lot of money; it's not a big deal.

But it is, hon. Speaker. If those millions of dollars were used in a better way, we wouldn't have the ridiculous wait times for hospital operations in my riding. That's unfortunate, and it's unfortunate that we have to listen to this cackle from the Finance minister. It's most unfortunate to hear from the Finance minister, further undermining her very limited credibility here in British Columbia.

[1550]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Obviously the Finance minister is feeling very sensitive about this budget at this point. It's unfortunate to see that, but. . . .

An Hon. Member: Maybe she's got a 7 percent solution.

G. Abbott: Maybe she's got a 7 percent solution. Perhaps that's it.

I think that the budget is one of the best tests. It's one of the best areas from which to draw evidence of a government's ability to manage projects and to manage the economy. Of

[ Page 12171 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This is a government, after all, that has taken the B.C. economy from number one in new economic growth to number ten. From number one to number ten -- it's one of the remarkable non-achievements of this government.

Clearly this NDP government and this Finance minister have destroyed the confidence of British Columbians, of Canadians and of people around the world to invest in this province. They don't want to start a new business in this province. They don't know what they're getting into here, because of the financial instability that this government has created. They don't want to expand their businesses in British Columbia, because this government penalizes British Columbians for investing in their own businesses and investing in their own province.

Obviously we can't hope to see new jobs created in British Columbia, because of the performance of this government. Without the confidence to invest here and without the prospect of return, we're not going to be seeing the creation of new jobs in British Columbia. People don't invest in this province -- or anywhere else -- because of government edicts, directives or accords. Regrettably, this government remains wed to the outmoded view that somehow governments can direct people to create new jobs. It doesn't happen. People don't invest because they're directed to; they don't create jobs because they're directed to. They don't invest because they should or must create jobs. They invest because of the prospect of a return on their investment. Regrettably, that has been lost in British Columbia, particularly in the forest industry.

Hon. A. Petter: Now is the time to quote Adam Smith, George.

G. Abbott: That's right -- Adam Smith. I'm glad that the Minister of Advanced Education recalls his training in Wealth of Nations in political science 101 or wherever it was that he was treated to that particular tome. Adam Smith was right: people do invest. People do invest because of the prospect of return on investment. If that fundamental truth still escapes the Finance minister and the Minister of Advanced Education, I think that's unfortunate, because it is a fundamental truth.

[1555]

I guess that always pulls into question what the heck the business cycle is in British Columbia. We've now gone eight years under this NDP government, and after eight years we still haven't seen a balanced budget. I don't think they are even claiming to anticipate one for at least another two or three years. Maybe the cycle is one that is simultaneous with the re-emergence of Halley's comet or something. I don't know; I'm not sure what cycle they have in mind. Clearly it's a cycle that is something beyond a decade, and we just seem to pile deficit budget upon deficit budget here in British Columbia.

The product of all that, of course, is that we have seen this NDP government double the provincial debt over its term. We have seen the total provincial debt move from just over $17 billion to very close to $35 billion -- a doubling of the debt of British Columbia in the life of this government. I think that is absolutely shameful. We are now spending in the neighbourhood of $2.7 billion annually to just service that debt. You can imagine the things that we could do in British Columbia if we had the flexibility of that money. When you look at it on a daily basis -- and I think it's fair to do that -- that's $7.3 million a day in debt servicing alone. That is a ridiculous and unfortunate number that we have to look at on a daily basis.

Clearly that money could be better spent on health, education, and child and family services. There are a whole lot of areas where it would be far better to be spending on that than on simply servicing the debt from year to year. Obviously the Finance minister has a different view of that, and that's fair enough. That's obvious in her budget. The Finance minister chooses to take us further and further into debt. The Finance minister's answer is to continuously pile on further deficits and further debt and keep that debt-servicing cost growing every year. That's the choice that this NDP government chooses to make.

We also heard a couple of other things that people have said in the past. The Premier has told us that balancing the budget is just about the easiest thing that he could ever imagine doing. What he really meant, I think, was that pretending to balance the budget was just about the easiest thing that he could ever imagine. That is, in fact, what they did. You'll recall again, hon. Speaker, that back in the 1996 election the Premier didn't say: "Well, we've pretended to balance the budget." He didn't say: "I think we might have balanced the budget." He said: "We have balanced the budget." He claimed that not only had they balanced the budget for 1995-96 but that they were going balance it again in '96-97. The reality was that what the Premier did was sit down with Tom Gunton, Aunt Jemima and Betty Crocker and really cook up a couple of whoppers.

[1600]

G. Abbott: Now, that's what they did back in the 1996 campaign. It was, as my colleague says, a recipe for disaster, a complete set of a couple of whoppers there that they served up to the people of British Columbia, and claims that there were two surplus budgets when in fact, as I think the auditor general's report clearly shows, the government knew full well that there were not going to be two balanced budgets in British Columbia in and around the 1996 election campaign.

It's amazing that this NDP government have not only recorded eight consecutive deficit budgets, doubled the debt. . . .

[ Page 12172 ]

G. Abbott: I think it is a record. They've doubled the debt in that same period of time. At the same time, they've done a number of other things which one would have thought would have helped them out of the mess they were in. They have, over the same period, gutted grants or transfers to municipalities. The UBCM, I think, estimates the cuts since 1991 to be in the magnitude of $800 million -- again, a remarkable figure, given what they've done in a variety of other areas.

The NDP have allowed health care to deteriorate in this province, particularly in rural B.C. In my constituency of Shuswap, we have ever-growing waiting lists. I've had constituents who've waited a year or more for vital heart surgery. I've had constituents who have waited and continue to wait upwards of 18 months for joint replacements. I think that is not only unfortunate, it's shameful. They've also brought our resource industries to their knees through excessive taxes and regulations, and I want to talk a little bit more about that presently.

At the same time, this government squanders millions every month on advertising. The one thing they never scrimp on is blowing their own horn about what they've been doing in this province, even though typically it's nothing you would want to advertise. I guess the latest example of this is the budget itself. If you could imagine this, the government is spending $700,000 to advertise a budget that they should be outright ashamed of. I mean, that should be one of the biggest embarrassments this government has ever come up with. Yet we see hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent to promote this budget -- remarkable.

At the same time, the NDP's wasteful, reckless, ill-conceived socialist adventures have been effectively embodied in things like the jobs and timber accord. You'll remember. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: The member from Burnaby clearly remembers, hon. Speaker.

