The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Volume 18, Number 22

[ Page 14983 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to share with the House a brief message from Ottawa. By a vote of 52 to 15, the Senate of Canada has passed the Nisga'a final agreement.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to introduce in the gallery today a special visitor. Helen Cooper is my father's first cousin, visiting from Montreal. I'm not sure if that makes her my first cousin once removed or my second cousin.

An Hon. Member: Second cousin.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll seek the advice of the member opposite. But in either event, I would very much like to welcome her and to have members. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't think I'll go with that, hon. Speaker. I'll just ask members to make her welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: As you know, hon. Speaker, today is April 13, which is Khalsa Day, also known as Baisahki Day. I have some guests who I will introduce in a second. They're here to meet with me regarding Baisahki and also other issues. But before I introduce them, I'd like to take this opportunity to wish everybody who celebrates Baisahki, especially people from north India, a happy Baisahki Day.

As you know, today marks the end of the year-long celebrations of the 300th anniversary of the birth of the Khalsa. And today, April 13, finally one year's worth of celebrations is over. So I want to congratulate each and every Sikh in particular, and Punjabis and Indo-Canadians in general, on Baisahki Day. I'd also like to wish them all, as well as everybody here in the Legislature, a happy Baisahki Day.

[1410]

My guests, who will be joining me later in my office, are Mohan Singh Kang, Pilower Singh Longia, Balbir Singh Dhatt, Ranjit Singh Gill and Steve Bzara, who is the president of the Victoria taxi association. Would the House please give my guests a warm Victoria Baisahki welcome.

I. Chong: Today the USS Abraham Lincoln dropped anchor in Esquimalt harbour. Aboard this floating city are over 3,000 officers and crew members who over the next four days will certainly be spending some time on shore. It's expected that $1 million will be spent in our local economy, and I know that the Victoria Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Victoria and indeed many of our small businesses, particularly in the hospitality trade, are looking forward to this economic boost and the start of our tourism season here.

Also worth noting is that this represents the last official visit by Capt. J.J. Quinn to Victoria. He has recently been promoted to Rear-Admiral, and his new duties will be taking him elsewhere.

Having enjoyed this brief stopover here, I hope that the crew members and officers will revisit Victoria in the future for a longer period with their friends and families. Would the House please welcome the officers and the crew members of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of people I'd like to introduce. First, my mother Maureen Paterson is here, and joining her is David Leslie. And from my constituency in New Westminster is Ms. Newman, an instructor of social services at Douglas College, with a group of 25 students. Would all members join me in making them all welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to begin by acknowledging, along with my well-dressed friend down there, that it's the beginning of Baisahki. It's very important to my constituents in Vancouver-Fraserview, where the gurdwara on Ross Street is located.

I am also pleased to introduce a friend who is here from the Brittany coast of France. Vincent Perrette is a fourth-generation French seaman who is currently an officer in the merchant marine. M. Perrette has also made his oceangoing skills available to the Greenpeace Foundation. I'd like the House to welcome him here today.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce a group of people that met with me and the Minister of Mines this morning about their concerns over the land use plans in the Lillooet area. They are Rudy Durfeld, Teresa Durfeld, Miss Karla Durfeld, Mel Stewart, Leo Lindinger and the new president of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Donald McInnes. Would people make them welcome, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming 60 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School. I see Ron Boulding, their teacher, and Jill Philipchuk, the principal of the school, accompanying them. This is a school from my constituency of Vancouver-Kensington, and Mr. Boulding invited me to speak to his class when I was a candidate in the '91 campaign. Since then, we've become very good friends. I understand that he'll be retiring. This is his last social studies trip to Victoria with his class.

I'm here to stay -- I just want the opposition to know -- and so is Mr. Boulding in another capacity. I'm delighted to have them here. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Lou Green. They're not from my riding, actually. They're from the opposition leader's riding, but they're friends. They're members of Ryerson United Church in Vancouver. Lou Green actually is the son of Howard Green, a very well known Conservative Member of Parliament for almost 30 years. I'd hope the House would make them welcome.

[1415]

The Speaker: Members, if I may, I'd like to make mention that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, the member for Matsqui, the Minister of Multiculturalism and Immigration, the Minister for Children and Families and I had a very wonderful lunch today with a very interesting couple. It was an honour to meet them. They are the High Commissioner for Kenya, Green Hannington Ogola Josiah, and his wife Anne. Would members please make them welcome.

[ Page 14984 ]

Oral Questions

TOM GUNTON SECONDMENT

M. de Jong: A couple of days ago we heard from the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Environment. They confessed that they really didn't have a clue what Tom Gunton was doing for $112,000. They said they'd get back to us.

We haven't heard from them, but we have heard from Mr. Gunton. To listen to him, he has been retained as virtually the architect of future NDP environmental policy. It sounds pretty important to me, based on what Mr. Gunton is saying. For people watching, my question to the Minister of Environment is: how exactly do you get a job of that importance, paying $112,000 a year, when the ministry supposedly responsible doesn't even know about it?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: For the benefit of all members of the House, a bit of a chronology. Mr. Gunton was made available under a secondment agreement between the province and Simon Fraser University in 1992. That agreement expired on June 30, 1999, with an option to continue to June 30, 2000. That option was exercised in May of 1999. On August 27, 1999, Mr. Gunton stepped aside as deputy minister of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat and assumed responsibility for the special project that the member refers to. The members opposite are aware of some of the details of that project, because they have a copy of the August 30 letter that confirms the details of that. That project will be complete by July 1. The report will be made available to me by July 1. I intend to make it public, and at that time all of us will have a chance to take a look at the results of Mr. Gunton's work.

The Speaker: Member for Matsqui with a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: Well, it's curious. If you listen to Mr. Gunton, it sounds like he's single-handedly writing future NDP environmental policy. When I heard him say that, I asked myself: I wonder what it was about his public service that qualified him for this particular task. So I went back to some of the material, and I asked myself: was it that visionary construction of the command bunker at the Finance ministry? And I thought: well, that wouldn't do it. Then I thought: maybe the minister is attracted by the talent Mr. Gunton has for using taxpayers' money to pursue journalists in the courts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: Or, I thought, maybe it was the leading role he played in that fudge-it budget -- when I went and checked some of the sources.

The Speaker: If the member could state his question, please.

M. de Jong: My question to either one of those ministers is: why on earth would they be paying $112,000? Why on earth would they want to trust -- why on earth would they want to rely upon -- the co-author of the fudge-it budget to have a job that is apparently this important in terms of future environmental policy?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think that even that member recognizes that Mr. Gunton has a background in the area in which he's doing a special project. It was by mutual agreement that he took on that project. As I say, the results of that project will be made available as soon as I have the report. I'll be glad to share it with that member, and at that time we'll see the results of that report.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON DISCLOSURE OF
LEGAL COSTS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS

G. Plant: Not only is Mr. Gunton on the government payroll doing a report on environmental policy for the Minister of Advanced Education -- or is that a report on advanced education for the Ministry of Environment? -- but in fact taxpayers are still on the hook for an ongoing libel action that Mr. Gunton has commenced against the Vancouver Province and the CKNW radio station. So I have a question for the Premier: will he tell us today how much the taxpayers have been forced to pay for Mr. Gunton's lawsuit against these media outlets?

[1420]

Hon. A. Petter: As the member well knows, there is, under the general policy of government, the provision of legal services where it's deemed in the public interest to provide legal services for actions of this kind. I assume that that was the case here and that the action was approved.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston with a supplemental question.

G. Plant: The issue, again, is: how much are the taxpayers paying? Here the context is not a lawsuit against poor Mr. Gunton in his capacity as a former deputy minister. But rather, in fact, he has gone to the government and said: "I want to commence a lawsuit, and I want the taxpayers to pay for it." In fact, if he loses the lawsuit, the taxpayers will be on the hook not only for his costs but also for the defendant's legal costs at the end of the day.

I think the taxpayers are not only entitled to know how much this is costing, but surely, at this point, the Premier should stand up and agree that this is a waste of taxpayers' money, pull the plug and get rid of the lawsuit once and for all.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, as I understand the policy, the decision as to whether it's in the public interest is not made politically. It's made within the Ministry of Attorney General, based on a legal assessment.

As to the question of disclosure of legal costs, I want to update members on this issue. As the Premier indicated a few days ago, there is a difficult balance to be struck between solicitor-client privilege -- which the courts. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. A. Petter: . . . have recently said includes financial relations and the need for accountability to the public on these issues. I've reviewed the case authority and talked to officials and sought their advice and conferred with the Minister of Finance on the policy.

[ Page 14985 ]

Clearly the courts have found that financial non-disclosure is bound up in solicitor-client privilege, because they believe that disclosure during the course of legal proceedings could in some way compromise or disclose matters that are relevant to those proceedings. Although the privilege continues, the prejudice to the individual seems to diminish once the proceedings are over.

Based upon that, the Minister of Finance and I have conferred, and we will be seeking to amend the existing policy with respect to funding of public officials with respect to legal proceedings to seek a waiver from such officials, so that once proceedings are over, the amounts can then be disclosed and they waive their privilege. I think that is an attempt to balance what are two difficult and competing interests in the manner that the Premier and others have suggested we try to do.

G. Campbell: That was information from the Attorney General, which is important, but I'd like to ask the Premier this. It seems to me the freedom-of-information commissioner has made it clear that it is the Premier's decision and his alone as to whether or not he is going to disclose the legal costs of public officials -- elected politicians, particularly. I'm asking the Premier: will he declare today that as of today, the policy will be full disclosure of all legal costs for any politician who is taking advantage of the taxpayers' funds to support their legal endeavours?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the Leader of the Opposition has misunderstood the point made by the conflict commissioner. The solicitor-client privilege is a privilege of the client. Where the government is the client, then the government certainly has the right to waive the privilege. In the context of decisions and subsequently in commentary, the conflict commissioner has said that it's his view that once proceedings are over, in balancing these interests, indeed the government should consider waiving its own privilege.

There's no suggestion that the government can waive the privilege on behalf of someone else. That is why, as I indicated, we will be seeking a specific waiver in the arrangements that are reached with public officials, so in fact government can disclose that information. But government cannot waive, on behalf of the client, the privilege that is the client's and the client's alone, unless the government is that client -- which was the point that the freedom-of-information commissioner was making. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition seems to have misconstrued it somewhat.

[1425]

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplemental question.

G. Campbell: The client in this case -- the person who's paying the bills -- is the taxpayer of the province of British Columbia. Any political figure who decides they are going to access the taxpayer-funded legal protections should know at the outset that those funds and those costs will be fully, unequivocally disclosed in a timely manner.

My question is to the Premier, because the Premier is the person who decides on whether or not he is going to disclose to the taxpayers what their legal costs are. Will the Premier declare today that anybody who accesses taxpayer funds for legal defences will be told that they will be fully and openly disclosed by this government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the Attorney General actually, in very able fashion, did just that -- made just that statement -- and the hon. Leader of the Opposition has failed to understand it. Let me reiterate the position that the Attorney General enunciated a moment ago. The Attorney General indicated that he has consulted with the Minister of Finance and is in the process of attempting to change policy for future purposes.

In future, if there is any political individual -- which is separate from public officials -- whose legal services are taxpayer-funded by the government, there would be a condition of receiving that assistance. That would be a waiver of that privilege so that at the conclusion of a legal action, particularly a criminal matter, those costs would be disclosed -- not during the currency of a particular action or investigation or trial but at the end and conclusion of that trial. As well, that policy could not be retroactive, in that it could not take away rights that have already been granted.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition with a further supplemental.

G. Campbell: Then I would like the Premier to make this very clear. Will the Premier confirm here today, for all of us, that all taxpayer legal costs -- all legal costs that are funded by the taxpayers for politicians -- will be made public -- past, present and future?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. leader chooses not to hear the total response. The total response is very clear. He and I can disagree on it, and that's fine. I have said that policy would be in effect from today, since I have said it. The policy would mean that any future legal defence that is provided for politicians at the public cost would be disclosed once the legal matter is concluded. But you could not retroactively take rights away from the people who got those rights under certain conditions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking the government to breach its undertaking in terms of the conditions of receiving the legal assistance that people are receiving today.

G. Farrell-Collins: There is another case before the court, and there is another minister who's availing himself of the services of a taxpayer-funded lawyer. That's the current Attorney General, who is a witness in a case. Certainly the extent and the quantity of the legal fees being paid for that minister is something that can't possibly harm his case nor cause any violation of his rights. Will he commit today to disclose the quantity of the legal fees that are being paid for his legal advice?

Hon. A. Petter: While this new policy does not apply in my case, it's true that I have counsel that has been retained under the policy. Once the legal action is over and the bill's in, I'll be happy to waive my rights and disclose that amount.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then I would ask the Premier to go to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. And if he believes in this principle, will he ask the member for Vancouver-Kingsway to do exactly the same -- follow the example of the current Attorney General and tell the people who are paying the bills how much they're paying?

[1430]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Attorney General and I have consulted on this amendment to the policy that is in place. As the

[ Page 14986 ]

Attorney General and the Premier have clearly stated, this is a policy for the future.

We are not in the position of unilaterally abrogating the relationships that are currently in place for indemnification of legal expenses. That is a matter for those individuals. This is a prospective policy. The Attorney General has indicated clearly his willingness to abide by that policy. That is his choice. We are not in the position to unilaterally waive individuals' rights under the agreements we have made with them.

ONGOING TREATY NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS

H. Giesbrecht: I have a question for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Today the Nisga'a agreement received third reading in the federal Senate, marking the conclusion of 130 years of struggle to achieve certainty over the land. Does the minister agree that 130 years is far too long? And can he advise the House, now that the first modern-day B.C. treaty has been concluded -- notwithstanding the opposition's court action -- what steps he is taking to ensure that other land claims, such as the Gitanyow, will be negotiated more expeditiously?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question. Obviously I agree with him that it has indeed taken far too long, and I know that he is bringing the concerns of his own constituents into this House when he raises that question. I'm happy to say that I agree with his constituents, as well, that the matter has taken far too long to resolve.

The second question, unfortunately, is a bit more open-ended. I would ask the House, then, to grant me some latitude to respond in the detail that it invites, because he has asked me what other steps we are taking to try and ensure that other treaty negotiations won't take so long. Rather than make a long speech, I'll simply summarize some things, if I might, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, we continue to carry out interim measures on a widespread basis throughout this province with both first nations within the treaty process, well advanced in the treaty process, and those just beginning. We have a subcommittee now dealing with the certainty issue, which is a sticking point for many first nations. We've agreed to meet with them to see if we can find language that is indeed suitable to them as well as to us, which will expedite the process. We also have a forestry working group addressing the same kinds of issues. We have also -- and perhaps as significant as anything else -- put more money into the B.C. Treaty Commission to enable them to facilitate and assist in the process.

Finally, we have quite recently introduced treaty-related measures, which will be cost-shared with the government of Canada and which we think will make a huge difference.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Ministerial Statement

BAISAHKI DAY

Hon. S. Hammell: It gives me great pleasure to extend my warmest Baisahki greetings to all the people of British Columbia. As the member beside me said earlier in this session, it is Baisahki today. To honour that day, I have worn the traditional dress of some of the Punjabi community -- the shalwar kameez. As British Columbians, we are not strangers to Baisahki celebrations. The Nagar Kirtan parades held in towns across the province are amongst the largest gatherings anywhere outside of India. Traditionally, Baisahki signalled the beginning of the harvest season in northern India, to be celebrated by all religions and all cultures.

