1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 15

[ Page 13241 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like all members of the House to very warmly welcome representatives of the B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers Association, who serve our communities so well, cover so many of the communities and are read by the vast majority of citizens in our respective cities, towns and villages throughout the province. I'd like you to welcome Frank Kelly, Dale Nelson and Brian McCristall, who is here with his wife, Heather, and his son Patrick.

G. Campbell: I would like to ask the House to welcome Michael Cooke, who is the new editor-in-chief of the Province newspaper. He's come to us from Edmonton. I'm sure that he will find the House an enjoyable pastime for him to get to know what's taking place in British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

D. Lovick: How appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition would make that introduction -- but I will let that pass.

I rise to introduce somebody who is departing these premises before long. William Peters, who has been with the Legislative Library staff for some 22 years, will be retiring next week. I think it's incumbent on all of us to acknowledge the very good work and dedicated service that William has provided. William's plans, I know, are to retire to Merville, somewhat north of here on the Island. I'm sure the member for Comox will be making a note of this momentarily. I just want again to ask all my colleagues to please join me in offering our thanks and appreciation to William. I am sure he's been a tremendous advantage and assistance to all of us who've ever used the Legislative Library.

T. Perry: I have a rare privilege today. My children played hooky from school and came over to have lunch with me -- in outright defiance, I might add, of the Minister of Education. I'd like all members of the House to join me in welcoming my children, Alison Perry and Dustin Perry, my wife, Beth, and my father-in-law from the great city of Woodstock, Ontario, Hudson Chambers.

Alison asked if she could also apprise members of the House of a special distinction as Easter approaches. She claims to be the only girl in British Columbia who carries Easter eggs under her armpits, and if any of you wish to tickle her, you can get your share. Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Pat Higgs, who is the past president of Saanich Kiwanis. He is in the gallery today with his wife, Connie, and his sister, Mildred Flanagan, who is visiting from Jasper, Alberta. Pat is a force to be reckoned with in the community; he has helped mobilize his organization to support the Western Saanich Community Place, which is providing tremendous new services to citizens in the western part of my constituency. I ask the House to make him and his family welcome.

Hon. J. Smallwood: In the precincts today we have members of the executive of the Canadian Home Builders' Association: Richard Stewart, Neil Ziola, David Metcalf and Keith Sashaw. I wish the House to make these gentlemen welcome.

Oral Questions

DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES MINISTER

G. Campbell: A former member of the Premier's cabinet issued a statement within the last hour, and I'd like to quote directly from the statement:

"On March 1st, I was contacted by the Premier's Office and informed that an individual whose contract with my office was about to expire had made allegations of sexual harassment against me. I was not told what the specific allegations were, despite my requests. I was simply told that if I would resign from cabinet, those allegations would not be made public."

That's the end of the quote. My question to the Premier is: can the Premier confirm whether he or anyone in his office made an offer to the former minister to cover up allegations of sexual harassment?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The choice of who will be in cabinet and not in cabinet is the prerogative of the Premier. When the Premier loses confidence and trust in a minister, that minister is gone. I've made it very clear that I'm not going to enter into a dialogue about the nature of the incidents, and that I am going to do everything I can to protect the privacy of the women who have been involved in these incidents, and I would urge members of this House and of the media to do the same thing.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I think it's clear to those of us who are concerned about sexual harassment that the way to prevent it is not to cover it up. The Premier's former minister said he was told that if he would resign from cabinet the allegations of sexual harassment would not be made public. Can the Premier confirm to this House whether or not he or any members of his staff told the former minister that they would cover up allegations of sexual harassment if he resigned from cabinet?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member came to see me and I told him about the allegations that had been made. He was then able to explore the options that were open to him. On the basis of his decisions, I -- and I alone -- requested a senior member of the bar in British Columbia, Mr. Kelleher, to investigate this matter for me. This is not a tribunal or a question of due process; it is a question of the Premier of this province's prerogative to have trust and confidence in members of his cabinet. As a result of not just this incident but of two others, I lost confidence and trust in the hon. member, and he is no longer in cabinet or in the New Democrat caucus.

[2:15]

W. Hurd: The former minister indicated he was told by someone in the Premier's office that if he resigned, the allegations of sexual harassment would not be made public. Can the Premier tell this House whether at any time he or any member of his staff instructed that this situation, which resulted in what appears to be a cover-up of these serious allegations brought by employees within the minister's office...? Can the Premier confirm whether or not he or any member of his staff directed that strategy on the part of the government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not going to get into a question-and-answer session with the opposition about the Premier's prerogative to bring somebody into cabinet or to have them removed. I can tell you that the hon. member first heard about the allegation of sexual harassment when I faced him, in my

[ Page 13242 ]

office, and told him about this incident. I asked if there were any other incidents that I should know about. I then asked Mr. Kelleher to investigate this matter to make sure that the allegation had substance to it, and to allow Mr. Blencoe -- that was his choice -- to be heard.

There were two other incidents that came to my attention, Mr. Speaker. They were such that I lost confidence and trust in the minister. So that the three women who were involved in these incidents have confidence that they can trust that their privacy will be respected, I intend to keep that confidence.

I am going to make the decision as to who should or should not be in the cabinet. I can tell you very clearly that the minister was told about this incident. He could pursue a number of different options; he chose to have this matter investigated in the fair process that I have put in place, which has been criticized by the opposition. They have criticized the fact that Mr. Blencoe was on paid leave, and that he had access to legal counsel, as did the complainant. So that is the Premier's prerogative, and I have exercised it.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer to that is no. The answer, very clearly, is that I disagree with the statement that has been made by the former minister. I say to you once again, hon. Speaker, that when I....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Harcourt: No. But I want to make it very clear that this is not a quasi-judicial decision; this is not an administrative decision. This is a decision for the Premier, and for the Premier alone.

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. The Premier claims that by turfing his former Minister of Government Services out of cabinet and caucus he's not prejudging his guilt or innocence. Can the Premier tell us if in firing the minister he ever offered him the opportunity to clear his name by allowing the Kelleher investigation to proceed? If not, is he prepared to do so now?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll put it in very simple terms. I -- not the complainants, not the minister -- requested Mr. Kelleher to proceed with an investigation into this matter and bring back the results of his investigation to me, and on the basis of that investigation I would act. That is what happened. On the basis of not just that incident but two others that came to my attention, I lost confidence and trust in the minister.

R. Neufeld: Let's be clear. The Premier has tarred and feathered his former cabinet colleague without a trial, and now he wants us to believe that he fired the minister simply for not coming clean on potential for other allegations of sexual harassment, which have now been made. If the Premier has so little confidence in his former friend now, why did he have so much confidence in him three weeks ago when the first allegation was made?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not going to rely on rumours or innuendo; I'm not going to rely on something that comes second hand, as the opposition does all too often, unfortunately. This was a very serious complaint that the complainant wanted to pursue. I asked Mr. Kelleher to do an investigation. He is a lawyer who is very experienced in matters of sexual harassment and who is very experienced at the bar in British Columbia. When two other incidents came to my attention after I had been told that there were no other incidents of sexual harassment, the minister had broken my confidence in him and my trust, and I acted.

PROPOSED HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES

L. Stephens: My question is to the Premier. The fact that this sexual harassment issue has become such a tangled mess is an indication that there's no policy or process in place to ensure justice for excluded staff in the Premier's offices and the government offices. I would like to put a non-partisan question to the Premier: will he commit today to establish a committee of all parties in this House to establish a process to handle sexual harassment cases to ensure that all parties receive justice and due process?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There is a government process in place, and there is sexual harassment training and instruction that goes on in the government. I have asked the Minister of Women's Equality to see if all members of this House and all the caucuses, the elected members, would also like to pursue with us the same standards that we apply to the rest of the civil service. I would ask the members of the opposition and all the members of this House to undertake that training and that approach so we can make sure that every staff member, whether they work for MLAs or in the civil service, would have the same rights.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Stephens: Hon. Speaker, if that were true, we wouldn't find ourselves in the mess that we're in today, and particularly this government. If that process had been in place, we wouldn't have the mess that we have today. Why is the Premier afraid to deal with this issue in an upfront and open manner? And why is he denying basic dignity and justice to all staff members in government offices? What is this government trying to hide?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm disappointed that the non-partisan approach that was taken in the first question all of a sudden shifted into a very partisan approach. If the hon. member is really interested, she would have accepted the proposal that I put forward here: that all of us in this House undergo training on the issues of sexual harassment and how we should deal with our staff. And that's a suggestion I put out in a genuinely non-partisan way. I'm disappointed in the second question.

I want the hon. member to know that as Premier of this province, I'm going to make decisions about who is going to be in cabinet or not, and whether they have my confidence and trust. This minister doesn't have my confidence and trust now. I'm going to make sure.... I would hope the hon. member and every other member of this House, and the media, would respect the confidences of the three women who were involved in these incidents, so that they can trust that their privacy will be respected and that people won't play politics with their privacy.

[ Page 13243 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: For the Premier's edification -- and of others, I suppose -- in response to the question he answered from the member for Langley, the Liberal caucus has maintained...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: ...the BCGEU standards for sexual harassment for a number of years, and we would be very eager to participate in the type of process put forward by the member for Langley, and, I think, somewhat responded to by the Premier.

DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES MINISTER

My question, however, is for the Premier. He stated that he met with the former Minister of Government Services and offered him a number of options. Can the Premier tell us whether one of those options was the resignation of the minister with the result of no information being made public?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I've answered that question. I said that the answer is no. What I also said is that the member heard about this allegation from me personally. I asked him about it....

G. Farrell-Collins: He said he got a phone call.

Hon. M. Harcourt: He didn't. He was sitting in my office talking with me about this incident. I am saying that the member can issue whatever statements he wants, but I am telling you that I faced this member face to face. I said: "Here is the allegation that I have heard. What do you have to say about it, and what do you want to do?" On the basis of the member's decision, I thought the fairest process to undertake would be to get at the facts, and to have a very experienced legal counsel get at those facts, to advise me as Premier -- not this House; not the media; not the public -- as to whether this incident took place or not, and whether the minister still had my trust and confidence.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. A. Charbonneau tabled the financial information report of the B.C. Systems Corporation for the fiscal year 1993-94.

Hon. D. Miller tabled the 1994 annual report of the Labour Relations Board.

Point of Privilege

D. Mitchell: I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege regarding the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and procedures related to investigations under the act by the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member; so noted.

D. Mitchell: I seek leave to table documents related to this matter.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call continuation of the budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson adjourned the debate. [Applause.]

