In summary I ostensibly said that cabinet over there was certainly responsible for this $36.5 million debt that they have been trying to put off onto other cabinets in previous sessions. However, it's quite apparent that all of them except two of the members have been in the cabinet and/or the treasury since the start, and they are all responsible for the massive debt that we have created in this province -- and for which we're paying $7.7 million per day to foreign bankers.

The Premier can no longer refuse to say mea culpa when it comes to all these decisions, such as the fast ferries and all the rest of it. He's as responsible as everyone else is.

What I want to also say is the fact that in this budget, although there are a few droplets here and there, there is ostensibly nothing to substantiate or attract business to this province. How are we going to reduce our debt when we're not attracting investment to this province? As I said, the budget has nothing to do with it, and it's quite obvious that the budget itself is a political decision. It's what the Premier has made of it, and as a result, B.C. is going to become the poorer for this. In my opinion, that is showing an incompetent government -- as we have in front of us at the moment on the NDP side of the House.

The Premier had a chance to make some bold moves with this budget but seemed to have forgotten how to do it. It's obvious that he lost his deep-down will to make some changes in this province. If there are any, it certainly doesn't show in this budget.

B.C. turned in the worst economic performance in the decade under this NDP government. Little or no change is foreseen in this budget. We have increased spending and enormous debt, and there's no evidence of them showing that they are prepared even to consider putting forward a plan to pay off this debt and balance the budget. As we edge ever so slowly ahead -- but still behind the rest of North America -- in the recovery of our economy, we see that there is still not enough money coming into this province to give the taxpayers a break. They are going to have more taxes heaped upon them. This government tends to spend their way out of the doldrums if they possibly can. We have seen that happen before, and experience has shown us that all it does is continue to give us more debt.

B.C. will continue to underperform compared to the rest of North America. The United States is now projecting a 4.3 percent increase. We are possibly two points behind that. We're hoping that we'll get about a 2.3 percent increase. But nothing in the budget shows that there is room for a turnaround. As one economic prophet has said about British Columbia: "You have to trust in Allah, but tie up your camel."

This budget should have been one of the most important budgets that we've ever had. It should have been one to signal to the world that we're not going to languish behind the rest of Canada. B.C. is now in the ninth spot out of ten provinces in Canada. When this group of people came forward, we were in the number one spot across Canada. We are going to have to make some fundamental changes to address our debts and reduce our taxation and control or prioritize our spending. It is obvious that our revenues continue to lag behind expenses, as I have said, and this budget does nothing to show the world that B.C.'s government has changed its way of operating. It's still out there spending.

[1445]

[ Page 14730 ]

Industry that uses Hydro in this province. . . . There are quite a few of them all through the forestry, mining and chemical production and pulp industries. They require a base rate, they feel, to produce their product in a more competitive way. They have always felt. . . . We used to, before this gang came in, have the BCUC. It set out regulations as to what Hydro could charge, etc. Now the government has interfered, has had Hydro interfere, and the BCUC really have their hands tied behind them and are unable to dictate what the rates should be. The rates are falling all across. . .as evidenced by the fact that we're selling hydro cheaper in the United States. Yet they have frozen the rates in British Columbia, ostensibly freezing those rates up higher.

A more customer-focused management of our Hydro system is needed. The government has to get serious about attracting and creating more industry through our economy, by utilizing some of the resources that we have. More emphasis has to be paid to those who create the wealth in this province. The cost of hydro is of major significance to the major industrials -- for example, Highland Valley. I happened to see Highland Valley's hydro bill for the month of February -- a short month. Most people here have no comprehension of what amount they paid. They paid $3,000,025 for a short month's hydro. Of that, they paid another $178,000 in PST. This mine would not be there today. . . . If it was founded today, it would never go, because it has low-grade copper that's been out there for years and years. But they have a high-tech performance inside it, and fortunately they are able to keep going and produce.

You can say that we don't really need this mine, although it employs over a thousand people, has brought billions into our economy over the years. It puts somewhere between $400 million and $500 million a year into the Kamloops area. It is a business out there that is competing against the rest of the world. The prices are so low that their competition viability is really very narrow. Hydro and this government could do something about it. They could have dropped their rates and given them a little bit of a break along the line in some way. But no, they don't.

As I said, they are selling power cheaper across the border. If the government doesn't see that this change towards investment and development in this province is necessary, then there's going to be no continued growth in our economy. If the industry doesn't show any continued growth, they will leave. If our industries leave because the cost of business is too high in British Columbia, where does that put all the people in the resource areas throughout this province? There'll be no jobs and no income and just nowhere to go.

[1450]

Taxes have to be looked on as the price we all have to pay in order to create wealth and jobs and higher incomes. If the price of creating wealth and jobs is high, we will get fewer of them. If we lower the price, we will enjoy more prosperity in this province. That has been proven in all the different jurisdictions throughout North America. If we take the opposite tack of raising taxes and the cost of doing business, we shall only see a continuance of job losses in this province and also the flow of capital and people out of this province to other jurisdictions. We have talked before about how many people have left this province. Those are people who produce wealth and jobs -- small businesses of maybe two or three people. They have left because they cannot cope with the cost of doing business in British Columbia. Those people will not come back.

In '91 the NDP government inherited a level of government spending that on a per-capita basis was well below the Canadian average. We now stand 7 percent higher. That this budget spending was higher than revenue shows that the NDP are totally incapable of restraining their pro-spending policies. They still believe that big government is better and big unions are better.

The Business Council just had a meeting last Friday with the Premier of this province. The Premier confirmed to the Business Council their worst fears: his government has no clear plan to kick-start or stimulate the economy. This is of great concern to the people in this province. This is the NDP's most visible failure since they were first elected in 1991 -- the failure to manage British Columbia's finances.

This Budget 2000 document, in the Finance minister's words, says: "We sought to do the best job so that the people could judge for themselves." Well, socialist philosophy does not work in British Columbia on that basis. The most visible failure of this NDP government, as I said, has been their inability to manage our finances. We are the last in job creation. We are the last in economic growth, and we are the last in private investment in Canada.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: The Minister of. . . . I don't know what he is now. He keeps flip-flopping all around across the floor. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said: "It's not true." Well, it is true; it's a fact. We know when they say that something is not true, it is not true. They are in court continually and will be continually in court.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Look at the books, my friend. Look at the books. That's where the source is.

This budget, as I said, is unable to attract capital into this province, which is essential to our recovery. B.C.'s financial position in the world is dropping rapidly. The budget is a

[ Page 14731 ]

On that premise. . . . I see that my time is up for what we agreed to. I will close by saying that I will not endorse this Budget 2000 put forward by the NDP government.

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

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: Just entering the House now are 50 grade 10 students from school district 71 in the Comox Valley. I would ask my colleagues to join me in making them welcome to this Legislature and to Victoria.

[1455]

An Hon. Member: What's your source?

Hon. G. Wilson: Stay tuned, and I'll give you sources.

What we have heard from the members opposite is consistent with what we heard last year -- and the year before and the year after. That is a large level of doom and gloom about what is wrong with this province, how bad it is and what a terrible place to invest. They are trying to tell those people who are coming to our beautiful province that this is not the appropriate place for them to put their money. The truth is that that kind of negativity, based on the kind of misinformation that is put out there, is something that is really unproductive.

The fact of the matter is that if we look at British Columbia from a number of different perspectives, we will find that British Columbia is indeed an excellent place to put one's investment. It is a place where people who are engaged now in the new economy and the developing and emerging economies are doing very well. It is true that we have historically depended on resource-extracting industries -- largely forestry, largely mining and potentially our fishing industry, albeit it was federally regulated. It is true that as a province, we have been highly dependent upon external markets for our raw material. We have been, in large measure, I believe, a province that has been far too dependent upon those markets, particularly the markets south of the border and the ones in the Asian economy.

The members opposite are not prepared to accept what every other economist in Canada and North America and indeed the world is prepared to accept, and that is that the downturn in the Asian economy has had a negative impact on our capacity to be able to maintain markets.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: I hear howls from the members opposite. Go and talk to people who are engaged in the forest industry. Talk to them about what happened when we had a decline in the Asian economy. Go talk to people who recognize and understand the complexity of the international marketplace in a very quickly changing economy.

Those members opposite should spend a little bit more time doing a little bit more research and understanding a little bit more about how the economy functions and spend a little less time listening to the forecasts of their favourite commentator on economic forecasting on BCTV.

They talk about debt. This group opposite here says we have an outrageous debt position -- our debt position is absolutely outrageous. Yet what they don't tell anybody. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, if the member for Kamloops-North Thompson could keep his voice down for one moment, he might learn something.

What they do not tell people is that if you look at the Moody's provincial credit ratings, British Columbia is second -- not ninth -- out of ten. We far outstrip Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The only reason that Alberta sits above us now is because of the oil and gas prices that they have had the luxury of having because of the massive amount of that resource. That is the fact.

An Hon. Member: And gaming.

Hon. G. Wilson: And gaming, as the Attorney General points out -- because they have generated revenues through an introduction on gaming.

What the members opposite fail to tell us is that the percentage of debt and the carrying of debt is something that is common not only to every government but to every single business that is doing business today in British Columbia. We do carry a percentage of debt.

Let's start to look at the great free-enterprise bastions that these guys over there think we really need to look at. For example, before we get into looking at debt, let's just take a look at the organization which is their primary research organ -- the one that donated large sums of money to their election campaign -- called Western Information Systems, or WIC, which is otherwise BCTV. Here they carry a long-term debt of $226 million against total assets of $694 million with net earnings of only $24 million -- ten times their debt portion to their earnings. This is the company that hires a pundit to sit on their broadcasting system and tell everybody about how bad the economy in the province is. I suggest they spend a little bit more time looking at their own corporate ledger instead of starting to espouse the issues with respect to debt -- ten times, hon. Speaker.

[1500]

It is inherently dishonest for people to stand in this House and hold up as a measure of one's ability to manage an economy this question of debt. That is what I believe the

[ Page 14732 ]

It is true that our percentage of debt to GDP has been going up -- and that's a problem that we need to address. But even measuring that -- the increase in our percentage of debt to GDP, which is the important measure, because it is the measure of taxpayer-supported debt to the engine of the economy, that is, the growth -- we are still the third most-preferred province in Canada. So even with that increase, it is true. And we have levelled.

It is interesting to note what the members opposite fail to address, and that is what the Toronto-Dominion Bank has said with respect to this budget, this economy and this province. Now, here is a relatively neutral authority. I don't think that the TD Bank is a particular supporter of or fan of NDP governments, and I doubt that they're out there championing our cause. What they talk about. . . . It says that this year British Columbia will enjoy its best economic performance since 1994 as consumer confidence improves and the export of forest products and metals increases.

The TD Bank says that the high-tech industries will power economic growth, and I can attest to that. Just this morning I was out; I met with Hydroxyl, a B.C.-based company doing water purification -- doing a tremendous amount of work. They're breaking into a whole new economy with respect to the cleaning up of water. That company has marketed B.C. technology, having now landed. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister.

The Chair would like the member for Kamloops-North Thompson to perhaps not interject so boisterously into this debate. He has had his opportunity in this debate, and I'm sure he'd like to hear what the other members have to say.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I was saying that Hydroxyl has been able to take B.C. technology and has landed a contract with JFK International Airport, something I think that British Columbians can be proud of -- certainly that the company can be proud of.