Twenty-one thousand new jobs, the Premier and the Forests minister promised back in 1996. They said: "We're going to get more jobs out of our forest resource one way or another. In fact, we're going to direct the companies to produce more jobs -- 21,000 more direct, new forest jobs more." Obviously they've been a complete failure in that regard, and it's not surprising. Again, the NDP's views here are based on a preposterous and, I think, outmoded notion that government can create or cause to be created any specific numbers of new jobs. I know that the members opposite disagree with this notion, but again, jobs are a product of investment. Without the will, without the desire to invest, there won't be new job creation. The members opposite say, "Well, the government can create those jobs," but that's not true -- at least, not in the long term; in the short term, perhaps. But in the long term, we need to have a favourable investment climate where people have the ability and the desire to invest and to create new jobs in the province.

[1605]

I'll just quote briefly from the paper that was presented by Mike MacCallum of PricewaterhouseCoopers: "After unusual items and write-offs, we estimate the industry will report what we believe will be the largest loss in the history of the forest industry in British Columbia, about $1 billion after tax." Absolutely shameful. It's almost unimaginable for this government -- historic. . . . To see our forest industry, at a time when we are seeing record housing starts in the United States -- a record demand for lumber. . . . That we in British Columbia have a forest industry that has lost $1 billion, an unprecedented loss in our history. . . . And it's not at a time when there isn't demand for lumber. This NDP government's callous disregard for the impact of its tax and regulatory policies has clearly brought our industry to its knees.

Where does the $1 billion come from? I think this is notable, as well, if we are looking for bright spots; we won't find many, I'm afraid. Here's how the $1 billion is made up: a $50 million loss in lumber, a $10 million loss in plywood, a $400 million loss in market pulp and a $45 million loss in other timber commodity areas, for a total operating loss of $455 million in 1998.

Additionally, there are $545 million in write-offs, write-downs and unusual items. For example, Bowater just abandoned, as everyone knows, a $60 million investment in Gold River. Canfor has written off a $173 million investment in Howe Sound Pulp and Paper. There's a $100 million write-off at Selgar, a $27 million write-off at Interfor, a $60 million write-off at MacMillan Bloedel, and a $125 million write-down by Slocan at their Fibreco plant. Obviously these do not reflect confidence in the B.C. forest industry.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: The reason why is that this government, including the member for Skeena, has turned this industry from a sound, reliable, productive and efficient forest industry into one that has now lost, over the past three years, in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion. It's astonishing what this government has done to the forest industry with a regulatory overburdening that is unmatched anywhere in the world. When this government brings in a Forest Practices Code, it doesn't fool around; it brings in a metre of paper and makes sure that the professional foresters and the companies in this province are undermined at every turn. I mean, why have a Forest Practices Code that costs only $5 a cubic metre when you can bring one in that costs upwards of $20 a cubic metre?

The consequence of all that is that people lose their jobs. We haven't seen any 21,000 new forest jobs, as the Premier promised. We have seen losses in the neighbourhood of 16,000 jobs at this point. For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers say: "Direct and indirect employment is estimated to be down 16,000 jobs in 1998, with a further fall of 10,000 jobs projected for 1999."

[1610]

[ Page 12173 ]

There won't be any B.C. turnaround without a forest industry turnaround. There won't be new jobs, new investment and all the indirect jobs in the communities, and there won't be any recovery in government revenue from this resource until the forest industry turns around.

Clearly what we need is a change of government; we need an election. We need to elect a new government that has some sense of where this province has to go in order to turn its forest industry and all its industries around and to get this province back on the right track. This is a government that hasn't learned from its eight years. People have no confidence in this government. Until we have a change of government, there will not be any restoration of the economy in British Columbia.

I say to the members opposite: abandon this budget, call an election, and let's get on with the business of turning things around for this province.

B. Goodacre: It should come as no surprise that I'll take a slightly different tack on this debate than the previous two speakers did.

The constituency that I represent, Bulkley Valley-Stikine, has a rather unique set of characteristics, taking up about 23 percent of the province and having only 33,000 people living there. I thought I'd walk through my constituency to relate the kind of interface that the communities in my riding have with the provincial government and with this budget.

I'll start with the small community of Atlin in the northern part of my riding. Atlin has been around for about 100 years -- since the Yukon gold rush. It's a small community these days of about 600 people, with the Taku River Tlingit first nation comprising about 40 percent of the population there.

Atlin also has a very interesting distinction for a small community only 100 years old. There have been four books on Atlin published to date, and I would recommend that everybody in this House read about the history of that place. Current things going on in Atlin. . . . It also has the distinction of being one of the few places in British Columbia that has no organized government. There's no regional district in Atlin, and there's no municipal government there. They're going through a governance study right now. Hopefully, at the end of that, they will officially have a local government that will speak on behalf of their residents when dealing with other levels of government.

Another thing that's worked with Atlin and Lower Post, another small community at the northern part of my riding, is that their relationship with the territory of the Yukon has been enhanced through a cross-boundary agreement between British Columbia and the Yukon to work on helping the residents in that area to have greater access to services in the Yukon -- services that normally would be provided by British Columbia. That makes it easier for people to have the services they need and have those services paid for by the province of British Columbia -- like health care, highway maintenance and things of that nature.

Moving down, Highway 37 is a 700-kilometre road that was the recipient of two wonderful budget allocations in a row which allowed us to move forward with improvements on that highway connector, the shortest route from the western United States to Alaska. It had been the object of some concern up until about two years ago due to the condition of that road and the impact it was having on tourism. I'm really happy to report that that has been turned around and that we're now getting extremely wonderful reports from tourists coming up through that area.

[1615]

The other three communities in the northern part of my riding are all clustered around Dease Lake. They are Telegraph Creek, Iskut and Dease Lake. The three communities combined have a population of around 1,500 people, and they're located a good hour and a half from each other. The needs that small communities like these have. . . . Again, only Telegraph Creek is covered by a regional district. The kinds of things that the communities in other parts of British Columbia take for granted, like recreation centres and ordinary municipal services, are not, generally speaking, available to these communities. They look to the federal government and to the provincial government for direct contributions to services that they need -- not on a regular basis but on a periodic basis.

Right now, for example, all three communities are working on trying to get the necessary funding to build recreation centres in their communities. Since the closure of Cassiar, a lot of the population that was previously in Cassiar has moved down to Dease Lake, and there's a growing need for the people living in that area to have recreation services. We're looking forward, over the next couple of budget terms, to assisting those people in getting their needs met in terms of recreation needs.

From that part of my riding it's about 500 kilometres to the next community, which is the Gitxsan community of Gitsegukla. Gitsegukla has got a development corporation happening right now that put together a two-pronged approach to trying to recover the economic situation in their community, and that is with the efforts on the part of that community to grow industrial hemp. They've got a test plot in there that is doing quite well, and this year they will expanding on that. We're hoping, over the coming years, to see the growth of a community-based enterprise around hemp, much the same as the people of Europe have experienced over the last five or ten years. We're quite hopeful that we will see some wonderful things coming out of the movement into hemp by the people of that area, with their great background in crafts and home-based enterprises.