F. Jackson: I'm not quite sure if that was as loud as it was yesterday, but I shall not ask them to repeat the process.

When we were elected in 1991, the issue that was being discussed -- in fact, even previous to the election -- was the deficit that we were running in the province. The opposition claimed that we wouldn't be able to handle it. One of the reasons they gave, of course, was that we were not capable of running a peanut stand. At least what we did was turn this peanut stand into the best peanut stand in the country, in the best country in the world. We also took steps to take care of the deficit.

[2:30]

It was also said at the time, and has been said since, that somehow we were planning to cover up the deficit and that maybe we were not prepared to talk about it. This has been said particularly recently. The fact is that we made a point of always talking about the deficit. In our first session in this House we went to great pains to point out the $2.4 billion deficit that was left us by some members of the previous administration who now sit in this House as Reform Party members.

We reduced the deficit over the last three years. It was our intention to balance the budget next year. We have managed not only to balance the budget but to provide for a small surplus -- although $114 million is not that small a number -- in this year coming up. The reaction from members of the opposition to that process that we went through was quite obvious. They realized that we were, in fact, going to be successful in doing what we said we would do: balance the budget. So there was no great advantage in attacking the government on that score.

Then the focus became debt. We said that when we were elected we would handle the deficit, and it's quite clear now that we are prepared to tackle the debt.

Responses to the budget on budget day were quite surprising. The members of the opposition were generally subdued, I think because they realized that it was a good budget. The critic, in his response to the budget speech, was not his usual self. He usually manages to get some vim and vigour into his performance when he criticizes the budget. This year his heart didn't quite seem to be in it, probably because he realized he would like to be in the Minister of Finance's position and to deliver that budget speech himself.

The media, even the BCTV news, if anybody watched it on budget day.... One of the news commentators referred to the fact that the Premier's advisory group gave a set of benchmarks that it looked like we would not only meet but exceed. When we get that kind of news on a BCTV newscast, I would say that that is praise indeed.

In the local media in Kamloops, one of the commentators, playing devil's advocate, tried to get some opposition from members of the financial community in Kamloops. The response he got was that it looked like a good budget, it looked like we were on the right track, and it looked like we were heading in the right direction. I thought that was pretty

[ Page 13244 ]

fair praise from the media and the financial community in Kamloops.

To get a little bit higher up, the Business Council of British Columbia, in a critique of the provincial government's budget, said that balanced budgets and strict debt management have now become the watchwords guiding fiscal policy in British Columbia. I think the Business Council of B.C. has finally realized that we do have a government in this province -- a government that's certainly well worth watching and supporting.

I would point out, however, that this is not new stuff. Some of these compliments have been coming in over the last year or two. My colleague the member for Kamloops, when he spoke on the budget, used a whole list of them. He was kind enough to give me the list so I could repeat a couple of my favourites. This is from Citicorp: "British Columbia is still the strongest credit....

Most of the increase in program expenditures -- particularly in education and health care -- is justified by the need to cope with a rapidly increasing population...." From Credit Suisse First of Boston -- and this one is really good: "British Columbia is a leader in budget deficit reduction.... British Columbia's prospects are positive, based on the Harcourt administration's economic management...." And that's about the people they said couldn't run a peanut stand. As I've said before: pretty good peanut stand, pretty good management.

Over the next year, we intend to make sure that that balanced budget -- I should say the surplus -- in fact comes to pass. Spending will be limited. We will limit it in a way that carries out the commitment we made to protect our essential services -- health, education and others -- and it will allow for a population increase, again. We will be borrowing $1 billion less than projected in '94-95. All these nice figures make it so much easier for us to be the best government the province has had since 1975.

One of the criticisms I read on the front page of one of the newspapers from the leader of the Reform Party was that this budget was just to get us past the next year. The comprehensive debt management plan that we intend to put into place -- and we've started -- will ensure that taxpayer-supported debt relative to B.C.'s economy will be cut in half over 20 years. If this is a budget to get us by the next year, why would we bother trying to put in a debt management plan that's going to take 20 years?

One of the suggestions made was that it's easy for us to do this because we may well not be around to carry out the promise. I would suggest to the voters of British Columbia that if they want us to carry that out, the solution is simple: keep electing New Democratic Party governments. We will indeed do what we said: reduce the debt over a period of 20 years. All of this has been done with the idea of making British Columbia the most prosperous and popular province to live in.

We have taken some action and have continued actions which are probably not usual for governments to take. A three-year tax freeze -- not too many governments try to do that. We've done it, and successfully. We continue to have the second-lowest direct taxes and the second-lowest sales tax in Canada. So we're doing all this and still keeping taxes down. We also want to make sure that the taxpayers' money is not wasted, so we intend to streamline the government. We intend to look for savings in the purchase of information, in travel and in administration. We intend to revamp the student loan program.

And this is one that I don't particularly like: they're going to freeze our wages again. However, it will all help to get us into the position that they want to be in.

When we're criticized for the debt, people generally speak and just leave it at that: criticism about the debt. But in fact, some of that debt obviously becomes investment. Investment is a word that I sometimes have some trouble with, so I looked in the dictionary to get a good meaning that I would like. One of the meanings of the word "investment" is "to make use of for future benefits and advantages." We are indeed continuing to invest.

We intend to increase full-time post-secondary education spaces. We intend to provide $106 million for apprenticeship work-related training in high schools. I know some of that money is going to work in my own constituency, because in Clearwater we have a forestry program the high school students are involved in which is quite unique in the province. We will be getting into partnerships with the private sector so that we can ensure that the jobs created through that partnership and investment are there for the people who are now going through our school system, who are mostly young students. However, we are also looking very seriously at retraining when we do this.

I know a group who have put a great effort into getting a skills centre in Clearwater so that we can bring some order into the way that training is provided in the smaller communities. Hopefully, this will be a partnership between the group, the society, the school board and the University College of the Cariboo so that all aspects of the training of young people can be looked at.

The forest renewal plan, which is a pride and joy, is also going to be used extensively through private and public partnerships to develop programs to train and retrain young people in the forest industry. All of this adds up to one simple thing: jobs for our children so they can generate the wealth required to make sure that their children will have a future.

One of the sayings that's quite often used is that our children are our greatest resource, and I have some difficulty with that. I have used it at high school graduations, because I believe that we are their greatest resource and that we should train and equip our children so they can be resources for their children -- not for us, but for their children; for future generations -- so that they can have meaningful employment to support their families.

[2:45]

By taking the steps that we have, there will be added jobs in the province for our young people. There will be a health care system in the province they can make use of, and it's interesting to hear some of the comments about health care these days, considering the federal budget and what it's doing. The Prime Minister of Canada, quoted on the front page of a newspaper, said that our health care system was never designed to do what it was doing and suggested that maybe it was just to prevent people from going into bankruptcy. Nothing about health; nothing about caring -- just going into bankruptcy.

Economics, and that's it. Their country cousins in British Columbia suggested that the federal budget didn't cut enough. Maybe according to the Prime Minister, we'll back away altogether and let people go into bankruptcy as well.

Another suggestion made was that health care should probably cover people so they won't have to lose their homes. I would suggest that the people who fought for health care in this country, and certainly the vast majority of people who fought for health care in Britain, didn't own a house. Very few people in Britain at the turn of the century owned houses. These were the people, the social activists -- almost 100 percent were from the political left -- who fought to get medicare, and the culmination of that is what we live with in this province today.

[ Page 13245 ]

If we get into a two-tier health care system, I would suggest that not only are we as a community going to suffer healthwise but there will be a tremendous cost. When one of my colleagues referred to this country as being the last in the world that didn't have a two-tier system, everybody started reeling off all the countries. The member for Okanagan West suggested that they had a two-tier system in Britain and that in fact they were leaders in health care.

When I heard him say this, I suggested that it might be difficult for him if he went to Britain and got sick: he might realize it was not such a good idea. But in fact the member for Okanagan West might have been okay, because apparently he's got a few bucks in his pocket. So he would go ahead of the bus driver and the baker and the bank clerk and the plumber when it came to getting health care. I'm not suggesting that the member for Okanagan West would be in that position willingly or by demand; that's how the system works.

Unfortunately, even as the lone Socred, he still belongs to a group of people in this province and in this country who want to move us in that direction. When we do get a two-tier health care system in this country, the people with a few bucks in their pocket will move ahead of the bus driver, the baker and the bank clerk. I hope all of the bus drivers and bakers and bank clerks out there realize that.

One of the other consequences of this kind of move, particularly if we get back to where it's losing your house or going into bankruptcy.... I would suggest that the medical fraternity take a good look at this. If we get to that stage, we're not going to need as many hospitals to provide for people. If we're only providing care to keep them out of bankruptcy, we certainly won't need as many doctors.

I'm quite sure that there are a lot of people who, if we get into that situation, will not be attending doctors as regularly or as quickly as they do now. Maybe that's the object of the exercise: so people put up with a bit of pain or a bit of illness. I don't think that's particularly good, and it certainly has nothing to do with a health "care" system. The object of the exercise is to care for people when they are not well, when their bones are broken. So if we get to that stage, maybe the medical community should consider what they're going to do for work, because I think a lot of them will be looking for a job. I don't think that's where we want to get to either.

If we get comments from the opposition and take them to their ultimate, there will be absolutely no health care at all for the ordinary people in this country. That's not what we want for this province, and it's not what this party has ever wanted.

I would like to read something from a little document: "The maintenance of a healthy population has become a function for which every civilized community should undertake responsibility." It goes on to say: "A properly organized system of public health services, including medical and dental care, which would stress the prevention rather than the cure of illness should be extended to all our people." That was written in Saskatchewan in July 1933 by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It's something that we have striven for all of these years.

It's something which it's kind of unfortunate that the member for Vancouver-Langara has managed to turn his back on, because although I think he has indeed turned his back on us, he is a loss to us.

R. Neufeld: He belongs in your party.

F. Jackson: The hon. member for Peace River North says he belongs in our party. Well, some of the conversations I have had with the hon. member for Peace River North suggest that maybe he should be in our party. But we don't want to go into these conversations here.

R. Neufeld: Well, you're not the first one who has asked. [Laughter.]

F. Jackson: There you go. I didn't ask, and I would hate to put him into any kind of confusion, because he's only just getting used to the Reform Party label.

The thing is that health care is important, and education is important for our young people. It's important not just so that we have a healthy, educated society as such. It's so that we have a society which is broader in its meaning of caring and so that we cannot only get healthy and caring people, but so that they want everybody else to be healthy and caring. I think it was Tommy Douglas who said: "What we want for ourselves, we wish for others"; or, "What we wish for ourselves, we want for others." Whichever way Tommy Douglas said it, it was the right thing to say, because we should in fact care for each other.

Through this whole process of the budget, we have provided funding for medical services, and we've increased that; we have provided funding for education, and we've increased that. We have provided funding for advanced training apprenticeships, and we are putting into place, particularly through the forest renewal plan, programs which will see our forest industry flourish into secondary manufacturing, which will again provide jobs for our young people. It will provide jobs in silviculture and stand-tending.