I had a chance to tour Viking Air. Here is a company that is now becoming a world leader. It is a part of the aeronautics industry, the aerospace industry, that we in British Columbia can be proud of, because we are now starting to become the leader in Canada, with respect to that industry. I met with and talked to them, and the official opposition critic was there at the lunch today. . .in talking to this industry about how we can continue to expand.

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, their mood is not doom and gloom like we see over here. Their mood is upbeat. They are proud to be in British Columbia. They are confident of their industry. They are working with this government. They are working with this government because they know that partnerships can be made that will allow that industry to occur. Not only will it be able to build, but it will be able to build with a great deal of confidence. So the members opposite, I think, need to put out a proper and clear message.

[1505]

Is building a road in Saskatchewan as expensive as it is to build a road in British Columbia? Maintaining a highway from Vancouver to Squamish -- is that the same as building a road between Regina and Saskatoon, in terms of its cost? I don't think so. Maintaining our railways to move the product from Saskatchewan to our ports and keeping those railways in place and snow-free in the wintertime -- is that as easy in British Columbia, with our highly mountainous terrain, as it is in the prairie provinces? I don't think so. Moving our people, who tend to be largely concentrated in the urban south, to the large and resource-rich interior and the north -- is that as easy and as cheap to maintain as it is in Saskatchewan? I don't think so.

Anybody with a rational view as to what the long-term operational capital costs in this province will be knows that we live in a highly mountainous, highly expensive place to do business, to transport goods, services and people, and that those costs have to be maintained. So the comparisons are completely specious. Yet those members opposite would have British Columbians believe that somehow you can look at those two ledgers and you've got comparable data that has any meaning whatsoever. It does not.

It is important to note what some of the members opposite have said that they wouldn't do -- because I've been keeping a list. They wouldn't build the Island Highway. That's the first thing they've said -- that that was a mistake. We shouldn't have done that. This dates back to when I sat on the executive of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, when the Socreds were in power -- that is, their pals, the people who will be running for them in the next election. We couldn't get any movement with respect to the development of the Island Highway for those people who lived in the north of Vancouver Island. Today that highway is virtually complete. The members opposite said they wouldn't do that.

The members opposite said that with our unexpected revenues, we should not have paid down the B.C. Rail debt. The question is: if we had not paid down the B.C. Rail debt. . . . The members opposite say that we should have let that company flounder, particularly in light of the declining coal prices in the Peace. What would that have meant to the residents of the Peace, Prince George and areas of the north? It would have meant that those people would have suffered, and these members opposite would have said: "That's okay."

The members opposite have said that we should not have paid down the B.C. Ferry debt -- the great whipping post they like to whip the government around because of the B.C. Ferry debt. Repositioning that corporation and putting that corporation into a sound fiscal framework was essential for

[ Page 14733 ]

The question is: what would they have done? They would not have done anything along the lines I've just mentioned, yet they fail to tell us what their alternative is. They would not have built hospitals; they would not have reduced class size in schools; they would not have removed portables. They would not have done half of what we have set out in our capital expenditure program.

Hon. Speaker, those are the real choices, when you talk about making choices. Should we have done this capital expansion? Should we have not? Is it worthwhile for the children in our schools to have a smaller class size or not? The members opposite would say: "It is not. It is suitable for them to be going to school in facilities that are inadequate." Yet we have moved to make sure that we construct and put schools on a good, sound fiscal footing.

Hon. Speaker, you can start to see where the real differences are between the members opposite and the members on this side of the House. When we look at the financial situation in British Columbia, we are not doom and gloom. We recognize that we do have some serious financial challenges. because as I said earlier on in my remarks, we have been highly dependent upon a resource extractive and export economy up until now.

[1510]

We also know that we have to move away from the high degree of intensity on resource-based economies, to make sure that we take advantage of the new high-tech industries. The high-tech industries are here; they are building here; they are developing. I talked earlier on about Hydroxyl. I talked about the aerospace industry. Film and television production is expanding in British Columbia. We have now, within this budget, allowed that expansion to go beyond the lower mainland into the communities of British Columbia, so we can have film commissions properly funded and properly in place in other communities outside the lower mainland that can start to take advantage of this.

We have also developed what we call a green economy initiative, a fund that will help us creating an industry that deals with some of the difficulties we have within our environment today. The largest single economic growth sector will be in cleaning our water, managing our air and rebuilding our soils so that all of us can drink the water, till the soil and breathe the air. We have not been good -- not just this province, not just this nation. . . . We know what the greenhouse effect is. We know what the Kyoto accord says. We understand what global warming is. We understand the urgency with which the new economy must be put in place, and which must be injected.

We are moving ahead on that front, and Globe 2000, which we had in Vancouver. . . . I didn't see many of the members opposite attend -- probably because they weren't tuned in. They weren't up to speed. But if they had gone to Globe 2000, if they had walked around Globe 2000, if they had talked to the B.C. industry people there, if they had talked to the international sector who came to visit here -- the delegations from all over the world that came here just a couple of weeks ago to sit down and see what is going on in this new technology to expand and develop technologies that will help improve our environment -- they would have been astounded.

Not only would they have been astounded, they would change their tune, because people around the world see this province now as a world leader in water reclamation, in solid waste management and in liquid waste management. They see us as world leaders now becoming involved in new energy production through new measures for cogeneration of electrical power. They see that British Columbia is moving toward being on the cutting edge.

That's nothing to be doom and gloom about; that's something to get excited about. That's something to be able to go out and sell about our province, because it tells us that this province and the technology and the people who build the technology in this province can be world leaders. We should be proud of them, we should help them, and we should make them feel as though this province supports their endeavours.

It is true that we have to make some measures with respect to the issues on taxation. I've heard a lot about that from the members opposite. There are those out there who believe that the panacea is simply to get rid of every tax there is, and somehow we're going to be able to make it all work. Having spent a brief period of time as Minister of Finance, I can tell you that it becomes enormously difficult when you have to recognize that we want to have the finest health care system in the world, accessible to all people in a universal manner, and that the rising costs of that health care put a huge demand on the tax burden for the people of British Columbia. That's largely because where the federal government had previously given us 50 cents on the dollar, they're giving us about 15 cents today. We are carrying a much larger burden of the cost, and I think the federal Health minister, and indeed the Prime Minister, needs to be accountable for that.

But having said that, recognizing that education is important and that we need to commit expenditures to that, we have to understand what the true balance, the proper balance with respect to tax and tax reform. That is why I have long advocated that we move to get rid of the machinery and equipment tax. Anybody who has followed my comments will know that's true. We didn't go all the way, but I'm certainly pleased that we've gone a partial portion of the way with the three-point reduction because of the investment credit. I believe we can go further, and I believe we can move to the point where machinery and equipment tax can be eliminated. I'll continue to work with my colleagues to see how we can make that possible.

[ Page 14734 ]

[1515]

I think we can see that when we start to look at where we are going in the economy of British Columbia, when we start to understand exactly what this province has to offer, we recognize that notwithstanding the constantly negative doom and gloom from the members opposite over there, an informed and intelligent review of the budget provisions now show that we have taken some measures -- perhaps not enough to satisfy you all -- to move the economy in a positive and new direction. We are undertaking a number of initiatives that are going to provide us the opportunity to see our economy expand in a number of different ways.

Yet in the speeches that I've listened to -- and I've tried to listen to as many as I can -- I've failed to hear any recognition whatsoever of the fact that for the first time we are starting to take a serious look at the reduction of taxes, and we are taking a serious review with respect to what our expenditure lines should be.

Hon. Speaker, in the time that I have remaining, I want to address a couple of very specific points that were raised by members opposite. I think that it's time for us to put some comment on the record for those who may, for whatever reason, look back on this period of time and try to sort out what the thinking was that led to certain issues. It is interesting for me, because the members opposite frequently try to treat very difficult, very complex and very serious issues in almost a veneer-thin way. It does a disservice to the members of the public, because the members of the public don't fully understand exactly what that's all about. I think that it is time for us to put into perspective this issue around the B.C. Ferry question -- the so-called fast ferry fiasco. I want to put it into context, because I think I speak from a somewhat unique position, in the sense that I was at one time sitting on the opposition benches and now have come to the government benches. I had a chance as the minister responsible for the workings of B.C. Ferry Corporation to take a look at how we could address some of the questions and try to fix what isn't right.

I think we need to look at this -- and the public has to understand this -- as two separate issues. The first is whether or not the design and implementation of the fast cat ferry was a suitable vessel for the B.C. Ferry Corporation on the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay run. I think there were many, myself included, who believed that it was not the right design or the right vessel. We have seen over the course of some time that, in fact, that is true.

The second aspect is whether or not we should have put money toward the construction of the ferries at all. It deals with a much broader, much larger issue, one that is near and dear to my heart and one that causes me great lament. We are a maritime province. We are one of the richest maritime provinces in this country. We have a coastline that is rich in resources -- or was -- which is the home of many, many British Columbians. And yet we have a shipbuilding industry, that has completely fallen into decay. We have a shipbuilding industry that, until this project came forward, was close to being nonexistent.

With the exception of a few small contracts, British Columbia was not seen as a maritime province with shipbuilding potential, and to me that is wrong. It is wrong because the federal government systematically removed its commitment to the shipbuilding industry here and moved it to Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario. Proof of that is in the requisitioning, purchasing and construction of their coastal patrol vessels -- made out of aluminum, highly sophisticated patrol vessels that were all built outside of British Columbia. In fact, since the Polar 8 fiasco, not one single major federal shipbuilding contract has come to this province. That is a travesty, because we are a maritime province.

[1520]

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member for Okanagan East -- who's got as much knowledge of shipbuilding as he does about flying a rocket to the moon -- tells us that it was a failure. Does he know more than an independent review called by JJMA, some of the finest naval architects who are in fact the people who advised the American navy on architectural design? Does he know more than JJMA, who turns around and says that these are in fact fine vessels? Having acknowledged that it was the wrong vessel for the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay run, having acknowledged that perhaps B.C. Ferries does not need that vessel in its fleet -- or if they do, they need to place it elsewhere -- do the members opposite know more than the naval architects of the world who say that this ship is in fact well designed and well constructed?

Do the members opposite believe that the 111 B.C.-based businesses that worked on that vessel should not have had that work? Do they believe that the development of the new radar, GPS and sonar technologies that emerged as a result of the Marconi contracts shouldn't have been done? Do they have any concept whatsoever about the suppliers and the new technology that has been developed right here in British Columbia, in terms of marine technology on that project, which is now being marketed all over the world? They don't have any concept of that.

Do they have any concept at all of the 700 jobs that went into that project, the $65 million in direct wages that went

[ Page 14735 ]

This is a maritime province, and yet they are ignorant of the fact -- or choose not to reveal the fact -- that every other country in the world that has a viable shipbuilding industry subsidizes that industry through public funds -- every single one, and two to three times what we subsidized with respect to that vessel. Hon. Speaker, you know what? The very members who were in power. . . . Oh, excuse me. They weren't in power, but they will be, because the same guys that were in here before 1991 are running again on these benches over here. . . . The member for Kamloops-North Thompson is thumping his desk, because he wants to see the Bud Smiths of this world return to this House.