The Gitxsan people themselves, throughout all of their villages, are currently negotiating with the provincial government about resource use on their house territories, and we expect that over the coming years we're going to see some tremendous benefits to the communities as we learn to work closer together on the management and development of the resources in the traditional territories of the Gitxsan people.

[ Page 12174 ]

[1620]

We just recently announced a water project that shows. . . . In the small Wet'suwet'en community of Hagwilget, which is adjacent to New Hazelton. . . . The two governments are working together and obtained an infrastructure grant to improve their water supply. It's a real wonderful thing for me, living in that area, to see the growing cooperation that exists between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities of our area.

The community of Hagwilget is located right next door to the historic Hagwilget Suspension Bridge, a bridge that was built across the Hagwilget Canyon, crossing the Bulkley River at Hagwilget, joining Hagwilget and Hazelton. It was built in the thirties and continues to be a marvellous structure that tourists enjoy having their pictures taken on. Unfortunately, it was built as a single-lane structure. We certainly hope to see the day when we'll no longer need to rely on that bridge as a sole transportation link to Hazelton and Kispiox, and when we will see the final construction of a bridge that was cited in the early sixties to be built on the other side of Hazelton. I don't think we can make that announcement quite yet, but we're certainly hoping that before too long into the twenty-first century, we will be able to announce that bridge as well.

The community of Hazelton is another two or three kilometres down the road. It's an area shared. . . . There's about a 30- or 40-acre townsite that's shared between the Gitandoiks village of the Gitxsan. . . . About 13 acres is dedicated to the old townsite of Hazelton, the village of Hazelton, which was the original landing spot for the sternwheelers that came up the Skeena River in the late 1800s and during the time that the railway was built. In terms of non-aboriginal communities in our area, as an ongoing settlement, that community is probably one of the oldest, next to Port Simpson. It's been around for over 150 years.

Up the valley we find a couple more Gitxsan villages: the village of Glen Vowell and the village of Kispiox in the Kispiox Valley. Their relationship with the provincial government is an ongoing discussion about the road leading up to that area. It's an unpaved road for the most part, which services an area of logging that's been very active for quite a few years. Every spring the phone calls come in about fixing that road, and we continue to push the Ministry of Highways to pay attention to Kispiox Road. Each year there's a few more improvements, and each year we continue to push for more.

The Kispiox Valley, of course, is also the home of some of the best steelhead fishing in the entire world and, each year, attracts people up there for that very purpose. Kispiox also has just opened a beautiful, new community school. It's a real tribute to their community that they have shown the kind of belief in their community and in their future that they're moving forward with wonderful facilities like that school. In GlenVowell they're working on putting together a healing centre, which again will be a wonderful facility for the area.

[1625]

Smithers is another 30 kilometres down the road, moving down Highway 16. Smithers is my hometown. Smithers is the home of. . . . Close to 40 percent of the people who live in Bulkley Valley-Stikine live within about 20 minutes of Smithers. So the population in Bulkley Valley-Stikine is quite skewed towards the Highway 16 end. It's a real pleasure for me, who likes to travel around this province, to travel around my riding, because it takes a long, long time to get from place to place when I want to see the northern part of the riding.

In Smithers we've had some real benefits from the health and education focus of this government, inasmuch as we got one new school, a substantial upgrade of another school and a recent completion of a long term care facility that will have its official opening fairly soon. The beds are now beginning to be filled. The town of Smithers is also working with the Ministry of Highways at this time to expand to four lanes the road going through Smithers. The studies are underway, and hopefully the work should be beginning fairly soon.

In Smithers we have also had a tremendous working relationship with FRBC and our local college, which has worked quite diligently in the retraining of forest workers, helping people through the transitions that we've seen happen in the forest industry in our area and also training people for the watershed restoration work that comes with FRBC -- the tremendous backlog of environmental degradation that we are hoping to address with the help of FRBC over the years.

Also in Smithers we've just had the resource management plan, the LRMP for our area, finalized and accepted. Included in that was a designation of a park area for the Babine Mountains which, as anybody that's been in our area realizes, is one of the most spectacular tourist attractions that you'll ever want to find anywhere in the world. We're very pleased that we have one more wonderful attraction set aside that tourists and locals and all people living in British Columbia are going to be able to enjoy for all time to come.

Moving down the road again, we have the small village of Telkwa. I keep thinking of Telkwa as a very small place, and it certainly is by British Columbia standards. It's got about 1,600 people living there. But the second-largest community in the Yukon is Watson Lake, and it's the same size as Telkwa. So we make the people of Telkwa feel a little bit better by comparing them to the communities of the Yukon, which makes them a very large place.

[1630]

[ Page 12175 ]

On down Highway 16 again, the community of Houston has 4,000 people living there and two of the most efficient sawmills in all of British Columbia. When you fly into Smithers from Vancouver, you fly over Houston. When I flew into Smithers last weekend, it was a pretty sight to look down at the log yards in Houston and to notice that both log yards were full. People are working in the woods, people are working in the mills, and things in Houston are moving along quite well, thank you very much. The Northern Touch Wood Forum in Houston just a couple of weeks ago attracted a tremendous amount of local interest, and it showed that people in our area are alive and well in the forest industry and looking forward to a wonderful future.

The health centre in Houston is the one irritant that continues to plague us in terms of trying to get 24-hour health care into Houston. We're working with the health council in Houston right now -- the provincial government is -- and, hopefully, that issue will be resolved shortly.

The land and resource management plan, the LRMP, for the Morice forest district is something that we will be seeing fairly soon. They were one of the last forest districts to be included in the plan. Hopefully, that will be proceeding soon, because some of the areas of that forest district are subject to some serious land use conflicts that can only be resolved when people get to the table and actually have an opportunity to share their concerns and work out solutions that are good for everybody.

Moving on down Highway 16, we make a turn down to Babine Lake, to the small communities of Tachek and Granisle. Granisle, of course, was the community that was created when the Bell copper mine was built many years ago. When the ore reserves were exhausted, they were left with a community infrastructure and very few people to live in it. So the community of Granisle has done some wonderful things in last few years to attract people -- mainly retirees -- to live in that community, and they're creating a whole new sense of what that community is and what that community can be. We're extremely hopeful that over the coming years the changes that they're making now will bear fruit over the long haul.

The small community of Tachet, just outside of Granisle, is a Lake Babine first nation community that is, again, working with treaty issues and also development plans on their territories. Hopefully, we will also see some significant improvements there over the coming years for that community, which is quite literally a community in serious trouble right now.

[1635]

Burns Lake is also getting a new school, and that's, again, a wonderful feature of the health and education focus that our budget is taking. As we probably all remember, Burns Lake was one of the communities heavily involved in the rural doctors' dispute, and some of the policy changes that came out of that situation have indeed helped matters for the people of Burns Lake and for the supply of physicians in that area.