All of these jobs will keep the industry in place, quite likely as the number one industry in the province -- although the Minister of Tourism is shaking his head, saying: "I'm going to surpass that very quickly." I hope the Minister of Tourism does, but I hope that by doing that, it means he is going to get better than the forest industry, which means that the forest industry is quite likely to give him a race for it. We want the forest industry to flourish. It has been the number one industry in British Columbia since people came here, and I think it's going to continue to be for a long time.

I would encourage the Minister of Tourism to try and beat it. There are people out there in the tourism industry who are quite prepared to help him do that. I've had some communication just recently which was very encouraging, which I'm sure the Minister of Tourism was glad to get.

R. Neufeld: Keep up the good work is what he is saying.

F. Jackson: It is a good work, and I'm glad the hon. member for Peace River North once again acknowledges that this is a good government and that we do good work.

R. Neufeld: Here I am giving you another compliment, and you don't want to take it.

F. Jackson: We are indeed taking your compliments; we're taking them well. We're taking the compliments from wherever they come.

When I started off, I talked about how the opposition reacted to the budget. I've been quite pleased to be able to stand here today and not get any opposition from the opposition, other than from the member for Peace River North. In fact, when I stood up to adjourn the debate yesterday, I got more heckling then.

The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove seemed to be quite surprised that the constituency of Kamloops-North Thompson had an MLA. I would like to point out to that

[ Page 13246 ]

member that there is indeed an MLA for Kamloops-North Thompson, and he's alive and well and working for his constituents. If there's any doubt about that, ask the people in Barriere who are now drinking water without a boil order. If there's any doubt about that, ask the people in Blue River -- although they're having some difficulty with their water system -- who now turn on the tap and get a good water supply. Those are just a couple of things that I've managed to help with. I'm not taking credit for the whole process by any means, but I've certainly helped them along and enabled them to do that.

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to have an Island Highway, although I did suggest to the Minister of Employment and Investment that maybe we should reroute it up through the North Thompson valley. However, there are good things still to be worked on. I would like to be able to say very soon that there will be an extended-care facility in Clearwater. It is one of the pet projects, certainly, for the community. It is very dear to their hearts, and I hope to be able help them do that.

Considering that again, the people will realize that they do in fact have a member of the Legislature working on their behalf. And I intend to stay there, unlike the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who's going off somewhere else to run in the next election. With a bit of luck it will be in Nova Scotia or wherever, and I hate to wish that on Nova Scotia.

However, the budget is in place, backing up the throne speech and the promise in the throne speech, and we are indeed looking forward to good times in British Columbia.

M. Lord: Before I speak, hon. Speaker, may I ask leave to make an introduction?

[3:00]

Leave granted.

M. Lord: Two visitors from the Comox Valley are with us in the gallery today. I wish to introduce longtime friends Mr. Erik Eriksson, who is the secretary-treasurer of IWA-Canada Local 1-363, and Mr. Chris Miles, who is third vice-president of IWA-Canada Local 1-363. I bid the House please make them welcome.

In preparing to speak in this budget debate today, I was faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health, I take seriously my obligation to debate the future of medicare in this province -- and indeed in this country -- in a dignified parliamentary fashion, addressing the merits of the issue. That's not hard to do. I believe that there are many, many British Columbians who believe, with me, that there is no more important issue on the public agenda today than the defence of equal and universal access to quality health care in our province.

Medicare for me is no ordinary issue. Defending medicare can bring such a surge of emotion and outrage in me that I want to raise my voice to offensive levels and slam my fist on the desk, as we have seen done in this chamber over the last few days. In the end I decided that there is no way I can discuss this issue dispassionately.

For the members of the opposition, medicare may be an issue they can kick around to get themselves another sound bite on the 6 o'clock news. And if, God forbid, they get their hands on the levers of power in this province, it could be a means by which they reward the well-heeled interests that are once again lining up to buy themselves privileges and favours just the way they always have in this province.

But for New Democrats, the sanctity of medicare will never be just another item on a political agenda. For us it is the defining issue. It is what we live; it is what we breath; it is what gets us up in the morning and keeps us going long into the evening. Most, if not all, of the men and the women on my side of the chamber have, somewhere in their background, the kind of story that I am going to relate to you.

It was years ago, before Tommy Douglas and the Saskatchewan New Democrats shamed the Liberal government in Ottawa into giving Canadians a national health care plan. My parents were ordinary, working British Columbians -- not poor, but not overly comfortable, either. They were just everyday people who worked hard to provide for themselves and their six children. Then it happened that my mother fell seriously ill. She needed an operation, and it was going to cost a lot of money -- much more money than the meagre savings my parents had.

My mother had her operation because my parents borrowed what was needed and what was, for them in those times, an enormous sum of money. Then for years -- for the rest of their lives, in fact -- they scraped, scrimped, squeezed and saved every nickel and dime so that they could pay off that debt.

That's how it is for thousands of hard-working British Columbians. Illness is not a health problem; it's not a signal that you want to stop eating french fries or go to the fitness club. For many, illness was an unmitigated disaster -- treatable, curable conditions that could wipe out a family's entire assets: the house they had struggled to buy, the small bank account they had accumulated dime by dime, the little bit of money they had set aside for their children's education and their retirement years.

That is the kind of British Columbia the New Democrats have led ordinary people out of, and that is the kind of Canada the Liberals in British Columbia and in Ottawa want to lead New Democrats right back into. Well, not if I can help it.

The present Liberal Prime Minister of Canada was around when New Democrats forced Ottawa to bring in medicare. But that was a long time ago. Perhaps he has forgotten how much fuss New Democrats can raise when it comes to ensuring that every Canadian has equal access to health care. If he has forgotten, and if the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten, this government will refresh their memories.

It's hard to believe that in the twilight of the twentieth century the Liberals, both federal and provincial, want to take us back to the dark old days, when the rich got not just the icing on the cake but the entire cake itself, and the poor got nothing but the crumbs. But it is even harder to believe that their motivation is not a matter of principle and that it stems not from a political world-view but from the desire of some Liberal supporters to make a profit from human suffering.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East rises on a point of order.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate that there's tremendous latitude granted in this type of debate, but I find those remarks absolutely offensive: that any Liberal in this country would hope to benefit from the suffering of any Canadian. I would ask this member to withdraw.

The Speaker: The hon. member finds remarks being made by the person who has the floor...

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please.

...to be offensive. With deference to the hon. member, if there is an offending remark that the member feels objection

[ Page 13247 ]

has been taken to, they might wish to withdraw it. I will say, however, that the Chair did not note any prohibited expressions being made. However, it has been the custom and practice in our House to respect members' concerns about expressions that they find offensive. In deference to members, we've generally been requesting members to find new ways of expressing their point.

M. Lord: If I've made any remarks which offend the hon. member, I will gladly withdraw them.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

M. Lord: Make no mistake that the people agitating for private health care businesses are not proposing to set up non-profit clinics. Their goal is not public service; it is private gain. These people are not moved by the spirit of the Hippocratic oath but by an itch to make money. To disguise that itch, the proponents of public systems paint a rosy picture of how much better the health care system would be if they were allowed to reinject the profit motive into it. There'd be more practitioners, more services and a wider choice, they say. And indeed, there would be for those who could afford it. For those who cannot, well, they will go to the back of the line.

Then we will be right back to that point where my parents were in their time: those who have more will get more; those who have little will get less. That's the wonderful thing about the Liberal policy on medicare. We don't have to speculate on how it will work; we just have to remember how it didn't work. Private health care has been tried. It didn't serve the public interest. So why on earth would any civilized society want to resuscitate a failed, discredited system that treated people in such an unequal and unfair manner?

What other out-of-date institutions will the Liberals want us to bring back next? Perhaps wealthy supporters would like to support the purchase of aristocratic titles. Better yet, maybe we'll have indentured servants. If Liberal policy is based on reviving the past, why stop at the 1950s? There must be dozens of ideas from even as far back as the Middle Ages that would fit quite nicely into this opposition's platform.

Seriously, we cannot dismiss the future that the Liberals want to create for us as just a replay of the bad old days. If they seriously propose to bring back private health care for those who can afford it, then we have to see what kind of future and what shape that will take. It's not a pleasant prospect, but British Columbians need to see it. They need to know where the purveyors of private health care want to take them, and I am trying to show the people in my constituency, the Comox Valley, where we are headed if we accept the proposal for a private day care surgery centre now before us.

Let's look at the positive side first. Let's say a rash of private health care facilities opens across the province, like the for-profit surgical shop I mentioned. So now we have a two-tier system. Right away, you have speedy treatment for those who can afford it -- no waiting lists for them, no allocating care to those in need. Now it's simply: money talks. That's a positive result for those who have the money to do the talking. Now we have more total resources devoted to our health care system and more highly skilled specialists setting up shop in British Columbia because there's money to be made.

Under the two-tier system, many routine procedures are handled by private facilities, leaving the public health care system to focus more on catastrophic illness and injury. That sounds pretty good, but it unfortunately sounds too good.

Let's look at the less attractive side of the opposition's proposed two-tier health care system. As the 1991 Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs told us, the problem with the health care system in British Columbia is not a lack of resources but the need to use those resources more wisely. The two-tier system would not solve this problem. It would instead make it worse, because health care priorities would be skewed out of whack by the profit motive.

How many of those new practitioners and private facilities would be devoted to cosmetic surgery and liposuction to make the wealthy look prettier, instead of healing the sick and the injured? The affluent would be hustling their way to the head of the line, using their buying power to get unnecessary and even frivolous health care services. The health care providers would be drawn up into that very active upper tier and drawn away from the public system, so there would be fewer people to meet the needs of those left at the bottom. The result? Waiting lists in the public system are even longer.

We don't have to speculate or prognosticate on how resources would flow away from the public system and into the profit-making upper layer of a two-tier system. We need only look across the Atlantic Ocean to Britain, because that's exactly what happened there.

[3:15]

We know that the private facilities are going to be run on principles of business efficiency for maximum return on their investors' dollars. In other words, their operators would want to get the biggest bang for the owners' buck. That means they wouldn't push the more complex or more expensive treatments and procedures but would leave that up to the public system, and that would drive up the cost per patient. It would allow the advocates of the private care system to deplore the lack of incentive down there at the bottom.

They would be able to campaign for even more spending cuts on a system they have created as inefficient All those highly skilled new specialists we welcomed to British Columbia would be found working only in the for-profit clinics, along with many who have moved over from the public system. They would be in the private system because that's where the money would be. If they wanted only to practise their art and heal the sick, they wouldn't have left the public system in the first place.