Let me tell you. . . . What did they build? What did that gang over there build? They built the S-class ferry. What was the cost of that? Maybe the member for Okanagan East can tell me: how much did the S-class ferry, the superferry, cost?

D. Symons: One hundred and fifty million dollars.

Hon. G. Wilson: One hundred and fifty million dollars, says the member for Richmond Centre.

An Hon. Member: And it works.

Hon. G. Wilson: And it works, he says. Do you know what the operating costs are, hon. member?

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. G. Wilson: They don't. Do they know how much those S-class ferries lose every month? No, they don't.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the member for Richmond Centre might, and he'll tell us what they are. The point is: anybody who has sat down and reviewed that will know that when you are running a maritime system like the B.C. Ferry Corporation -- which for all its warts and all its problems, is still is one of the best public marine transport systems in the world, with some of the lowest rates of any marine transport system in the world. . . . I have been one of its biggest critics. I remain a critic when I see waste. I remain a critic when I see that there are problems in the maintenance side. I remain a critic when I start to scratch my head to understand why they do some of the things they do. As minister, I sought to fix that. I'm proud about the fact that we have now, with the board in place, moved to do that.

This is a solid budget; it's a good budget. It's one the members opposite should start to look to the facts on. . .

[1525]

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .instead of making up all kinds of specious comments and being so negative about the province within which we live.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, it's my first real opportunity to congratulate you on your new post as Speaker, and I'd like to take a moment to do that. I wish you well. I have equated it to you sort of being in front of a classroom. Good luck to you in keeping all of us in line.

I rise to talk about the budget and to express my opinion on that budget not only to the House but to my constituency. First, I believe the budget is about balance and the need to provide services to people, balanced off against the need to cut taxes so that the economy is stimulated -- in particular, the domestic economy. It on the record that the export market from British Columbia has improved steadily over the last period of time. What we really need to focus on to get our world bubbling, as well as some of the other areas in the country, is our domestic economy -- thus the need to do some tax cutting so that middle- and low-income people can take that money out of their pockets and put it into the local economy.

The budget is also about balance -- balance in terms of being open and transparent with the budget-making process -- and about embracing virtually all of the recommendations in the final report of the budget process review panel, which was struck to review the recommendations of the auditor general when he commented on the budget-building process.

The moves we've made around the budget-building process and around the Enns report do set a high bar for all of us not only on this side of the House but for the House in general. That kind of bar has never been here before in terms of budget-building process. It was not here in the seventies or the eighties, and it has not been here in the nineties. It is indeed a new way of approaching the budget-building process, and it should hold us in good stead in the House.

Let me just quickly describe it, because I think it's worth repeating. There will be an all-party committee struck, and that committee will have access to the latest information on the economic and financial performance of the province -- not only the province itself in terms of its activities within the provincial government but the performance of the industries and business within the province. They will then go out and consult with all British Columbians on how the people in B.C. see their budget should be built. Ordinary people from communities, subdivisions, villages and towns will have the same opportunity to have input into the budget as do people from the business community -- both small business and big business -- as well as labour and other governments throughout British Columbia.

The process of consultation will be wide-open and broad in its base. That report from the consultation will be tabled by December 31, and that information will then be used to build the official budget. There will be a fixed budget deadline and a reduced emphasis on special warrants.

[1530]

[ Page 14736 ]

Alberta has had the luxury of being the recipient of booming oil and gas prices, and that's good -- good on them. In fact, some of that has spilled over into the northeast sector of our province, and we have received some of that benefit. But the other place that Alberta has had revenues that we do not have is their commitment and expansion in gambling. They are way out in front of us. Our province, and rightly so, has said no to any expansion of gambling. I respect that position, and I support it. Unlike Alberta, we do not rely on gambling in the same way.

There are two other places that we need to put on the record when we talk about Alberta. Not only do they have increased revenue in a few areas that we don't have, but they have also cut spending in ways that I don't think are acceptable to either us on this side or to the members opposite. In Alberta they no longer have kindergarten. In fact, they balanced their budget on the children in their province. There is no kindergarten unless you pay for it, as opposed to. . . . In this province we have paid for kindergarten for many, many years. Prior to this government's coming to power, in fact, we paid for kindergarten as a principle of believing in our young people and understanding that the strength of our young people is in a good, solid education at an early age. To hold up Alberta as something that is a model denies that reality. They are actually balancing their budget on the backs of the youngest in their province.

The other place where Alberta has done that we have not done. . . . I assume the members opposite would not want us to do it, because I'm sure they would be out on the steps of any hospital for any cutbacks in health care. That is the second place that Alberta has made such significant cuts.

Anyway, I do want to talk about this budget a little bit from the perspective of Surrey, because that is my home. It is my home municipality and a place that I'm very proud to come from. This budget is a good budget for Surrey. The government has recognized the potential of Surrey as an important urban centre in Canada. For those of you who do not know Surrey, the tip up by the Pattullo Bridge is in quite a unique position in terms of the rest of the province and, also, in its position by the city of Vancouver and by the States in the south.

Through this budget Surrey has made gains in education, health care and the high-tech area. Taxpayers in Surrey will also see more money in their pockets at the end of the day, in addition to more services and growth.

This government recognizes the importance of a well-educated and dynamic workforce. We have made the commitment to young people by cutting class size, understanding clearly that if you're going to develop a strong and well-educated workforce, you're going to do it by front-end loading, by making sure you have a kindergarten system where there's a reduced number of children in the kindergarten system and taking that principle right through to grade 3 so that you give our children a strong, strong foundation. I mention this because in Surrey we have more kids per capita than any other municipality or city in the province. Education is critical to the people of Surrey and to the families that send their kids out to the many, many schools that exist and have been built.

[1535]

There will be 800 new high-tech spaces. Many of those will be found at B.C.'s new high-tech university, Tech B.C., which is found in the northern city centre of Surrey. Tech B.C. is an example of the government's commitment not only to post-secondary education but also to the high-tech industry in general. There is a delightful combination of energy in that new university not only through ICBC but through the city of Surrey giving support and through the Ministry of Advanced Education. It is good when three levels of government -- or two levels of government plus a Crown corporation -- get together and provide some synergy and energy to an area to get some energy going, so that this city centre is focused and responds to the high-tech industry in B.C.

I want to spend a minute on K-to-12, which is of course education from kindergarten to grade 12 and a place near and dear to my heart. The government has recognized again the importance of our education system and has increased the spending in K-to-12 by $55 million. There will be 300 new teachers to effect the reduced class size that I mentioned earlier. Surrey schools will benefit from that. We have many new schools in Surrey, and all of those with those early grades will benefit from the increase in teachers.

There will be $445 million for new schools, additions and expansions. Four new or expanded schools to open this fall in Surrey are the new Fraser Heights Secondary School, a new Clayton elementary, a new Clayton Heights high school and an expanded Princess Margaret Secondary School. All of these are work that has been done from previous budgets but indicate how important it is that Surrey receive some of the funding for new schools, renovations or additions.

[1540]

[ Page 14737 ]

There will be $300 million for upgrading health care facilities. We in Surrey are in the process of completion of an addition to Surrey Memorial Hospital. There will be 600 new nurses sought, and Surrey will benefit. Again, we are expanding in that area due to our population growth.

Surrey will also benefit in the sense that there will be 400 new spaces for nursing programs in B.C. Kwantlen University College provides, and will be providing, the courses to move our young students into the career of nursing, which is greatly needed right now throughout B.C. as well as throughout Canada and in other countries. There will be $8 million added to the budget to reduce hospital wait-lists.

So not only have we heard what the people in Surrey, as well as people in British Columbia, need in the way of services -- and they do tell us constantly that they do not want their services cut in health care or education -- the government has also listened to British Columbians' call for tax cuts. And we are committed to providing this relief. Economic momentum is built not only through private and public capital projects but also by targeted tax cuts which allow working families to put their money back into the local economy. Derek Burleton, senior economist with the TD Bank, noted last week on CKNW that we have seen compelling evidence that B.C.'s economy has been recovering since the early part of the last year. And over the past four to five months, we have seen B.C. consumers jump on the bandwagon. Retail sales have been rising, and job markets have been improving. We do see B.C. consumers feeling better about things.

I repeat: B.C. consumers are feeling better about things. The economy is moving, and we are seeing greater confidence. So by delivering tax cuts to the middle- and low-income earners, this government is committed to assisting British Columbians get into the economic driver's seat.

The federal -- I was going to say "fat cat" -- tax cut will be delivered in full to British Columbians, changing to a made-in-B.C. tax policy where taxes are calculated on income, not on a federal tax, so that we can deliver tax cuts to the middle class and the low-income earners who need it the most. A family making $60,000 a year will see their provincial tax bill drop by 9 percent. Those are the people living in Surrey. A single-income family making $45,000 a year will see their provincial income tax drop by 9.9 percent, and 100,000 more low-income earners will not pay any B.C. income tax at all. That is over 8,000 households in my city.

[1545]

The small business tax rate is reduced to 4.75 percent, and that is the lowest in Canada. I would think everyone would be pleased with that -- not only this side of the House but that the opposite side would be pleased to know that the small businesses are getting that kind of break.

There is a high-tech R and D tax credit, a high-tech commission established to promote high-tech in B.C. and the reduction of taxes on high-tech entrepreneurs and workers by $33 million. Working with Tech B.C. and related industries, when combined with the above, will create a burgeoning high-tech centre in the downtown heart of Surrey city centre.

Mr. Speaker, this government is investing in British Columbia. We are working with the people of this province to enhance our lives. Tax cuts, infrastructure investment, increased access to quality education and health services and job creation are what Surrey will see. This government is investing in the future of our province and in the future of British Columbia.

D. Symons: Before I begin the actual response to the budget, I would like to make a comment that it's been interesting listening to the members opposite. The government members basically, in a sense, rewrite history a little bit. We had an example a moment ago talking about gambling in British Columbia in comparison to Alberta. It's not because of a philosophy of this government that we weren't into more gambling. It's more the will of the people and the courts that stopped this government from expanding gambling into Vancouver. In the stealth of night they brought slot machines into the city and imposed them there, and it was only through the courts that they managed to move those out. It's interesting listening to history being rewritten to a certain extent.

Use of the words in the throne speech did, as well -- use of the words "reflects a new direction" and "a modern direction." As I look through this budget address and the comments in there and the spending that they do, I see nothing new. I've stood in this House nine years now and watched nine different budgets come in from this particular government. There is absolutely nothing new -- nothing different -- about this budget than the nine budgets that preceded it. It looks exactly the same as the tired, old NDP promises and practices of tax and spend, over and over again.

Even with a $1.1 billion increase in revenues this year, this government is projecting a deficit of $1.2 billion. Now, that's not just a difference of $100 million; that's a difference of $2 billion, because it's $1.1 billion extra that they had. They're losing -- going in debt -- another $1.1 billion, so there's a $2.1 billion or $2.2 billion difference between what they are receiving and what they spend. That, I think, typifies the problem with this particular government: they spend more than they get. They continue to do it in this budget as they did last year. Last year they spent $2 billion more than they received.