One of the big issues facing the Burns Lake community right now is their application before the provincial government for a community forest licence. They have put together an absolutely wonderful proposal that I hope and pray will come to fruition very soon. The community has put a tremendous amount of effort into realizing that local people working together can make multiple use of a forest resource to really improve the lot of everybody in the community. We'll be learning soon about the disposition of that forest licence, and I certainly hope that they will prevail.

The northern development fund that was created as part of the settlement with Alcan after the Kemano completion situation includes the Lakes District area. Of course, the flooding from the Alcan dam -- the Kenney Dam -- impacts the people on the south side of François Lake, which -- for those folks who don't know the area -- is very near to Burns Lake. This fund is meant to help people and communities that have been impacted by the flooding of Alcan to deal with their development concerns, and even now we've got. . . . Both the Skin Tyee and the Cheslatta have been working with Alcan over the years and quite recently -- separate from the northern development fund -- to reclaim a graveyard in Skin Tyee's area that they had to vacate at the time of the flooding. Also, the Cheslatta are working on an underground logging thing through FRBC and on other projects from a fund they received as a result of their being flooded out by Alcan many years ago.

That is a nice little tour through Bulkley Valley-Stikine. The coming year for my riding is one in which we will continue to do what we've always done: build ourselves up and work together as communities. We will continue to work hard to preserve the lifestyle that keeps us there and that attracts people to our part of the world. I look forward to another year of working with the people in this chamber to make Bulkley Valley-Stikine a better place.

[1640]

[ Page 12176 ]

E. Walsh: I am pleased to stand in support of the budget for '99. As we and members opposite have heard in the last few days, this budget is about putting people first. It's about everyday, average British Columbians -- people that we know, that we live with, that we work with and that see every day. And the budget is about choices. We've had many, many comments about the choices that need to be made for budgets and for people that live in British Columbia. This side of the House has chosen to protect health care and education for the people of British Columbia.

I am proud of the choices that we have made to protect health care and education. It is truly unfortunate that the corporate opposition Liberals, who sit in the chamber across from this side of the House, call this budget a disgrace. I think it is a disgrace that they would call it such, a budget that is definitely working for the people of British Columbia -- the low-income, modest, average British Columbian. Even to suggest putting balanced-budget legislation before people is a shame; that is a true shame. Especially at a time of economic downturn, putting forward balanced-budget legislation suggestions is not only shameful, it is disgraceful.

What would the opposition Liberals have the people of British Columbia believe? Would they have people believe that balanced-budget legislation would cure all the problems and all the concerns and issues that must be met in the province? I have a scoop for them. Let us ask them: what do they really mean by their suggestion of balanced-budget legislation? Let's ask them what they're not telling British Columbians. Let's ask them what effects their bottom line is going to have on the average-, modest- and low-income British Columbian. The promises that the Liberal opposition have made in the last few months and today and last week are, without a doubt, rife with duplicity.

Let's talk about the budget for a few moments, just to refresh their memory. I know that they really want to hear this, because they've forgotten some really important points here. Some of the highlights, I know, are going to make them very happy -- and if not them, their families and friends.

We're increasing our health care investment by $615 million. Now, isn't that exciting? I think it is extremely exciting. We're hiring 400 new nurses. We're investing $21 million to create 480 long term care beds. We will also have 58,000 more surgeries -- wonderful, wonderful news. There is $3.5 million to reduce pediatric surgery waits. We're increasing the number of screening mammographies by 38,000, we're funding 5,000 additional chemotherapy treatments and 5,000 new radiotherapy treatments, and we're also increasing the number of heart, knee and hip replacement surgeries -- which I'll talk about a little bit later -- by 1,000.

We're going to continue to build on the progress that we have made in the past year. I know that the members opposite are really keenly interested in hearing this. That includes, actually, investing $10 million to reduce backlogs at hospitals across the province, reducing wait-lists at B.C. Children's Hospital by funding more than 800 more surgeries a year.

[1645]

I know that the roughly $4 million that's been spent in the Cranbrook hospital for a new radiography unit for Sparwood and for upgrading and improvements to the OR and the maternity wing and those areas isn't important to the opposition Liberals, but it is important to the people of Kootenay. The people of Kootenay know the importance of good health care, and they know the importance of this work that needs to be done, which unfortunately isn't free. I'm amazed that the Liberal opposition again, because of these needs and because of the cost to meet these needs, would put balanced-budget legislation before people. It is amazing and shocking that anyone would put books and paperwork before people.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you can't access or afford health care, then there is a very real and very good possibility that you will die. Ultimately, that's the end: you'll die. I know it's a shock, and I know that it's something new, probably, for many people to realize this. But faced with this reality, I know that our choice to protect and to fund health care is the right one. It's the right choice for all British Columbians.

Let me read what is being said in the province next door, which I live right next door to -- the province of Alberta that the opposition members are so enamoured with. Remember, I live next door to that province. The Edmonton Journal -- well, that's a little bit further north than where I live -- says: "Proposed changes to legislation governing hospitals in Alberta will open the door to the 'possibility' of more private health care, Premier Ralph Klein says. The changes, which will give the government the power to approve private hospitals, could spark the growth and development of private health care facilities, Klein said Thursday." And a comment: "There is now no question that they are paving the road. . .for private, for-profit health care facilities. . . . We'll. . .have doctors double-dipping, doctors working in the private and public systems." Also, an advisory committee will be set up to recommend private facilities. That's sad.

There's another one here. This is another document from the Edmonton Journal: ". . .everyone involved must realize private, for-profit health care will cost society more, even if it reduces government costs, said the former chair of the federal government National Forum on Health and current chair of public health services at the University of Alberta. 'Permitting insidious privatization is not the answer,' he said."

Then it goes on, and this has something to do with what I want to talk about in just a few moments also. That's because we hear from the opposition how great health care is in the United States and how people don't have as long waiting lists in the United States. Well, Dr. Tom Noseworthy from the forum stated that the U.S. system gives better service to the rich but much worse service to the poor. This is what he told the audience at the summit in Alberta. Then also -- and this is very current: "Lengthy waiting lists for medical procedures have prompted Calgary doctors to take action to protect themselves from being sued" -- wait-lists of up to seven months for some treatments. But they talk about alternatives; they talk about alternatives to get health care at your own expense, to pay for your own private MRI.

I just want to talk for a moment about some people when they come up to British Columbia for health care. In the past, in the health care field that I've been involved in, women from the U.S. have come to British Columbia specifically to have their babies -- the Cranbrook and District Hospital, in fact, is one of them. They have their babies in our hospital because

[ Page 12177 ]

Then there's the cost of hip and knee replacement surgery.

[1650]

E. Walsh: They say: "Bill them." Yes, they'll be billed for the cost of having those babies up here. But you know what? They are a lot less; they're a fraction of the cost of having their babies in the States.