Now we begin to see how the upper tier tends to attract a disproportionate share of resources, leaving only the leftovers for the public system at the bottom of the heap. You would soon be able to tell the difference between the public and private systems and facilities, just the way you can in New York City. Just look for the understaffed wards, the worn-out equipment, the poorly paid and inexperienced staff, and the hallways jammed with people who can't afford private care.

You would be able to tell the difference between a public care patient and a private patient, because there would inevitably be a stigma attached to being unable to afford the first-class treatment and having to rely on the health care dole. Private patients would be paying customers, and customers get the respect they pay for. The public care recipient would become a leach, a drain on the taxpayer, somebody who is getting something for nothing. If you want to know how the public health care recipient would be viewed under the two-tier society, take a look at how the Newt Gingriches of the U.S.

Congress view single mothers on social assistance.

The present Liberal government in Ottawa has continued the Mulroney policy of unfairly cutting health care funding for British Columbians. By doing so, they have dealt a serious blow to the sustainability of the public health system in this province. It is time for all British Columbians, regardless of their political stripe, to rally behind the principles of equal and universal access to health care. It is therefore regrettable that some people choose instead to try to make money out of a crisis that affects us all. It is regrettable, but I suppose it's

[ Page 13248 ]

understandable. For some people, the profit motive outweighs any other consideration. What I cannot understand, nor can any New Democrat accept, is the unconscionable decision of the British Columbia Liberals to ally themselves with such decisions. Surely there are some things that are more important than money. Surely there are some principles more sacred than the principles of making a profit. Surely everything is not for sale to the highest bidder and the devil take the hindmost.

I pay close attention to the feelings and ideas of the people of the Comox Valley. I listen to them, I hear them and I heed what they have to say. I have yet to hear any groundswell of support for a two-tiered health care system in my constituency. I have yet to hear any such outcry from the people of British Columbia. I have heard it only from those who have a financial interest in establishing for-profit health care businesses in our province -- only from those who want to make money -- and from the Liberal and Reform parties.

At their 1994 convention, the B.C. Liberal Party passed a resolution calling for private health care providers. The opposition Health critic herself has backed up that resolution in her own words, calling for private sector supplements to our public system. She has also taken a very strong line opposing local control of health care by community representatives. It seems that the Liberals prefer to have community health care decisions made not by grass-roots citizens but by the elite. The shape of a Liberal health care system thus becomes clear. It is an elitist system run by elites for elites.

The Speaker: The hon. member rises on a point of order.

L. Reid: Yes, hon. Speaker. In the interest of truth, if I am going to be quoted or referenced in this House, I would like it to be done with accuracy, and I would ask the member to withdraw those remarks.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order. It's just an expression of difference as to the comments that are being made, which you may address when you are speaking.

Hon. members, the question of points of order should be reviewed perhaps by all members. When there is no direct offence with respect to a member's privileges, then it is clearly not a point of order, and when members rise, they are doing so in a manner which is quite disruptive to the flow of a person's presentation, and we should guard against that. Please proceed, hon. member.

M. Lord: Fortunately, hon. Speaker, it's not hard to meet the criterion of being part of the Liberal elite. You don't have to pass an exam or achieve any particular distinction. All it takes is money, hon. Speaker, lots of money, because in the Liberal world and down there on Howe Street, money talks. Money has been talking very persuasively to the Liberal Party about the profits to be made in private health care. Well, that is not the standard that British Columbians expect from government, nor is it what the people of our province deserve. Let the Liberal Party for once turn its back on the moneyed few.

Let them stand up for the vast majority of British Columbians who want their elected representatives to fight hard to preserve medicare in this province.

In a society of decent human beings, some things simply are not for sale. In British Columbia the right of every person to receive the best health care possible must never be debased into a market commodity. Profit can be honourably pursued and ethically enjoyed by many in this province, but some things must be set above the getting of money. No New Democratic government will allow the health of British Columbians to be bought and sold in the marketplace.

No New Democratic government will allow profit-takers to subvert and pervert the public health care system, built up over the past three decades by our parents and their parents before us. The Howe Street investors may lick their lips and hope for a fat return, but no New Democratic government is going to let them destroy medicare for money. Health care for all is one of the great victories that New Democrats won for British Columbians and for Canadians. In the 1960s we fought long and hard to establish medicare. Let there be no illusions: in the 1990s, we will fight like hell to defend it.

R. Neufeld: It was quite interesting to listen to the member for Comox get so exercised. I haven't seen that for three years. Obviously something is happening in British Columbia. And it was interesting to see the member for Richmond East. She was quite offended. I heard one of her colleagues calling the government members liars yesterday, so it's getting really interesting in here. It must be just about election time.

I rise to speak on what is hopefully the final budget presented by the NDP in this province for the next 25 years or maybe even longer, because that's how long it takes you to get into power every once in a while. When people find out how bad a government you have, it takes 20 years to get rid of them. I think it's probably going to last a bit longer the next time.

We have a runaway train on our hands, British Columbians. We've got a runaway socialist NDP government that's broken every promise it made during the 1991 election and, on top of that, has ridden the crest of a growing economy for the past three years.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Well, we're getting it up a little in here now.

If you listen to the NDP, they would have us believe that their policies actually sparked the increase in our economic activity and have played an important role in our buoyant economy. Nothing is further from the truth. We've experienced excessive taxation, overregulation, uncertainty with land use and uncertainty with aboriginal land claims, and that has led to an uneasy feeling within the investment community.

We need that investment community in British Columbia to create jobs -- and I mean real jobs for the future, not the jobs we hear this government talk about creating. I think 67,000 was the number. You never know from one day to the next, or from one member to the next, which number it's going to be, but they say it's around 60,000 or 65,000 jobs created in the last year.

Most of those jobs are created by borrowing money by this government. If you were to take out the number of jobs that were created by the borrowing of huge sums of money by the public purse, there wouldn't be very many jobs created in British Columbia. There would be some; no doubt about it. But what we should be counting are the jobs disappearing south of the border and east of us.

This sorry lot assumed office by default in 1991, when the economy was on the upswing. Hon. Speaker, can't you just imagine 50 -- I'm going to say just 50, in respect of your position -- NDP MLAs rubbing their hands with glee after the election? They knew that for a few years, because every 20 years or so an unfortunate event happens in the province and we get a socialist government, they could increase the taxes at a phenomenal rate, which they have, and increase the debt at a phenomenal rate, which they have. And the Minister

[ Page 13249 ]

of Employment and Investment stands in this House and talks about shovelling money off the back of the truck like never before.

This is a sad legacy indeed for British Columbians. It's a legacy of patronage, friends and insiders, unsustainable debt and unsustainable taxation, all in the name of investing in the future of British Columbia. How about the future of British Columbia frittered away?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Let's look at the sorry mess that we have and that the next government, whoever that's going to be, is going to inherit. Let me tell you it is one sorry mess. We have a total debt in British Columbia that increased by $8 billion in four years. And they talk about this as good investment. It just absolutely astounds me. Tax-supported debt increased by 56 percent over four years. I guess this is the little part of good debt that the Minister of Employment and Investment talks about.

The increase in the average family's taxes in the past three years has been about $3,000. Their actual take-home pay has been reduced substantially since this group that pretends to represent British Columbia took office.

[3:30]

The debt-servicing cost has doubled from approximately 4 cents of every tax dollar to 8 cents. That's tremendously good management, isn't it: double the debt-servicing costs. We need only look to Ottawa to find out what happens when debt-servicing costs get out of hand. We can no longer listen to people like the Minister of Consumer Services, who said that we just have to control the interest rate. Let me tell you, that is living a long time ago. No longer does British Columbia control the interest rate; it never did. No longer does the federal government control the interest rate. It's a global economy; it's a global investment. Debt is what controls the interest rates.

Ministry of Finance officials have publicly warned the NDP -- I guess I should say publicly; they leaked a document, if you can say.... They presented a document to cabinet. Cabinet didn't listen -- as usual, when it comes to those kinds of things -- so they had to leak it publicly to get the attention of government. Obviously, it worked a bit -- not a lot, but a little bit. This leaked document told the government that the type of spending, taxation and debt they were embarking on was totally unsustainable in the province. Even though we have the best economy of any province in Canada, we still cannot keep up that kind of unrealistic, unsustainable debt.

If you take into account the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits and the privatization fund windfall of almost $1 billion that has been used to reduce debt, the debt would have been a $9 billion increase in four years. At the same time, revenue through increased fees, taxation and the general economy increased by about $5 billion. This government -- and it's indicated all around the province -- doesn't know how much money it has. They just want to keep spending, spending and spending. They think that this is going to be good for all British Columbians.

When these socialists assumed office, there was a total debt of $20 billion. If you take into account that they actually increased the debt by $9 billion, that's almost 50 percent in four short years! What in the world would happen if we kept this operation around for eight or ten years? Can you imagine where we'd be? We'd surpass anything the federal government has ever done, and very quickly. We're well on our way right now. You cannot double a debt in four short years and think you are not in trouble. Only a socialist would believe something that ridiculous. In fact, it's incredible, unacceptable and absolutely appalling.

Let's look at the so-called debt management plan put forward by the NDP. The good old socialist government finally decided: "My goodness, we'd better get a committee going and put a bunch of our own on there so they can come back with some recommendations about how we can tackle this debt, because maybe someone else is right. Maybe we do have to look at the debt."

Let's look at it a little and make some comparisons. I read in the budget manual that it's going to take 14 years to bring debt-servicing costs back to what they were four years ago when the socialists took office. It's going to take them 14 years to get back to where they were at the starting gate in 1991. This is good management? This just tells how bad, how terrible, the financial situation is in this province.

They also say that they're going to take 14 years to reduce tax-supported debt to 12.5 percent of GDP. Four years ago, when this socialist group took office, tax-supported debt was 11.9 percent of GDP. When they took office, just four short years ago, it was just under 12 percent of GDP. Now, with the mess they have created, they've put something in place that will take us 14 years just to get back to -- and that's assuming that we're going to have a buoyant economy for those 14 years.

British Columbians are mad as heck. They're mad about overspending. That's at the top of what people are really concerned about in British Columbia. As much as the NDP would like it to be medicare, it's not. What really tops people's minds is the absolute increase in taxation and spending that this socialist government has embarked upon. They still don't get it. Debt and taxes: by any stretch of the imagination, looking at any research polls will tell you that these two items top the agenda at kitchen tables and coffee shops in the province. People are worried about jobs. They're worried about stability, family values and land use issues, and the future is bleak at best.

I said earlier that we have enjoyed a good economy in the past three to four years despite the socialists. We should have been thinking about the future at that time. We should have saved a bit for a rainy day -- that rainy day will surely come -- and not spent for the present only. The rainy day is not so far away. British Columbia has enjoyed phenomenal growth in resource-based, export-dominated industries. There are a number of reasons for this. It's not because of good management; it's not because of good policies or spending wildly by the NDP.