For the Sikh community, Baisahki has a special meaning. On Baisahki Day, 1699, Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa Panth. Baisahki is about renewed energies, new beginnings and new starts. It's about celebrating universality, about values of kindness, justice and tolerance.

[1435]

Mr. Speaker, it's also about a time for reflection. As Minister of Multiculturalism and Immigration, I remind myself that our Indo-Canadian pioneers first arrived in B.C. only in 1897, just over 100 years ago, settling here to work on the green chains in British Columbia's lumber mills. In the face of astounding hardships and living isolated, away from the support of their families, these pioneers made British Columbia their home and helped to build a vibrant and dynamic Indo-Canadian community. The predominantly rural Punjabi pioneers, who helped make British Columbia a home for all of us, worked hard to earn a livable income, and the process contributed greatly to the economic and social evolution of this province.

Now, from Skookumchuck to Smithers, there's not a single town in the province that does not have the presence of the Indo-Canadian community -- and what a presence it is. We have seen their commitment to community. In the 1930s, Darshan Singh, one of the first Indo-Canadians to be drafted into the Canadian army, also served as one of the founding members of the IWA. Indo-Canadians who at that time did not have a vote supported the war effort by purchasing half a million dollars' worth of Victory Bonds -- no small sum in those times.

In the area of human rights, the community has also served as an example to British Columbians. In 1939, Dr. D.P. Pandia and several of his colleagues travelled to Ottawa to win the amnesty of 250 Indian students who had overstayed their visas during World War II. In 1945 the community continued to push for social change by securing voting rights from the government of Canada.

In the seventies, eighties and nineties we see the contributions of the Indo-Canadian community in our province's public and private institutions -- from Members of the Legislative Assembly to Members of Parliament, from Supreme Court justices to the CEOs of transnational corporations. To start off the millennium in British Columbia, we have our first Indo-Canadian Premier.

Indeed, on this Baisahki Day, I thank the pioneers for all their hard work in bettering the lives of all British Columbians. In particular, I ask our province's young people of all ethnic backgrounds to be proud of our rich multicultural heritage, and to reflect upon and continue the work started by our Indo-Canadian pioneers.

Baisahki is a time for celebration. So to my colleagues in the chamber, to the guests in the gallery and to everyone in this province, I wish you a very happy Baisahki. To my Sikh friends, I close with the immortal words of supreme humility first uttered by Guru Gobind Singh Ji on Baisahki Day, 1699: "Wahe Guru ji ka khalsa, Wahe Guru ji ki Fateh."

[ Page 14987 ]

G. Campbell: I join with the government and the minister today in recognizing and celebrating the advent of Baisahki. This is the end of the 300th anniversary celebration of the birth of the Khalsa. I think it is something that has been informative for all of us in our communities across the province. Whether it's Prince George or Cranbrook, whether it's Burnaby or Vancouver or Richmond, or up and down Vancouver Island, members of the Sikh community have celebrated Baisahki and a year of exceptional celebration for all of them.

I had the opportunity to serve as mayor in the city of Vancouver and worked consistently with members of the Ross Street temple. One of the things that I think has been so encouraging to all British Columbians is how the Sikh community has reached out to us and welcomed us into their temples, welcomed us into their religion, so that we can understand what their goals and objectives are. As is true with so many great religions, they share our goals. They share our goals of universal love and support for family. They share our goals of universal tolerance. They share our goals of building communities amongst one another as we move forward to create a better world for the young people that live with us.

[1440]

The Baisahki celebration last year was an exceptional one. Each year we watch as the Sikh community in British Columbia grows in confidence and strength and shares in an even greater and fuller way with people across the province. One of the great opportunities we have in British Columbia is to share in this rich and deep cultural diversity. I think something that we should take pride in as a province is that the Sikh community came over a hundred years ago and makes contributions today in all walks of life -- in the professions, in business, in the arts, in government. Throughout British Columbia they are playing an active and vital role in making this place a better place for all of us.

So today I join with the government on behalf of the entire official opposition to say, "Congratulations," to the Sikh community. "Wahe Guru ji ka khalsa, Wahe Guru ji ki Fateh. Lakh lakh Vadhai to all Sikhs."

Hon. H. Lali: By agreement, I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: I too join the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Multiculturalism and Immigration in wishing all people of British Columbia, Sikhs in particular, a happy Baisahki Day. In order to honour the end of the year-long celebrations, which started last year for the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa, I too am wearing one of the traditional outfits from north India. Incidentally, this is an outfit that is typical of what Guru Gobind Singh and people who belonged to positions of leadership within the community used to wear at that particular time, especially when they were holding court.

Khalsa Day is actually the name by which the Sikhs know Baisahki. There's a month called the Baisakh month, which is actually celebrated in north India as the bringing in of the winter harvest. It's the end of the harvest, and it's also a sign of prosperity, as people are able to use the proceeds from their harvest to not only be able to purchase goods and services but also to be able to perform the wedding ceremonies of their children when they come of age.

As you know, last year I had the honour to represent the British Columbia government at the Anandpur Sahib celebrations. I know the hon. member for Matsqui was also there to carry forward his good wishes, on behalf of the opposition, to the people celebrating in Anandpur.

I also want to point out that Gobind Singh is often, as you know, known for the creation of the Khalsa Panth on Baisahki Day in 1699 and also the Five K's, which you are familiar with, that the traditional Sikhs wear. It was also the transformation of Sikhism from a pacifist sect into a militant fraternity, so they could actually defend themselves from attacks by invaders from the northwest. It was also a symbol of humility, as Sikhs were required to look after the good of the community first before they looked after their own self-interests. That's where the humility aspect comes in. Sikhs throughout history, in accordance with the wishes of the Tenth Guru, have looked after the interests of the young and the old, and also the poor and the needy.

I am reminded of an incident in the 1700s when invaders from the northwest had carried off 20,000 women from northwest India. I know the Sikhs gathered together with an army to actually free those 20,000 women, who would have ended up as slaves in the hands of the invaders.

Gobind Singh -- a little-known fact -- was also a very good poet and a philosopher. He wrote many, many books and poems and other literature as well. Unfortunately, most of that was lost in his flight from Anandpur as he was heading to the south. It was lost in one of the river crossings. He was also a father and had four children. He was actually very, very good to all of the people within the Khalsa and considered everybody as part of his extended family. He fought for freedom. He was a freedom fighter. Gobind Singh was also a military general and a strategist and a specialist in fighting defensive rear-guard battles.

Sikhs have travelled to all part of the world. They are mostly known for their participation in agriculture and in transportation, notably the taxi industry -- we have some guests in the members' gallery -- and also in the military service in India. They have carried that forward into other communities where they have gone. Sikhs are also known to have interests in large numbers in the engineering field and as doctors, lawyers and academics. As well, they are into business, and very many of them are quite successful business people: the Domans, Tara Gogh, Asa Johal and others in this country. Also as labourers in the agricultural industry. . . . Fruit growers in the Okanagan and also the vegetable growers in the Fraser Valley are dependent on Sikh labour for bringing in the harvest.

[1445]

Also, the Sikhs have entered politics throughout the world and especially in this country. There are a number of MLAs. I know the member for Okanagan West -- I believe that's the constituency -- is a member of the Sikh family. There are Members of Parliament in this country who have come from the ranks of the Sikh community, and also provincial and federal cabinet ministers. The odd ones have been known to become Premier of a province in this country as well.

Interjections.

Hon. H. Lali: Odd but full of pride. And who knows? Maybe one day I'll be sitting in that chair, too, as the hon. member. . . . I know the opposition would look at that.

[ Page 14988 ]

Sikhs are very hard-working, very enterprising, and they know how to get along with people -- even members of the opposition. I would like to ask all members of this House, the members on the government side as well as the members on the opposition side, to join all Sikhs across the world and wish them a happy Baisahki Day, happy Khalsa Day and congratulations at the end of the yearlong celebrations.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have the honour to present the Ministry of Human Resources annual reports for 1996-97 and 1997-98.

Hon. D. Lovick: I also have the honour to present the annual report for 1998-99 of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate
(continued)

Hon. J. Kwan: I rise today to respond to the budget. I am very honoured. Let me first of all recognize the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant who have elected me and put me into this office to speak on their behalf in this House. Let me also thank my family of members and friends as well, who have continued to support me throughout my political career.

One of the most exciting things about Vancouver-Mount Pleasant is indeed the diversity of the community. The community of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant is known to be one of the most diverse and complex communities in all of British Columbia. In fact, it has been reported in the newspapers that Vancouver-Mount Pleasant has over 60 ethnicities. I do believe that no other community across British Columbia, if not across Canada, matches that level of diversity and multiculturalism.

The people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant are proud people. They are people who, I think, have a lot of strength. The people of the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant riding face many challenges as well. There are lots of different dynamics in terms of issues. They range from issues of poverty. . . . As an example, we have in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant a postal code that begins with V6A. It is a postal code where people don't even bother sending junk mail -- advertisement mail. Why is that? It is because, I suppose, the advertising agencies believe that the folks in this riding are so poor that it's not even worth their while to send them the advertisement material to entice people to come and make purchases.

It is a riding where we have a lot of immigrants. It should not be a surprise that because of the diversity of the riding -- the large number of ethnicities -- we have a lot of immigrants, newcomers who come to this country, to this province, and settle in this riding. Many of them are low-income individuals, some of them are middle-income, some of them are business people, and still others are students. There is a wide range. That's what I think makes the riding so very unique as well.

[1450]

We also embrace diversity not only from an ethnicity point of view but also from a sexual-orientation point of view as well. We have a thriving community of gays and lesbians in our riding. We are very proud of the diverse nature of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant.

The challenges in terms of issues that we face go beyond poverty issues. As always, when you have poverty issues, you do extend to a multitude of other challenges in people's lives. Housing is certainly one of them. The need for affordable housing and the continuing need for affordable housing in the riding is very much one that the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant desire.

We also see a lot of substance misuse in the riding that ranges from illicit drug use to alcohol to a variety of different substances. We also see a lot of issues around unemployment as well as underemployment. We have a lot of folks in our community who face a lack of basic rights, a lack of basic respect that we all expect in any other community. This community continues to face the challenges of having people first recognize them as a neighbourhood and second respect them in the same way that you would want to be respected yourself.

However, in spite of these challenges, it does not minimize the strength of the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. The people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant are really known to be, I would say, an activist community as well. I think, that by and large, because of the challenges they face, they do not give up the fight to make sure they are respected, to make sure they have what everyone deserves and has the right to have as well. I would say the people have the most amazing ability to show their ability to survive and really be models, if you will, as individuals not only to each one of ourselves but to every other community throughout Canada.

The folks in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant face a lot of trauma issues. We have a large number of urban aboriginals in the riding, individuals from the aboriginal community. This should not be a surprise to members of this House -- certainly not a surprise on the government side -- and I hope that it's not a surprise to the opposition side. The aboriginal community has faced tremendous traumas in their lives. The residential school history -- we all know about it. I still see the effects of residential schools impacting individual lives in my riding right now, today. The issues around needing to heal that process, needing to recognize the wrong that had been done to the first nations people, the people who first owned this land in our country, in our province, and to make sure that we begin that healing process. . . .

It is wonderful news today to learn that the Nisga'a treaty has been ratified in Ottawa, and it a celebration for all British Columbians and all Canadians. Why do I say that, hon. Speaker? Because it is an indication that there can be hope, that there can be resolution to long-lasting histories of pain inflicted on the first people of this nation. There's much more work to be done. There is a whole long litany of treaty issues that need to be resolved.

I'd like to bring us back to Vancouver-Mount Pleasant in terms of the urban natives, from the point of view that they also need to access the treaty process and to ensure that their voice is heard so that their voice is a component of the solution, so that the healing process can begin for them too. I also want to say that in the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant community, the efforts of the activists are indeed tireless. They continue, in spite of the struggles and in spite of roadblocks.

[1455]

[ Page 14989 ]

The latest thing I am working around with the community is something that you would think everybody or anybody anywhere in the country, in the province, would expect to have. Yet some of the residents who live in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant do not enjoy this right. This is in relation to the issue of single-room occupancy, what are known as SROs. In the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant riding there are some 7,600 units of SROs, and these are small little rooms that people live in. If you're very lucky, you'll have a bathroom in it. If you're really, really lucky, you'll have your own stand-alone bathroom with a sink and with a hot plate where you can cook. Usually they're 10-by-10 in size, and these are the rooms that people live in. It's not a visiting hotel room, but it's a room that they live in. Oftentimes it's unsafe. People break into these rooms; they get robbed; they get beaten up. Women and children live in these rooms. They have tremendous difficulties in accessing affordable, safe housing.

In addition to these SRO rooms, some landlords have chosen to charge what is called a visitor or guest fee. That is to say that if you have someone visiting you -- not overnight necessarily, but somebody visiting you in the daytime -- who wants to come in and sit in your room and chat with you and have coffee and tea, like any other normal person might do in your own home. . . . Guess what: these residents and these people get charged a fee. That is a residential fee or a visitor's fee or a guest fee.

Those are the kinds of things, the challenges, that people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant are fighting. I'm working with them to overcome these kinds of problems. It's just an illustration to demonstrate the extent of the way in which the people of Mount Pleasant are being robbed of basic fundamental rights, decency and treatment that we all expect and all enjoy in most any other community, except for this one here.

I want to say that in spite of this, the community continues to take on the challenge. It is the one riding that I know, above all communities, will not turn its back on its own people and the challenges. They are the one community that says: "We welcome affordable housing, and we want more of it." They are the one community that does not say: "Not in my back yard; go somewhere else." They're not a community that says: "We don't want any more detoxes or any such services." They are not one that says: "We don't have these issues in the community; go to somebody else's back yard." This is a community that faces and embraces these challenges and wants to work through them.

For that, it makes me absolutely proud and privileged to be their representative. I do believe that the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant are model citizens in their own way of giving and caring, even though they have so little in many instances. They want to give, and they not only want to take back for their own community but also want to share with the rest of the community. They want to lead the way to demonstrate leadership in a true community development sense.

It makes me very proud when I think about our budget and what the choices are and what we do with this budget. I spoke about housing extensively in terms of the needs in my riding. In this budget, I'm delighted to see that there's increased funding for housing and for the subsidies component. There is, I believe, an increase of $16 million on the housing subsidy side of this year's budget alone. The total budget is something in the area of $104 million for ongoing subsidy projects that will be developed into the year 2000. That is something we should be proud of.

British Columbia is one of two provinces that continue to provide for affordable housing. We not only subsidize and maintain and develop old housing but also build new housing units throughout British Columbia. Quebec is the other province that does provide for affordable housing programs, and we're the only two provinces that are doing that.

The community has called for, in support of and with the support of municipalities, a national housing program. Since the federal government has pulled out of affordable housing, our waiting list for the province has increased tremendously. In fact, with respect to the number of housing units that have been lost through the federal government programs, the same numbers have been lost. I know that as it stands now, this number is a small estimate of what the wait-list is. There are over 10,000 people on the wait-list waiting for affordable housing. This budget speaks to that. We have committed housing dollars for ongoing affordable housing, and we need to do more around that.

[1500]

I can't tell you how dismayed I was when I read in the newspaper dated March 30, 2000, where the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, the housing critic, said that British Columbia should not be building affordable housing; in fact, we should be putting our housing dollars into rent subsidies. There is a role for rent subsidies in some instances. But all rent subsidies do, in effect, is put the moneys towards the landlords. It pays the moneys towards the landlords and then leaves the community with no assets. That's what rent subsidies will yield. I'm not saying there is no role for it. In some instances we could use rent subsidies as programs, and we do have those programs in place. But that is not a solution for safe and affordable housing in this province. We absolutely need affordable housing programs. More than that, we should be proud that this government, our NDP government, is providing ongoing moneys for building new and affordable housing.