The other thing I notice very much in this budget is that there's no real plan for fiscal responsibility. In the past they've had some plans that they've produced. They've never lived up to them, mind you, but at least they supposedly had a plan. They've even thrown out the possibility of giving us a plan so that we can have something to measure their fiscal responsibility against. It's not here -- not in this budget.

What's new? Well, that's the question I had to keep asking myself as I went through this budget address. What's new? Last year the budget predicted a deficit of $890 million for this fiscal year that just ended. Being the cynic that I am, I listened to the Finance minister stand in this House last year. . . . She acknowledged me there; thank you. I listened to her say that they were going to have an $890 million deficit that year. I thought to myself, being the cynic that I am, that I suspect what they're doing. . . . We're getting closer to an election. They're kiting up the deficit they're going to have,

[ Page 14738 ]

[1550]

Before I continue, I think that what we should do. . . . Before we go into too much of the budget itself -- which I'll get to shortly -- maybe we should take a look at some of the fiscal history of this particular government, which began in '92 with their first budget and continued in '93. In each of those two years, their Finance minister of the day brought in budgets somewhere in the $700 million-to-$800 million deficit rates. More than that. . . . I'm sorry, I was going to say that they raised taxes by that much in each of those years. They raised taxes by $800 million one year and $700 million the other. In other words, they added $1.5 billion in new taxes in their first two years in office. Every year since 1992, all of the people in British Columbia have been paying $1.5 billion more in new taxes imposed by this government. When they now say, "Hey, we're reducing taxes. Look, we've reduced income tax by a half a percentage point" -- the provincial part of that -- they say: "We should really be given accolades for doing that." Who was it that put the taxes up? Who was it that put the small business tax up so they can now claim they've reduced the small business tax? The same government. I'm not too sure that we see very much difference between then and now.

In spite of this dramatic increase in the revenues that this government received in those first few years and continues to receive because they continue to increase revenues every year, they still ran deficits every year. Every year the province went more and more into debt -- usually somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $1 billion. They usually spent $1 billion more than they brought in, in revenues. That's not including the costs they basically off-loaded to the Crown corporations -- the way they hid some of their debt and shovelled if off to the Crown corporations so we wouldn't see it.

In 1991 the total provincial debt was $17.3 billion. After nine years of NDP fiscal mismanagement, it now stands at $34.2 billion -- doubled. That's as of the end of the last fiscal year, which ended March 31. This budget now says we're going to be $36.5 billion in debt at the end of this fiscal year. They're basically predicting another $2 billion increase in the provincial debt this year. It's really reassuring to the public out there to know that our new government is going in a modern direction -- more debt.

It's also interesting to look at how one of the supposed priorities of this government is education. The yearly interest paid on the debt by this province is fully half of the budget of the Education ministry -- for education in the province. We pay out in interest to banks and moneylenders half of the amount of money that we spend on education. There's a priority for you.

That's the old NDP tax-and-spend government. It's now the new NDP that still believes that deficits and debt are just part of the tax-and-spend policy -- leave the debt as a heritage for our children. This is the NDP's way of thinking. What's new? As I look across at the government benches, it's really the same faces. All but eight of those people sat on the government side for nine years, as I have sat on this side for nine years. All of those people failed in their fiscal responsibility to the province and participated in fiscal folly. There are only a few sitting across there who haven't sat at the cabinet table at some time over that nine-year period.

[1555]

Eight of the current ministers were in cabinet in 1996 when the fudge-it budget was tabled. Two of them -- the Premier and the member who just spoke a moment ago -- sat on Treasury Board when it was approved. Seven of the current ministers sat on Treasury Board between 1994 and 1997, when capital plans and spending approvals were granted for the fast ferry fiasco. As Attorney General, the now Premier promised there would be no major casinos in British Columbia. Sixteen of the current ministers sat in cabinet and broke that promise as the NDP government imposed expanded gambling on British Columbians between 1996 and 1999. So I really have to ask: what's new? It's the same old gang that we have across there now as we had then. Now they're trying to distance themselves as much as they can and reinvent themselves by calling themselves a new government. What hypocrisy!

I attended a luncheon today for the Aerospace Industry Association of British Columbia. The newly minted Minister of Employment and Investment was the speaker at that particular function. I was quite surprised, actually. Here's a minister of the Crown, sitting on the NDP side -- only recently crossed to that side of the floor, mind you -- and what was he doing? In his opening remarks, he was distancing himself from the policies of this government. He said: "We shouldn't have the machinery tax. I've been trying to convince my cabinet colleagues, you know, that they should do away with that machinery tax. And the corporate capital tax -- that's wrong." He went on and talked about all the things that this was government is doing that are wrong, and he's now participating in it with them. It's most interesting to hear him making those comments.

During question period, people asked about the aviation tax imposed by this government back in 1992. He didn't seem to know about that aviation tax -- didn't know it had been reduced somewhat but not taken off entirely. When it came to those questions, he didn't quite understand what was going

[ Page 14739 ]

This particular government were all willing participants and accomplices in the past actions of this NDP government. They're the ones responsible for the 100 percent increase in the provincial debt over the past nine years. Do you know that the debt is costing the taxpayers of this province $1.5 million per day?

Interjection.

D. Symons: I'll repeat that in case you missed it. The debt servicing charges in this province are costing the people of the province $1.5 million per day. That is $1.5 million that is not going into health care, not going into education, not going to provide services to people in British Columbia. It is simply putting money into the moneylenders' hands.

An Hon. Member: How much is it in Ontario?

D. Symons: The member across there asked: "How much is it in Ontario?" I'll tell the member opposite that I don't know, and basically I don't care, because I live in British Columbia. It's the British Columbians that are missing that money on the services we're providing in British Columbia because of this particular government doubling the debt in the province in the last nine years.

For this government to now be promoting itself as a new government is sort of like a wolf putting on sheep's clothing, pulling this thing over him and saying: "Baaah, I'm one of you now." Well, you know, it's the same effect. The wolf is still the wolf. The NDP is still that old NDP we had years ago. I remember that when the NDP were in opposition, before they were elected and began their disastrous reign of fiscal incompetence, their critic boasted that it's not difficult to balance a budget. "It's easy to do," he said. That's before he became Finance minister and ran up the two largest deficits this province has ever had.

[1600]

I will help them, hon. Speaker. There's a simple rule that must be followed if you want to balance a budget -- a very simple rule: don't let your spending exceed your revenues. When you do that, you've balanced your budget. It's not easy to do, and I'll admit that. It's not easy to do, but you have to work at it. I don't think this government has made any attempt in that direction. They talk a good line. But if you listen to some of their 1991 election promises, you'll find out that a lot of it is indeed talk.

Let's go back to the 1991 election. That's the election where the. . . . By the way, for anybody who's forgotten, that's the sad day that British Columbia basically elected an NDP government, because they were so anxious to get rid of the Socred government before them. What did we hear in something called "A Better Way for British Columbia"? That was the New Democrat fiscal framework in their election campaign in 1991. It says: "New Democrats will not commit British Columbia to increased government debt simply to suit the short-term political needs of the election." Well, they sure broke that promise.

"One promise I have made" -- and this was the person running to be Premier of the province -- "is that my government will pursue these priorities within a balanced budget over the business cycle." Well, the business cycle is four to five years. They're in nine years, and they haven't done it yet. "I have told labour and business alike that we must govern within the fiscal means of British Columbia. We have B.C.'s spending priorities right," they said back then. Well, they don't seem to have it right even yet, let alone then. I can remember that man holding up his credit card on television -- you may remember, hon. Speaker -- and saying: "We won't spend what we don't have." They spent, for nine years, a heck of a lot more than they didn't have. But those were the promises the government ran on.

What is the government doing now? Basically now they end up saying: "We're not that old government then. The faces are the same, mind you; the bodies are the same. But we're not that government. We're a new government, and we have a new direction." Indeed, the new direction is more debt. What we really have is that this government isn't new, isn't different. It's following the same old political agenda and fiscal mismanagement that it had before. They promised a new approach back then, and they didn't do it.

In 1996 -- the same thing. Just prior to the election then, they had a new leader. We have a new leader now too, don't we? They had a new approach. They said in 1996, pre-election: "We have two balanced budgets." Those budgets never materialized either. As a matter of fact, that's going to be before the courts later this month. So we find that the promises then weren't fulfilled.

We are now leading up to the next election. Isn't it a coincidence? This government seems to find out what's wrong, and they speak wonderful lines just the year before an election. We're leading up to the next election, but it's the same gang again promising to be new with a modern direction. Would you believe them, hon. Speaker? They said that in '91, they said it in '96, and they're now saying it in the year 2000. But it's the same promises by the same gang, who have obviously shown in this budget that they're following the same track. This budget puts a lie to that claim, because nothing has changed. They played musical chairs across the way, with the cabinet responsibilities, but it's the same tune that they're playing -- more spending than revenues and more debt.

In the budget presentation the minister said: "British Columbians have told me they do not want reckless promises that are impossible to achieve. Instead, they want a balanced approach to maintaining services, cut taxes and control the deficit." I emphasize "cut taxes and control the deficit," because those are terms used in this Budget 2000 statement that they put out. I'm just wondering, when there's a $1 billion increase in revenues, as this budget predicts, and there's still a $1.2 billion deficit -- that means over $2 billion more in spending -- how that means all of that. This is hardly, in my mind, controlling the deficit that they spoke of in this particular document. We see again, as I've said many times so far this afternoon, that it's the same old government with the same policies, and their own words would prove that. This new government just looks like the old one, and it's really not concerned about either debt or deficits.

[ Page 14740 ]

[1605]

Not only have they been spending what they have, but they don't even have a viable plan for paying the debt that they have created. It will be our children and their children who will be left with debt as an NDP legacy. To evaluate the credibility of this government's 2000 fiscal planning framework, we have to look at the performance on other plans that they've had over the years. We find out that in 1995, this government introduced in their budget address something they called the debt management plan. It promised to deliver budget surpluses that year and the following year, and we all know what happened in those two years. They had a deficit both years, now referred to as the fudge-it budgets that they had at that time.

In 1996 they actually had a modified debt management plan. In 1997 they threw that out because it was rather obvious that they wouldn't be able to keep their debt management plan at all. They brought in a fiscal management plan -- notice the word "debt" disappeared -- and this plan also promised to balance the budget in '97-98. Well, those years have passed, and we haven't seen a balanced budget yet. They were going to reduce the taxpayer-supported debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio to 15 percent by the year 2015, and it's only been going up and up and up ever since.

In 1998 they realized: "Heck, after one year of our fiscal management plan we're in trouble." They had a modified fiscal management plan, and basically it moved the time for balancing that deficit off a little bit. They now were going to have a balanced budget in the year 1999-2000 -- the fiscal year that just ended. Well, I told you earlier that we had a deficit of about $1.2 billion for that fiscal year, so they didn't reach that one either.

They were going to limit the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to a target of between 19 and 22 percent. Notice that just the year before it was going to be 15 percent, and it's now limited to 19 to 22 percent. The next year they threw that plan out, because that obviously wasn't working; after one year they found out their five-year plans fell apart. So in 1999 they had a five-year fiscal planning framework -- notice the words "deficit" and "debt" don't appear in there anywhere -- and they were going to balance the budget in the year 2002-2003 and limit the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to the target range of 22 to 27 percent. That target keeps moving upwards and upwards, doesn't it, hon. Speaker? This is the sort of fiscal planning -- fiscal mismanagement -- that this government has to reinvent each year it brings in a new budget.