Then there's the cost. . . . The members opposite will probably want to listen to these costs and keep these in mind, should they ever want to have hip or knee replacement surgery in the States. Many seniors, actually, also come to our hospitals, and they have hip and knee replacement surgeries in hospitals in B.C. As an example, here are some of the cost differences between the United States and Canada -- specifically, British Columbia MSP.

Dr. Wes Kinzie from California has actually offered a cost for total knee and total hip replacements. Total knee is $4,500 (U.S.); total hip is $5,070 (U.S.). That's $9,570 (U.S.), or $13,398 (Canadian), at roughly a 1.4 exchange rate. For MSP here in British Columbia, what is their quote? Total knee is $696.03; total hip is $696.03. They speak of difference in equipment, but you have one knee and you have one hip, or you have another knee and another hip -- you only have two of each. That is a difference in total hip and knee replacement surgery of. . . . Well, I figured that out to be pretty close to the $12,005 mark, between the U.S. surgery for total hip and knee replacement and the British Columbia total. That is in Canadian dollars -- a $12,000 difference.

Now let's talk about some of the comparisons of ambulance fees. This is in Canada. Let's talk about them between British Columbia and Alberta. Let's talk about a city-to-city transfer, where both ambulance services have to travel the same distance. Let's say Cranbrook to Calgary -- that sounds like a really good distance -- and then Calgary to Cranbrook. Well, in B.C., residents pay $54 up to 40 kilometres. Then it's 50 cents a kilometre thereafter, to a maximum of $274 -- land, sea or air. The distance travelled from Cranbrook to Calgary is roughly in the neighbourhood of $201 to $274 for the maximum -- like I said, land, sea or air.

Let's see what Alberta charges. These are from actual bills received. Here's one. On one bill the transport fee is $350 plus travel expenses of $1,977.28, for a grand total of $2,327.28 -- the same distance travelled. Mind you, this patient probably doesn't need the care in the other direction, from the Cranbrook to the Calgary leg of the trip. So there's a significant difference from the $274 that B.C. residents pay. Here's another one. Basic cost is $85. Air travel is $1,737.38. Added on to that is the escort -- $300 -- for a total cost of $2,122.38. It's a shame that members opposite are saying that this is what they want for the people and for the residents of British Columbia. I think that they have some answering to do to the people of British Columbia.

I'll just talk a little bit here about the province, because we hear so much negativity all the time about the province and about whether or not people are leaving or coming -- or whatever it is that they're doing. Just to read a little blurb here from the Medical Services Commission budget discussion -- this is from the 1999-2000 overview -- they've stated that in spite of the British Columbia Medical Association physician supply plan that shows that the province has an oversupply of more than 500 physicians, more doctors keep coming to British Columbia. The Canadian Medical Association Journal reported in its December 1, 1998, issue that B.C. is still the mecca for Canada's physicians in its article entitled: "B.C. Is Still the Place to Be."

An Hon. Member: How could that be?

E. Walsh: I don't know how that could be. I would like somebody from the other side to. . . . I'd be happy to send this over to the hon. members on the other side.

[1655]

We're increasing core education funding by $45 million. We're hiring another 300 teachers to work in grades K-to-3. Capital funding of $341 million. . . . We're creating 2,900 new post-secondary student spaces, freezing tuition fees for post-secondary education for the fourth consecutive year and increasing student financial assistance by $7.7 million. I know from talking to post-secondary students in Alberta that when they received notification that their tuition rates were going to increase yet again this year, many students stood in the universities and colleges of Alberta and literally cried, because they did not know how they were going to meet those expenses next semester and next year to continue on with their studies. I think that's a tragedy. That is sad. And that is why I am very happy and very proud that this province has made the choice to freeze tuition for yet another year. It gives our young people that chance at a future for them here in this province.

We're continuing to build on the progress we made in the last year of the economic plan. Hon. Speaker, 500 new teachers. . . . We are investing a record $748 million in school construction and expansion and reducing kindergarten classes to a maximum of 20 students. I spoke to somebody not long ago in Lethbridge who told me that their classrooms have between 30 and 40 children in kindergarten to grades 3 and 4. The children don't get that much-needed attention in those very critical years. I believe that by giving them this much-needed attention, we are starting them out right. We are, in fact, dedicating $2 million to upgrading and replacing computers at B.C.'s 20 colleges and institutes and increasing student financial assistance for students with dependants to $50 a week.

These, again, are just a few of those initiatives that are continuing on. I know that the building of Fernie Secondary School, of which the people. . . . It was wonderful news. The people there -- the parents and teachers -- appreciated that school being built, because it was a safety issue. It was about keeping our children, our teachers and our parents safe. I am very, very happy with the decision to build that school. Parkland school in Cranbrook and, a few years ago, Kootenay Orchards Elementary School. . . . These are all investments in

[ Page 12178 ]

Although those building projects are not at the top of the priority list of the opposition, they are at the top of the priority list for the people of Kootenay. We recognize the need for that safe environment. We recognize that need for quality time spent between children and their teachers. If the opposition Liberals had their way -- looking at what they have suggested -- they would be looking at about a $60 million cut to education. Oh, and did I forget to mention that if they had their way, too, with health care, they'd be looking at about a $1.8 billion cut?

[1700]

But what happens when the bottom line is paper -- when the bottom line is if you don't have it, you're not going to do it, you're not going to spend it? That will, in fact, stop investment in this province. It will, in fact, not build schools; it will not build hospitals. So I am proud of this budget.

Which brings me to the next part of the budget. We'll talk about small business and the region. Cutting small business income tax to a rate. . . . I know that members opposite are going to be really happy with this, because we've cut the income tax rate to 5.5 percent, effective July 1. And you know what? This is lower than Alberta's. Isn't that wonderful?

We've cut the international jet fuel tax by another 2 cents a litre, making it more competitive. This is great news. We've streamlined provincial regulations, which is what the people of British Columbia have asked us to do -- and in fact we are doing it. We're even extending the corporate capital tax holiday for qualifying investment from two years to four years. We're continuing to cut taxes for small businesses by $66 million -- for small business, that backbone of British Columbia. We're also introducing tax credits and other incentives for the film, television and mining sectors of the province. We're setting up 23 one-stop business registration centres across the province, which are continuing to be set up. This is a little bit of the progress that we have made in the last year and that we are continuing to work with.

One point I wanted to make here is about a comment that the Leader of the Official Opposition made last week in his speech. He said that people from my area -- Cranbrook specifically -- were leaving in droves to go to Ontario.

An Hon. Member: No.