I know that the cooperative sector is very worried about the housing critic's, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, comments around that. The co-op members themselves run a lot of housing units. Their members share and own the housing units that are being built by this government with other partners in place. By doing rent subsidies, you in effect rob the community of the asset that they should have every right to have and own, an asset that is paid for by the province and the people of British Columbia. Those assets belong to the community, and they should rest and stay with the community.

To that end, I support this budget on the housing front. We need to build more affordable housing. We need to build assets that belong to the community and make sure that they rest and stay with the community. Rent supplements are not the answer to the question of affordable housing. Building more -- a national program for more housing -- is the key to success in this question.

I also want to take a moment to talk about other issues that are important to the riding as well. I want to take a moment to talk about child care. In our budget we have a component that talks about child care moneys. In total, we spent about $166 million in the child care arena. This budget calls for another $14 million for that.

I know that the minister responsible will be initiating new programs. We want to phase in over time a similar program

[ Page 14990 ]

that Quebec has, where every single individual in our communities has access to safe, affordable child care services. We know what the benefits of child care services are. We know that if children at a young age have access to safe, quality child care services, the probability of them graduating from high school is that much more enhanced. We know that the probability of them getting into conflict with the law is that much more decreased. We know that the probability of them engaging in post-secondary education, whether it be universities or the trades or technical schools. . . . We know that those opportunities are that much more enhanced.

Overall, we know that child care services are a good investment. It's a good investment for young people as they're starting up; it's a good investment for the communities and the families. Overall, it's good for all of us as British Columbians, because if you have healthy children growing up, you know that they'll contribute back into the community in more ways than one. The budget calls on that and recognizes that, and that's an important factor.

That's another thing that I find absolutely astounding. Prior to the budget being released, there was a child care paper released by the then minister. We had brought the paper out to the communities and talked to different organizations and individuals and so on. Then I learned through that process, that members of the opposition did not support the child care. They say that what we've got to do is balance the budget. Yes, balancing the budget is important. But should it be at the expense of the people who need the services, the people who depend on this government and other governments to ensure that their rights and interests are protected?

[1505]

You cannot get up, on the one hand, and say, "Yes, we'll be here for you; we'll meet your challenges and be here with you," and on the other hand say: "I'm sorry; while that is important, it is not a priority right now. Guess what. Your children's and your family's future is not a priority right now."

That cannot be acceptable. You cannot have it both ways. You have to make choices, to say what's important to you -- to stand up for it and say: "The value of families and children, to ensure that they have quality child care, is a priority, and we are prepared to invest in it above all else."

Those are the challenges -- I think challenges that opposition members sometimes do not wish to face. They act as though these challenges don't exist. On the one hand they say, "Hey, balance the budget," but on the other hand, "Spend money here and there," or, "Don't spend any money." Then they flip-flop all over the place, as though to say that you do everything and then nothing at all. That is not leadership. It certainly does not meet the needs of my community. I know that there are a lot of families in my riding who are in desperate need of affordable child care services. I know that there are more inner-city schools than in almost any other riding. I know that these communities are hurting, and they're hurting in a big way. They do need government support.

You know, British Columbia is a rich province; Canada is a rich country. People look at us, and they look at not how well we do for the people who have the luxury of choices but how well we as government do for the people who don't have choices. They are the folks who do live in abject poverty. They're the folks who don't have affordable housing. They're the folks that I talked about who live in these SRO hotels and because of the landlords, will get charged a visitor's fee just to have someone come in and have coffee with them. They are the people who depend on government programs, and people look to them to see whether or not we as a government are doing a good job and whether or not we're able to ensure that the people who don't have choices have choices. Those are the budget challenges that we're faced with, and that's the choice we have made on this side of the House -- to ensure as best we can that the folks who need these kinds of services are offered them and are protected.

I also want to take a moment to talk about other initiatives that are important and that have been introduced in the budget. One component is of course the small business community. In the riding of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant we have a tremendously vibrant community. We have many different corridors that specialize in small businesses. We have the Chinatown community. We have Commercial Drive, or what is known as the Drive on Commercial. We have the Broadway corridor, which is now thriving with new and very unique storefronts. We have the Fraser Street corridor and the Kingsway corridor. These are all corridors that are developing with a lot of small businesses.

Yes, I know that the members opposite will say: "Well, you need to have free enterprise. You need to make sure that the businesses have opportunities to thrive." This budget speaks to exactly that. The small business community is the economic engine of this province. In fact, when I was a councillor in the city of Vancouver, some 90 percent of the businesses in the city were of a small business nature. They are indeed the economic engine for a lot of communities and certainly the economic engine for the province.

What have we done to ensure that small businesses have every opportunity to thrive in a free enterprise arena? We have actually provided tax cuts to the small business community. In fact, this year, after this budget, the small business community will receive the lowest income tax rate in all of Canada -- lower than that of Alberta, lower than that of any other province. That, I think, speaks strongly to this government's commitment to supporting small businesses -- showing them that we understand the issues that they're faced with, in wanting to work with them and making sure that they have the opportunities to thrive and making sure that the return from the small business community is there in each and every neighbourhood.

[1510]

This, of course, is added to by other thriving areas of the economy as well. The tourism trade is one the highlights, if you will, in terms of our economy. I know that the high-tech sector is another new area. Just yesterday members on both sides of the House, through private members' statements, praised the work that is being done in the high-tech sector in terms of the economic opportunities there. Those, of course, do have spinoffs in benefiting the small communities and the small businesses around each of the neighbourhoods. The province has recognized it, and the budget this year also calls for more government support and contributions in those areas.

So this budget, from the taxation point of view, is there for the businesses. From a housing point of view, it is there for the people of British Columbia. From the child care point of view, it speaks to the long-term vision -- a real vision ensuring that there is quality child care for every child in British Columbia.

[ Page 14991 ]

The budget also speaks to individual tax cuts in terms of providing tax cuts to low-income and middle-income families as well. The average middle-class B.C. family making $60,000 a year will see their provincial tax bill drop by 9 percent. A single person earning $45,000 will see their tax reduced by 9.9 percent. Over 100,000 low-income earners will be free from paying provincial income taxes at all. So it's a balanced budget -- a balanced budget that attempts to bring in and provide assistance to families, some of whom are in need and some of whom are less in need but nonetheless could use government assistance in that regard.

I want to take a moment now, as well, to talk about the individual projects that my riding has benefited from. Sometimes people perhaps say: "Hey, we shouldn't spend that money." But these are the projects that are absolutely essential to the people of Mount Pleasant. The province bought the Sunrise Hoteland the Washington Hotel. These are the SRO hotels that I talked about; the province went to purchase them with partners -- with the city as well as with the federal government and the health board. By renovating and changing the management approach to these hotels, we can begin to provide better housing to the people who have no choices in our community.

We have other initiatives, including the Bridge Housing project, which provides safe housing for women. It provides shelter for women and a women's centre for women in the downtown east side community who face tremendous challenges and violence as well. To this date we're still missing women involved in the sex trade sector who have gone missing in the downtown east side. They are people's daughters; they are people's families; they are their sisters, their mothers. These folks have not yet been found. Therefore the need for safe shelters and programs as such -- not just for women but for all the folks in the community -- is absolutely essential.

In the cultural component, I know one might be surprised to learn that in the riding there are unique cultural aspirations and talents. I know that a lot of people look at the riding as a poor riding where people have no talents to offer, but indeed the downtown east side community and the people of Mount Pleasant have a lot of talents to offer. You know, I would drop into a community venue once in awhile, and I would see people engaging in poetry reading. I would see people performing for the others. I would see art projects. A mural project has been done in the riding to demonstrate and illustrate the pride that people feel about their neighbourhoods, the need to take ownership of their neighbourhood and also to display some of the talents they have. These programs make me very proud.

The Co-op Radio project. Recently we announced a new home for the Co-op Radio in the Sunrise Hotel. Co-op Radio really had a very humble beginning and they really have flourished over the years. Their success rests with volunteers. Hundreds of volunteers go into the Co-op Radio and provide programming. Now we have actually found a permanent home for the Co-op Radio in the Sunrise Hotel.

The Sunrise Hotel houses not just the Co-op Radio now. We also recently announced a dental chair service for residents of the downtown east side. I know it's surprising. Many of us can go and find a dentist anywhere, but a lot of the folks in the downtown east side community cannot. It's not because they can't afford to pay, because sometimes that coverage is actually covered by our health care system; it's because there are dentists who do not wish to take on these clients, if you will. They're not what they expect or hope to have as part of their clientele. So they actually have a difficult time accessing dental services. The Sunrise will now have a dentist there to provide services in the downtown east side community so that people don't have to go to dentists who will reject them and refuse them services. They will actually have a place to access dental services, services that many of us in this House take for granted.

[1515]

In the downtown east side Strathcona community, we also have a celebration of a water park. Again, green space is one of those rare commodities in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. It virtually doesn't exist. If you do have a green space, it's perhaps about the size of this room. People think that's a wonderful park. From an environmental perspective in an urban riding, green space is something that is sought after. The Strathcona Community Centre water park will provide a green space and a water park facility for children in that area.

In the Chinatown area where, again, they are faced with many challenges, including the substance misuse challenges impacting their riding, they also have other projects such as the Gate of 1000 Years of Peace and the Shanghai Alley plaque, recognizing the Chinese community's early arrival into the riding and really commemorating the history around that. There are many changes in the riding where we are taking on these different aspects that will make a difference in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant.

Finally -- I see the light is off, and my time is running short -- I simply want to take a moment to say that in my own Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, we have a budget of $23 million to provide programs in the co-op sector, in the volunteer sector, in community development, in community solutions and in community transition. It is about building communities. It is about ensuring that the strengths of the community are recognized, and where appropriate, government will be there to support them, to work with them, to be in partnership with them, to ensure that each and every neighbourhood throughout British Columbia becomes the healthy community we hope and wish for it to be. We need to do it together.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

We have choices to make; the budget is about choices. It is about whether or not you wand to be with them together to tackle these challenges or whether you want to leave them behind and say hey, your issues and your priorities are not priorities for us. We have made a choice, and we are saying to the residents and to the people of British Columbia: "We on this side of the House will stand with you, and we'll be there to support you."

M. Coell: This is the fifth time I have had an opportunity to respond to the NDP government's budget. The last time they had five budgets and put one before the people, they called an election. I guess to sum up this budget is. . . . If it is such a good deal for the people of British Columbia, then after four years and five budgets why doesn't this government go to the people and ask for a fresh mandate?

This government has now had nine consecutive deficit budgets -- a record that I don't think very many other provinces have. This year we have another $3 billion in taxpayer-supported debt and another $300 million a year in

[ Page 14992 ]

interest costs. I don't think the people of British Columbia can stand too much more of this. We've seen government raise taxes incredibly over the last nine years and, under the present administration, raises every year in taxes, fees and permits in most ministries.

[1520]

It is a government that seems to have the idea that their job is to tax and spend and tax and spend -- and borrow and tax and spend. British Columbia deserves better than that. British Columbia deserves to flourish. We live in a truly, truly great province with unlimited potential for growth, for success and for prosperity like no other in Canada. As a matter of fact, when I was a younger man growing up not too many years ago, this province was flourishing. It was growing at a rapid rate, it had great immigration. The province's books were balanced, and there was a place and a job for almost everyone who graduated from high school and university. I feel badly for the young people of this province now who have had to move, to take their education and make their lives elsewhere, because the opportunity just isn't here anymore -- the opportunity for success and prosperity. That is a shame. You lose a whole generation who move outside the province at a young age and find their way to Alberta or Saskatchewan and stay there. We lose that generation of young people, and that is sad.

That brings me to Saskatchewan and the NDP government in Saskatchewan, that bastion of free enterprise and capitalism. Their 2000 budget is the seventh consecutive balanced budget for the province -- with an NDP government in the province of Saskatchewan. The surplus -- can you believe this: Saskatchewan has a surplus? -- is $53 million. They were going to balance their budgets right to the year 2004. They spent 17 percent more on health care in the last two years. I grant that they're an NDP government, but it shows you that maybe NDP governments can balance their books, their health care and their education. Then we look at Alberta, with its balanced budgets and increases to health care and education.

I don't think those two provinces have the capabilities and the natural resources that British Columbia has. But for ten years, a decade of decline, we've had deficit budgets, while these other two provinces right next to us have balanced their budgets and are now putting money back into health care and education.

Now, the present government always says to us: "If you cut taxes, you'll take money out of education. You'll take money out of health care. You've got to keep taxing." There's a whole generation of New Democrats who believe that. I think a lot of British Columbians used to believe that too -- that if you cut taxes, you're going to hurt health care and education. Let me tell you this: if you had a dramatic cut in personal income taxes tomorrow, 18 months from then you'd have more money in your general revenues from personal income tax than you do today.

You may not believe me, but the United States and the others, Alberta and Ontario, who have done that -- who have cut personal income taxes -- have actually generated more money, and that money has been able to go into health care and education. But I know the New Democrats don't believe that. They just want to tax more, and hopefully things will get better.

But things haven't got better. If increased taxes and regulations were going to balance the books, this government would have balanced their books a long time ago. But they haven't. So what we need is a real deep cut in personal income taxes right away. It's not in this budget; it's not anywhere to be seen in the last nine budgets. They seem to chip away. When they sense that people want to see a tax cut, they give a little, tiny, wee one and say: "We've cut taxes." But that's not the way to get the economy going.

We have the potential to have a tremendous economy, but government has to set the tone. Setting the tone is reduction in taxes, reduction in regulations and a message to the investors in this province and outside this province: "Come here and create jobs. We want jobs for the young people of this province, and we want jobs for the people who graduate from university and are seeking jobs in high-tech."

But we won't get that with this budget. We'll get more of the same, and we'll be back here next year with another deficit budget and no strategic plan for getting the economy going. If wishful thinking was going to get the economy going, I'm sure the NDP would have got the economy going. I'm sure they're not sitting there saying: "Let's have a stagnant economy and let's not grow." I would imagine they're reasonable people and want to see jobs created, want to see young people working and want to see things going. But it's a state of mind, a frame of mind, that the present government has that's just out of touch with the reality of today -- the reality of the job market and the investment market in the world, in North America, in British Columbia and in the capital region.

[1525]

We're not going to see a change with this budget, and that is a big disappointment to many British Columbians who wanted to see a change, who wanted to see movement towards prosperity and a new era. But I would emphasize that government -- and maybe it'll take a change of government; I suspect it will -- needs to change how it does business, how it generates the wealth for health and education. I've always been one who kind of thought that health and education -- and from my perspective, the environment -- were very non-partisan. We all want a great health care system, we all want a great education system, and we all want a clean and safe environment. But it's how you get that, and the tools that you are able to use will affect that.

We've seen a government that continually says: "We're for health care, and we're for education." But we have health cuts in my area and probably in everyone's area, cuts to quality of education. The Ministry of Environment has had cuts five years in a row to front-line staff for protection. I look, and I say: "Well, they must be doing something wrong. If they want the same things as me, but they're not able to deliver them, what are they doing wrong?" I guess it comes down to philosophy. You have two competing philosophies in the province. One philosophy, a quasi-socialist philosophy, has had control for ten years, and it hasn't worked. It's not that they didn't want it to work -- I'm sure they did -- but it hasn't worked, and this budget isn't going to make any difference.