I think we have now had four NDP Premiers over the past nine years. Two of them were chased out of office, one of them was a temporary Premier, and now we have a "new" Premier, but not one new idea -- the same philosophy, the same practices and the same rhetoric coming from them year after year. As an example of this government's fiscal acumen and responsibility, I would refer to the fast ferry project. We had the minister who was responsible for that project a little while ago stand up and give quite stirring support of that particular program. But for four years I have been trying to get an accurate cost of this project. I have been asking the government for a business plan. I have been challenging the figures they have been telling us on the cost of it. On one occasion in 1998 the minister responsible -- who's still a minister of the Crown, by the way -- in response to my persistent questioning on the costs, said something to the effect of: "You're just chasing numbers around on a page."

[1610]

Too many of this government's cabinet have that attitude, and it is totally irresponsible of those members over there not to look at the costs of the programs and the policies that they're implementing. To put the costs in perspective with the spending and the revenues and the ability of the taxpayer to pay. . . .

Remember earlier, when I read from the budget paper about a balanced-budget approach to maintaining services, cutting taxes and controlling the budget? Well, further to that, here's another quote from their own budget: "The new government" -- the word "new" comes in again -- "has listened. This budget takes the balanced approach most British Columbians want." Well, I very much doubt that. "It addresses the needs of today's families" -- partially. "It recognizes that meeting the needs of people for tax cuts and a high quality of life also meets the needs of today's economy. And it gives British Columbians the whole picture." Well, we see some of that whole picture in the budget figures here. We haven't found out everything yet, and we will still be asking for figures on the actual costs of some of the accords that this government has signed over the years, which still elude us because the government isn't willing to let those out yet. But of the $1.1 billion in new revenues this year -- remember, a moment ago they talked about tax cuts -- 4 percent is going to tax cuts; 96 percent is going to new spending. So when they talk about tax cuts. . . . And that's only 4 percent of the new money they've got in their budget for this year, the $1.1 billion in new revenues for this fiscal year. Four percent of that small amount is going to tax cuts; 96 percent is going to new spending.

Much of it's used up, of course, in the increased labour and benefits costs. A small amount of it actually gets down to improving services to the people of British Columbia. It's not very much of a new, modern direction. Maybe we should consider the words over the past year of some of these now new and modern-direction government members, because they have been in government -- a good number of them -- for nine years. I think we have to really take a look at what they've said. The Finance minister, back in 1995, leading up to those fudge-it budgets, said: "Our first three budgets met these challenges." They were talking about that earlier. "We have put British Columbia's financial house in order." That's what they said in '95. Well, that wasn't quite true.

[ Page 14741 ]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Back in '96 the member for Saanich South made a comment in the House: "We will be responding to people's concerns with concrete measures to reduce government spending and debt." They have yet to produce on that particular statement. That member in 1997 said: "This budget cuts the deficit by more than half of what it was last year." Now, remember that in '97, he's talking about cutting the deficit by more than half of the year before, when they said it was a balanced budget. How you can cut the deficit in half from a balanced budget I'm not quite sure, but he did that neat transition in the intervening year: "As outlined in the financial management plan I'm releasing today, this places us in a position to put the budget in balance next year and to achieve a significant surplus in the year that follows." Remember, that statement was made in 1997.

[1615]

In 1998 the member for New Westminster said: "I'm convinced that we're doing the right thing in this budget." Remember, these are the people that claim they're new. In 1998 also, the member for North Coast indicated: "We need to make some changes, and I think the budget that we've delivered has sent a very, very strong signal to the investment community that we are taking the kinds of necessary steps to try to create the climate that we think is important for the long-term prosperity of this province." The member for Burnaby North said that this is a budget that "shows a new way of doing business." There's that word "new" again, back in 1998. We're in the year 2000; they're using the same phrases, trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. The member for Prince George-Mount Robson said: ". . .I think it's a very good budget. It may not be balanced, but it has a balanced approach to it." I love that -- a balanced approach to this budget. You know, it's not balanced, but it has a balanced approach. That's 1998, mind you.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

The member for Vancouver-Burrard said: "It's a comprehensive plan; a thorough plan; a dynamic, action-oriented plan; a plan for today and a plan for our future." They've obviously chucked that plan, because that member is now part of the government over here that says: "We're new; we've got a new direction." It sounds much the same as the direction they had in '98, doesn't it?

The member for Port Coquitlam said that the result of this $95 million deficit, one-half of 1 percent of total provincial spending, is "virtually a balanced budget." There's virtual reality over there, I would say, in that comment. In 1998 we also had the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, who spoke earlier, say: "I predict that over the next few years you will see two or three new aluminum plants in British Columbia employing workers." Do you remember those aluminum plants, hon. Speaker?

Unfortunately, I see. . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

D. Symons: . . .that my time is up, and I was just warming up to the topic. But I do thank you for the opportunity to make my comments on this budget.

S. Hawkins: I welcome the opportunity to rise and get involved in the debate on Budget 2000. Just in case anyone's wondering, let me end the suspense. I will not be supporting this budget. I'll tell you why I can't and won't support this budget: it's just more of the same. It's the ninth consecutive deficit budget of the NDP. That's nothing new; they've posted a deficit ever since they got into power. They've never been able to balance a budget. It's more spending, it's more debt and it's more deficit -- more of the same. I didn't support it last year.

We expected the government to make some changes. They had a chance to make some real changes, and they chose to go down the same path that they have the last eight years. That's to put B.C. deeper in debt -- and more trouble for workers and taxpayers in the province. The budget does nothing to stimulate private sector job creation; it does absolutely nothing for investor confidence or confidence in our economy. It adds another $3 billion in taxpayer-supported debt and another $300 million a year in higher interest costs.

They do boast about a personal income tax cut for British Columbians. I must say it's a little phony, bragging about it. It equals around $22.63 when all is said and done. Frankly, it basically is just a follow-through of the federal dollars that were announced for tax cuts in the recent federal budget. I believe that in the federal budget, there was about $150 million that would have come to B.C. anyway, thanks to that budget. The Finance minister recycled that and added about another $43 million. When you average it out, it does come to almost $23. I mean, let's not spend it all in one place. We do know that last week during the CUPE strike, parents spent a heck of a lot more on child care, and they blew that little tax cut that the NDP were bragging about.

[1620]

Ten years ago B.C. was number one in Canada. Ten years ago we had the highest credit rating of any province. We had the lowest debt service costs, we had the smallest debt relative to our size, and we had the fastest-growing economy. We had a vibrant economy. The forest industry was booming, the mining industry was booming, and the housing. . . . We were doing really well. People were enjoying living in B.C. We had all the ingredients for a very bright future.

Today, because of the NDP, because of their mismanagement and because of what they've done as far as the provincial finances. . . . We're paying the price of ten years of incompetence, mismanagement, miscalculations, mistakes -- I've heard the ministers actually stand up and say, "We made a mistake" -- and blatant dishonesty. We've fallen from number one to number ten.

[ Page 14742 ]

We went from being the lowest debt-per-capita to the province with the fastest-growing debt. I heard the minister -- gosh, he was the minister for fast ferries; oh, he's the Minister of Employment and Investment -- bragging just a little while ago about how we could rejoice and how our debt-servicing costs were low compared to other provinces. Well, I don't think we can brag about our debt. It has ballooned out of proportion; it has grown. It is scary, because it's not the members there or this member on this side who are going to be paying for it. It's our kids; we're mortgaging our kids' future. That's who's going to be paying for the mistakes and the growing debt under the NDP.

This province's credit rating has been downgraded since 1995. I don't think that's anything to brag about. When we see how much more we're going to pay in interest costs because of a downgrade, I don't think that's anything to brag about. Imagine what that money could pay for -- for health, for education, for children's services, which are lacking in this province. We hear concerns about children's services every day. The taxpayer-supported debt has jumped from $17.3 billion in 1991 to -- guess what -- $36.5 billion in 2001. It has more than doubled. The debt is up $2.2 billion in this budget alone.

We heard the hon. member for Richmond Centre reminding us that we pay $7.7 million a day in debt servicing -- $2.8 billion of interest on the total public debt. That is half the Education budget. That is about a third of the Health budget. Can you imagine, if we weren't paying that, what we could be paying for health or education services for our patients and for our children in this province? Imagine. But these folks can't, because they don't know how to imagine what it would be like if we could pay down the debt, if we could balance the budget, if we could cut taxes, if we could inspire investors to come back and have confidence.

[1625]

I guess that plan wasn't good enough, or we couldn't meet it, because in 1998 the NDP introduced a modified financial plan. Again they promised to balance the budget in 1999-2000. That would have been last year, where we posted about a $1.5 billion deficit. They were going to limit the ratio of taxpayer supported debt to GDP ratio to a target range of 19 to 22 percent -- so we've got a bit of a range there -- over the next three years. You know, in 1999, last year, they promised again to balance the budget by the 2003 budget and limit the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to a target range of 22 to 27 percent over the five years. I think you can see where we're going here. Every year they made a promise, and every year they broke it. Every year our debt has been getting worse. Every year they haven't been able to balance the budget, and every year they've posted a bigger and bigger deficit -- more spending, bigger deficit, more debt. What's new?

It's the same people over there, hon. Speaker. They've changed chairs a few time. They can't even keep track of which minister is responsible for what -- if they ever were responsible or accountable for what they held. But it's the same gang over there. They've changed seats, and they're trying to convince us that there's something new. They're not new; it's the same old, same old. It's the same government that hasn't balanced the budget in nine year. It's the same government that has been promising a balanced budget, but it has done absolutely nothing to indicate that there's even going to be a balanced budget over the next five years.

Thank goodness, there is going to be an election called within the next year. Whether they call it or not, there is going to be an election called -- the public demands it -- and they're going to find themselves so far back in opposition that they won't have to worry about balancing the books. This side of the House will take responsibility and actually do it.

We've heard the members opposite bragging about transparency and accountability in this budget. They've been talking about how this budget is so transparent, and it's honest. Well, you know what? I don't know, given their past record, whether I can believe that. Isn't it a sad day when we have to pass a law. . . ? We have a bill before the House that's called the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. We have to pass a law to legislate honesty in keeping the province's finances? It's a pretty sad day when we have a government that's bragging about transparency and legislating it, and saying: "We promise to be honest, because now there's a law that says we have to be." It's a pretty sad day when we have to do that.

[1630]

[ Page 14743 ]

I don't know that I believe there is a lot of transparency in this budget. I guess the numbers will tell us next year when we really have a good look at the books, when we open the books after an election and just see how much the NDP has been telling us about where the numbers are.

As well, we've heard the members opposite talk about balance in this budget. We've heard them talk about a balanced approach. But how come we haven't heard them talk about a balanced budget? They said that they've been listening to the people in B.C. The people are demanding a balanced budget; they're not demanding a balanced approach. They've seen the choices that the NDP have made. They've seen the choices of the NDP and who they choose when they make those choices. The public has been demanding something that this government has promised ever since they've been in power. That is a balanced budget, and this government hasn't delivered that yet again.