E. Walsh: Yes, he did.

I was shocked, and I am shocked to hear this, because I live in Cranbrook. I also live next door to the province that the opposition Liberals gaze upon. They think that that's the way that B.C. should be run. But you would think, with the number of times the Liberal opposition has been in the province and specifically in my area, that they would be a little bit informed about what actually is going on in my riding of Kootenay. But then again, maybe they lost their way on the way through to Kootenay because of the Alberta border being so close, and what they saw were actually those people that work in the Kootenays who were probably just going home. After all, we see many, many people working in the Kootenay riding who live in Alberta but work here. That begs the question: if they're doing so well in Alberta, then why are they working in B.C.? Maybe it's because our wages are very good and because there's work in B.C.

[1705]

I'd just like to say what some investors have said about investing in B.C. From previous speakers, I've heard some comments being made. Well, this was in the Vancouver Sun just a few days ago. Ed Clark, president of Canada Trust, said: "We have built 74 branches in the last seven years and have plans to continue to grow aggressively, especially here in British Columbia. This is a good place to invest." Well, that's really good news.

Charlie Locke of the Resorts of the Canadian Rockies told our chambers of commerce, the city councils and the communities in the Kootenays and in the Columbia River-Revelstoke area that skiing in B.C. has an excellent future, as a result of favourable government legislation. That doesn't sound to me like there is this problem, which the opposition Liberals would have people believe.

Also, Tembec is a new company that has now bought Crestbrook Forest Industries. I had a chance to speak personally with the president and CEO of that company, and what he said was. . . .

An Hon. Member: What did he say?

E. Walsh: I know that they want to hear what he said. Go ahead, ask me again: "What did he say?" He said to me that doing business in British Columbia was easier, with the government of British Columbia, than in just about any other province in Canada -- except for maybe Quebec, maybe because that's where they're from.

So why do we hear from the opposition that investment is not good? They don't know when they come here; they say that this is what they hear from the opposition Liberals. But when they come here, they find out. They feel that what they have found out is that that's not the way it is. I'm really happy to say that this, to me, was great news. It was great news that they decided that this company is going to invest in British Columbia.

This budget realizes the need of communities, especially in this time of economic downturn. It recognizes the need of the modest, low-income families. It recognizes the need for safety in communities. It recognizes the need for schools, education and health care -- affordable health care. It recog-

[ Page 12179 ]

Just on that note, before I do conclude, I want to speak about the need in my riding -- and the recognition by this government of that need -- to replace the infrastructure on the highways. I am really pleased that the need to replace bridges that are some of the oldest in the province -- and the most dangerous in the province, many of them. . . . Now we are able to realize the replacement of those. That was a need that was addressed in the economic summit held in Castlegar last year. I am pleased that those bridges -- for safety reasons -- are now addressed.

The Moyie bluffs have been there for so many years and have seen so many fatalities, so many injuries, so many semis. . . . And guess what: they are in the design stages now to be realigned. That's what this government is about, and that's what we're doing: we're looking after the needs of the people.

Talking about some of the other infrastructure projects that have been going on. . . . Flood control moneys -- which we're all looking for here right now, which we've all been talking about -- are being addressed now, before the actual emergency happens. I already spoke about some of the health care moneys that have been received.

Environment and Fisheries. Working with bighorn sheep and working with rivers within the region. . . . If we don't have a stable environment, if we don't put funding into the environment, then we will pay for it further on down the road.

[1710]

Hon. Speaker, I see that my time is up. I would encourage the members opposite to vote for the people. Vote for this budget and support it.

J. Reid: As I've been listening to the debate on this budget, it's very apparent that with the two sides, we're coming from completely different viewpoints. It's not a difference so much of uncaring, which is sometimes characterized here. I find that not only absurd but insulting, because certainly we do care about the people of this province and certainly we care very strongly about health care and about education and about people who are disadvantaged in this province. So it's not a matter of: do we care and they don't, or do they care and we don't?

The deeper problem here -- the philosophy -- is: do we believe in large government that wants to exert control over the society and control over every aspect of this society, and the cost that brings to all people? Or do we believe in people having freedoms and choices and encouraging the best in society without dictating it to people? When we look at this underlying difference in philosophy, it becomes apparent in this budget and in how the funds are going to be spent. I realize that we can use examples from history or from around the world to say that control by large government isn't successful in the long run, that it has those shortcomings. Also, we do endorse social programs, and we care about those.

Because debating from that larger viewpoint isn't going to be very productive for the constituents, I've tried to look at this budget from the viewpoint of my constituents. I've been talking to them. I've now had the last couple of weeks to talk with them and ask them for their viewpoints. They've shared with me their circumstances, and they've shared with me their agonies. That's what I can bring today from the constituents -- their concerns.

The first that comes to mind is the small business owner. We hear so much that this is a government promoting small business and that this is a government where this budget is for small business. I often wonder what this government thinks is the largest problem that small businesses face in this province, because I know for a fact that this budget does not address that problem. The number one problem for small businesses is the amount of time and energy it takes to deal with government. That's a huge cost to small business.

Another problem I have with the way this government addresses the concerns of small business is that I'm always hearing of home-based businesses and that we have such a success in home-based businesses. Well, I think it's time to remind this government that the natural cycle of a business would be to start off small -- perhaps in your home, perhaps working out of your garage -- and then it progresses. As it becomes successful, another person is hired. You outgrow your surroundings, and then you have to look for a commercial space to lease or to rent. Then, hopefully, it will grow again and there'll be more employees.

So this idea that we have so many home-based businesses means, in reality, that we have businesses that aren't growing. In fact, we actually have larger businesses that have been downsizing to the point that now they're classified as home-based businesses. This isn't something to be proud of. I know constituents who have had larger businesses and more employees. They are now employed out of their homes and are no longer in leased rental space, and they are just making a living for themselves. I think that's very sad. That's not a statistic that I am proud of.

[1715]

We talk about the business environment, and it is so frustrating that this government still doesn't get it. It doesn't understand what the business environment really means. I would liken it to the concept of wanting to grow plants in a greenhouse. You create an environment in a greenhouse that provides the best care for those plants. You have to regulate the temperature, the humidity, the soil conditions, the pests, the fertilizers. Many, many things go into creating that environment that will allow those plants to flourish.

This government, instead of being able to create that business environment, thinks it can take a plant, stick it in a bed of gravel, throw some ice water on it and say: "There you go. There, you're a business; now flourish." If those plants are stuck -- if they don't have any choice -- they might wither on the vine, or they might be able to hold their own in that environment. But we're not talking about plants; we're talking about people who have the ability to move. If there are busi-

[ Page 12180 ]

To create that business environment, I have to ask: does this budget address any of those concerns? Well, certainly it cuts the tax for small business, and I think that's good. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that that's just one step in a much larger picture. Unless you're looking at the larger picture, that small step isn't enough. It isn't enough to give confidence in this province. It's isn't enough because, first of all, in order for people to pay those taxes, they have to be making those profits. So many people in small business are struggling, and they're not making huge profits.