So it's a need to change the philosophy, and the philosophy on this side of the House would say: "It's time to unleash the job creation in this province. It's time to bring back investment." Investment is not a dirty word. On the other side of the House it is. Profit isn't a dirty word. Profits are the things that create jobs, that create revenue, that give you an extra teacher in the classroom and an extra nurse on a ward. It's pretty simple: if you don't have a thriving economy, you won't have

[ Page 14993 ]

safe and affordable health care, education and environment. This budget does not deliver on the new attitude, the new tone of government, that is desperately needed.

I want to talk briefly about the debt. It's now well over $30 billion. This government has not only increased taxes in ten years but has increased the debt by almost 100 percent. We're now paying more in interest to service that debt than we are in half of the ministries that provide services to the people of British Columbia. To me, that's been very selfish. In ten years a generation of British Columbians has taken literally tens of billions of dollars out of young people's pockets for the next generation.

You can say: "Well, we paid for their education, and we paid for their health care." Well, generations of British Columbians over a hundred-and-some-odd years paid for education and paid for health but didn't leave their young people, their children, with a huge debt at the end of it. The federal government has been equally as bad. I think we have to look at ourselves and take the blame for that. But I must admit -- not being in government for the last ten years -- that I think the NDP government have to look at themselves in the mirror and say: "Yes, we spent tens of billions of dollars of young people's money that won't be there to invest in high-tech, education and health care."

I think that's pretty simple. I look at Saskatchewan and Alberta and see how well they're doing. The test will be five years from now, when those two provinces have paid down their debts and British Columbia hasn't. They will be able to pump money into health care, education and the environment like nothing we've seen, and we're going to be further behind because of budgets like this and the other nine consecutive deficit budgets.

[1530]

So how are we going to compete with Alberta and Saskatchewan when they have better health care and education systems than us? They're putting money into high-tech; they're putting money into the environment. And little old British Columbia is suffering from ten years of deficits and a debt that has doubled. There is no plan here. There's no strategic plan to get out of debt. Every year for the last four years and five budgets I've sat here and listened to debt-servicing plans, debt recovery plans and debt management plans. Every year it's thrown out. Every year the government doesn't meet its targets. Every year we go further into debt, and every year we have a budget that says: "We're going to start to pay off our debt."

We haven't paid off our debt in nine years -- haven't even started to. Every year in the last nine years we've added to that debt. Every year in the last nine years we've had a deficit that has added to the debt and has added to the tough times for the young people in this province, and I think they know it. I think the young people of this province have caught on that we're spending their money. We're not attempting to say to them: "You're going to be able to control your own lives." When people who are 18 today are elected to this chamber and have got a debt that is probably still $30 billion because of this government, their hands will be tied. You're tying the hands of future generations.

I know the government always says: "Well, we've paid for this, and we've paid for education, and we've done a good job." I've got to tell you that from an 18-year-old's perspective, you haven't done a good job. You haven't left them the opportunity to be masters in their own houses, to control their own fate and to have the type of government they want. They're going to be paying for the debt of British Columbians. They're going to be paying for fast ferries. They're going to be paying for convention centres that weren't built. They're going to be paying for contracts that just paid more money for the same job to be done. They're not going to be very happy about that, and they've got a right not to be very happy about it.

What this budget should have had in it is balanced budget legislation. It should have said: "We're going to make it illegal to run deficits in the province of British Columbia." Maybe only then will politicians start to be serious about providing the services at a costly and balanced way. We certainly haven't seen that in this budget or in the last nine budgets.

When any corporation -- and the government of B.C. is a corporation; it provides services to the people of British Columbia on their behalf at their request -- doesn't have a strategic plan and doesn't have business plans, how can you be expected to balance your budget? How can you be expected to spend those billions of dollars every year effectively? I don't think you can. People have to balance their own budgets in their house. They have to pay down their debts. They understand that; we all do. Government is no different. Government is just the people spending their money together on projects and services.

We have to reflect that will of the people. You don't get elected to this House and then all of a sudden become smarter. You get elected to this House to represent 100 percent of the people of British Columbia, not just 35 percent, not just your friends. Once you're elected, you represent everyone equally. You try to do the best job for everyone equally -- not your friends, not your supporters. We've seen budget after budget where people aren't treated equally in this province. We've seen budget after budget where the friends of government have got a better deal than the taxpayer. That's not fair; it's simply not fair. I believe that people now see that.

I think that it's not good enough for the government to say: "We protect health care and education." I think you've got to look at what you do, not what you say. For the longest time people have wanted to trust this government, and they've wanted to trust the budgets that are presented. But I think they've caught on that you've got to watch what government does, not what government says it does. We've seen too much of that.

[1535]

I can give you an example in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. When I was mayor of Saanich -- before I was elected -- there were revenue-sharing grants and grants that went to municipalities, which have all been cut. The support for municipalities. . . . Municipalities function under the provincial government, and they provide services that the provincial government doesn't or can't provide. Those revenue-sharing grants -- which are sort of saying, "We'll take the wealth of the province, and we'll share some with the municipalities" -- have all been cut. I look at the municipalities that I represent -- Central Saanich, North Saanich, Sidney, the Gulf Islands -- and they've all had grants cut. So they had to increase municipal taxes, if they're going to supply the same level of services. Yet we hear the provincial government saying: "Our troubles are because the federal government cut all our grants." Well, the federal government did cut grants, but you turned around and cut all the municipal grants.

[ Page 14994 ]

An Hon. Member: We had no choice.

M. Coell: No choice, the minister says. You did have a choice. You just decided that you'd have someone else collect your taxes and do your work for you; that's the only reason. You didn't have enough guts at that point to say: "Let's balance the budget."

An Hon. Member: No courage.

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, the government didn't have the courage or the gumption at that time to balance their books and to try and find ways of dealing with their problem. They just shoved their problem off onto the municipalities and the regional districts in this province -- again, no long-term strategy, no sitting down and saying: "Okay, if the federal government is going to cut, what are we going to do? How can we provide the same services? What can we do with the moneys that we have, rather than dump it on the municipalities?"

You know, there are two other areas I want to touch on, and one is agriculture. Every year since I've been here, the support for agriculture has gone down. Agriculture is a billion-dollar industry in this province, yet it doesn't have any support from this government. It's overregulated; it's overtaxed. The support from the ministry has been cut every year.

The other one is ferries. My riding is very dependent on the B.C. ferry system. At one time it was a proud corporation in this province -- a B.C. Crown corporation that people were proud of. The employees were proud of it too; they were proud to be civil servants. Now, after ten years of political meddling, of fast ferries, it's on the rocks. This government hasn't handled B.C. Ferries in any way that you could say is a businesslike manner, or in a manner that is supposed to supply services to Gulf Islanders and Vancouver Islanders as a highway system.

Mr. Speaker, you can use that as an example of how the NDP government manages government. They ran a proud, proud corporation onto the rocks. Morally it was a terrible thing to do to the residents of Vancouver Island, the employees of the corporation and the taxpayers who are now funding ten years of mismanagement. They've gone from a $10 million debt to $1.3 billion that the government says we have to write off.

Well, there's no such thing as a write-off to the taxpayer. That means you've borrowed the money to write it off. So the taxpayer is out $1.3 billion in borrowed money, which probably, when it's paid back, will be $3 billion or $4 billion for ten years of mistakes. Can you imagine the taxpayers now, with compound interest on that borrowed money, paying $3 billion to $4 billion to pay back the debts of one government's ten-year spending spree and mismanagement?

One of the other speakers this afternoon mentioned the downtown east side in Vancouver. It's an area that I have visited over the last few years, and it's an area that needs help. It's an area of extreme poverty; it's an area of organized crime and drug abuse. I don't see anything in this budget that does anything major to help that area. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. I was a social worker, and I worked with people with alcohol and drug problems. Those people are people. Those thousands of people in the downtown east side who are addicted, whose lives are misery right now, need our help.

[1540]

They are not getting it in this budget. They are getting fringe help, if anything, from this government. Over the last ten years this government had an opportunity to really make some changes in that area, and they have not. They simply have not. The problems of drug abuse, of addiction, of organized crime, of child prostitution, have gotten worse in the downtown east side of Vancouver. That's not acceptable, and it shouldn't be acceptable to any member of this House. Those are people. They're people like you and me who, for whatever reason, have fallen on hard times. We need to see direct help in this budget.

As I said in my throne speech, there is no direct help in the throne speech or the budget for crime in British Columbia. We spend millions of dollars on photo radar -- millions. Can you imagine if you took the money you are spending on photo radar and put it into alcohol and drug programs in the downtown east side -- into housing programs -- if you put a fraction of the money you spent on B.C. Ferries into the downtown east side to help those people?

But no. This budget is about choices. It's about choices this government has made that are wrong. People are suffering because of the choices this government has made in this budget and the last nine budgets. People aren't coming first. The people who need our help most aren't coming first.

Fast ferries came first. The convention centre came first. The highways agreement came first. The health labour accord came first. Where was the money for the people of the downtown east side? Where were the housing units? Where was the health care? This government made the choices. This government made the choices, and they chose not to help the people when they needed it. They chose to put their money in fast ferries; they chose against housing. They chose the fast ferries against health care. They chose fast ferries against alcohol and drug programs. This government isn't working for people. It doesn't have a chance of being re-elected.

If this government cared, if this government thought this budget was any good, they'd call an election. They'd call one right now. They'd go to the people and say: "This is what we believe is the best we can do for the British Columbia people." That's not good enough. It never will be.

On this side of the House, we will govern for 100 percent of British Columbians. We will be fair. We will see prosperity return to this province. We will see jobs created, because we're going to get the engine of this economy going. That's something that this present government hasn't been able to do and won't be able to do for any foreseeable time in the future, because of their philosophy.

It's time to call an election. We've had three Premiers; we've had five budgets; we've had ten years. Nothing is happening in this province. It's time to go to the people. It's time to have a mandate from the people to make some changes.

I thank you for the opportunity for expressing some of the thoughts that the residents and taxpayers of Saanich North and the Islands have shared with me over the year. I just repeat some of their comments for your interest and for the interest of the members of the Legislature.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I am very pleased to take my place in this debate on the budget that our government introduced a few days ago -- perhaps a couple of weeks ago; one loses a sense of time when one is here in this chamber.

[ Page 14995 ]

I must say that I listened to the actual critic of the Environment, the official opposition. I listened to his comments, and clearly I disagree with many of them. I do believe that this budget that has been introduced in this House is a balanced budget, a modern budget. It does give priority to those areas where we on this side of the House have clearly identified our priorities: health care, education. This year we've got child care and, yes, tax cuts and cleaning up the environment.

Some of these priorities are not new. They have been in each of our budgets. They are in each of our budgets, and they are a priority with this government, because those are the priorities that British Columbians have identified. Those are the priorities that people in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon have identified. We're trying to deliver the services that people need and want in their communities.

[1545]

I want to talk just a little bit about some of the aspects of the budget, picking up from where the former speaker left off here. Let's talk about tax cuts. The members on that side of the House like to spend a lot of time espousing that right-wing mantra that if you just cut taxes for everybody, if you cut taxes for big business, if you cut taxes for the rich, etc., then all of a sudden all of the good societal things will happen. We on this side of the House don't agree with that. What we have tried to do is to target those tax cuts where we believe they would do the most good.

The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands was saying some outrageous statement that we've been raising taxes over the last nine years. If you ask some of the families in Burnaby-Willingdon -- and, I suspect, right across this province -- who are making $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year what's happened to their taxes, they will acknowledge that, yes, they've gone down. And they're going to go down again this year. In fact, personal income tax reductions will put more than half a billion dollars back into the pockets of British Columbians, with the provincial income tax cut portion of it -- because some of that is federal; we freely admit that -- targeted to the middle class and lower-income earners. That's where it's going to do the most good, hon. Speaker, because those are the people who are going to spend those dollars in the communities, buying the goods they need for them and their families.

The other thing that we have targeted is tax cuts for small business. You know, in Burnaby-Willingdon, when you drive along Kingsway, I think everyone will notice that there's an awful lot of small businesses right along Kingsway. Many of them are coming to Burnaby to live because it's an absolutely great community to live in. It is well taken care of, has lots of green space. In fact, I think we have the highest percentage of green space of any lower mainland community, at around 25 percent. Small businesses come and locate there, and they add a tremendous amount to our community. That's why we cut the tax rate for small business last year, and this year we are reducing it to 4.75 percent, as of July 1.

When we introduced the budget, we said: "That is the lowest rate in Canada." Since then, I think one other province brought in a budget, and they've put their tax rate just a little bit lower than that. So we can still say this is the second-lowest tax rate for small business in Canada.

Now I want to move on to some of the items that are included in the budget on education. I was very pleased, last week, to be able to be part of the announcement in my community regarding extra funding for education in Burnaby -- $3.5 million more, a 2.6 percent increase in the K-to-12 section over last year. That is taking into account that we actually have a slight decrease in enrolment. What that will do is make it possible to cover the cost of inflation, to hire a few more teachers and to reduce class sizes. This year, for the first time in several years, I think -- and I really want to commend the Minister of Education for this -- some of those dollars are being allocated to learning resources. I have heard from my constituents that. . . . Our population is growing so fast. Some of our schools are bursting at the seams. It is difficult to keep up to date with learning materials. So I'm very pleased that we're targeting some of these very tight dollars in this budget to increased learning resources for the K-to-12 sector.

[1550]

This week, in addition to operating funds, I am very pleased that we were able to get capital dollars out there as well. This government has spent nearly a billion dollars for school construction over the past two years. That's a phenomenal investment. It's an investment in our children; it's an investment in our communities. In Burnaby-Willingdon I've been watching the additions going up in Maywood school and Cascade Heights school -- that was last year. Moscrop secondary school renovations are going to be starting any month. I was very pleased to hear that this year, there'll be more investment in my community in terms of classroom space and reducing the number of portables -- that's at Chaffey-Burke and Inman elementary schools.

That's not even counting the fact that along with my colleagues from Burnaby-Edmonds and Burnaby North, we will be receiving dollars to build another high school and relieve some of the massive overcrowding at Burnaby South Secondary. Even though it's a very new school, it's full to the gills, and that new high school will be badly needed and very much welcomed in my community.

Before I leave education, I do want to mention just a few words about post-secondary education. I'm always very, very proud that BCIT is in Burnaby-Willingdon. It's a very unique institution. It specializes in technology and does it very well. With the extra spaces that we are putting into post-secondary institutions, once again for the third, fourth, fifth year in a row -- I've lost track -- 5000 this year alone. . . . Many of those specialized spaces -- 300 spaces in apprenticeship, 800 new spaces in high tech programs -- will be available in my community of Burnaby.

Just next to BCIT is Discovery Parks, where some of the lower mainland's best-known high-tech firms, like Electronic Arts, have chosen to build their new facilities. So investing in spaces to help train our young people in high technology is, I think, a very good-news part of this budget.

The other priority that we on this side of the House like to mention, of course, is health care. I hope there is nobody in this House who would suggest that health care does not need to be a number one priority. That is why over several years' budgets now, we have tried to put as many dollars into health care as we could possibly afford. This budget is no different. This budget does include and build on last year's budget and puts more dollars into hiring more nurses -- $24.8 million. Not only hiring more nurses. . . . We all know that there is a nursing shortage, so we need to train more nurses. That is why there are 400 new spaces in this year's budget to train new nurses.