How come every other jurisdiction in the free world is moving toward balancing its budget, except this province? How come every other jurisdiction in North America and every province in Canada except B.C. is moving toward a balanced budget or has been successful in balancing its budget and has posted consecutive balanced budgets? It's kind of hard to take when I look at other provinces and see what they've been doing.

Alberta: seventh consecutive balanced budget posted this year. They have a surplus budget; they've cut their taxes; they've paid off their debt. In fact, in the last six years Alberta has had $765 million -- almost $800 million -- in cost savings on servicing the debt. That is how much they have saved their taxpayers, so they can put it back in the taxpayers' pockets, so they can put it back into health and social programs. They have been rewarded with investor confidence, job growth and economic growth.

Manitoba: fifth consecutive balanced budget with a surplus, and they're paying off their debt; Quebec: three balanced budgets; New Brunswick: six balanced budgets; Nova Scotia: four balanced budgets; Prince Edward Island: three surplus budgets.

If we want to compare government to government. . . . I did hear some ministers and some members stand up there and say: "It's not fair to compare us to Saskatchewan." Why not? They're an NDP government; this is an NDP government. They have as much responsibility and accountability to their taxpayers as this government should have to their taxpayers here in B.C. Saskatchewan: the seventh consecutive balanced budget. You know what? I'm from there. I grew up there; I lived there. There's fewer than a million people there. On any given day maybe it tops just one person over or one person under, but it's a million people. They were in dire straits ten years ago. I lived there; I knew that. In those ten years they've been able to balance their budget. They were able to post a surplus of $53.1 million last year and $9.4 million this year. I have two sisters that live there; I have family. They've been able to cut taxes. They've cut their sales tax. They've been able to put more money back into workers' pockets.

C. Clark: That's like getting a raise.

S. Hawkins: "It's like getting a raise," one of the members here says, and it is like getting a raise. It's not like what the government has done to workers and families here, and that's cut, cut, cut every year and stress them out to the point where they're actually moving out of the province. You know where they're moving? They're moving back to Saskatchewan. I know friends and families that have moved back there. No surpluses, no balanced budgets, increased deficits, increased taxes -- the government that increased taxes almost every year gives workers 23 bucks, if that, for a tax cut this year. That is shameful.

[1635]

S. Hawkins: I don't even know if it buys a movie and a popcorn for a couple these days. I mean, don't spend it all in one place.

Saskatchewan has been able to increase its health care spending by 17 percent in the last two years, because they've been able to balance their budget and post surpluses. If they can do it. . . . If a small province like Saskatchewan, where living is hard and working is hard. . . . There's not that much in the way of resources there. It's a very resource-challenged province, but they've done very well, because they have a government -- an NDP government -- that actually listened to the people, that actually was able to balance the budget, that was able to work with what they had, limit their spending and -- guess what -- live within their means. Does that mean anything to the members opposite? They were able to live within their means. It was tough. There were tough choices to make. But you know what? There was leadership there. They made the choices, and now they're benefiting from them. We don't have that here, unfortunately, in this province.

This budget is about choices, the members opposite say. I've heard members and ministers stand up and say that they chose health and education as their priorities: "Those are our priorities." How on earth is it possible that they choose health and education, yet we see patients and students and children suffering to the extent that they are today? If they have chosen health and education, then let's be very afraid, because they've mismanaged them to such a degree that it doesn't seem they have been the highest priorities. It seems that they are the programs that suffered the most.

Let's look at health a little bit. Today in question period the Health critic raised a very important issue, and that was the mental health plan. I remember the government putting forward this wonderful plan. It was going to be $125 million over a four- or five-year time line, I think it was. There were so many announcements and photo ops that I can't recall exactly which announcement said what. But last year's budget said there was $10 million for mental health.

By the fall we still didn't see that money, and by January we still didn't see some of that money. And you know what?

[ Page 14744 ]

Do you remember that downsizing of Riverview? Do you remember that? There were going to be dollars saved. Well, we did see a downsizing of Riverview. We saw the downsizing, and those beds were supposed to go out to the regions. What happened to the money that was supposed to be saved from Riverview? There was supposed to be a psych centre that was built in Kamloops. Every year that I've been here -- I don't know if I saw it last year -- I've seen the NDP member for Kamloops and the Health minister standing up and making a new announcement either about design or the site being changed or something about this psych centre in Kamloops.

But you know what? I've never seen it built. I don't even think I've seen a shovel in the ground there. I mean, there has been a shovel in other things -- that's for sure -- but there hasn't been a shovel in the ground in Kamloops. Now, how many more announcements are we going to see from this government before that very, very needed capital project is embarked upon? We know that the mental health patients in this province are some of the most vulnerable. They don't have a voice; they certainly don't have a voice on that side of the House. We've seen a lot of photo ops. We've seen a lot of media releases and announcements, but we haven't seen anything substantial and tangible as far as that.

[1640]

I've heard the ministers across the way saying that health care just seems to be this big black hole. You know what? If you managed it -- if you actually tracked it -- if you didn't make so many phony announcements and say you're going to pour money into these programs, you wouldn't have set the expectation so high, and we wouldn't be in such a mess in health care as well. There are patients across the province who are being led to believe they're getting the best health care in the country. You know what? They're not. We've heard the horror stories across the province. They're not pretty.

In another example, we've seen two cancer centres in this province that were delayed because of the indecisiveness and negligence of this government. We saw the cancer centre in Kelowna delayed a year. It was finally opened. We've seen the cancer centre here in Victoria -- the Vancouver Island cancer centre -- delayed by almost three years. Finally, because of pressure from patients, physicians and the media, I guess, raising the horror stories of patients having to travel or wait long amounts of time or have their tumours worsen, we finally got this government to get off their butt and act. That centre is up and running, and hopefully we'll see patients benefit from that -- no thanks to the government which delayed that decision for a very, very long time.

Again, ten years ago we knew there was going to be a nursing shortage across Canada and in this province. In this budget I see the Finance minister standing up and bragging about hiring new nurses and adding more training spots for nurses. Well, why did it take so long? That's what I want to know. Where are we going to get these nurses from? Everyone in Canada is looking at hiring nurses; in fact, everyone in the world is looking at hiring Canadian nurses. They can go anywhere. They're some of the best-trained nurses in the world. Here we are, nine years into the NDP's mismanaged governance, and they are recognizing. . . .

It sort of reminds me a little bit of the bark beetle problem, which has been around and under the government's nose for how many years? This year they say: "You know what? We finally realized there is a bark beetle problem." They're trying to deal with it now, when it's too little too late and it's out of control.

Well, that seems to be what's been happening with a lot of issues. The nursing issue is just another one of those. I hope, for the patients' sake, that there will actually be targeted funding for placements in schools, so that we can train more nurses. I hope there are incentives built in, so that we can actually keep those nurses here, because I know they can go anywhere they want.

It's going to take a long time to rectify that problem. Just because the minister stands up and says there's money for nursing programs, and just because the minister stands up and says they're going to hire more nurses, we're not going to have them overnight. I know the public understands that.

It's interesting, because standing in this House and listening to members opposite and ministers speaking. . . . I remember the Deputy Premier, who used to be the Health minister and who used to be the Finance minister, saying that her government had lost its way -- that they had lost touch with the people in this province. Well, no kidding -- no kidding they lost their way, hon. Speaker. They lost their way on reckless spending on megaprojects that were just absolute failures.

[1645]

The fast ferries. . . . I heard the Finance minister stand up and say that one of the things they were going to do was not embark on reckless spending on megaprojects. Well, after how many years did they finally wake up to the fact that these were misguided priorities and misguided spending?

[ Page 14745 ]

My own chamber president -- I believe we have the biggest chamber of commerce in B.C. -- calls it a pretty disappointing budget. He says: "When it's all said and done, this province will still spend $1.8 billion more than it brings in." That means a $1.3 billion deficit, and that's just sad.

The Globe and Mail, a national paper. . . . A columnist in there, Paul Sullivan, writes in a headline: "Another Scary B.C. Tale." He calls B.C. finances voodoo economics. I'll just quote from this column briefly: "Fiscal prudence, NDP-style, means that British Columbia has one of the fastest-growing debt loads in the free world, whatever the debt-to-GDP ratio -- which was, by the way, the lowest in the country before the NDP took over in 1992."

Hon. Speaker, I won't be supporting this budget. My constituents will not be supporting this budget.

P. Calendino: I see that even the opposition is applauding me today. Thank you. It must be a first.

I'm very pleased and privileged to rise today to speak in support of this 2000-2001 budget. I want to support it because it's a budget that takes a balanced approach between reducing the deficit and maintaining spending so that we can keep the lifestyle that British Columbians are used to, so that we can maintain a good education system and so that we can maintain a good health system in this province. It goes beyond that. It's a budget that hasn't been created in isolation, as in the past. It's a budget that has resulted from wide consultation with the public, with the business community and even with the opposition.

I will go into many details of the budget later on, but I want to start by saying that one of the most important things that this budget has this year is what the minister introduced just prior to introducing the budget. That is the bill which was called the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. With this bill, the minister intended to incorporate all the recommendations of the Enns report and of the auditor general, as well as recommendations from the opposition and from the business community. These are all in the budget document.

The budget document underwent a very stringent process of verifying all the figures and all the numbers that are in it. It is a complete document. There is nothing that is hidden in it. In fact, our deficit has gone up because, differently than in the past, it is based on the summary accounts rather than on the revenue accounts. What that means is that not only the deficit of the government is included in the budget this year but also the deficit of all the Crown corporations and all the government agencies, which was not done in the past.

[1650]

The budget process, although it's being criticized a lot by the opposition as being too late, has been praised by many in the business community. I can read a couple into the record. For example, John Winter, the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said in a news release: "We endorse the adoption of the Enns report and the planned implementation of its budget transparency measures." Richard Rees of the Chartered Accountants of B.C. says: "By adopting the Enns report recommendations, the government has shifted the debate from whether the budget can be believed to whether the budget effectively addresses the needs of the province."

To be truthful, I think that the budget does meet the needs of the province. Let me point out some things. I realize that the opposition has always negative things to say. I realize that they're harping a lot on the debt and the deficit and that they're very selective in what they say. But if we look at the debt in B.C., we have to admit -- and the opposition has to admit, as the business community does -- that it is still the third-lowest ratio of debt to GDP in the country. Even though it's growing -- and we know that we do have to put control on it, and the minister has done that and has put in a plan for the next three years to bring down the deficit and the debt -- it must be said here for the public, those few who may be watching us, that the servicing of the debt is really low when we compare it to other provinces and when we compare it to the federal government. It is less than 9 cents to the dollar. I don't think many of us can get a mortgage for a house at that rate. And it does not decrease the services that we provide.

Of course, every government has debt. Some governments have been more fortunate, like in Alberta; because of the high resources revenue, they are managing to reduce their debt. But a lot of that reduction is also due to the large amount of revenues that they're gathering in from gambling, which amounts to about $900 million a year.