If we want businesses to grow, and if we want investment to come here. . . . We keep hearing over and over that businesses say the employees are also needing an environment that makes them feel confident. Employees are concerned about taxes; they're concerned about the cost of living. Businesses know that with the cost of doing business in B.C. -- of dealing with the government, of addressing fees -- that cost has to be passed on to the consumer. And it is passed on to the consumer. From the business viewpoint, no, this budget does not address those concerns.

Another group that's very close to my heart is the young people in the province. I look at the young people, and I've talked with young people. And I say: "How does this affect you? With the freeze in tuition, is this going to make the difference for you?" And the story I've been told over and over again is: "Well, that's great. I'm glad there's a tuition freeze. But do you know what really concerns me? I don't have a job at the end of my schooling. I can get the education, but unless I get a job in government -- unless I get a public sector job -- I'm probably going to have to leave this province."

[1720]

We have the second-highest rate of youth unemployment in Canada. If we're going to educate our young people and if we're going to say that we don't want a brain drain, then there have to be jobs. It comes back again; it's a bigger picture; it's not an isolated incident. You can freeze tuition costs, but that's not going to create jobs. If you don't have jobs, the people aren't going to stay. When the young people leave this province, they take with them their talent, they take their hopes, and they take their dreams. But they also take our hearts. We are losing so much every time a young person has to leave British Columbia to find a job somewhere else.

When we look at the government's inability to control their spending, when we look at the years of deficit budgets with the government saying, "We agree with balancing budgets; we agree that it's what's good for the economy," how can these young people have confidence? When finally the government says, "Well, we guess we couldn't do it; we don't agree with it anymore," that doesn't instil confidence in our young people.

Instead of jobs, this government offers our young people programs. When these young people go from school and can't find a job, they get to go into a program. That is so disillusioning for our young people.

Also, our kids aren't dumb. They're looking at this, and they're looking at this budget, and they say: "You know what? Eventually somebody has to pay these costs. Eventually somebody has to pay this debt." That's going to be them, and they know it. That's also making young people very nervous. They don't want to inherit our debt; they don't want to have to service that debt. They resent the fact that this is being imposed upon them. We're talking about saving them maybe a few thousand dollars in tuition fees. At the same time, servicing the present debt is amounting to $7 million a day. That's a burden our young people are going to have to bear. This isn't a favour; this budget isn't doing them a favour.

This budget is talking about health care as though health care is something that only the government cares about, when everyone in British Columbia cares about it. It's very important to everyone, to all our communities. So I've talked to people about the health care side of things. What do they think about this health care budget? Their concerns are that certainly there are waiting lists, and certainly there are problems in the hospitals. Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is a very good case of that.

What's this budget going to do? Well, I can tell you that it is going to temporarily relieve some of those problems. But that's the key word; that's what has people concerned, because this budget isn't a plan for health care. This budget is a band-aid on an emergency patient. Putting money towards health care is important. Directing that money specifically according to a plan and knowing that it's going to have a result is even more important.

[1725]

Last weekend I had an exchange student that stayed with me a number of years ago come back to visit. She's from Denmark. I was asking how things were going for her, since she has graduated from her first level of schooling and has taken a year off. She has been working and travelling. I was asking about the income tax rates in Denmark and the health care system. What she said to me was rather surprising. She said that the income tax rate of her father, who would be deemed to be middle class, is 70 percent. I said: "How's your health care system doing?" She said: "There are a lot of problems with our health care system. They have wait-lists up to a year long, and there are a lot of complaints about the health care system there."

We know that this problem with health care is a bigger problem, we know that there are going to have to be plans to address this, and we know that constantly raising the taxes and fees -- putting money towards it without a plan -- isn't going to solve the problem. Costs are mounting, expectations are rising for health care, demands are increasing, and this government, which we entrust to look after the bigger picture, isn't doing that. This is a one-year health care budget, and that isn't healthy for this province.

[ Page 12181 ]

What about others? What about larger groups? We have in Parksville-Qualicum and north Nanaimo a very large tourism industry -- a very important tourism industry. They have their concerns. Our tourism industry is intricately related and connected to the ferries. With this ferry fiasco that we've witnessed, with these runaway costs without knowing that we're going to get an increase in service, with the ferry costs in this budget and the rate that the ferry fares have risen at over the years. . . . We know that there has been a doubling in ferry fares since the NDP came in. We know that people have been struggling with that, but especially the tourism industry, because they need stability. These people have told me that even a rumour about a rise in ferry fares or any kind of ferry disruption results in cancellations. That is how sensitive this issue is for tourism. So what does this budget do to alleviate those concerns? Absolutely nothing. Those people are looking at this budget and saying: "Yes, we're trying to invest in tourism, but at the same time, this government is jeopardizing all that work that we're putting in."

I've been looking for somebody who might be happy with this budget. I was talking to some environmentalists and saying: "Surely there must be someone who likes what is in this budget." It's interesting with the environmentalists, because as much as the government tries to paint a picture of environmentalists as being somehow separated from society, I know that isn't true. The environmentalists who are active in my community are people who are involved in the community. They're involved in businesses; they're involved in community life. They are part of their communities; they are not separate from them. One of the themes that comes up when I talk with people who have very deep environmental concerns and have seen a lot of progress in the communities is that areas that have poor economies have the worst environmental records. There is a deep, deep concern about the direction that we're going in. We need, once again, that vibrant economy, to be able to afford the changes that we'd like to make.

[1730]

People who want to improve their communities are coming to me and saying: "How can we afford this? We're not getting the dollars from the business community that we once had, because they just don't have those dollars to spare." Once again, in this budget we don't see that long-term plan. We don't see any solutions; we don't see restraint. We don't see any new ideas to be able to address the problems that we have.

This government spends money it doesn't have. I've heard it defended as saying: "We could be worse." Sitting on this side, sometimes I get this idea of this bully that comes along and says: "I'm going to hit you, but afterwards you shouldn't complain, because after all, I've only broken one of your arms, and I could have broken both of them." Somehow we're supposed to be glad because of that. We're supposed to be glad that the deficit is as low as it is rather than being even higher.

Well, the people that I talk to in my constituency aren't glad. They feel that this budget is an attack on the province of British Columbia. They don't appreciate it. That's the feedback that I've been getting. We aren't seeing leadership with this budget. The deficits that are being imposed upon the province over and over again do have an impact. We wonder: do we not learn from our mistakes? Is it not possible to make changes? Well, this government has shown that it isn't possible and that they don't know how to.

I've also heard from this government that the province is starting to make a comeback in the economy, which admits that yes, the economy was in a terrible, terrible downturn. Press releases are being put out anytime a company ventures forth into British Columbia. Even long before the dollars actually arrive here, the press release goes out. This government wants to take credit for any positive news in this economy, but then they also have to take the blame for all that's happened here and the difficulties that people have experienced.