[ Page 14996 ]

There are also more dollars for long term care beds, something that in my constituency is also extremely topical. We have a waiting list of almost 500 people for long term care beds in Burnaby. That's not because we haven't been investing in building long term care beds; we have. On previous occasions in this House when I have been speaking on the budget, I have been able to point to some of the new long term care beds built in Burnaby. But we are an aging population -- certainly I have aged since I've come to this House. It's going to take a tremendous effort to try to keep up with the need to build quality, dignified places for the elderly to live so that they are not taking up the acute care beds in hospitals.

There are a couple of other things I wanted to mention about my constituency, and then I was going to use the rest of my time to just talk a little bit about general things. There are a couple of other things in this budget that kind of get lost in the shuffle.

[1555]

Last year my colleague who sits next to me, the Minister of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, brought in an Involve B.C. grant program. It wasn't a lot of money, but it was tremendously important money. What it did and what it does and what it will do this year is help train volunteers, help give people who already volunteer a tremendous amount of time in our communities the skills to be more active members when they serve on volunteer boards, and make sure there are resource materials to encourage people and give guidance to the kind of volunteer opportunities that there are in their communities.

Last year there was just a little over $100,000 provided to several non-government community groups to provide that small bit of assistance that they could use to help train volunteers and to encourage more volunteers. I think it is a tremendous program, and I'm really looking forward to the slightly increased dollars that will be available this year. I hope that some of those will come into my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon.

Finally, I just want to talk a little bit about, I guess, my favourite part of the budget, and that is because I am Minister of Environment. As people in this House know, I come to this ministry being a very strong environmentalist personally, and I'm very proud to wear that label.

The member opposite who spoke before me, who's the critic for Environment, did mention the cuts to the Environment ministry over the recent years. That is true. In order to protect health care and education, this ministry has withstood cuts in the past. But I do want to say that this year's budget, for the first time in several years. . . . I am pleased that there will be no cuts in staff and no cuts in programs. That's a long way from where I want this ministry to be, because I do think that we need to rebuild this ministry, especially the front-line staff. But I am very pleased that despite the sort of bottom-line look in the budget, I was able to ensure that some of the one-time funding from last year was actually added to my base budget this year and now can go directly to front-line service and programs. That's extremely important.

I want to say that while this ministry does incredibly good work. . . . I want to take this opportunity to say that I think the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks staff in this province are absolutely fabulous professionals, and the public is very well served by them under very difficult circumstances. But regardless of how much work this ministry does, one ministry cannot protect the environment. Every ministry must protect the environment; every community, every business, every industry and every individual. This has got to be part of our way of thinking in British Columbia if we expect to adequately protect the air; reduce greenhouse gases; protect our freshwater, drinking water and groundwater resources; and safeguard something that I think every British Columbian is tremendously proud of, and that's the spectacular biodiversity in plants and animals that is virtually unmatched anywhere across Canada or, I would even go so far as to say, North America and much of the world.

We do have a fabulous natural heritage, but we also know that with our population growth, with our geography, with some of the economic activities upon which we as people all rely, we are also having an increasing impact on that environment, and it's a negative one.

I am pleased that this year's budget is a stabilizing budget for the Ministry of Environment. Yes, I hope that everyone recognizes that we do need more dollars to be able to manage the fabulous parks that we've created and to take this ministry forward. As always, I will be a very, very strong advocate for the environment and the Ministry of Environment budget.

[1600]

There's only one other thing I want to mention from our budget. It's one of the reasons that I am so excited about this year's budget. It follows from what I've just said on the Ministry of Environment, and that is the commitment in this budget towards the green economy initiative -- $5 million for a green economy development fund will help push the environmental technology around wastewater treatment, alternative energy sources, energy conservation and biomass recycling. All of these tremendously exciting things are happening in B.C. And I saw them at Globe; anyone who was at Globe has surely got to feel very proud of B.C.'s environmental technology industry. That fund will help push the environmental technology envelope and help not only industry but also businesses, communities and ourselves to transform the way we do business and the way we relate to the environment so that we can respond to what I readily recognize is a greener global marketplace.

Those are just a couple of the very good things that I think are in this budget, and I am very pleased to take my place in this debate and support the budget that is in front of this House.

V. Roddick: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, members of the House. I have only served in this Legislature a few short weeks, and I venture to say that the experience is rather a unique one. We were welcomed, heard the Speech from the Throne, then were sent packing for spring break. Upon return we were given the pleasure of late-night sittings, as the government was quickly running out of fiscal gas. With a new year looming and no budget in place, we were being forced to allow taxation without representation -- the stuff of popular revolt many centuries ago and the evil against which legislatures were designed for in the first place.

Then I found myself in the gallery on a Sunday afternoon because the Premier had suddenly decided that education of our children was important. This is not governing. This is not even crisis intervention, whether it's budgets or strikes. This is a sad, sorry lot under a group delusion that they are in control.

[ Page 14997 ]

But don't take my word for it. I looked for guidance when preparing my speech today by reviewing some of the learned comments from my mentor and predecessor, Fred Gingell.

Let's look at some of those Gingell gems from budgets past. In 1992: "The official opposition also notes that there is no commitment here not to spend money that people don't have. There is no commitment, hon. Speaker, to balance the budget over a five-year business cycle. There is no commitment here to do something about the rising public debt, projected to now rise to in excess of $22 billion." Here we are, Mr. Speaker, just months into the new millennium, and we still have no balanced budget. In fact, we have hollow assurance from the Minister of Finance that we can look, possibly, to a balanced budget sometime around 2004. That is a 14-year business cycle. Good grief! They are simply unclear on the concept.

In 1992, Fred said: "To the NDP the economy is simply a cow; they milk it, but they don't know that it has to be fed."

Move to 1993 and Fred's statement: "We are looking for some thoughtful budget reduction in this document. Instead what we got was blatant proof that the unions are still running this government." Mr. Speaker, look at the current behaviour of this government and their dealings with CUPE. The NDP secretly forced the taxpayers of B.C. to subsidize one of their union supporters in its bargaining. Despite recent political disclosure, we still don't know the full dollar extent of all the secret side accords that this government has made -- dollars that should have been left in the pockets of our beleaguered taxpayers. And the money saved by closing schools -- is it disappearing into general revenue, or is it staying in education? No one really seems to know.

[1605]

In 1994, Fred went on to add to his studies of socialist budgets: "Budgets have a single purpose: they should tell us how the government proposed to provide the services that we really need, how it proposed to eliminate those services we can no longer afford, and how it plans to pay for what is left. This budget, much like its predecessors, is a testament to the failure of the NDP, a do-nothing budget from a do-nothing government."

Let's look at how this government continues to decide which services we don't need. They decided we don't need volunteers. That's right: volunteers -- what I and my caucus and my community of Delta South see as selfless, generous individuals offering their hands, heads and hearts for the betterment of others. Unfortunately, the very term "volunteer" seems to send a chill through every socialist's heart. It shouldn't.

Aside from the time that they donate, volunteers across this province raise millions and millions of dollars per year. In education alone, volunteers manage, through small and large efforts, to fundraise over $33 million for our school children each year. That's $33 million after tax. To earn that much, $55 million has to be generated. The other $22 million goes to taxes -- $7 million of it right back into the provincial government coffers. Of course the $33 million is then spent on goods and services that are subject to PST; there's another $2 million back in the provincial coffers. Of course no tax receipts are written to anyone for these hard-earned funds.

The NDP attacks on volunteers -- the efforts to keep them away from their children's schools, their parents' care homes and their community activity centres -- are shameful, undemocratic and financially stupid. I say again: shameful, undemocratic and financially stupid.

Moving to 1995, this was said of the NDP government of the day by Fred Gingell: "They should have taken the opportunity to cut spending and pay down the debt." He went on: "We see that all the tired schemes have become unravelled. The friends have been paid, the infighting has started, and the paper shredders have been oiled and made ready. . . . They may regrettably be with us a while longer. If so, and if there is any lingering decency, I ask one thing: please do no more harm." Who remembers Fred saying that? "Please do no more harm."

Sadly, this government continues to harm us all relentlessly. They have placed a $9,000 bounty of debt on the head of each and every man, woman and child in B.C. They sit mutely while their leaders dream up megaprojects, massive deficits and fiscal follies -- bleeding our education and care systems to death as a result. They feel fine demanding special warrants without justifying their spending. They let real per-capita after-tax income shrink year after year after year.

[1610]

In 1996, Fred called it as he saw it. This NDP government believed that re-election was a higher priority than truth or good government.

By 1997 the accumulated cost of NDP incompetence in the province was becoming painfully clear. Fred described it thus: "The NDP have sold the soul of this province to gambling. They sold our love and future use of our province's forest to a backdoor raid on the forest renewal fund. All of these things have brought about the NDP's addiction to reckless spending and bad management. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, will result in tears. We are truly in chaos in this province." That was Fred Gingell.

Today the NDP's addictive behaviours are worse than ever. The principles of budgeting are still not understood. In our homes, in our businesses, we know what a budget is. We know only too well the consequences of not following our budgets.

The Finance minister brags about a new clarity and transparency in government reporting. Put aside the fact that they are looking for praise for finally doing what they should have been doing all along. We've heard the truth about special deals, loftily called accords to make them more legitimate. Well, we shouldn't be giving any one side a leg up in negotiations -- not in education and not in treaty negotiations, which has just targeted $5 million, plus Crown lands and resources just to encourage participation. Why do we as equal citizens of B.C. have to pay certain interest groups to work together for the express purpose of reaching an agreement?

Not only is this a disgraceful action; it is a travesty of democracy. In the real world where I come from, it's called what it really is: bribery. By 1998, Fred was expressing a disheartened frustration. Would anything ever get better? He said: "I don't know why this government just doesn't find it within its psyche to tell the truth -- to just be honest, to just be straightforward."

Fred's work on governance, measurement and accountability issues paralleled the call for clarity on outcome reporting by the auditor general and others. I am delighted to see

[ Page 14998 ]

the recommendations of the Enns panel being addressed. However, I do have a comment arising from my experience in the business world over the past 28 years.

In the Supplement to the Estimates: Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2001, I see that every ministry has a total recoveries column. I realize that this is proper accounting practice which is used to treat each ministry as an individual profit centre. But since you are professing a new, open and transparent budget, I would like to caution the government that there is plenty of wriggle room here, as the member from Vancouver-Kingsway so aptly put it, for making things look better than they really are.

[1615]

Because I have made the transition from the fertilizer business to the business of politics -- some would say that's a very short step -- let me use fertilizer as an example. The total recovery column of the budget is the revenue of trucking at $15 a tonne on 15,000 tonnes of fertilizer, which equals $225,000. But buried in the sale somewhere is the fact that you sold that fertilizer by the tonne price only. In bags, bulk, big lots, small lots -- each tonne is at a different price, which may or may not include that $15 per tonne actual trucking charge. Yes, the difference shows up eventually, but believe you me, only a very talented team of chartered accountants could ever figure out where.

Another small but highly important area where this government can improve its focus is in Fisheries Renewal. This budget targets $7.5 million to invest in renewing our fish stocks. Fisheries Renewal, so far, has put most of its money -- which actually came from FRBC -- into fixing trails, revamping Panabode cabins in the backwoods, plus enhancing urban streams. These are all very worthwhile projects in their own right, but what have they got to do with our real fisheries industry? I hope to see a far stronger support program to help our traditional fisheries preserve and increase their fish stocks.

I also see in the budget a commitment to speeding up approval by the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation for new tenures, but I see only ski tourism mentioned. What about all the agricultural land tenure in Delta South and throughout the province? Now that these lands have been transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, I trust we will finally see agricultural leases and tenure treated with the respect they deserve, not merely as hot real estate commodities.

The last time Fred spoke in this House was 1999. Though ill, Fred's words were as timeless as ever:

"What are the concerns of the majority of British Columbia citizens when they read and hear and listen to this year's budget? They realize that debt service costs in this year and in the future are going to grow at a tremendous compounded rate. The effect of taking those resources from the bag of resources that are there to service the needs of British Columbians in health care, education, justice, the social safety net and the protection of children is going to be dramatic."

In its rush to expunge the memory of the last Premier -- no, wait a minute; I mean the second-to-last Premier -- this government is now dabbling with a new personality: out with the aggression and the megaprojects, in with maturity and civility. Now nearing their tenth year in office, the NDP has suddenly discovered the values of discipline and dedication. It's not good enough. Here's how to demonstrate your new-found maturity: balance a budget, say no to a union, tell the truth, and call an election. I am here today committed to carrying on the good fight for fiscal responsibility in spite of this government. They didn't heed Mr. Fred Gingell's words. They have continued to do harm.

[1620]

Among their destructive policies the NDP have perpetuated the most loathsome form of class warfare. Fred said in 1996: "This government keeps saying. . . 'What side are you on?' " This government should be on everybody's side. I cannot think of a more divisive battle cry than whose side are you on. We have to be on everybody's side. This government should be acting in the best interests of everyone, of all British Columbians. It's true. It's not an us-versus-them situation.

The new Premier masks his government's partisan interests by asking for a new, lofty, respectful tone in the House as a good example of good government. He's got it all wrong. This is where we should be debating -- loudly, if necessary. Clearly, always, the reason why we are all here is not to pretend to be civilized while fostering class warfare and divisiveness. No, our problem in this House isn't a lack of decorum and politeness. It is the hypocrisy of trying to use decorum and politeness to cover up incompetence, sloppiness, arrogance and the absolute inability to govern. We the people of Delta South have had enough.

Hon. P. Priddy: Moving from Delta South to mid-Surrey, I am pleased to take my place today and talk about the budget, talk about the part of Surrey that I come from and talk about what that budget means to the people who live there.

I want to talk for a minute about Surrey as a community -- not just about my constituency but about the whole city. It is probably one of the most unique communities in British Columbia. In my constituency alone almost a third of the people who live there are South Asian. We also have a fairly large representation from the Korean population, Vietnamese population and Spanish-speaking population. What it gives to us as people who live there who don't come from those particular ethnic backgrounds is this really rich fabric of a community. We have all kinds of opportunities to participate in different music, different culture, different religious beliefs -- to understand and learn about different histories. For those of us who might choose to shop, we have the opportunity to participate in having clothing that comes from many other countries. In point of fact, we have more South Asian dress shops in Surrey than there is in the Punjabi market in Vancouver, so we are indeed a growing community.

It's also a community that's very representative, I think, of age. We have lots of people who are having babies -- who have very young children, children who are preschoolers. As anybody who has followed education issues knows, we have a continuing-to-burgeon school population -- and now, particularly, high school population. We have a high participation in our post-secondary institutions by people who are just finished high school and by people who are 84 and 85 years old. It is a very diverse community. For that reason, I think it is

[ Page 14999 ]

a rich community, because we have seniors who participate with very young children who don't have seniors or elders in their lives. That adds a dimension to their lives that might otherwise not be there.

It is quite a wonderful community. As people talked about today. . . . My colleague, the Hon. Sue Hammell, talked about the fact that today is the beginning of the Baisahki. In our community, that will be an event for much celebration. We will all enjoy that -- South Asian and non-South Asian, Sikh and non-Sikh.

[1625]

When I look at some of the issues in Surrey, many of which caused some of us to enter politics in the first place, I want to highlight a little bit about what those are and a little bit about how those have progressed, and in some instances, they've progressed considerably. When I was involved in my children's school groups as a PAC or parent advisory council member, then as a trustee and chairing the school board, and then as a candidate and an MLA, the issues that we hear about in Surrey very frequently are about health, K-to-12 education and post-secondary education. I'd like to spend a bit of my time speaking about some of those issues.

Let me talk a bit about health, if I might. When I was first elected -- and even when I moved to Surrey -- people were concerned that for many of the health services they needed, they needed to go beyond Surrey. If you had a child who needed surgery, then very often people went to the Children's Hospital, because Surrey Memorial didn't have the capacity to be able to do those kinds of procedures -- at least not some of the longer, more sophisticated procedures. That's really hard. I mean, I know that it's a city and that for the people who live in the rural areas, for me to say that Vancouver is a long way from Surrey must sound like I haven't been to the country. I truly have. But for somebody living in Surrey with no transportation trying to visit a child who's at the Children's Hospital and not being able to take transportation after certain hours, it's very difficult. Particularly, to have a child having surgery or very ill and separated from their family is something I don't think any of us would want anybody that we know -- or anybody, for that matter -- to go through.

One of the things that's happened, I think, in the last few years is that at Surrey Memorial, there's a very large construction project underway -- what locally is called the tower. The tower is well on its way to completion, and one of the things that it's going to make a difference in, in Surrey, is an expanded pediatric unit for children.

We now have the capacity, as a result of some of the work that's done, for people requiring renal dialysis to have it in Surrey. Before they had to go either to New Westminster or to Vancouver. We have a fairly new renal dialysis unit -- new last year -- in Surrey.

One of the things I'm very pleased about is that there is also a 12-bed adolescent psychiatric unit in this new tower. We know that we need more in-service support for adolescents in terms of psychiatric units. We need more psychiatric services for adolescents, both out of hospital and in hospital, but there will be 12 adolescent beds in Surrey. All of us who know any teenagers, who read the paper, who hear the issues that are facing the lives of teenagers today, know how vital a service this really is.

Like any community, we need more nurses as well. Out of those 1,000 new nurses that are being hired, some of them will be in Surrey. As well, we have Kwantlen University College in Surrey, which has a nursing program. I hope very much that of the 400 new opportunities for nursing education, some of those will come to Kwantlen College and come to Surrey. That will make a difference in terms of the nursing support that's available in our community.

I think the last health thing I would want to comment on is that we have. . . . Actually, the official opening is Friday. It opened a few months ago. We have a primary care demonstration project in our constituency. Actually, you, hon. Speaker, have a primary care demonstration project in your constituency. Ours is quite different, but it is all part of an initiative -- in partnership with the federal government, let me be clear -- to find new ways to respond to the health needs of people.

[1630]

This primary care demonstration project responds to the needs of people with mental health needs -- those people who live with a serious and persistent mental health illness. What this new clinic does is provide, over extended hours -- that's the first thing, extended hours; I think they're going to move soon to weekend hours -- not only an ability for someone to see their psychiatrist and be able to get service and support from that perspective but also to see a general practitioner. For people with serious and persistent mental illnesses, they may see their psychiatrist on a regular basis, but they very often don't see their general practitioner on a regular basis. One of the things that we know about projects like this is that they will reduce the pressures on emergency rooms. If we can get support in earlier for people, it may help us reduce some of the tragedies that we have all heard and read about in this province in the mental health field.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Having talked a bit about health because that was my last portfolio, I want to talk a little bit about education, if I might.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's been brought to my attention that there are officers in the gallery this afternoon from USS Abraham Lincoln. I would ask the House to welcome those who are here.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Ask them.

I want to talk a bit about education, partly because I have the Education portfolio and partly because in Surrey, education has been one of the issues and areas raised as being ones of major concern not only for parents but for also grandparents and people who no longer have children in the system. They are nevertheless still concerned about the kind of education students are receiving.

Let me talk for a minute about operating dollars. While Surrey this year is projecting an enrolment increase of about

[ Page 15000 ]

I want to talk a bit about early intervention. Most of my paid and unpaid life has been spent working with children, particularly very young children. One of the things that nobody -- I really do think nobody -- would argue with is that the earlier we can see children and give them the support and services they need and support their families, the less of that kind of work we might have to do later on. In other portfolios I've had, we've looked at what happens between zero and five years. But I think we all know that those first critical education years from kindergarten to grade 3 are a very crucial time. This government has made a very focused effort to support small class sizes for children from kindergarten to grade 3. We're almost finished. We've hired 900 new teachers, and we will hire an additional 300 -- for 1,200 new teachers -- in order to be able to reduce class sizes for kindergarten to grade 3 to what will be -- and is currently, by the way -- the smallest class sizes for kindergarten to grade 3 in this country by a long, long way.

In point of fact, this year kindergarten sizes will probably be at least at 20, and we intend for those to be at 18 by the time we're finished. Grades 1, 2 and 3 class sizes have dropped dramatically as well, so in the next two years we'll have reduced those class sizes significantly. We know that's better for teachers, for children and for parents, and it's better for the kind of support that the education system may not have to provide later on, if we just get in, in those very early years.

[1635]

I do want to speak a bit about capital money and the building of schools, because it was certainly my first challenge as a trustee. I know for people in rural areas where they are faced with the really difficult and painful challenges of closing schools, it probably sounds. . . . I hope it doesn't sound arrogant to talk about our great need to open schools, but in the community of Surrey we do have that need. We still have a growing student population. I am incredibly proud of this government's record on capital funding, not just in my own community of Surrey but throughout the province. Since 1992 when this government was elected, we've spent over $4 billion on building new schools, which had been neglected for a very long time. Almost 135,000 new spaces, almost 5,400 new classrooms, 158 new schools and about 458 new additions have been provided. That is an incredible record of building new schools for students, teachers and communities in this province.

In my constituency of Surrey that does translate out, and I'd actually be pleased to read into the record what that means. In the community of Surrey we have spent almost half a billion dollars on school construction, and this year it's almost $56 million. This year, from our capital budget in Surrey, we have a total of 3,500 new spaces, bringing our total to 24,000 new spaces since 1992. There are 140 new classrooms this year, bringing our total of new classrooms to almost a thousand. There are four new schools and 11 additions this year, bringing a total of 21 new schools and 71 additions since 1992. Certainly our school board and parents groups in Surrey will all say -- and have said in the paper, actually, as recently as yesterday -- that they have been very pleased with this government's commitment to capital dollars for schools and for education.

I do want to say that probably many of us participated in our children's PACs or parent advisory councils. That's the reason I got to be Minister of Education, I suppose. I started out being active as a parent in my children's school. There have been differences and some discussions lately about the role of parents and of school support staff. Those roles do have to be clarified. I started out as a parent, and everybody knows that I will defend not only the role of parents in the school but the absolute right of parents to be in their children's school, to participate in school activities and to be there to make that contribution. We know that students do well when they see their parents there. We know that other students feel safe when they see parents around the school. I will absolutely defend both their role there and their right to be there.

Let me talk for a minute, if I might, about advanced education. When I got involved with the Surrey school board, we had the lowest participation rate in the province in advanced education in the Fraser Valley. We did not have very much in the way of post-secondary facilities for our students graduating or for older students going back to attend.

We have now made tremendous strides in that area. In Surrey the participation rate has grown significantly. We now have almost 12,000 post-secondary spaces in Surrey alone, counting the two Kwantlen College campuses and the thing that we are so excited about, have fought very hard for and think is a wonderful resource for our community. That's the Technical University of British Columbia, which will have 800 students, I think, but currently has 200.

Of those new spaces that the Advanced Education minister talked about -- the 5,025 new student spaces, 800 new high-tech spaces -- we're very optimistic and encouraged that a number of those will come to the post-secondary facilities in Surrey. The fact that we have a continuing tuition freeze makes it much easier for many of our students to continue on to post-secondary education. Whatever kind of post-secondary role those students choose -- a trade, an apprenticeship, an arts or science degree, high-tech, nursing -- the tuition freeze has made that significantly easier.

If students graduated from Princess Margaret high school, one of the high schools in my constituency, four or five years ago, they will have had the opportunity of completing an undergraduate degree having seen no increase in tuition at all. There is nowhere in the country that you would see that kind of record.

I'm sure others have spoken of this, but to do a four-year undergraduate degree in this province is at least $10,000 less than it would be in other provinces. I'm very pleased that this year the post-secondary minister, along with freezing tuition fees, has made sure that there is also new money for universities. That does a bit to offset the tuition freeze so that they can move ahead with some of those initiatives that are very important to them in the post-secondary area. As I say, there are 12,000 in Surrey, but there are 190,000 students around the province that are affected by the tuition freeze.

[1640]

Hon. Speaker, just let me speak for a moment about what is a tremendously growing area -- I expect in everybody's

[ Page 15001 ]

community, but certainly in Surrey -- and that is the area of small business. That is the effect of the tax reduction on small business. We have approximately 8,500 businesses that have five employees or less. One of the things we know about that kind of business is that they are very often home-based businesses and are very often started by women. That is a hugely growing area or initiative of business in the city of Surrey. They indeed will be able to benefit, especially in those difficult early years for them, from that kind of tax reduction.

So I think that when I look at the citizens of Surrey, the people who are constituents of mine, and the effect the budget has had on their health care, on their education -- with increased funding, with new schools, etc. . . .

With new schools, the government's commitment was to cut in half the number of portables, and we will have been successful at the end of that initiative in doing that. But in schools, in the kind of post-secondary opportunities we have for people who are 18 and people who are 78 and people who are 88 -- all of whom participate in post-secondary education -- I believe that this budget is a good budget. I believe it's a budget that makes a difference for the people that I know, for families, for people with children in school and for people concerned about health care. I am very proud to stand and support it.

E. Gillespie: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and join this debate on Budget 2000 and to speak in support of the budget. Let me begin by describing a little bit about the Comox Valley. The Comox Valley is a very interesting, fast-growing, dynamic community. There are many communities within the community of the Comox Valley. The resource sector, fishing, logging and mining are all very important to the people who live and work in the Comox Valley. And small business is a very important enterprise and driver of the local economy in the Comox Valley. But probably the most important driver of the economy in the Comox Valley is actually public service -- that is, health care, education, advanced education. And of course I can't forget the military and our very important air force base in Comox.

As part of the budget process this year, the province undertook a broad public consultation. In my own community, I too invited my constituents to contact me about their views of the kinds of things that should be included in this year's budget. I had dozens of phone calls and received many individuals who visited my office and who sent letters, and these are the kinds of things those people told me.

They said to me: "Make sure that our children learn in adequate, safe schools that are well staffed and supported with the teachers and the learning assistants that they need." They said to me: "Make sure that we continue to create opportunities for young people and for adults returning for training and for higher education."

[1645]

They said to me: "Please make sure that our health care needs are taken care of, that we have an adequate supply of beds both for acute care and for long term care, that we have the nurses and physicians and other health care practitioners, that we have the essential health care technology and adequate operating room times."

They said: "Make sure we have the support for families who are raising children with severe disabilities." And they said to me: "Make sure we consider sustainability -- economic sustainability -- in our communities."

In contrast to that, there were two letters to the editor in the newspaper from two individuals who chose to make their opinions known not to me but through the media, who said: "Cut taxes; balance the budget."

Hon. Speaker, this budget is a good budget. There are targeted tax cuts which will fuel B.C.'s economic momentum -- tax cuts targeted to small business, tax cuts targeted to lower- and middle-income earners. The total British Columbia personal income tax will be reduced by $225 million this year and $354 million next year.

This budget invests in the top priorities of today's families -- British Columbia families, Comox Valley families. Just a few short weeks ago we saw tuition fees being frozen for colleges and universities for the fifth straight year. Students and parents of students, families of students, celebrate that fifth straight year of tuition fee freeze. We see an increase of $85 million to universities and colleges. We see an increase of $85 million to universities and colleges to help restore core funding, to help with the tuition freeze and to create over 5,000 new student spaces, including 800 new high-tech spaces.

Let me tell you, hon. Speaker, a few weeks ago I attended a student forum at North Island College, and those students were saying to me: "We need our libraries open longer. That means we need increased core funding for our college." They said: "We have too many students on wait-lists for programs, too many students waiting for nursing programs, too many students waiting for adult basic education, too many students waiting to learn the basic skills they need to enter the workforce."

This budget invests in 300 new teachers to be hired to further reduce class sizes in the K-to-12 sector. School districts will receive $445 million toward the construction of over 100 new schools, additions and expansions.

Let me tell you what that means in my own community: $445 million across the province, $4.5 million in school district 71 in the Comox Valley, $4.5 to continue the most ambitious school building and addition program ever. This $4.5 million investment in the Comox Valley school district this year completes the program that the school district has put forward for the past number of years. It completes a full shift into a school system that will include middle schools throughout the school district.

Interjections.

E. Gillespie: Some members opposite asked me how I got so much money. I can tell you that the school board in school district 71 has been very active and has worked together with me and the ministry to ensure that the children in the Comox Valley school district have the resources they need to attend school in safe, modern facilities.

I can tell you that some things very close to my heart are, again, among the top priorities of today's families: education, the opportunity for advanced education and health care. This budget increases health care spending for the ninth straight year, by $549 million. Hon. Speaker, $549 million goes to expanding the services that are offered in the community of the Comox Valley. It goes to ensuring that nurses have an adequate wage in order to do the work they are required to do. It goes to ensure that we have enough nurses to do the work that is required.

[1650]

[ Page 15002 ]

This budget includes $24.8 million to hire up to 600 new nurses and create 400 new spaces in nursing programs at B.C.'s colleges and universities. I look forward to a number of those positions coming to North Island College, meeting the needs of the students in that community to serve their community as nurses.

This budget includes $8.4 million to open new continuing-care beds, for a total increase of $34.4 million for continuing-care services. The people in the Comox Valley are broad and diverse, but I can tell you that it is an aging population. We have a tremendous need in the Comox Valley for continuing care and for home care. We need to work quickly toward this end.

This budget includes $8 million in funding to help reduce wait-lists for health services for children, including those children with special needs -- those children whose parents have visited me in my office in the Comox Valley -- and $14 million to add to the already $188 million that this province invests in child care. I would suggest this is a modest beginning to expanding the child care services of this province. This province supports parents -- a small percentage -- in order to ensure that children have safe and adequate care, so parents can go to work knowing that their children are safely cared for. I look forward to the development of the school-based before- and after-school program throughout this province and certainly in schools in my own community.

I spoke earlier about people in my community who talk about sustainable community economic development. We know that the fish resource has been abused. We know that the forestry resource has been abused. We know that we must change the way in which we manage and use and access the resources available to us. This budget includes support from the province to make sure that communities are able to make those transitions -- a $7.5 million investment for Fisheries Renewal B.C. to help restore and protect fish stocks. It includes a commitment to expand shellfish tenures. It includes a $10 million increase for agriculture producers and communities to help boost rural economies.

One element of this budget of which I am particularly proud is the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This act comes as a result of recommendations that have been put forward through the years and culminated by the auditor general's report and the Enns panel. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I look forward to the continuing implementation of the recommendations of the Enns committee and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. British Columbians require and deserve to know what is happening with the money that is available to the government of the province in order to best meet the needs and concerns of the people of the province. People in British Columbia deserve to know what are the assumptions underlying the budget are, in order that we make the predictions that we do. I look forward to that development.

I thought I might emphasize some of the highlights of Budget 2000 simply by picking up some of the press releases that have gone out in the last two weeks in my own constituency as this budget begins to be implemented for the year 2000. Let me tell you for a moment about the millennium grants and what the millennium grants have done for the community of the Comox Valley. Some $200,000 of millennium grant funding has gone to the Courtenay and District Museum in order to help the museum establish in a new facility -- a heritage building, the old post office -- and to promote its elasmosaur exhibit and the paleontological materials that it has.

[1655]

People in British Columbia do not know that in the Comox Valley, we have a full elasmosaur skeleton. People can actually go down and dig, under the supervision of museum officials, and can participate in a dig to extract more fossil material. It's a very exciting and dramatic opportunity both for tourism and for the scientific community.

Denman Island residents also received a millennium grant of $10,000 to add to the funding that has been contributed from the island in order to develop an all-weather sports field -- the only all-weather sports field on Denman Island. Most recently Hornby Island received a grant in order to put together a production called "March Through Time," which will celebrate the history of Hornby Island and provide an opportunity for young people to become involved in the very rich cultural traditions of Hornby Island.

The continuing progress of the Vancouver Island Highway project is greatly welcomed by the constituents of the Comox Valley. We've seen the highway arrive now in Cumberland, and by the fall of 2001 four lanes will be completed to Campbell River. I have a number of highway announcements that have gone out. This is the window in which much of the wetland work can be done. I'm very pleased to say, as I've said in my community and will repeatedly say in this House, that one of the things I'm most enthusiastic about with the Vancouver Island Highway project is the mitigation work and the new habitat work that the highway project has done along with local streamkeepers in order to make sure that we not only maintain the fisheries habitat we have on the east coast of Vancouver Island but also actually improve that habitat.

Another highways announcement I should tell you about is one I took part in last week on my roller-blades. This government, and through this government this budget, included funding for bicycle paths to ensure that people can travel safely on the side of roads, so people will actually consider bicycles as a transportation alternative. The municipality of Comox is continuing on its bicycle path network and has now been granted. . .to continue that network right through to the air force base, in order that students can walk or cycle or roller-blade safely to and from school. It's also a very active jogging route. Just in the short time we were there to make the announcement, we were passed, I would say, by two or three roller-bladers, half a dozen joggers and innumerable cyclists.

I spoke a little bit earlier about the commitment to health care in this budget. That is something that residents of the Comox Valley have been waiting for, for a very long time. As a matter of fact, they have been waiting for this announcement since 1994. Subsequent to the introduction of this budget, the Comox Valley will be receiving a new kidney dialysis clinic. It will include five kidney dialysis seats. There are a number of residents. . . . I have been surprised at the number of people who suffer from kidney problems and require dialysis either in Nanaimo or in Victoria. For them to be able to receive that treatment in their own community can only be a tremendous boon to them and their families.

Of course, we need to continue to invest in our hospitals and health care facilities to make sure that they are safe places and that they have the space required for the services they offer. St. Joseph's General Hospital will be receiving over $1

[ Page 15003 ]

million for renovations to expand the psychiatric unit, which serves all of northern Vancouver Island, to upgrade the medical gas system and to upgrade the entire hospital to make sure it meets current building code and care standards. The Cumberland intermediate care unit will receive $125,000 to install a new sprinkler system, ensuring fire protection for the continuing-care facility and residents.

[1700]

One of the things I said earlier that residents called me about and asked me to ensure was included in the budget is sustainable community development. I will say, quite in contrast to the remarks from the member for Delta South, that this government does support volunteers. It does support volunteers in every way, and just this week we provided over $60,000 to local community agencies in order that they can build capacity within their own organizations to make sure that volunteers have appropriate access to volunteer board training and to make sure that our community is well served by the volunteer organizations within it.

There is also a significant investment in the community enterprise program. An organization in my community will be receiving over $50,000 to fund a resource centre where people will be able to access employment opportunities, employment skills and skills for learning about their own community. This budget supports the continuing community forest pilots. It supports a rural development program, a $10 million investment in rural British Columbia.

Last year when I was coming down to Victoria from the Comox Valley in order to participate in the budget debate, I commented on some remarks made by the moderator of the United Church of Canada, who talked about the joy of paying taxes. I can tell by the remarks in this assembly that that joy is not necessarily shared by the opposition. But I can tell you that the people of the Comox Valley need and deserve the kinds of services that this government supports through Budget 2000. I support this budget, and I am proud to speak in favour of this budget.

J. van Dongen: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the provincial budget for the fiscal year starting April 1, 2000. Unlike the previous speaker, I will be speaking against this budget.

A few months ago about 1,200 NDP party delegates elected a new leader. The new leader made it clear that Victoria would be a softer, kinder place -- that megaprojects were out, business plans were in and fast ferries were gone. To hear the new NDP Premier tell it, better management was just around the corner. During the leadership race, local media people asked me about the candidates for the NDP leadership. When it came to the former Attorney General, I said that he was untested on economic and financial issues. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt until I saw some evidence of his approach to the province's finances and the provincial economy.

I didn't need to wait very long, however. With the tabling of the throne speech and the budget, the evidence is coming in. Today I am going to talk about how this so-called new government is handling two issues: the fast ferry project and the provincial debt and deficit problem.

On March 13, 2000, two days before the throne speech, the government announced a number of changes at B.C. Ferries. The headline on the press release read: "Province Announces Refinancing of B.C. Ferries: $1.1 Billion Debt Removed, Permanent Subsidy Assured, Pacificats up for Sale and CFI's Assets to Be Disposed." The announcement included a decision to write down the book value of the fast ferries by a total of $240 million by charging it against last year's revenue. By an amazing coincidence, B.C. Ferries also said that they had done another study of their old fleet, and lo and behold, they were in much better condition than the original assessment had indicated. We were told that with a certain amount of upgrading and maintenance, it was felt that these ferries still had a number of years of useful life.

[1705]

Eleven days after British Columbians were told the news of how B.C. Ferries would be instantly restructured, we were treated to another headline in the newspaper, which read: "Figure for Fast Ferries not Necessarily $40 million Each." The article quoted a communications person with B.C. Ferries, indicating that the asking price was still being calculated and that the asking price would differ from the $40 million for each vessel, which was claimed to be a conservative bookkeeping figure.

I didn't know what to make of this. I presumed it meant that the asking price would be higher than the $40 million. However, I decided that as a taxpayer, I'd believe it when I saw an actual sale completed and the cheque safely in the bank.

The scale of the fast ferry disaster in British Columbia, financially, is beyond comprehension. This mistake will go down in history as a textbook case on how not to do things in government. Consider, for example, that the beleaguered B.C. taxpayer today has already absorbed a $64 million write-off on fast ferry number No. 3 before it was even finished. As recently as last summer, construction on this ferry could have been stopped. This government, in its wisdom, chose to continue construction in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The NDP is fond of talking about the jobs created. What they don't tell us as taxpayers is the ultimate cost of each job, which has been calculated at $110,000 per person-year of employment. Only the NDP would think that this is the one way to build an economy. Even if the government had just given the workers the cash, they would have created twice as many jobs and saved themselves a lot of grief.

I have a few questions with respect to fast ferries for the Premier and the minister responsible. Assuming it ever happens, will the government commit to full disclosure of the terms, conditions, sale price and all the relevant details of the actual sale of the fast ferries? On March 13 the president of B.C. Ferries said that $40 million is the estimated market value of each of the fast ferries. Will the government explain how the $40 million of estimated book value for each ferry was arrived at? Why was there still uncertainty about the asking price 11 days after it was first announced?

My concern is that just as there was no business plan done at the time the fast ferry project was launched, I question whether a proper business analysis has been done now. In my view, the decision by the government to sell these ferries appears to be simply another purely political decision. The decision is to get the fast ferries out of British Columbia and out of sight at any price before the next election. In my view, nothing has changed with the government. They have a different person at the helm, but in many respects the approach to government remains the same.

[ Page 15004 ]

In a manner not unlike that of the former Premier, today's NDP Premier did the "fiscal thing" by announcing that he was selling the fast ferries and moving $1.1 billion of ferry debt over to the general government account. He doesn't dare talk about a balanced budget, and two days later he is announcing a new day care program. In business, if there were problems of the scale of the fast ferry failure and the spiralling long-term debt, a prudent manager would not be running out and starting a new spending spree on a day care program that the federal government decided it could not afford. In my observation, when a business is in financial trouble they often announce one more major capital expenditure or acquisition to convince themselves and everyone around them that everything is just fine. Inevitably, such a move ends up as part of another, bigger financial failure. It ends up being their last hurrah, but it's a great show while it lasts.

[1710]

The day care announcement proves very clearly that the new Premier does not understand what it means to get the government's fiscal house in order. He does not seem to understand what it means to pay interest every day on an ever-increasing mountain of debt. He does not seem to comprehend what it means to pay interest on interest in an ever-compounding fashion. He shows no commitment to the critical need to get started on deficit and debt management, no matter how insurmountable the task may seem. Instead, by announcing his support for a long-term goal of a publicly funded day care program, he creates false and unfair expectations, and he misleads people. Part of our job as elected leaders is to foster honest and realistic expectations in the face of the ongoing financial deterioration that the province is suffering under.

I want to take a look at what compound interest does to the fast ferry project's $460 million debt. If you take $460 million and compound it for five years on an annual basis at 6 percent, it becomes $615 million. If you do that for another five years, it becomes $824 million. After another five years it becomes $1.1 billion, and after another five years, for a total of 20 years, it becomes $1.475 billion.

This calculation assumes that the province has a balanced budget for the next 20 years but does not pay down any long-term debt. So after 20 years we find ourselves having spent $460 million in direct costs on these ferries and over $1 billion in interest, and it won't end there if the government doesn't address this issue. Again, I want to remind everyone that B.C. hasn't had even one balanced budget in the last ten years. In commenting on the fast ferry situation, the Premier said: "Government is made up of human beings, and human beings make mistakes. And when they make mistakes, they say they're sorry. And I say: 'We're sorry.' "

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I appreciate the Premier's acknowledgement that a mistake was made, and I will accept it as a sincere apology. However, I also want to see the new Premier's plan for getting our fiscal house in order. I want to see cash flow projections showing interest payments and the principal payments on the fast ferry debt for the next 20 years. It's time the government understood some financial facts and was accountable for them. Tell the people of British Columbia how and when this ferry debt will be paid for. Where will the money come from? What programs and services will be sacrificed to pay for this financial disaster? Perhaps the new Premier could explain to the people of B.C. how announcing a new social program will contribute to the pay-down of the ferry debt. Where does that fit into the NDP's plan to get B.C.'s fiscal house in order?

Once the government has tabled the payback plan for the debt on the fast ferries, they should go through the same exercise for the continuous string of deficits they have run up in the last nine years and the ongoing interest charges on that debt, which continue to compound every day. Our interest costs are $7.7 million per day. Every day of the year the government pays out $7.7 million of the taxpayers' money to the bankers -- over $2.8 billion per year. Unfortunately, the government tries to downplay the true implications of the province's finances by saying that everything is okay. Everything is in balance, as the new Premier is fond of saying. Unfortunately, the new Premier talks about balance with respect to everything except the budget. He never talks about a balanced budget, at least not since becoming Premier.

[1715]

Doing the calculation of compound interest on the fast ferry debt is bad enough. I wonder if the Premier has done that same calculation on the massive total provincial debt that his government has racked up in the last nine years through a string of deficits. It's not complicated to do the calculation, but the numbers are shocking. When the NDP took over in 1991, the total debt was $17 billion. Today it is $34 billion and projected to be over $36 billion in 12 months. Before the next election is called, the NDP will have added a full $20 billion of new provincial debt. And how much is $20 billion? One way of looking at it is that $20 billion is the equivalent of 43 fast ferry fiascos of $460 million each over a ten-year period. That is four ferry fiascos per year for every year that the government has been in office. That's how much our NDP government has overspent its revenue for the last ten years: the equivalent of four fast ferry disasters per year. The scale of the NDP's overspending in the last ten years is very hard for most of us to truly comprehend.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about this. The government cannot begin to pay off debt until it starts to achieve surpluses. This year's $1.3 billion deficit in this budget is higher than last year's deficit. And after 20 years and interest accumulating on it, it checks in at $4 billion if we don't get to a balanced budget and start paying some of it off. I'm not talking about shuffling the debt somewhere else, as the government has done for B.C. Ferries. I'm talking about actually trying to pay some of it off.

What all this tells me is one of two things: the government does not truly understand responsible financial management, or they are not being honest, first with themselves and then with the voters. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the situation can only be described as absolutely frightening, if you do the numbers. I have learned in business that just because the bankers are prepared to lend us more and more money, it does not mean that it is in the province's best interest or the taxpayer's.

The throne speech says that the aim of the government is to give British Columbians the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. These are the facts. The $460 million debt on the failed fast ferry project becomes $1.5 billion after 20 years of interest payments are added to it. The $17 billion in deficits accumulated to date by the NDP becomes $54 billion after 20 years, if we don't start generating at least a balanced budget every year and start generating some surpluses to pay off these debts. The government has piled provincial debt to record heights.

[ Page 15005 ]

Debt is the silent killer of government programs and services. As debt goes up, so do interest costs. And interest costs eat into what's available for program spending. This is the critical point: these services will not be available for our people. The dollars going into interest costs will not be available for health care. Those dollars that are going into interest costs are not available for education and won't be available for children and families. Those dollars are not available for any programs and services to people.

The $2.8 billion we're paying out in interest costs is one-half of the total $4.5 billion Education budget. It is one-third of the Health budget. It is twice as much as the current budget for Children and Families. Yes, hon. Speaker, $2.8 billion is more than what we are spending in 12 ministries.

Every year that goes by we pay out more money in the form of huge interest payments. This is not a sustainable approach to finances, and it cannot and will not continue, much as the government would like to think it can.

[1720]

On behalf of all British Columbians, I urge the government to question the integrity of running up billions and billions of dollars of debt and dumping that debt on our children. No one who understands one iota about finance and responsible spending would support the government's latest budget. No one should support it. The public is hoping that their government will demonstrate the courage to accept personal responsibility for the serious damage that their government is doing to the economy, to job opportunities, to our children's future, and to the security of our social programs, health care, education and income assistance.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few other specific comments. The first is on the issue of the government's relationship with its workers and the compensation paid to those workers. I want to thank the Premier and the Minister of Finance for releasing a document recently, setting out in some detail a fuller accounting of the government's labour costs and various labour accords.

I just want to quote from the document to summarize some of the issues:

"The government funds approximately 300,000 employees, directly and indirectly, at a cost of about $13 billion annually. Almost two-thirds of the provincial budget flows directly or indirectly to fund labour costs. In May 1997 cabinet approved a collective bargaining mandate of zero-zero-and-2 for the three years ending 2000-2001 to cover wage increases for the public sector. It was recognized that there would be labour costs that would fall outside of the wage mandate."

I also want to express disappointment at the decision of the government to change the funding formula for independent schools as part of this budget. I want to start by commending the government for maintaining the previous funding formula, which I understand had been in place since 1977. What we see in the current budget is an increase of 3.6 percent in public school funding, but the funding for independent schools only increased by 1.3 percent.

This is a big disappointment and a big concern for parents, administrators and teachers who have dedicated themselves to delivering a quality education for their children within the independent school system. Consider that these people pay their school taxes, like everyone else, but pay all the capital costs and 50 percent of the operating costs of the independent schools their children attend. I want to encourage the government to review the issue of fairness in this situation. I strongly urge the government and ask the government to ensure that the funding of independent schools continues to follow the 1977 formula.

It appears from this budget that the government intends to carry on business as usual. The B.C. public is supposed to feel better now that the government has a new leader who has the appearance of being a reasonable person. However, I want to quote from a recent auditor general's report, when he looked at the budgets of '95-96 and '96-97: "A government's budget is about the right of the Crown to collect revenue from the people and the right of the people to receive services for which they pay. It is also about the need for the government to be answerable for how it intends to meet its responsibilities in the exercise of the authorities granted to it in trust."