Speaking of gambling, B.C. still takes in the lowest amount of any province in the country. If we look at Ontario, they are now bringing almost $2 billion of gambling revenue into their coffers, and they haven't cut their deficit. As a matter of fact, in the last election I was watching debates on the multicultural channel. Mr. Harris has lowered the deficit by off-loading services to municipalities and to other agencies. They cut taxes. Yes, they cut personal taxes. But at the same time, all the members that were debating during the last election in Ontario -- including the ones from the governing party -- agreed that the Ontario government borrowed $22 billion. The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain knows that; she's laughing over it. They borrowed $22 billion -- $22 billion borrowed by the Ontario government to pay for the tax cuts that they gave to citizens. And even though they did all that, we in British Columbia still compare extremely favourably in terms of tax rates for individuals.

[1655]

[ Page 14746 ]

Now I'm going to give the figures, for the benefit of people who may be watching us. For the coming year, a two-income family who will be earning $90,000 in British Columbia will be paying total provincial direct taxes. . . . I'm leaving out federal taxes, because when we put federal taxes in, things somehow change. But obviously the bottom line does not really change. But for provincial taxes in British Columbia, a family of people, two earners with $90,000 or less, will be paying about $8,500 in provincial taxes. Alberta is the only province which has lower taxes than British Columbia.

Let me give you the other province that the opposition has been putting out as an example. In Saskatchewan they will be paying $11,700. That's $3,000 more than in B.C. In Manitoba they will be paying $11,700. In Ontario -- which is the panacea for the opposition -- they will be paying $9,370. I have to give it to Quebec; they pay high taxes, but then if we look at all the social services that Quebec offers, I think all the other provinces should take their hats off to Quebec. But in Quebec total direct personal taxes amount to $14,270. That's about 80 percent more than we pay in B.C.

Now I want to give you the numbers for a family that earns $55,000 or less. In British Columbia they will be paying a little less than $5,000. In Alberta, which those members across are praising as the great tax-free province of this country. . . . Well, guess what -- they will be paying $4,600. Now, I really would not want to move to Alberta for a difference of $300 for a family earning $55,000, because the difference. . . .

Interjection.

P. Calendino: Well, look at the figures. We don't make up the figures.

Interjections.

P. Calendino: Exactly. In Alberta anybody who would like to have a post-secondary education is going to have to pay about $2,000 more than they would pay in any British Columbia university or college. And if we speak of Ontario, they will be paying more than double what they would pay here.

But let me give the figures for the poorer families. Again, Alberta seems to have the advantage there, because the only difference there is that there is no provincial tax. This is nothing new; Alberta has not had a provincial tax for the last 20 years, ever since they had the oil boom. So the only difference between British Columbia and Alberta is that 6 or 7 percent in provincial taxes. That is what brings the total provincial tax lower for Alberta; otherwise, they would not be any lower.

Anyway, for a family at $30,000, the difference is really negligible between B.C. and Alberta. But if we look at other provinces, other than Quebec. . . . Quebec, in this category, is much better than other provinces. But in Ontario it's $3,800. That's a huge. . . .

Now I want to go to the corporate capital tax, which these members are screaming about in the media all the time. You know what? The corporate capital tax is paid in every province in Canada. Only Alberta somehow has managed to cut, or take out, the corporate capital tax. In most other provinces it's either the same amount as in B.C. or even higher. If I put on my glasses again, I can give you the figure in Ontario -- the same as B.C. If I give you the figure for Saskatchewan, it's twice as large as B.C. If I give you the figure for Manitoba -- the people over there say that they managed to have a balanced budget, etc. -- the corporate capital tax is 0.3 to 0.5 percent.

[1700]

Then they compare us to some of the other countries, and they say: "Investment is not coming to this province because the tax environment discourages them from coming." Well, let me give you some of the taxation in other countries of the world. I don't make this up, and I think the opposition knows that. These are statistics that have been gathered up by KPMG. Here is the effective corporate tax rate in a number of industrialized countries, and Canada seems to be among the lowest. If we look at Canada, the effective corporate income tax rate is 32.5 percent. If we look at the U.S. -- these people tell us it's much lower than in Canada -- the effective corporate tax rate is 36 percent -- much higher than in Canada and much higher, obviously, than in B.C. If we look at other industrialized countries, in Germany it's 64 percent, and in France it's 39 percent. Even in Japan, which doesn't have much of a tax, it's 49 percent.

These are only a few examples of the myths that the opposition is trying to create, which really are just myths that we cannot believe and take for the word of God. It shows how selective the members on the other side can be.

R. Thorpe: We're very selective.

P. Calendino: Yes, the member for Okanagan-Penticton agrees with me; they are very selective. When they are selective, they can also mislead the public.

I'd now like to mention some of the specifics of the benefits that this budget has brought to British Columbia. Let me start with the tax cuts. I'm on tax, so let's talk about tax cuts. I know that in the past four years since I was elected, this government in every single budget has reduced personal income tax by 2 percent every year. Last year on top of that, because of changes to the federal budgeting process, another 2 percent reduction was included. That makes an 8 percent personal income tax cut for British Columbians in the last four years.

This year we haven't stopped. We have given even bigger tax cuts because of the federal budget, which reduced our revenues -- the provincial revenues, not the federal revenues -- by $175 million. The Minister of Finance has passed down that tax cut. These are not dollars that the federal government is losing; these are dollars that the provincial government is

[ Page 14747 ]

[1705]

P. Calendino: I realize that the member for Okanagan-Penticton doesn't like what I'm saying, because I'm giving all the facts. He should read the budget document and not be selective, as he usually is.

When we put those two figures together -- the $175 million plus $50 million -- it means that the tax reduction for individuals in British Columbia amounts to about 9 percent for middle-income families. Next year we are absorbing the federal tax fallout of another $250 million, I think. On top of that, we are adding another $75 million tax cut for a total reduction of $325 million for British Columbia taxpayers. That's almost another 10 percent reduction.

If we combine the reductions this year and next year, that's more than half a billion dollars in revenues staying in the pockets of British Columbians. If we add that to previous reductions, it is a huge tax cut that we have given to British Columbians. I think it has started to have its effect. The economy, because of that, is improving. British Columbians are gaining confidence in the economy, and they have started to spend more.

Our employment figures are incredibly good, as we see in February, the last month for which statistics were published by StatsCan. It shows that the economy in B.C. is on its way to recovery. In fact, I would venture to say that it has already recovered, and it is growing at a really, really good rate. If we see the employment figures, we have an unemployment rate in this province of only 7 percent. We haven't seen that in nearly 20 years. But what does the opposition say? "This government is destroying this province." I don't understand that. If we have an unemployment rate of 7 percent, it means that not the government but the private sector is creating jobs, and it's creating jobs at an incredible rate. In the month of February alone, 16,000 jobs -- most of them full-time, good-paying jobs -- were created in British Columbia by the private sector. The month before that another 8,000 jobs -- were created. In total there were about 40,000 jobs created in Canada, and most of them were created in this province of ours.

The policies of this government can't be that bad. I realize that we suffered an economic downturn in 1997 and 1998, and I will say -- I've said before and continue to say -- that it wasn't necessarily due to the policies of this government. But it was mostly due to the crisis in the Asian economies. We can read the newspapers, and we can read financial reports. Economists that were criticizing this government in those years are now finally admitting that because of the recovery in the Asian economies, this province will benefit from that recovery. Well, if we benefit from the recovery in Asia, it follows that when the Asian economies were down two years ago, this province suffered the effect of that Asian crisis -- not because of policies here.

If we look at the forest industry for the last year, in 1999. . . . The forest industry did have a big hit, because Japan stopped importing lumber in 1997 and most of 1998. But in 1999 the lumber industry, especially on the coast, recorded the biggest profits they ever had in this province. Why? Because the Asian economy had almost recovered. Why? Because they were able to export huge amounts of lumber to those economies. Why? Because the American economy is still booming, the housing market is booming, and our forest industry is feeding that market.

[1710]

I want to give some details of the budget and some of the good things in the budget, so I'd better go into that before my time runs out. This budget obviously focuses on the priorities of British Columbians, which happen to be the priorities of this government and the priorities of the NDP. What are those priorities? Those priorities are continued investment in health and continued investment in education. We've done that for the last eight or nine years -- it's now nine years, Mr. Speaker. We've done that for the last nine years. That is the reason why Maclean's magazine rates our health system as the best in the country every single spring, when they put out their report on the status of health care across the country. For four years in a row, they've put us as the province with the best health care system in Canada.

The opposition never mentions that. They have a very selective memory. That doesn't happen because we have good doctors or we have good nurses or we have good infrastructure. It's because this government has invested in health care infrastructure. It's because this government has invested in health care personnel. In the last two years alone, we've added hundreds of millions of dollars to hire more nurses, and this year is not different.

We are putting funding to hire 600 nurses this year alone. We're putting funding to create spaces in colleges and universities to train 400 new ones. We have funding in the budget to upgrade hospital equipment, and we have $42 million to open continuing care beds and increase continuing care and community services.

We've also come to an agreement with the B.C Medical Association. As we all know, for the last couple of years doctors were not happy about the amount of wage increases offered to them. They were going on their RAD days -- their reduced activity days. But they are happy about the funding that the government is putting into the system and into their organization. They're getting a 2 percent lift, plus there is enough money for the doctors to perform more services to increase direct services to patients.

We know that in the last couple of years, we have had a bit of a crisis in maintaining medical services in rural areas. So this year the budget includes $6 million to help attract and retain doctors in rural areas. I think that's all good news. In total we've added $549 million to the health budget this year. I don't think that has been matched by any other province in Canada. That's in spite of the fact that the federal government is still not contributing to the cost of health care in this province or any other province. As a matter of fact, their share

[ Page 14748 ]

[1715]

There are people who are never satisfied and some people who don't get the care at the moment they want it. But it is the doctor who makes the decision about when they need a service; it isn't this government. Most often the doctors do not schedule surgeries or services when some patients want them because they're not urgent.

Let me go a bit into education, which is my field. I have to say that as usual, we kept funding the education system. We know that in this global economy, spending on education and investing in education is the best preparation to compete in the world economy and in the world market. What have we done? I think the opposition knows that we've increased spending in education for the last eight years, and we've done it this year again.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I will start with the K-to-12 system. We have given it sufficient funding to cover all the contractual obligations and to reduce class size in the early years. We have put in funding to add 300 more teachers to the system. We have put in funding to reduce portables by nearly 400. That's a $400 million capital investment. Now the opposition says: "You have to reduce spending." I'd like them to come out and say where they want to reduce spending. Perhaps they would take the $400 million out of spending in education.

Mr. Speaker, the light has gone on, and I imagine you want to cut me off. But I have a lot more to say. I will take my seat and give my place to my colleague. I'm very pleased to have had the chance to speak to this. I hope that the opposition will find it in their hearts to support such a good budget. I certainly will.

J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, congratulations to you for being elected to serve this House and the people of British Columbia as Speaker. I wish you all the best. I know there are real challenges in your job in maintaining the decorum of the House and enabling this parliament to carry out its job.

Given the two solitudes that we have -- the solitude of government and the solitude of opposition -- and as much as we stand here and are seen by the public as opposing each other and being negative and tossing barbs back and forth, the fact is that there's a secret that sometimes gets out. That is, there are some real friendships and some real respect that also builds up. If the truth were to be told, over the history of the Legislature in British Columbia, in probably 90 percent of what is produced, there is agreement on both sides.