We have enjoyed the lowest interest rates in over 30 years in the past three years. They're starting to climb; the rainy day is coming closer. We've enjoyed the lowest inflation rate in over 45 years. We have no control over that. We have enjoyed the lowest Canadian dollar in many years, and I think all of us know that a low Canadian dollar is good for British Columbia.

Hon. B. Barlee: It's good for tourism.

R. Neufeld: It's good for tourism, as the Minister of Tourism says; it's good for our resource-based industries. And as long as our dollar stays low, we will probably have a good economy. But any of those could change. Immigration and in-migration are at huge levels. A minor change to any of the above will have a dramatic impact on our economy. This is why the average British Columbian has been saying for years: "Let's save a bit for a rainy day."

It's sad that we did not have a government in B.C. that really cared for all the people, that had all the people's

inter-

[ Page 13250 ]

ests at heart. Instead, we have had a tax-and-spend mentality that has only their friends' and insiders' interests at heart. It amazed me, as I listened today and previous days, to see government members, one after the other, stand and mouth what they know in their heart of hearts is blatantly false -- or misleading, at best. "A balanced budget, even if we have to cook the books" -- that's what they say, halfheartedly. This debt reduction plan is laughable at best. They're setting something out for 14 years when they know they're gone from here in another one year. A debt that is manageable?

It is absolutely amazing. Maybe for me to understand it.... Maybe a socialist can understand it quite well. A debt that is manageable, and only they care about health and education....

I just listened to the speaker from Comox talk previous to me about how terrible the Liberals were going to be. I was quite surprised -- we weren't mentioned, I don't think -- that we were going to have a two-tier health care system. She was obviously very exercised about health care in British Columbia and how everybody but them is going to ruin health care. That is blatantly false. It's ridiculous. It's stupid to say those kinds of things. It does nothing but create fear in people's minds.

We know that that's exactly what the socialists would like to do: create the most fear that they can, even if they have to tell untruths. Even if they mouth things they know are not true, they will do it just to get to the point where maybe they think they can get elected again. They say they are looking after all the people's interests. That's a laugh. They're certainly not looking after all the people's interests.

This government constantly compares debt to a mortgage for our future. They heckle us and say: "Do you have a mortgage on your home?" I'm afraid to say yes or no, because if I say no, I'm probably a capitalist of some kind who shouldn't even be here, and if I say yes, they clap their hands and say: "Then you should have no problem with debt." Let's examine it a bit more. People who live in their homes and have mortgages on them live in homes that are within their means and have a debt repayment plan that is within their means and a target date for when that commitment will be fulfilled.

The average one is 20 to 25 years, and then they have it paid for. We all know that a home is good for a lot longer than 25 years.

I would suppose that a socialist would finance or mortgage their home for what -- 80 years? Is that what you would do, so you could pass on nothing to your children? I heard some heckling yesterday of one of the other members who was speaking about how you should not pass anything on to your children. "They don't deserve it," were the words I heard. It's absolutely amazing that a member of the NDP would sit here and say: "No, you shouldn't pass anything on to your children, because they don't deserve it." I guess the only thing socialists feel they can pass on to their children is a huge, unmanageable debt.

That's what socialists feel they can pass on to their children and their grandchildren, not some of their wealth. It absolutely amazes me.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: I've obviously touched a little nerve, because some of them have woken up again.

What our children and grandchildren don't deserve is this kind of sheer stupidity and our debt, so that we can live far beyond our means today.

I want to take a little time to talk about health care.

D. Streifel: You need it; you're sick.

R. Neufeld: I would digress, but the member for Mission-Kent is not worthy of the time. I just have a bit of time left, so I'll just pass on that one.

[3:45]

They talk about a two-tier health care system that would be designed by opposition members, including, I would assume, the PDA, Reform and independents -- there's a new independent who came from their party, so I don't know if they are talking about that independent over on this side of the House. And the Liberal Party that would have a two-tier health care system. That is totally unfair, as I said earlier. It's false. It's not the thing to be saying to British Columbians. There is no way -- no way -- that a Reform government would collapse health care.

I still have a hard time understanding.... Of course, I have a hard time understanding a lot of the things the socialists come up with, and so do a lot of people in British Columbia. But I can't quite understand how a private MRI clinic that would take, let's say, a hundred people who were on a waiting list to get into a publicly funded one, and 20 of them were wealthy enough or had enough money that they could pay for it privately.... How does that make health care unacceptable? What it does is move the other 80 people who were behind them into the system quicker. I don't know; it makes sense to me. This government always talks about making the rich pay.

Let me tell you, if you are going to have it all in the public system, what you are going to do is continue to increase taxes. That is going to make everybody pay, not just the rich. It is going to make the average person pay. So if you want to really have a rich -- whatever these people talk about rich.... You don't have to have much to be rich, according to them -- especially Maureen Maloney. If those people can afford to pay to go through a private clinic, why not? It doesn't hurt anything; it speeds up the system.

They just can't see this. They would rather see everybody in line for a long time, or see the Minister of Health come through with $135 million worth of special warrants to reduce waiting lists. But that was just a little thing in case there was an election. I guess that really didn't have too much to do with waiting lists. We were just wanting to get ready for an election.

It's hypocrisy at best, because the Minister of Health sends patients from British Columbia to Alberta and the U.S. -- to what they call that terrible two-tier health care system -- when British Columbia cannot take care of them. All of a sudden it's okay, because the ministry is going to send them across the border in order to take care of them.

So why don't we encourage that kind of growth in this province? We're talking about a new economy and new kinds of jobs. Why don't we encourage that kind of growth in this province? Keep them at home. We don't have to remove them from their families and fly them all the way down to the southern States to get the operations or whatever services they can't get in British Columbia. That makes sense to me, and I think it makes sense to a lot of British Columbians.

B.C. Reform believes that taxes and debt must be controlled if we are to continue to receive the services we have today. Further erosion of services will surely occur if we do not start a process of stimulating the local economy through measures that encourage responsibility, wealth creation, job creation in the private sector and realistic expectations of the people. We need look no further than Ottawa to see what happens when expectations, unsustainable programs and debt and taxation are inflicted on the population over decades. In the end it fails. We must not allow that to happen here in British Columbia.

[ Page 13251 ]

We should look to other provinces with the intent to follow some fine examples. The members opposite talk about slash-and-burn Alberta and how terrible it is. I just want to remind members opposite that Ralph Klein is quoted as saying: "I'm only doing what I was elected to do, and what I promised I would do before the election." You know, he's 60 percent in the polls. Mike Harcourt promised a whole bunch of things before the election. He hasn't met any of his promises. He has increased taxation far beyond what is sustainable. He has spent money; he's shovelled it off the back of a truck. And how popular is he?

He's about 16 percent. That's what happens. They say that trying to cut the cost of government is not the way to go, but they should take a quick look around the province. Even Bob Rae, that socialist from Ontario, is starting to come on board, saying: "Put the rhetoric at the door, and let's get down to the issues of the day."

We have to get debt and taxes under control, encourage responsibility and wealth creation. We have to reduce the size of government, reduce the regulatory burden, set realistic goals and live up to them. We have to encourage a private enterprise economy -- a true economy, not one totally driven by the public sector. These are goals that a Reform B.C. government would strive to achieve. Thank you for my time here today to speak to the budget.

K. Jones: It is indeed a nice opportunity to speak in reply to the budget speech presented last week. I was prepared to go along with an organized attack on the budget as it is, but I think I need to reply first to the organized and spirited -- and probably prepared by someone else -- presentation by the member for Comox Valley. She came out and accused us of wanting to trash the medical care programs for British Columbia and Canada, and that's absolutely without any foundation.

I want to point out that for almost all my life I have worked very closely with and have been affected by, in one way or another, the health care programs and the idea of universality of health care in this province. I have taken great pride in working to continue improving health care all throughout that time.

I grew up as a son of a mother who was a registered nurse in the Jubilee Hospital, graduating here in Victoria, and who worked in the hospitals in Port Alberni and other places in the province. My father chaired the hospital board in Port Alberni for six of his nine years on that board. I personally was on the upper Island health board for northern Vancouver Island and on the hospital board of the Peace Arch District Hospital in White Rock. My daughter is an occupational therapist. We have all worked to serve the needs of people in this province in the health care area; we all strived to do that.

My colleagues on this side have strived throughout their careers to provide better health care. In all these efforts, we have taken a very strong stand in favour of availability and the best quality of health care that could possibly be provided in the province.

We are really disappointed with the fact that this NDP government has been the creator of the decimation of health care in the province. They are the ones who have upped the prices and wages and cut the staffing so that we can't have sufficient staff. They created a structure that closed down major hospitals and that later resulted in many people suffering and some dying because of their decisions. They did it without any real thought about the whole concept of what they're doing to this province.

Their concept of Closer to Home has been an abysmal failure. It is getting nowhere at the present time, except that it's costing a lot of money. We do not have Closer to Home in this province one iota better than when they came into office. They have proceeded to create all these boards, but they have given them no autonomy, no authority and no money. They have basically created an illusion in the minds of people that there is going to be better service. But they are a lot on talk and not much on action.

In Surrey -- in my riding in the Fraser Valley -- we were promised better health care because of shutdowns such as the Shaughnessy Hospital in Vancouver. We have not seen any improvement in health care. In fact, we are continually falling behind in the needs. We cannot keep up with the growth of the area, and we definitely have no additional benefits from these shutdowns. Where are these people that were supposed to come to our area from the staff that was laid off at Shaughnessy Hospital? Where have they gone? They're still sitting at home, drawing wages for doing nothing. That's where they've gone. That hasn't helped our community one iota.

It shows the total failure of this government to think ahead. It shows that they didn't look at the ramifications of their contracts, the same way that they didn't look at the ramifications of their contracts with government air services. They went ahead and made policy without thinking about what would happen once they did make those closures. As a result, they were caught with a great wastage of money while they tried to figure out what to do with all these people.

We have $60,000 pilots now working as liquor inspectors, trying to check on the liquor establishments in this province, with no real knowledge of the job; nor does it use their talents as skilled pilots one iota. They even have to go on scheduled airlines; they can't even fly to the various sites they are going to. The waste that this government continues to create is unbelievable.

I would like to point out that this budget has been strictly a failure budget -- an indication of a failed government. It shows that they are trying to emulate the previous Vander Zalm government in its deceptiveness. They are attempting to create the illusion in people's minds that they are balancing a budget. At no time is this a balanced budget when you add another billion dollars to the debt of this province. You can't have a deficit removal and at the same time go to the bank and borrow that money.