[1725]

The right and responsibility to govern in a democracy is a sacred trust to be acknowledged and protected every day. The provincial election on May 28, 1996, was a snapshot of the people's confidence on that particular day. Based on the electoral system in place in our province at that time, this government was elected by 39 percent of the people of this province -- not an overwhelming endorsement but an electoral victory nevertheless. If we as MLAs truly believe in democracy, however, it behooves us to consider every day our actions on behalf of the people. The New Democrats and this New Democratic government, I believe, have breached the public trust. They have failed to manage the public's hard-earned dollars over the last nine years, and they have given us absolutely no indication of any change in the future. As a result, I reject this budget, and I will be voting against it.

R. Neufeld: I rise, along with my colleagues, to speak against the budget this year. Obviously we've listened this afternoon to many concerns that individuals and people in the province have with the administration that we have in British Columbia now under the NDP. It's been disastrous, to say the least; in fact, it's been utterly terrible in many instances.

I'm going to attempt to stick to the budget as much as I can, because that's one of the areas that this group of financial wizards has not learned one thing about since coming to office in 1991. In fact, they didn't know anything about it back in the seventies when Mr. Barrett was here for a short term.

Unfortunately, we've been subjected to a longer term this time, but I believe that the people of British Columbia, in their wisdom, will see an opportunity to change faces in real terms -- not just someone standing up and saying, as the Premier said just recently, that it's a new government and that they have a new direction. People in British Columbia know it's not

[ Page 15006 ]

a new government. They know that it's the same faces, just different chairs, and that the ideas behind this government are no different than what they were back in the seventies or in the early nineties under the leadership of another infamous Premier.

To put it in context, I think we should go back to March 1992. The then Minister of Finance, who had a brief stint as Premier of this province. . . . It's actually unfortunate for the province that he was here, with the problems that we're in now. He -- the member for Vancouver-Kingsway -- did spend some time as Premier. I'll quote verbatim from Hansard his words at that time, March 26, as Minister of Finance: ". . .this government is committed to sound and prudent management of the province's finances. . . . Prudent fiscal management means getting British Columbia's budget deficit under control." That was March 26, 1992.

You know, we went through unprecedented growth, actually, in the first few years of the 1990s, when there was the ability for this government to actually balance their budget if they ever had a mind to balancing the budget. Timber prices were fairly good. There was still a little bit of work going on in the mining industry -- not that much. The oil and gas industry was fairly busy. People were still migrating to British Columbia for jobs. Now there's a tremendous out-migration because there are no jobs. So the opportunity for this government. . . .

[1730]

This government is no different than that government back in 1992; they are the same people with a few faces and a few chairs changed. After the 1996 election there weren't quite as many of them, but they're still the same crew with the same ideas -- the same archaic ideas, the same livingin-the-past ideas -- that they came to this House with in the seventies. They had the opportunity to make a change, and they chose not to make a change.

I don't think that this government or any Premier or minister of this government or any member of the NDP party ever had in their mind that they really wanted to balance the budget in British Columbia and start living within their means. I don't think that was ever in the vocabulary. Maybe it was in the vocabulary when they stood in the House. Pardon me; I believe they did say it many times. But really, truly, at the bottom of their heart, not one of them ever wanted to balance the budget.

It was a process of tax-and-spend. I remember well -- and there's a number of people that are in the House with me right now, some across the way on the government benches and some on our benches, that remember fully -- all the tax increases that this government created. There's a litany of them. There were more fee increases under this government in that short period of time than there had been since British Columbia joined Confederation. If someone stood up and happened to say something about there being an opportunity for a fee, let me tell you, this group would figure out how to do it. They taxed almost every everything, and they spent wildly. Unfortunately, much of that money that was spent wildly was wasted -- absolutely wasted. I will give them credit for some of the things that were built that were actually useful, like the Island Highway. You can actually drive down the highway. It's a pretty nice highway.

E. Gillespie: It's a fabulous highway.

R. Neufeld: The member for Comox Valley says it's fabulous, and I agree. I've been on that highway, and I know what she means.

An Hon. Member: How about the stoplights?

R. Neufeld: I know now what it's like to drive down a freeway and have red lights that you have to stop at -- right? There are no overpasses. It's a lovely highway, and it's a divided highway -- yet we have quite a number of red lights to stop at. But that being the case, I guess that's how the NDP try to bring things in closer to budget -- by eliminating some of the costs, because they overspend in many cases simply by the way they go about building the projects.

You've got to hand it to them. The highway, as I say, is useful. It is well built; you can drive up and down it. Other things on the Island, I guess. . . . There are so many of them; I don't have time to mention them all. In fact, I recall the Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, saying one time, and that isn't all that long ago: "My goodness, if we dump any more money on Vancouver Island, we're going to sink it." I guess that's the absolute truth. The member for Comox Valley talked about the millions of dollars that were being spent in her constituency, and I listened to the member for North Island talk about it. The members from around Victoria talked about all the money that is spent. I believe the member for Vancouver-Kensington was entirely correct when he said that they spent more money on Vancouver Island in that short period of time than has ever been spent on Vancouver Island.

We go back also to a time, when this government took office, when the infamous Premier who now sits on the back bench was the Finance minister and talked about balancing budgets and getting the deficit under control. We remember all too well that the debt that they inherited was about $17 billion at that time, in 1992. It took over a hundred years, actually, to get to that amount of debt. That was the total debt. The complete, total debt of all Crown corporations and all operations in British Columbia was $17 billion dollars. It was about 3 cents on the dollar to service that debt -- one of the lowest in the country. We were enjoying some growth until these financial wizards came along.

[1735]

Within a short period of time we've gone to $36 billion in debt. I understand that there has to be some debt. I don't dispute that, not for a minute. You will end up incurring some debt building some of the infrastructure that the province requires. The difficulty with the debt that has been incurred under this government is that it's overspending on the credit card. It doesn't have a lot to do with infrastructure and those kind of things that will see British Columbia continue to be a great province. It is actually overspending, spending without any business plans, spending without ever thinking about it first, spending money just for the sake of spending money.

I don't think anything can be more foremost in our minds than the fast ferry project -- absolutely, stunningly stupid, when you think about it. You have a ferry board prior to this group being elected that says: "Fast ferries won't work in our waters." You have a ferry board that actually knows what they're talking about -- with men and women on that ferry board that actually build ships, build ferries and have been involved in the marine industry all their lives -- saying: "This won't work. Don't do it." But you have a little Premier and a

[ Page 15007 ]

group of people in cabinet, and some of those are here today. All of them are part of it -- part of the approval process, part of Treasury Board and part of cabinet in the actual approval of those expenditures.

When that ferry board said that it shouldn't be done, do you know what this group did in their wisdom? They fired that group; they gave them their walking papers. It was a board that was made up of people who actually knew something about ferries, ships and the marine industry, and this group of financial wizards in their wisdom fired them -- absolutely. "Give them their walking papers."

They brought in Jack Munro -- and who else? Paul Gill and a few others; some party hacks, I guess you could call them -- to sit on the Ferry board and do the wishes of the then Premier. You know what they did? The full figure's still not in yet, and it won't be; we'll be paying this debt off for a long, long time. They blew $460-some million -- $460 million. Can you imagine what that money could have done to build hospitals in rural B.C.? Some of them are failing badly, and the previous Minister of Health knows that very well. To build long term care units in rural B.C. and in urban B.C., which the previous Minister of Health knows full well were needed, to look at schools that were actually crumbling and build schools, to actually build roads in the province -- and I don't mean just on Vancouver Island but in the whole province of British Columbia. . . . Can you imagine? Can you just imagine what $465 million would have done?

You know, it's not just that. It's that we still need ferries. We still have to upgrade the fleet. We still have to go out there and spend untold hundreds of millions of dollars to keep that marine highway open. And so it should be; I have no problem with that. There should be good, efficient ferries running between the mainland and Vancouver Island to bolster tourism, to bring products back and forth -- all the things that have to happen, Mr. Speaker.

[1740]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

An Hon. Member: Keep going -- right to the end.

R. Neufeld: I'm getting the message. I guess I could start right after question period on Monday and finish my deliverance. I think what I'll do is continue on and just reserve my right, and I will finish it on Monday right after question period.

If you think about those hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been spent in British Columbia on worthwhile projects, it's unbelievable. Yet this same group that sits over there now and says they're a new government with new ideas was the group that approved that overexpenditure. We know that this government has never really had good business plans in place. In fact, probably none; they probably never have had any business plans in place.

That's further borne out just recently. In fact, I believe it was just released today -- the "Capital Management Process Review for the Government of British Columbia," by Deloitte Consulting. They talk about the purpose of it. It was to deal with projects from late 1999 to early 2000. The fast ferries project was specifically excluded because of other ongoing reviews, obviously. They selected projects to review that totalled $2.7 billion in that period of time.

There are a number of things: the Smithers Secondary School expansion, Kelowna cancer centre, North Fraser Pretrial Centre, Port Mann Bridge, Cape Horn interchange, Royal Jubilee Hospital diagnostic and treatment centre, Technical University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre expansion that failed, for $70 million -- that was another great idea gone bad, I guess -- and the SkyTrain extension.

In some of the analyses they came up with. . . . I'm reading right from the report. This isn't made up by anyone other than who the government hired to have a look at all these projects. They say: "Project governance is weak." Health care projects are particularly difficult in how they're handled. Project handling is weak and lacks authority. "Untimely project announcements." "Post-completion reviews needed." None are done now.

It's a pretty damning report of what's taken place in that short period of time. But the people of British Columbia know what's gone wrong. They know this government hasn't operated fairly -- hasn't operated in the best interests of British Columbians. They certainly feel the pinch when they find out that the cost to pay the interest on the debt is about $7.7 million a day. I guess most people know how much money a million dollars is now. It's pretty easy to say a million; billions are a little more difficult. But $7.7 million a day, just to pay on the debt. . . . Just imagine what we could do for health care. Just imagine what we could for schools. Just imagine what we could do for child care if it wasn't that high. It's absolutely astounding.

I want to talk a little bit about a couple of things that happened in my constituency. When I talk about infrastructure and roads. . . . You should give credit where credit is due. This government has committed some more money in the northeast on roads than what it has in the past, but it's because they were financially pushed to do it. It was the only part of the province that was really returning a lot of money to the province, through the sale of oil and gas rights and drilling.

[1745]

An Hon. Member: How come the Socreds didn't do it?

R. Neufeld: In fact, I believe it's about $20 million a year over a period of five years. Some little voice in the back that you never hear from too often says: "How come the Socreds didn't do it?" They made this $20 million a year look pretty sick, my friend. That's why we have a big problem up there. They actually invested in the infrastructure in the northeast when they were in government. This government elected not to for many years, and now, all of a sudden, it's an election year. Wow -- hey, it's election year; we're going to put $103 million into roads. You're not going to be here to really expend the money, but you'll make the promises. That's all you're good for. You haven't done anything up until now.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Actually, we're quite lucky that we had some Socreds here, the member says. You're right. We had some vision at that time from W.A.C. Bennett -- some vision for the province of British Columbia, and it actually built British Columbia up to what it is today. We've lived on that vision, and this government has spent it, most of it frivolously.

Health care. Our hospital in Fort Nelson, I want to say, is usually funded fairly well for health care. The health centre in

[ Page 15008 ]

Hudson's Hope was built, and that's great. But the hospital in Fort. St. John has been asking for some funding for quite a number of years, to upgrade a hospital that was absolutely deteriorated and still is today. Air exchange is below the minimum for WCB, and we have no access for wheelchairs in some of the doors. These are things that should be commonly done.

What happened, when they asked for the $10 million, is that some of it was given. But it's been piecemeal. One year they get $750,000 and next year maybe $1.2 million, but there is no way that they can do any long-term planning. They have a plan in place that they want to do over a period of years. They don't need it all at once but over a period of years, to bring the hospital up to speed. This government, in its wisdom, decided: "No, we're going to peel money to you every year when we feel like it and only give you how much we think you should have." What happens is that you cannot plan properly, you can't spend properly and you can't get the best bang for your buck. Unfortunately, that's so typical across this whole province.

In fact, it was interesting to listen to the Minister of Education talk earlier about -- when I talk about health care -- the difficulty in getting from Surrey to Vancouver to visit a child when there is a lack of transportation facilities. I assume she's talking about bus transportation and those kinds of issues. I can appreciate that being a problem, but I can tell you that it is a much bigger problem getting from Atlin to Vancouver if you have a child in hospital in Vancouver -- or from Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, the Kootenays, the Cariboo, Prince George, Smithers or Prince Rupert. Can you imagine the amount of money those people pay?

Unfortunately, when that minister was Minister of Health, I put a proposal forward, not just to that minister but to other ministers, about how we could maybe help people with health care travel in the province of British Columbia. To this minister's credit, last year she reinstituted a $5,000-a-year grant to Mission Air -- a grant that was cut off a number of years ago -- and I appreciate that. Mission Air flies, on average, almost a person a day in British Columbia for health care services. That's a society headquartered out of Ontario, and we take advantage of it here in British Columbia.

I've asked many times -- and I've sent letters to MLAs across the way and to my caucus -- to collect your travel points and donate them to Mission Air. At least let's start a process where we can start getting people back and forth. The member for Rossland-Trail will know full well -- he and I have had discussions about it -- how that would help people from rural British Columbia access health care.

[1750]

Where I come from, they don't demand cancer clinics and all that kind of service in the north or in rural B.C., because they know we can't afford that. They know that will have to be in the larger centres in the province. That's mainly Vancouver, the Okanagan or Victoria. They understand that, and they live with that as best they can.

When I hear ministers talk about how difficult it is to get from Surrey to Vancouver, I can think of numerous people who have come to me, who have had to take time off work, both mom and dad, to drive from Fort Nelson or Fort St. John all the way to Vancouver on a monthly basis to take their child in for cancer help and have lost a huge amount of money. If we think just for one minute about the huge waste of the fast ferry project, $500 million and still counting, from this group over here, one wonders where the priorities are for this government. It's certainly not helping those people in rural B.C.

Can you imagine how you would feel reading a newspaper story about $500 million wasted on a project that won't work or $70 million wasted on a convention centre in Vancouver that's not going to happen? When they're trying to figure out how to get a couple of hundred dollars together so they can buy gas to drive to Vancouver, and then they don't have a place to stay -- they can't go home that night; they have to stay in a hotel room and get meals -- just think how they feel.

Hon. Speaker, noting the time -- and I still have a few words that I would like to say -- I would like to move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Speaker's Ruling

On April 10 the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton reserved his right to speak on a matter that he characterized as a question of privilege with respect to certain comments attributed to him in the House by the Minister of Employment and Investment. On April 11 the hon. member rose on the same matter under standing order 42(1) in order to correct the same comments attributed to him by the minister and sought a withdrawal. The minister subsequently responded, and the matter was resolved satisfactorily.

I wish to caution members that complaints such as these cannot be used as a foundation to raise a question of privilege, as the member for Okanagan-Penticton initially proposed to do. Moreover, standing order 42(1) provides that a member may rise in the House and speak in explanation of a material part of his or her speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, and no debate will be allowed on such explanations.

The intent of standing order 42(1) is to afford an opportunity to a member to make further remarks after concluding a speech by way of explanation before the end of the debate, if that member conceives himself or herself to have been misunderstood in his or her speech in the House. That's the sole purpose of standing order 42(1).

In this instance the member's complaint did not fit under standing order 42(1), nor did it qualify as a matter of privilege. The proper recourse for the member in these circumstances is to rise on a point of order, state the facts in a brief, succinct manner and, without debate, correct the record.

Hon. D. Lovick: May I take this opportunity to wish all members a safe and happy break from this chamber. With that, I would move adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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