I think that this government is living in a make-believe world. When I talk to the logger who comes to me and says that he's wondering whether he can still sell off his logging equipment and get out of the province or whether there's no worth there anymore; when I walk through the community and count the empty retail spaces like I have never seen before; when I talk to the high-tech firm whose business partners in Alberta are urging him to move because the costs are lower in Alberta, and he's having to make a difficult decision; and when I talk to the young people who have been looking for summer jobs and can't find them, I know that that is real life. The world that this government lives in doesn't seem to be real life, if they don't acknowledge that this is what's going on in British Columbia. The real people on the real streets of British Columbia understand financial anxiety. They know what cutting back means. They understand that without revenues, we won't be able to support health care and education, and they know that this government doesn't understand anything about that business environment.

[1735]

I'm reminded of a story, and the story is of a man named King Canute. In his belief in the power that he had, he placed his throne on the beach, and he commanded the tide to stay out. He was going against the tide. There are certain laws that no amount of government talk can overcome. The tide goes out, but it certainly will come in. We know that with finances, what goes out has to come in. This government is really struggling with that idea. It thinks that it can be like King Canute and separate itself from reality, saying that we can keep spending without the money coming in. That just isn't real life.

[ Page 12182 ]

R. Neufeld: Again, I rise in the House -- not to speak in favour of the budget, of course. . . . I have never found it in my heart to be able to stand up and speak to one budget that this government has presented since it was elected in 1991. Unfortunately, every one of them has been directly opposite to what the people of British Columbia were promised prior to the 1991 election and has taken this province to wrack and ruin.

It's absolutely unacceptable, hon. Speaker, that we now have a total provincial debt of $34.7 billion.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: We can make all the fun of it that we want, as the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine is right now. He doesn't care about debt; he doesn't care about the dollars, as long as they're spent. But it is serious business, and it's serious business for most British Columbians. I don't care what part of the province you're from. Those that think we can continue to tax and spend and drum up the debt, as this government has since 1991, are not really looking to the future or to what our children are going to have to accept.

I went back to 1991 and looked at the population figures for British Columbia. I know that the NDP constantly talks about population growth and all the expected services with it. In 1991 there were 3.3 million people in British Columbia. In 1999 there's about four million people -- an increase of about 700,000 people. Now, it took from the time that British Columbia joined Canada -- over 125 years -- to get to a debt of $17 billion, which this government inherited when they came to office in 1991. To service 700,000 people, they have doubled the debt to $34.7 billion, and as I'm reminded, it's climbing. That is unsustainable, in anybody's imagination. You just cannot keep up that type of expenditure and create that kind of debt.

[1740]

Let's go back a little bit, because I was interested in the debt statistics that were put forward by the hon. Minister of Finance. The total provincial debt in 1970 -- that's not all that long ago -- was $2.3 billion. You know what our debt charges -- interest charges -- are today? They're $2.6 billion; $2.6 billion is what it costs to service the debt today. In 1970 all we had was $2.3 billion in debt. It was $2.3 billion in 1970, and in 1999 it is $34.7 billion -- an increase of $32.4 billion from 1970 to today.

I know that the NDP are not responsible for all that debt, but what I'm trying to put in perspective here is that taxing and spending and creating new debt are something we just cannot continue with if we're going to continue to enjoy health care, education, highways, ferries -- whatever -- in this great province of ours.

The really striking figure that comes forward is the taxpayer-supported debt. That's the overspending on the credit card, which this government has been very good at since it came to office in 1991. In fact, it has increased the credit card spending faster and quicker than anyone previous to them. If you look at that debt, total taxpayer-supported debt was $622 million in 1970. Let's look at it in 1991, when this government came to office; it was $9.8 billion. Today it's $26.2 billion; $26.189 billion has been accumulated in overspending on the credit card. That's total taxpayer-supported debt; that's dead debt. That's debt that British Columbians and our young British Columbians are going to have to pay for a long, long time.

In fact, if we look at our GDP, the total debt is unsustainable. In fact, many economists tell us that. It doesn't matter what bank, trust company, bond-rating agency or investment dealer you go to, they all say: "At the end of the day, you cannot support that kind of tax increase." The population and the economy will just not do it. In fact, it will shrink the population and the economy. But an increase in total debt to 31.7 percent of GDP -- that's what it will be at the end of this fiscal year. . . . That is the highest we have ever been in this province for total percentage debt to GDP. In fact, if we go back to when this illustrious group of financial wizards took over, the margin was 21.9 percent or 22 percent. They've increased it 10 percent.

[1745]

R. Neufeld: The member asks how we compare to other provinces. Well, I can tell you how we compare to other provinces. Look at Alberta; its economy is growing. Look at Ontario; its economy is growing. Look at Saskatchewan, an NDP province; its economy is growing. Each and every one of those provinces has decided to cut spending to actually cut the debt, because they know that debt is dead weight on their citizens -- even the NDP in Saskatchewan. Roy Romanow should come here and have a seminar with this group about how they should spend their money. It would be great. In fact, it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when Roy Romanow meets with the Premier here to talk to him about spending and debt control, because this group is right out to lunch.

Let's look at how the budget expenditures have grown. Budget expenditures have grown 40 percent since 1991, when they took over -- from $15.1 billion to an estimated $21 billion in the year 2000. A 40 percent increase, and the folks still can't balance the budget. They still have a deficit. They've increased every tax, every fee, everything imaginable, and they've created some new ones, let me tell you. They've figured out how

[ Page 12183 ]

Is it any wonder that only 18 percent of British Columbians support that side of the House? Is it any wonder that British Columbians, regardless of where they live and regardless of political persuasion, are worried about what this government is doing? We know -- and they know -- that we can't continue down this path. Tax revenues actually rose, from 1992 to 1998, from $9 billion to $13 billion -- a 44 percent increase. As I say, they have devised ways of taxing almost everything imaginable. In fact, they've driven investment out of the province.

Let's look at a little bit of it. The members ask about Alberta. Well, capital investment in Alberta has grown four times faster than in B.C. between 1992 and 1998. Capital investment in B.C. has increased a mere 22.5 percent, while capital investment has risen by 104 percent. . . . Capital investment in Saskatchewan -- and get this, my friend; it's your buddy Roy Romanow -- and Manitoba has increased by 104 percent and 84 percent respectively. This is Statistics Canada information. It's "Provincial Economic Accounts, Annual Estimates, 1997-98," from StatsCan. I mean, that should catch someone's attention across the way. It should catch someone's attention that things aren't going so well.

[1750]

Those are issues that this government, regardless of what they think they should be doing, should be looking at seriously. But to tax and spend and think you can spend your way out of a recession is absolutely ridiculous.

I note the time. Some agreement has been reached to adjourn early, so I'll take my time tomorrow. I move that we now adjourn debate.

R. Neufeld moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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