It's not a mortgage; it's a borrowing on the taxpayers of British Columbia that is going to have to be paid off -- another billion dollars this year on top of the billion dollars last year, the billion dollars the year before that and the billion dollars before that. They have not done anything about resolving the debt in this province since the day they came into this House. As government they became the creator of more and more debt. We can't afford to have this government here one day longer, because every day we are getting further into debt, and we cannot address that.

We cannot put that legacy upon our children.

[4:00]

We have to address the real question. It's not addressable by these people, who have shown by their previous incompetencies that they do not deserve the public's respect or to be the government of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: That's getting pretty political -- very political.

K. Jones: On the question of the budget of this government, it has to be political because it is a political budget. It is a budget that is intended to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia.

Just to give you the figures, the debt of this province went from $19 billion -- almost $20 billion -- in 1992 to $23 billion

[ Page 13252 ]

in 1993, to $26 billion in 1994, to $27 billion in 1995, and will go to $28 billion in 1996, by the year-end that this budget presents. By the government's own figures, that's the claimed debt.

On top of that there is an additional, unclaimed debt called contingent liabilities. We have over half a billion dollars of contingent liabilities in workers' compensation. We have probably in the range of $3 billion to $4 billion of contingent liabilities that aren't being addressed by this government in the pension programs -- the superannuation -- of the employees of the government here. That includes the teachers, municipal workers and government workers.

These all have to be paid for from the taxpayers' pockets. I say to the hon. Premier: you have to be honest. You have to come upfront with the people of British Columbia and tell them exactly how they're going to pay off the total debt. It's a fine thing to say that your debt management plan proposes to take 20 years to undo what has taken you three years to create. What good is that? We need to take the debt down by more than what has been created in that three-year period, but even the debt in that three-year period is a huge job to do.

It has to be done, and it can only be done by a government that is prepared to take the appropriate cuts in the operations of government at all levels. It means that there will be programs that cannot be provided by government. The people of British Columbia and across Canada have acknowledged their willingness to see government downsized. They have asked for it to be made smaller.

But what does this government do? It keeps increasing the government's size. It keeps increasing the number of employees who are brought onto the government payroll. How can we possibly cut a debt and bring a deficit under control with a balanced budget each year if we continue to increase the largest factor in our budget, that of the staffing of all the various programs and agencies the government has? You can't do it by continuing to grow those agencies and ministries.

We propose to cut the number of ministries down to 12. We will do that by combining various operations that aren't operating efficiently because they're so segregated. We will do that by looking at programs that aren't needed anymore. We'll look at the programs that are really critical and keep those. We will keep our health care programs, but we'll run them in a more efficient manner than this government will. We will keep our educational programs, but we will run them in a much more efficient manner than they are today.

We can reduce the number of people who make up the bureaucracy yet do nothing but shuffle papers rather than create education for our children or the services to patients in our hospitals and our senior care centres. Those are the people we need to address, and they are our focus.

We in the Liberal Party believe that the students and the patients and the people in need in our communities are the people that we must serve. We need to make sure that we do not waste that money in a process that doesn't get the money directly to those people, that doesn't provide them with the services they need. There is a big difference between this flimflam budget and the sham that this NDP government has been presenting for the coming year, and what this Liberal government could provide in future.

We have fine examples of just what some prominent people in our province have said about this budget. From Richard Allen of the B.C. Central Credit Union, a very distinguished economist and a person who looks at things with a totally unbiased, unpolitical viewpoint: "Rather than making significant spending cuts, the government has used creative accounting to manufacture a $114 million surplus." What he is talking about is shameful. He is really condemning this government very strongly with that kind of a statement. Yet here is a person who has no political intent whatsoever. He is trying to be honest with the people of British Columbia.

How about a person who has a very definite interest in the Canadian taxpayers -- Troy Lanigan? Troy has been calling for major changes to the taxation process. Troy Lanigan probably does have a political viewpoint, and I will accept that, but he has studied the economics of this province quite extensively, and he points out that what the average taxpayer is saying to us today is that this government is paving the road for future tax increases once the tax freeze -- that's the claimed tax freeze -- is over, because of its lack of leadership in making the needed spending cuts. It's just what I was saying.

This government does not have the intestinal fortitude to say no to their partners in the labour movement. As a member of the labour movement for so many years, I find that this government does not represent the real concerns of the real people in the labour movement. The voices it's listening to are those of people out of touch with the rank and file of the labour movement today. The rank-and-file people want an honest income, a fair income. They are not greedy. They want to be able to share with all of the people of British Columbia the resources and benefits that we can gain in this province.

For that, it does not require the kind of direction that the NDP and the B.C. Federation of Labour leadership is influencing in the province today.

Before I leave that subject, I'd like to talk about, in the health care area, the concern this government talks about in having private health care operations in the province. It really has not had any problem with many aspects of private health care in this province -- at least, it hasn't come out and made such a to-do about it, except when it comes to a high-profile MRI type of operation. It hasn't questioned the private operations of physiotherapists, chiropractors or different types of doctors.

It hasn't questioned the private operations of massage therapists or dentists, or the fact that they actually will pay privately when there isn't sufficient room on the waiting list in British Columbia for urgently needed heart operations. They have no problem with people going down to Bellingham and Seattle to have operations done by private hospitals; and they pay a much larger price for that than for a local operation. They seem to be able to pick and choose what's good health care and what's bad health care. It's sort of like how they were talking about good debt and bad debt.

It depends on what is in the best interests of this party and of their friends and insiders, not on what's in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. That is where the big difference is, and that's why this whole budget is such a sham.

I'd like to digress slightly into the area of my riding. At this point I would also like to extend an invitation to all members to come to the fiftieth anniversary of the annual Cloverdale Rodeo and Exhibition, which is scheduled for Saturday, May 20, and the Sunday and Monday. I hope you'll put that on your calendar as a time for a very wonderful celebration and for some of the finest sports and exhibition opportunities that you can experience. I'd also like to invite you to come to the opening on June 6 in Cloverdale of the Glaciers' baseball season.

I'm sure that people throughout British Columbia will want to participate and be a partner in this very wonderful opportunity to see AA baseball.

We have many needs to be addressed in British Columbia, particularly in the highest-growth areas, namely Surrey and the Surrey-Cloverdale area that I represent. We have

[ Page 13253 ]

serious highway problems. There is Highway 15, the Pacific Highway, which comes from the U.S. border up to the northern end, where it reaches almost to the Fraser River, at the CN intermodal yards, and crosses the No.1 freeway, which is also a source that traffic is transferred on. Along the route past Highway 10, which takes a lot of the truck traffic both east through Langley and out to the eastern part of Canada, and west through Surrey and Delta to the ferries and the Delta port, and also into Vancouver through the Deas Island freeway, we have the Fraser Highway, which bisects through the middle of these two.

That provides a major commuter and commercial road going through Surrey, which serves the people of Langley and Aldergrove, right through to New Westminster. There are very deteriorated conditions throughout most of these road routes, and these are going to have to be addressed. The ones that we recommend should not be creating a burden for the province. They should be worked on the basis of allocating the limited resources of the province to the appropriate areas where they really will serve the greatest need.

In order to do that, we would also like to encourage another step, which is contrary to this government, and that is cost-sharing with private industry in the building of these roads, and in the widening and upgrading that's necessary.

[4:15]

We also have a very serious need in the Cloverdale area for an emergency stabilization and transport facility for persons who are injured or who have sicknesses in our community, and who need to be either treated there initially and then sent home or transported to Surrey Memorial Hospital or Royal Columbian Hospital or one of the other specialty hospitals we have in British Columbia. That has to be a priority and it's not a big expense for this government, but it's one that this government so far has not addressed.

We also have great need to expand the facilities at the Surrey Memorial Hospital, both in the psychiatric area and in continuing care for our area. We are very pleased to see the near completion of the cancer clinic -- an excellent addition to our community and a very necessary one.

I would like to assist the member for Delta North by supporting his call for an emergency and transport facility in the Scott Road-West Surrey area, which is very needed there as well. I think it is appropriate that he criticized the member for Surrey-Newton when, for some reason, she proposed a facility in the bottom corner of her riding away from any of the real concentrations of population at Highway 10 and 152nd Street. It really amazes me. On what basis is it being justified?

I think the hon. member for Delta North justifiably criticized that location and pointed out the need closer to where his population centres are. I hope he will continue to press on that issue, as we will continue to press on the need to have facilities in the Cloverdale area where the families are and where the growth is. We have an essential need to address these, with the very pragmatic involvement of the people of Surrey and North Delta sharing in the input. I don't know who was involved in the input for the decision that the member for Surrey-Newton has proposed.

In our community it appears that there was no one involved in it. It was probably something that was just thought up as a good location, perhaps being justified because it's just within the boundaries of Surrey-Newton.

We have serious social needs in our community. We need to address the fact that this province right now has the highest number of people on social assistance that it has ever had. Unfortunately, there are many, many people needing social assistance in our area of Surrey. I hope this government will seriously look at that and will address the needs, as we will in attempting to address all of these multiple needs, through a solid, comprehensive budget instead of a flimflam budget as we have seen now.

Thank you for this opportunity to present some of the needs and concerns expressed by my constituents in Surrey-Cloverdale.

D. Symons: It's my pleasure to rise and speak on the budget address. I do have concerns, as does everybody else who's spoken on the opposition side, about the fact that this budget is really somewhat of a sham, a bit of a smoke-and-mirrors attack. It claims that it's a budget that's balanced. Yet I have a great deal of difficulty, as I'm sure the people of British Columbia do, when I see a budget that says you're spending $1 billion more than you're collecting in revenues. I think they have a great deal of difficulty wondering how you can say that's a balanced budget.

But the Finance minister in her wisdom is trying to tell the people of British Columbia that that's the case, and I suppose if she wants to keep perpetrating that sort of fantasy, if it's her wish to do so, she may. But I believe that the people of British Columbia certainly realize the truth of the matter and know that we're indeed $1 billion further in debt this year than we were a year before. That's the crux of the message I want to give in responding to this deficit of the government and the budget.

I'd like to go through the budget speech bit by bit and basically pull it apart. We see near the very beginning, when she introduced the budget, the minister said: "When our government assumed office three and a half years ago, we had one overriding priority: jobs and prosperity for ordinary British Columbians." I guess now we have to look at what this government has done in those three and a half years, because this budget seems to be addressing what they have done in the past three and a half years and how they're continuing in the current year.

The one thing I noticed about jobs and prosperity was that we find in this budget, and we passed just a week ago, some special warrants putting more money into the welfare budget. Why? Because during the three and a half years this government has been in office, the welfare rolls in this province have risen dramatically. I wonder how the Minister of Finance, talking about the overriding priority -- jobs and prosperity.... It does not seem to have worked down to the poor people in this province. The people this government are supposedly the champions of are in a worse state now than they were three and a half years ago, before this government took office.

The minister went on to say: "We were faced with three big challenges. The first was to put the province's financial house in order." What do we find when we examine the record of the three and a half years this government has been in office? When they took office we had a provincial debt somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17 billion, and we find that now in this budget we're up to $27 billion. If this government faced three big challenges and the first challenge was to the put the province's financial house in order, they somehow failed. If they're going to be putting the house in order and they're now $10 billion further in debt, a 60 percent increase in the provincial debt, they failed.

"The second challenge was to make our economy the strongest in Canada." In one sense they didn't have to make the economy the strongest in Canada; it already was. It was primarily that because we on the west coast of Canada are very fortunate to have the resource industries situated here that have brought wealth and prosperity to this province for many decades. We were lucky, when the rest of Canada was

[ Page 13254 ]

suffering a recession, that it at least had a lesser effect upon British Columbians than on the rest of Canada. Indeed, if we look at the situation in Ontario in 1991, when this government took office in British Columbia, and the situation in Ontario now -- because they're beginning to see a turnaround in Ontario, in spite of, I might add, the NDP government they have there -- the economy there is picking up somewhat;

whereas British Columbia has only moved marginally ahead during the term of this government. Again, it's not because of the policies of this government but in spite of the policies of this government, and it's because of the strength of the resource industries in this province. That's been our saving grace. The part here, where the minister spoke about our economy being the strongest in Canada.... We are fortunate. Any government, whether it be NDP, Liberal or -- heaven forbid! -- Reform will find the same thing is true there: we'll have a strong economy in British Columbia because of our resource-based industries.

If we treat industry properly in this province, we can make it climb, and we can do even better. The problem here is that this government introduced something called the corporate capital tax, which I'm sure the members opposite are tired of hearing about. The financial communities around the world.... When our Premier has gone to the Orient and to Europe and has given them this great message about how wonderful investment is in British Columbia, they've simply turned around and said: "What about the corporate capital tax?"

We have not seen a great many investments come to this province as a result of these rather expensive tours that the Premier has made. What we find concerning investment from outside the province that has happened in British Columbia is that a great deal of it has to do with the immigration policy of the federal government, which says that if you're going to create a business in the province or bring in investments and so forth, you can climb to the top of the immigration rolls. We've brought money into the province that way.

Most of our investments actually come from that aspect of it and have very little to do with the travels the Premier has made, trying to seek investment here. They've looked at the record of this government and said: "We'll wait, please." The message I heard was that they'll wait till '95; they may have to wait till '96 before they feel that British Columbia will be the province that they can invest in and know that their investments will bring them a reasonable return and that they won't be taxed on the investments they make, not on the profits they make.

If we take some of the businesses in Vancouver that have gone under.... I would not for a moment suggest that this government was responsible for putting Woodward's under, but when Woodward's was having financial difficulty, this government was still taxing the assets the company had, even though they were losing money year by year. I certainly have no doubt that this government's attitude toward that corporate capital tax has had a great deal to do with driving businesses under or driving businesses out of the province.

We have seen, in the last few years, more and more businesses locate either in our neighbouring province of Alberta or just south of the line into Bellingham and Whatcom County. We find businesses are going there. Why? Why do they not stay in this glorious British Columbia that our government is telling us about all the time? Because the investment climate here is not good. They're going elsewhere because they don't want to be taxed to death before they even have a chance to get their business off the ground.

Another one we have down here is where the government talks about making the right investments -- affordable investments. They talk about investing in people and in job training and in our natural resources and so forth. What the minister is basically saying in those terms is that we're having more government spending. Translate: when they use the word "investment," the government is going to spend more of your tax dollars, more of the fees and licence fees that were charged you. They're going to be spending it, because the government knows best what's good for you.

Hon. D. Miller: You're going to scrap it all?

D. Symons: Rather than turning this around and encouraging the private sector....

Hon. D. Miller: Are you going to scrap it all? Answer the question.

D. Symons: If the minister would care to listen, I will answer his question. Rather than invest and set the investment climate so the small sector would prosper in the province....

Interjection.

D. Symons: Believe me, hon. minister, I'm sure you know that the small business sector is the one that's been creating jobs in the province.

Hon. D. Miller: Are you going to scrap it all? Yes or no.

D. Symons: I'm just telling you, hon. minister, that if we get the small business sector going in this province, they'll create more jobs than the government. That's what I'm trying to tell the minister, and he doesn't care to hear it. I don't think the NDP government is able to hear the people of British Columbia, who are telling this government to spend less, get their spending under control, and stop taxing them to death. That's the message they heard in Alberta. They elected a government that did it, and indeed, that government's still high in the polls.

I would not suggest that we import Alberta's solutions to British Columbia, but I would say that the attitude of the people in Alberta is somewhat similar to the attitude of people in British Columbia. The government has to get its spending under control. And by the kibitzing I'm getting from the government members, they obviously have not heard that message.

[4:30]

Interjection.

D. Symons: Yes, you have increased the debt up to $30 billion. I agree with you, hon. member.

The third challenge the Finance minister made reference to was to protect the essential public services that British Columbians rely upon. I think everybody would agree with protecting the essential services, but what do we find in the budget estimates books? If we look toward the end, if I was to read the minister's whole budget address, we'd find that she talked about cutting down the size of government. But what do we find at the back of the estimates? There we find that the estimate for full-time equivalents for the next fiscal year will be 500 more.

Although the minister makes reference to cutting the size of government, somehow they are increasing the civil service by 500 more employees. That's cuts, NDP style. I think we have to be aware of it, and the public out there has to be aware that when this government talks about cuts, that means they are cutting the rate at which they are growing. They're

[ Page 13255 ]

not cutting back, they're just slowing down the amount of growth.

They've made a big deal about health care and it's been mentioned by many other members. They are trying to portray that somehow they are going to be the saviours of health care in British Columbia, and everybody else is going to trash it. It is patent nonsense. I don't think the people of British Columbia are going to be fooled, because this is obviously the only thing that government can grab onto to say: "We're going to protect health care. We've bungled everything else, but we'll protect health care."

Universal health care is here to stay. Universal health care was set by the federal government -- I might add, a Liberal government -- and it will stay. What may not stay are some of the add-ons we cannot afford that have occurred over the years. I think there are some instances where private clinics can provide some of the services that other people in British Columbia are going to have to wait years or months to get.

Because our health care system is so clogged up, in this province right now you find that if you hear the ads -- and I hear this frequently, particularly for women who find out that they have breast cancer.... They go for examination because they are told: "Early detection is important." So what do you do? You're a woman; you have concerns; you feel a lump; you go to your doctor. They send you for a mammogram. You find out there's a suspicious lump there. They take a biopsy, and you wait six weeks for the biopsy results to come back.

After the biopsy result comes back and it's positive -- you have cancer -- what happens? You go on a wait-list for treatment, and all the time they've been telling you that early detection is important.

Interjections.

D. Symons: I know people who have been in this situation, hon. members. I've seen the wait-lists across Canada, and B.C. does not come out best, as the government opposite is claiming.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please. I recognize it is 4:30, and quite predictably the temperature and the level rises, but I would ask all members to please do the courtesy of listening to their colleagues, whatever side of the House they may be speaking from.

D. Symons: I hope the people waiting for treatments are being treated as quickly as the government members would claim they are. I'm sure that if anybody out there is listening and waiting, they know that treatment will be on board for them tomorrow, because the government says there are no wait-lists.

While we're at it, since we're talking about health care, I'll just bring up another situation. Since this government seems to be re-engineering health care in this province.... And this is one that I'm quite familiar with, because it happened just a month ago, dealing with Closer to Home. In this province, the government's Closer to Home initiative seems to be more: you're on your own.

The example I will give is a true example of a woman whose husband was suffering serious heart attacks and was hospitalized. She, or more often the ambulance, would take him to the hospital. He would be admitted at Emergency and then would go up into intensive care and be stabilized. In two or three days, when they got him stabilized -- he was just barely recovering from the heart attack -- they said: "You're going home now."

He went home. A week later he had another heart attack and was back again. This went on five or six times. The last one was rather more serious. They came in, and the wife was getting terribly upset over the whole situation because her husband was deteriorating, though each time that they got him stabilized they said: "Well, you're beating regularly now. Take your drugs and so forth. You go home."

Unfortunately, at the same time, the wife was involved in a business venture that she was trying to get going. This is not a young lady; this is someone closer to my age. She was trying to get this going for fear that when her husband passed on, which was likely to happen, she was going to have to be able to support herself. One of those times when they were sending the husband home, she was saying: "Can't you look after him here? He's really in poor shape, and I don't have the resources at home to do it."

She basically was told by the hospital: "Aren't you willing to look after your husband? Quit your job and stay home. You have to look after him, because we can't supply anything for him." At that time, under Closer to Home, the home care was not there for her.

I brought this problem to the attention of the Health ministry and the hospital involved, and I hear that now they're beginning to get these health care things in place, thank heavens -- a little late for this poor woman. Her husband did die and solved the problem for the Health ministry.

An Hon. Member: And the doctors in the hospital.

D. Symons: And the hospital and so forth.

Certainly what it seemed to be.... When I was talking to the administration of the hospital on this, they were basically told that after they'd got the patient to a certain standard of stability -- let's use that word -- they had to clear him out of the hospital, or they would be docked money for each day that the person stayed beyond the point when they felt he was capable of going home. That sounds logical, I suppose, from a financial viewpoint. It may not be logical from a health care viewpoint or from the viewpoint of all the social issues that are related to a patient in the hospital.

An Hon. Member: Good story, but what does it mean?

D. Symons: It means that this man was not getting the health care that our health care system should be providing. The hon. member asked what it meant, so I was explaining to him.

The hon. Minister of Finance went on to say: "We have put British Columbia's financial house in order." Indeed, they have brought in a debt management plan. I find it difficult to understand how you can call it that when you're increasing the debt by $1 billion. Somehow you're calling this a debt management plan.

What does this debt management plan do? It seems, if you look carefully at it, that they say: "In 20 years, we'll be able to undo the damage that our government has done in three and a half years. We'll put you back to the point that we were at in 1991." That's NDP debt management. We will have the next 20 years of our young people and our taxpayers trying to undo what this government has done in three and a half years.

An Hon. Member: It's schools. It's not....

D. Symons: The hon. member talks about that being schools. He wants me to, because in Richmond we have a

[ Page 13256 ]

problem where 25 percent of the students have their classes in portable classrooms.

Interjections.

D. Symons: Let's take a look at what this government has done in being able....

Deputy Speaker: Members, please, I have to extend this caution and admonition to both sides of the House, because I recognize that the member is being interrupted by his own side as well. Please let us all try and lower the level ever so slightly, so we can hear what the speaker is saying.

Member, please continue.

D. Symons: I would just like to correct the hon. Speaker. I know we're not allowed to do that, but the hon. member on this side of the House is simply adding some force to my statements here. He wasn't at all criticizing me, and so forth. He was just giving me some moral support, I must add, and I thank him for it.

I must say what I wanted to say regarding Richmond schools, because we do have a very serious problem. I realize that Richmond is not alone in this, but I suspect that it's very near the top of the desperate school boards in the province as far as supplying the infrastructure needed.

We are spending so much on paying the interest on the provincial debt that has climbed fantastically over the last three and a half years.... It has gone up, as I say, by 60 percent. We could have built 15 more hospitals in this province with the interest paid on that debt, or we could have put in 10,000 more classrooms with the money that we're pouring down the tube each and every year, which is going into paying interest on the debt. And that debt continues to grow year by year under this NDP government.

Whenever I talk about highways -- because that's my critic's role -- or anything else, the members opposite are going to ask: "Which classroom don't we build? Which hospital don't we build?" What we have happening here is that we're pouring money down the tube, paying off the debt every year -- money that could be used for producing beds in the hospitals, for producing the classrooms in this province that are needed. So that's where we have the problem, because this government has not attacked the serious problem of dealing with overspending on the part of the government.

Interjections.

D. Symons: We do seem to have created some interest on the part of government members, and I appreciate their attention to what I'm saying here.

An Hon. Member: Don't flatter yourself.

D. Symons: We do seem to have some there. Thank you.

The minister also went on to say that there will be no budget deficit for the government of British Columbia this year. [Applause.] Some people on the opposite side seem to agree with her on that, but I guess that's about the hardest thing I find to swallow in this whole budget address.

If we look at the thing, they claim there's a $114 million surplus. But what do we find? Well, through the hanky-panky of the Transportation Financing Authority, for number one, they have put in somewhere in the neighbourhood of $350 million of borrowed money. It is supposedly going to be recoverable, and if you take a look in the estimates book, you will find they have it down as recoveries. Yet they have not indicated in any way whatsoever how they are going to recover it.

All they've done to put money into the Transportation Financing Authority is put on a 1-cent-a-litre gasoline tax and $1.50 a day on car rentals. If you add that up, it comes to about $50 million a year. And all that this $50 million will do is leverage more borrowing. It's not at all paying down the money they're paying on the Island Highway; it's simply allowing them to borrow more to build the Island Highway.

So they're putting $350 million that, if you kept the books.... Here's the problem when the minister talks about no deficit this year: the books aren't being kept the same way they were in 1991. If this government were keeping the books exactly the same way the government before them did -- the government they keep criticizing for the size of their deficits -- we would find that the figures they're telling us each year are the deficit -- indeed, now, no deficit -- are not all that different from what the Socred government left us in 1991. It's simply a bookkeeping shimsham, a smoke-and-mirrors affair, that this government is doing in order to hide the real debt of the government.

They're collecting money from B.C. Hydro in the form of dividends, which basically is a tax on every person who is paying their Hydro bill each month, and that way it's increasing revenue to the government. They have put some money in from the last of the Social Credit selling off -- government privatization -- and they've taken that money and helped pay down the deficit this year.

All of these things are one-shot efforts. The Columbia River Treaty benefits are going to pay down this year's overspending, and because of these one-shot moneys they're dumping into the budget this year, they are now claiming a slight surplus in the budget. But if we subtract those one-shot figures we're looking at a $500 million deficit -- not a $114 million surplus, as this government is claiming. So what we have really is a lot of smoke and mirrors but no real surplus at all.

[4:45]

The government also said it was going to cut the cost of government. As I search through the budget book, I can't find where the government is cutting the cost of government, because they seem to be increasing the size of it by 500 employees. So they say: "Well, what we're going to do is cut back on advertising and consultants." I don't see any of the Social Credit-cum-Reformers here at the moment, but I don't think, for all their excesses, for all they did in using government assets as a way of advertising, that they compared at all to the NDP.

Really, you deserve a prize -- number one -- for using government resources to promote the NDP and your cause through advertising and for the use of friends and insiders as consultants. For all the excesses of the previous government, they didn't come anywhere near the record that you people have set.

Interjections.

D. Symons: Now we must be honest on this, mustn't we?

What I find really galling in the minister's statements.... This is, again, a quote from the Minister of Finance. She said: "A situation in which a government continues to spend more than it brings in is both unacceptable and unsustainable." It's the Minister of Finance who made that statement. I agree 100 percent with that statement. Yet I find the very books that she tabled in this House a contradiction to that statement, as far as this government is concerned, because if you look in there, you find the amount that they're collecting and the amount that they're spending, and there's a billion-dollar difference on

[ Page 13257 ]

the spending side. And she said it's "both unacceptable and unsustainable." I agree 100 percent.

I really would just like to wind up by saying that when they do spend more than they take in, no matter which accounts book they keep it in, we're dealing with a deficit situation. Although this government has what it calls good debt and bad debt, it's all debt that's going to have to be paid off by somebody in the future -- and that's going to be ourselves, our children and our children's children, at the rate we're going.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

So I'm finding that the NDP really has increased the income of the government by $1 billion -- that is, they've taken it out of British Columbians' pockets. They have increased fees and licences. They say they're not increasing taxes, but they've done it in every other way, except by increasing the British Columbia part of the income tax. They certainly have got it in every other thing. Motor vehicle carrier fees have gone up from $85 to $100, which is roughly a 17 percent increase. They've increased spending by 2.9 percent, and that leaves us $1 billion further in debt. They've collected an extra billion.

They've spent more, so we're $1 billion further in debt. That's basically a $2 billion increase in spending over the years. I find that in 1991 the provincial level of debt was 14 percent of the gross domestic product of the province, and in 1995 that rate has been increased to 20 percent. Again, these are the government's own figures. I think that figure in itself shows what this government has done to the finances of the province in a short three and a half years. The NDP announced their intention to implement a debt management plan, and it's going to take them 20 years to get us back where we were.

The message I've been hearing from people is that they want less spending, they want less debt and they want less taxes. That is the message that this NDP government has routinely ignored during all of its years, and they continue to ignore it.

H. Giesbrecht: It's a pleasure to take my place in this debate and to follow the member for Richmond Centre. I want to make a few brief comments on some of the remarks he made. He certainly has been critical of this government's job creation efforts. I note, for example, that he confirmed -- and I heard it in his own words -- that they would scrap all our investments in resources, in people, in infrastructure and in jobs. I heard him say that he wanted the Ralph Klein approach in this province. Shame!

I also heard the hon. member confirm that the federal vision of medicare will prevail in this province, should they ever be so fortunate as to come to power. Perish the thought. I say shame, if the best defence they can provide for medicare is to follow the lead of their Liberal brothers and sisters in Ottawa.

The hon. member talked about his concerns that students in his schools were having to take their education in portables. When members of the Richmond community approach our ministers and say to them, "You seem to understand our concerns, but when we approach our MLAs, they don't help us," I think that makes a mockery of the concern that is expressed here in terms of schools in Surrey. We are the ones that are going to build the infrastructure for tomorrow. It's a shame, and to have the members stand up and not recognize the basic fundamentals of accounting and that you have assets and liabilities is also a shame.

Yesterday my hon. colleague to my left commented about the opposition's practice of always referring to this government as the NDP instead of the New Democratic Party. It would be nice to have more acronyms identifying various parties in this House. Everybody should enjoy that luxury, so in terms of the Liberal opposition, I thought that maybe we should refer to them by the first two letters of the word Liberal. If you say "LI" quickly enough and you refer to them as the "LI" party, you get a sense of what I'm driving at. It's a very good description.

Interjections.

H. Giesbrecht: The interesting thing is that it's even....

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Obviously it is difficult for the Chair and other members to hear the member's contribution. So please try to restrain yourselves. Hon. member, please proceed.

H. Giesbrecht: I was just going to say it's interesting that if you turn the letters around, they work as well.

Yesterday the Leader of the Official Opposition launched into his usual harangue. He said that debt is the silent killer of all our core services, it is the silent killer of all our health care services, it is the silent killer of our education services, and so on. I thought that this was really a simple distortion of the truth. I can agree that debt could risk our essential services, and in places like Alberta with their cuts in health service, that's exactly the case.

But to say that in B.C. it is the silent killer, I think denies the truth that B.C. is the only province in this country that has provided moderate increases in those services for the last four years. The Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong; even the financial experts disagree with him. But then, he's the leader of the "LI" party.

As for the opposition, both Liberal and Reform, their expenditure of words is too great for their income of ideas. To put it another way, their expenditure of rhetoric exceeds the income of facts. That's the only deficit we need to worry about in this House.

What is becoming clear in listening to the debate is that there isn't much difference in the position of the Liberals, who now look more like Social Credit than Social Credit ever did, and the Reformers, who have moved even further to the right, and it's impossible to tell the difference. As someone recently wrote in a Terrace newspaper, if you scratch a Socred, a Liberal or a Reformer bleeds.

The questions in this debate have really been quite straightforward. Is spending bad if it creates jobs, addresses essential needs of people and is affordable? Is borrowing for capital projects bad if the projects are needed now and they can be paid for over the life of the project? After all, the school, hospital or road exists as a tangible capital asset. To hear the opposition, of course, all spending is bad; all borrowing is bad. If you listen to them, they're trying to convince the public that debt is something totally new and that it never existed prior to 1992. Not so.

The 1992 British Columbia Economic and Statistical Review, fifty-second edition, says on page 26: "The provincial government and its Crown corporations incur debt to finance operations and capital projects. The provincial government also provides certain financing to other organizations, including some local government agencies." Now comes the good part: "Chart 2.4" -- which I can't read to you -- "shows that" -- listen -- "since 1981-1982, the amount of direct and guaranteed net debt has almost doubled, from $10.1 billion on March 31, 1982, to $20 billion at March 31, 1992."

That's $20 billion of debt at the end of the 1991-92 fiscal year, the last budget set by the previous administration.

Bor-

[ Page 13258 ]

rowing to finance capital projects wasn't a bad thing then, and we had a proliferation of school portables across the province to show for it. Where did that $20 billion of debt come from if they didn't build those capital projects -- i.e., if they didn't make those investments that were needed -- which we are now having to build? We're now having to provide British Columbians with those. They, the Socred Reformers, even had spending increases each year in the double digits, and still none of those school portables were replaced.

When we took office the next spending increases, accounting for inflation and population increases, went down to one-eighth of what they were. Given their neglecting to invest in B.C.'s resources, its people and its infrastructure, it's hypocritical to attack this government