Of course, it's far more interesting to publicize where there is disagreement. That's human nature. That's the way people are at the cutting edge of change, and we understand how that works. It's a system that is often divisive and hurtful and generates more heat than light. At the same time, it's the best system that exists anywhere in the world for resolving the issues that must be resolved when it comes to the development of public policy.

[1720]

It's unfortunate in some ways that we are seen as being conflictual, as is often perceived. I often have people come and sit in the gallery, and they talk about the fact that they see debate going on in the House and people exchanging comments in ways that you'd think they could never talk to each other again. They said that a few moments later, they would see people from two sides of the House walking along, having a very friendly chat.

I think that there's much to try to communicate about what it is that we do here. I only hope that we all set the kind of example that inspires those children that we all say we are so concerned about back home to say to themselves that they would someday like to be elected, take office, serve their people and represent them in this place.

With regard to the budget, I believe that it is a very appropriate and positive budget for British Columbia at this point in time -- cutting personal income tax more than half a billion dollars over two years and small business having the lowest tax rate in Canada. It's a budget that enables the hiring of 300 more teachers and 600 more nurses, a budget that continues the tuition freeze for post-secondary education at all levels, for the fifth year. It's a government that is moving in a new, modern direction, recognizing the importance of nurturing the old economy and, at the same time, recognizing the new economy along with a component of that, the green economy. It's a budget that invests in a healthy, well-educated workforce, where personal income tax is targeted at middle-class and lower-income families so that there will be less of a burden there, where health spending is increased for the ninth straight year -- a total of $2.9 billion since 1991 -- during a time when the federal government has unilaterally dissolved the social contract and downgraded its share of the dollar that is going into health funding. It's a budget in which, as I said, there's a tuition freeze and funding to universities and colleges that climbs $85 million.

Another thing that happens in the House is that both the opposition and the government Whip, from time to time, have

[ Page 14749 ]

C. Clark: What does it say?

J. Cashore: I was asked by the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain: "What does the message say?" The message says that before debate terminates today, there'll be a Liberal member speaking. [Applause.] It's amazing how low you have to go to get somebody to applaud what you say.

[1725]

As well as the 300 new teaching positions reducing class size in the early grades, this year 387 portables are gone as a result of this budget. This is a tremendous trend that has been taking place over the last several years in catching up with the incredible growth that has been taking place within this province, especially in areas such as my own constituency, Coquitlam-Maillardville. And there's $445 million toward construction of over 100 new schools and replacements and expansions of schools.

With regard to forestry, our government has maintained support there and reduced stumpage rates. There has been, in the area of our fisheries resource, $7.5 million to restore and conserve fish stocks, $1 million to develop a freshwater fishery and to diversify the shellfish sector, and $1 million over five years to improve the northeast resource roads up in the Peace River country.

I just returned from the Peace River country, where I was chairing the board meeting of the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board. The Muskwa-Kechika is the result of land use planning that has involved people from all sectors in the north. There were two tables, one in Fort St. John and one in Fort Nelson, that fundamentally achieved a consensus with regard to the recommendations for the land in that area. Those two tables in particular recommended that an area that would be referred to as the Muskwa-Kechika, which is really the northern Rocky Mountains, would be designated as a special area. There we have a special area of 4.5 million hectares, of which 1.2 million hectares are protected as park. The remaining three-quarters of that area is under special management so that the ecological values -- which are of importance to virtually all the stakeholders involved in that process, people from all aspects of society -- would be ensured and so that 2,000 years from now, the predator-prey relationships between the ungulates and the carnivores would still be intact. The biodiversity of that area would still be available to be seen in its present state by future generations.

A very significant part of that area, which is the size of Switzerland, is that as we speak, there probably aren't more than 50 people within that area at the present time. There are a lot more there in the summer, during the hunting and ecotourism season and that sort of thing. But the fact is that it's largely an unroaded wilderness. It's the largest natural area in North America south of the 60th parallel that is relatively intact, and it is perhaps one of the most successful land use planning processes that has been carried out during our term in government. Part of the success of that is due to the participation, in a non-large-P political way, of people from all components of those communities that have worked and continue to work to make that effective.

[1730]

I can remember speaking with one of the tables up in that area when I was Minister of Environment, back in 1992, when their work was just getting going. I said to them: "You know, there are people here from the mining sector, the forestry sector and the tourism sector, from ecological groups and all these different components of society. The fact is: when you put all those people around the table, you probably have people that tend to disagree with each other on quite a few items -- quite a few things where they would disagree about what is the best use of the land. But there's one thing I think you are pretty well united on, and that is that you don't want government making decisions for you. So if you can come up with fundamentally a consensus on what should happen in this land use plan, then the pressure will be on government to accept your plan. If you don't, then in that context, government will have to decide for you, because governments are elected to govern."

Do you know what happened, hon. Speaker? They came up with the plan, and government accepted it in full as it was presented. It's one example, an example for the world, of the way in which communities can come together in a context of respect for each other's position, each other's values, each other's right to make a living and to have a hopeful future, and each other's responsibility to protect the ecology -- that there is a sustainable way in which this very challenging issue of land use planning can be accomplished.

Moving further with the budget, I just want to mention some initiatives that are being taken to promote growth. Some of these are not major, earth-shattering examples, but I think they collectively add up to some of the kinds of ways in which we hope that government would be using its ability to stimulate and [enable rather than to get in the way. One that is provided for within this budget is the use of the high-technology research and development tax credit, which was introduced last year. It is forecast to rise to $28 million to help keep B.C. firms on the leading edge of the technological revolution.

The government will also invest directly in research partnerships in fuel cell and clean energy technologies, information technology, biotechnology, aerospace and new media such as DVD-ROMs and the Internet. Also, B.C. will join the federal government in allowing employees to defer income benefits from stock options and reduce the taxation of capital

[ Page 14750 ]

The B.C. knowledge development fund, which invests in capital infrastructure for research at B.C.'s post-secondary institutions, will receive an additional $117 million over its six-year term.

A new marketing commission will promote B.C.'s high-tech sector at home and abroad -- again, a part of the new economy.

Existing tax credits for B.C.'s billion-dollar film and TV production industry will continue, and the budget will support new regional film offices in key locations across the province -- again, building on what has been a remarkable story of success in the film industry over the last several years.

[1735]

We know that Globe 2000 recently took place. The Globe events that have taken place in Vancouver for approximately the last ten years, I believe -- it goes back to the time of the Socred government -- have been a showcase for companies in British Columbia that are developing environmental technologies and recognizing the value that society places on ensuring that we have a sustainable environment for future generations and the enormous amount of potential economic value -- job-creating value -- there is in that part of the new economy.

Anyone who goes to one of those Globe conferences, as did the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine and the Minister of Environment. . . . They were very impressed with the scope and the kinds of presentations that were made available there. Again, that's a kind of success story, along with the film industry, that has been emerging and developing within our British Columbia economy. The new economy, the green economy -- call it what you will -- is happening. It is what is sometimes referred to as a paradigm shift or a major change in terms of something that is so fundamentally important within our society.

I want to talk a bit about my constituency of Coquitlam-Maillardville. A number of things have happened there over the last few years that have been very worthwhile in that area on the north side of the Fraser River -- again, one of the fastest-growing areas in British Columbia. There have been improvements on the Cape Horn interchange. Access to the freeway for eastbound traffic has been improved by the addition of barriers on the Lougheed Highway. That stops the queue-jumping and to some extent improves the congestion that exists there. More is coming to address that issue. Two lanes are now dedicated to those entering the Cape Horn interchange with the intention of proceeding east on Highway 1. As I said, this has reduced congestion on the Lougheed Highway and on United Boulevard.

There is also the new westbound entrance to the freeway. A new on-ramp opened December 15 at Coleman Avenue for Lougheed Highway traffic to proceed west on the freeway. This has reduced Lougheed Highway and Cape Horn interchange traffic. These two improvements are the final elements of the $4.6 million Coleman Avenue to United Boulevard improvement project.

Also, residents of the lower mainland are very interested to know that every night at this point in time, work is being done to add a fifth lane to the Port Mann Bridge. The additional lane is scheduled to open in February of 2001.

We all desire that there be work towards the development of a new crossing, and we know that the Minister of Transportation and Highways has been working on that concept. But it was absolutely essential that this additional lane be added to relieve the pressure there, especially at rush hour.

I think the residents of my constituency are very, very happy that they can now make the trip into Vancouver either on the new, improved highway with the HOV lanes on the Trans-Canada Highway going into Vancouver or by making use of the improvements on the Barnet Highway with the HOV lanes.

[1740]

You add to that the infrastructure work that has been done with regard to school construction over the last nine years -- the fact that we are reducing the numbers of portables; the fact that, it being a high-growth area, there have been a significant number of new schools constructed -- and that means that infrastructure issues for the education of our children have been addressed.

Also, the improvements that have been made with regard to a number of other locations where there were severe traffic problems -- the Cape Horn interchange, the bridge over the Coquitlam River, the Broadway connector, the Johnson-Mariner connector and many other initiatives -- have really helped to address that situation with that area of great growth.

In my constituency there have been some B.C. 2000 community spirit grants that are very much appreciated. The Colony Farm Park Association was awarded $104,000 to build a new foot and bicycle bridge on the Colony Farm Regional Park that connects the two historic farm areas. I know that residents are fond of going down and cycling or walking on the many trails at Colony Farm, now that that area is a regional park. We were able to accomplish that as a provincial government by following through on commitments that I made when I was seeking to become MLA for the area.

It's wonderful to see the work that has been done on community gardens down in that area. People who now perhaps live in condos or in apartments are able to go down to Colony Farm and do their gardening. I think that's a quality-of-life thing that's really special for a lot of people.

The Dogwood Pavilion Seniors Society, one of the most outstanding senior societies in all of Canada, received $24,500

[ Page 14751 ]

The Coquitlam Heritage Society also received $10,000 to support activities planned for Heritage Week and to carry out tours and presentations in conjunction with Le Festival du Bois. It was an opportunity for us to engage with the residents of Maillardville and the francophone community to put on entertainment and displays that keep us in touch with the fact that the francophone history is very much part of the history of Coquitlam.

Fisheries Renewal B.C. has invested a total of $480,000 in community-based projects throughout the lower mainland. Those in the Coquitlam area include the Como Watershed Group, the Coquitlam River Watershed Society, the Hoy-Scott Creek Streamkeepers, the Rivershed Society of B.C. and Douglas College, who are all working in various ways to address issues that have to do with the ecology and trying to restore the salmon resource.

[1745]

I'm awfully pleased that Riverview Hospital, which is in my constituency. . . . The government has appointed the board for the B.C. Mental Health Society, and a very distinguished member of our community, Eunice Parker, who was on Coquitlam city council for several years, has accepted an appointment to that board to ensure that the interests of the local community are represented there as we seek to fulfil our mental health responsibilities throughout the province.

Hon. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to talk during this debate on the budget. And as I said before, I wish you all the best as you continue to maintain decorum within this House.

B. Barisoff: Noting the time, I reserve my spot in the debate, and I move to adjourn debate at this point in time.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: With reluctance, given that I was waiting to hear the member opposite begin, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada