1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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 28, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 17

[ Page 12087 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a group of very special visitors to the House. In the members' gallery this afternoon is the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. These men and women have gathered in Victoria today to review this year's nominations to the order and select the recipients for the June investiture.

I understand that there were 138 nominations this year, with many submitted by members on both sides of the chamber and from every corner of the province. The OBC Advisory Council is chaired by the Hon. Allan McEachern, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of B.C. It includes, of course, our Speaker; Mayor John Ranta of Cache Creek, who is president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities; Dr. Charles Jago, president of the University of Northern British Columbia; Mr. Gerry Armstrong, Deputy Minister of Advanced Education; and two members of the Order, Ms. Kazuko Komatsu of Burnaby and Dr. Roger Tonkin of Gabriola Island. Would the House please make these members most welcome.

[1410]

G. Campbell: I would like the House to welcome and recognize Dr. Paul Tennant, who is with us today in the Legislature. Dr. Tennant has been the driving force behind the legislative internship program, a program that we all benefit from -- and I hope even our interns benefit from it. I would like the House to welcome Dr. Tennant as a show of thanks.

Hon. H. Lali: I would also like to join the Premier in welcoming Mr. John Ranta, who is the mayor of Cache Creek in my riding. As well, we have visitors in the gallery today from the Canadian Transportation Lawyers Association. This association is actually meeting here this week in lovely Victoria. Would the House please bid these visitors welcome.

C. Clark: In the press gallery today we have three visitors from the Tri-City News : Craig Hodge, the photographer, who also has the distinction of being the president of our local chamber of commerce, as well as Janis Cleugh and Kate Poole, two local reporters for the Tri-City News . I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would like to introduce two people visiting the gallery today. The first I want to introduce on your behalf as well, hon. Speaker, as she's a former constituent. Her name is Florence Reid, and she is a writer from Saltspring Island. I understand that at the tender age of 75, Ms. Reid is opening a new business offering reiki services on Saltspring Island. The second person I'd like to introduce is my administrative coordinator -- a new title -- Wendy Twomey, who provides wonderful service for me and for government. Would the House please make both of them very welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: There are three people with us today that I'd like the House to welcome. They are people who have worked tirelessly on behalf of injured workers in British Columbia. With us is Birgit Lund, her son Steve Lund and Mr. Joe Toms. Would the House please welcome them here.

J. Cashore: Further to the introduction of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, I'd like to add my welcome to Janis Cleugh, Craig Hodge and Kate Poole of the Tri-City News . For the information of members, they're here today doing stories on three MLAs: the two MLAs who have already welcomed them and also the MLA for Port Coquitlam. Their story is "A Day in the Life of an MLA." I just want you all to know that we've arranged our schedules to appear to be extremely busy today. All sorts of phone calls and messages are coming in, and I think they're duly impressed. So please make them further welcome.

P. Nettleton: I would be remiss, hon. Speaker, if I were not to welcome a great president of a great university, Charles Jago of UNBC in Prince George.

Oral Questions

SKYTRAIN AND TRANSIT LINK TO COQUITLAM

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, today TransLink has condemned the NDP government for going back on its word to build rail transit from central Broadway to Coquitlam. Instead, the Premier and this government have made a unilateral political decision to go forward with SkyTrain, which will cost twice as much and will get people only partway to their destination. At the same time, it will gut transit services in the rest of the region.

My question is to the minister responsible for transit and transportation: why should anyone have any trust in anything this government says when once again they have broken their word?

[1415]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm so happy you asked that question. Actually, it's ironic, because just a couple of weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition was standing up and saying no to SkyTrain: "We'd stop SkyTrain." And here he is, standing up and saying: "Why aren't you going to build SkyTrain?" It is unbelievable. Do they think people are stupid?

The Speaker: Minister, to the question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Unlike other jurisdictions in all of Canada, which are actually withdrawing from building public transit . . . . The Ontario government, the Alberta government, the Manitoba government and the Quebec government are getting out of the business of building rapid transit. We, as of today, committed $1.9 billion to build SkyTrain. Where are we going to build it? We're going to build it from Vancouver to Coquitlam, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: T his side of the House has been very clear from day one. We want rail transit from central Broadway to Coquitlam. We don't believe that it should be SkyTrain, which cannot be funded, which will not be funded and which has

[ Page 12088 ]

not been funded by this government. People in Vancouver don't need another MacFailure; what they need is a transit system that works. It's simple.

My question to the minister responsible is this: when will the betrayal stop? When will they sit down and work in good faith with the people at TransLink to provide full funding to make sure that the system gets from central Broadway to Coquitlam as quickly as possible -- with an affordable transit system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, what hypocrisy! This opposition stood up and voted against the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. That hon. member stood up and spoke against the transfer of responsibility to the regions. That leader -- that Liberal leader -- spoke against SkyTrain -- proven technology that works, that has 94 percent support amongst people in the lower mainland and that actually delivers on the Livable Region strategy for all of us who have to live in the lower mainland and are threatened by incredible environmental degradation.

This side of the House is committed to rapid transit that works, and that's SkyTrain. We've actually put our money where our mouth is. Where's their money, hon. Speaker?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: If I had the choice between deciding about the greater Vancouver regional district board and TransLink, thinking about the Livable Region plan and that minister, I'd pick the TransLink people every single time. The minister points out . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Campbell: . . . that we voted against the legislation, and the minister's right. We knew that TransLink couldn't count on this government to keep its word -- ever. This is a project that's been planned by amateurs . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Campbell: . . . and it's been pushed by incompetents -- government incompetents -- from day one.

My question to the minister is: rather than dealing in this kind of rhetoric, will she sit down now, stop . . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Members, we didn't hear the question. We need to hear the question, members. Come to order.

G. Campbell: Will the minister stop the folly, get back together with TransLink and plan a financially sound, doable, fixed-rail link that will get people to Coquitlam at the most affordable price now?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Ten years of planning is enough. The public wants rapid transit now. They want it now, and they want stuff that works. The planning is complete; the work has been done. SkyTrain is on track. It's working for people who have to live in the lower mainland, who want to get out of their cars and onto transit that will move them around this region. They want it to be done in an affordable way. We're delivering on that. We've made a commitment that is unprecedented -- $1.2 billion to build phase 1. That's starting now.

You know what? If it was up to the Liberal opposition . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Finish up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . the train would never leave the station.

[1420]

NORTHERN REPRESENTATION ON TOURISM B.C. BOARD

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Tourism B.C. appears to have forgotten the northern half of our province. The 1999 "B.C. Vacation Planner" is a prime example. The map on page 4 ignores all of the communities in the northeast, save possibly Fort St. John, which is simply identified as "Fort" -- adequate perhaps for the 1800s, but totally unacceptable today.

The board of directors of Tourism B.C. has no northern voice. The most northerly representative lives at 108 Mile House, near 100 Mile House. What steps is the minister taking to ensure that northern British Columbia has adequate representation on the board of Tourism B.C.?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm glad the hon. member asked me that question, because tourism, of course, is our fastest-growing industry in British Columbia. I've just got the figures for February, and American visitations are up 25 percent from last year. It's quite amazing.

But I agree with the hon. member. Our challenge is to get people out of the lower mainland, get them up north, get them in the regions -- get the visitors there. I took the matter up with Tourism B.C. I asked them to change their maps. I appointed someone from Prince Rupert. I've tried to appoint people from other northern parts, and I affirm to the member that I've asked Tourism B.C. to make their next appointment from the northeastern part of British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary from the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Well, maps that look like they're made in the last century are bad enough. But a call to Tourism B.C. today revealed that this multimillion-dollar Crown corporation, which describes itself as a world leader in tourism marketing, does not even have a web site.

[ Page 12089 ]

Can the minister explain this incredible situation? And will the minister commit today to look, when he appoints a northern representative, for someone with Internet experience?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member was in the House when the Legislature passed the Tourism Act. The Legislature in fact privatized Tourism B.C.

An Hon. Member: Two years ago.

Hon. I. Waddell: That's right.

You know, when you privatize, you have to leave it up to some of the people in the private sector to do what they think is right. By and large, they've been doing a very good job, because our tourism figures are up.

However, there are some areas that could be improved. They have got a web site, but it could be a better web site. They have got maps, but they could obviously be better maps. They have got representation, but they're not choosing enough people from the regions. As I say, I commit to the hon. member to do what I can as minister over them -- but it is privatized, virtually -- to put those views forward and to continue tourism growth in British Columbia.

FRASER VALLEY AIR QUALITY AND SUMAS POWER FACILITY

M. de Jong: I heard the Finance minister's reference earlier to environmental degradation, which was interesting in light of what we've learned about the government's present negotiations to buy power from an American co-gen facility in Sumas, Washington, just south of Abbotsford. That proposed power purchase would support a massive expansion of an existing American facility. My question to the Minister of Environment is: can she advise the House if she believes that people in the eastern and central Fraser Valley and that airshed can withstand a second Burrard Thermal?

[1425]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not familiar with the issue the member raises, but I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: There's no supplementary to this question. It's been taken on notice.

M. de Jong: I have a new question. We all know -- at least, I hope we all know -- that there are days when the Burrard Thermal generation facility is required to shut down because of environmental and health concerns. In this case, the American facility a half-mile from the international border will continue to operate. There are days, Madam Speaker, when you can't see Mount Baker. There are days when British Columbians at that end of the valley are told not to leave their homes.

So my question to this minister or the minister responsible for Hydro is: what assurance can they give to British Columbians living in the lower mainland that their air quality is not going to be further degraded by the negotiations that this government is undertaking with the Americans?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are concerned about air quality in the lower mainland. That's why we're building SkyTrain. That's why we've supported natural gas projects in British Columbia; that's why we do monitor airshed quality; that's why we have AirCare in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's why, as I said earlier on, we're building SkyTrain. We're proud of it, and we're going to get on with it.

BULK WATER EXPORT TO SUMAS POWER FACILITY

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, the government has repeatedly stated that it will not allow or permit bulk water exports from British Columbia. But as part of the deal in Sumas, we will be exporting bulk water to the Sumas power facility. Will the Environment minister tell us why her government is planning to exempt this project from the Water Protection Act and violate its own promise to never allow bulk water exports from British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I think it's appalling that that side of the House does its homework so poorly that it's not even aware of the kind of provisions there are under the bulk water export act. We lead this nation in the fact that we put in place a ban against bulk water transfer while the rest of Canada sat without doing anything. We challenged NAFTA.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. C. McGregor: We challenged the MAI . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . . on the basis of how it can impact on our environment. That's why we're protecting natural resources. We know what that side of the House would do with natural resources: give them away, mine in parks, cut down trees in parks. That's the agenda for the Libs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, come to order.

First supplementary, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

M. Coell: According to the Sumas application now before the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, an amendment to the B.C. Water Protection Act, which bans the export of bulk water, is expected in April 1999. Can the Minister of Environment tell us when she planned to tell British Columbians that her government is going to start exporting bulk water to the United States? When is she going to tell British Columbians?

[ Page 12090 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: There is no government in Canada that has taken more steps to protect the natural environment than the government sitting on this side of the House.

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. McGregor: We took the steps in 1995 to bring in a very progressive piece of legislation which will ban water exports from British Columbia, because we on this side of the House know that that's an issue that British Columbians all over the province care about.

Hon. Speaker, the hypocrisy of that side of the House, to try and claim that they care about natural resources . . . . I'd ask each of them to examine their conscience, to look at who donates to them and to consider that some of the worst polluters in this province are donating to their cause. And I wonder why?

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to table a number of reports. I have the pleasure of tabling the 1997-98 annual report of B.C. Housing.

I have the honour of tabling the 1997 annual report of the Job Protection Commission.

The Speaker: Minister, just read them all off.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I also have the honour of tabling the B.C. Hydro 1998 annual report.

Hon. J. Kwan: I have the honour to present the 1997-98 annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Ministerial Statement

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS KILLED OR INJURED ON THE JOB

Hon. D. Lovick: I rise to make a ministerial statement on a very serious subject. Today flags are flying at half-mast on B.C. Ferries vessels, on terminals, on facilities, at the parliament buildings and at government buildings around the province. Today we honour dead and injured workers. Today, Wednesday, April 28, is the National Day of Mourning for workers killed in workplace accidents or by work-related diseases in the past year.

I know that I speak for all members when I say that we mourn these men and women whose lives were cut short by their work. To their families, to their friends and to their co-workers I extend my deepest sympathy and respect. Last year we demonstrated our sympathy and concern in a tangible way by introducing stand-alone occupational health and safety legislation. On introducing that legislation for second reading, I quoted numerous statistics. I want to repeat just a few of those today.

Three workers die every week in British Columbia from workplace injuries. In Canada, three workers die every day. That is a frightening statistic, and it is also unacceptable. We must never forget the tragedy of loss of life, and that is why we mourn across this province and this country on this day. But we must also never waver in our determination to prevent future tragedies.

Earlier today I had the very solemn honour to participate in a ceremony to unveil a memory wall which honours B.C. workers who died on the job. It was striking to look around and see people with very diverse views and backgrounds so committed to a common purpose. People like Tom Stephens of MacMillan Bloedel and Angela Schira of the B.C. Federation of Labour tell us that improving workplace safety is everyone's responsibility, not that of only unions or only business or only government. We all have a responsibility to create a safer workplace.

For my part, I will solemnly pledge today, as Minister of Labour, to do everything in the power of this office to reduce the needless toll that workplace injuries take on B.C. families. The workers of British Columbia deserve our greatest respect. It is most fitting that we reinforce our commitment to our workers and to their safety on this day of mourning.

Hon. Speaker, I know my colleagues from across the House also wish to speak, at the end of which I hope you as Speaker will allow us to celebrate a moment's silence to remember those workers whose lives were lost in the service of their families, their employers and indeed all British Columbians.

[1435]

The Speaker: Indeed I shall.

K. Krueger: I've been asked by my colleagues to express our response to the minister's statement on this sad and sombre observance. Workplace deaths destroy productive lives and shockingly interrupt relationships, leaving survivors to struggle toward a resolution of emotions and thoughts which they may never reach. When death has been untimely, unforeseen or preventable, the hurt in survivors' lives is even deeper. Doubtless that is the case in many if not all of the 125 tragic losses of life in B.C. throughout 1998 through workplace injuries and occupational disease.

On this day we honour and mourn those who have died in both the past year and all previous years, and we express our empathy for their loved ones. We recognize that each of these deaths was a singular tragedy which deprived our society of a person of infinite worth. Further, each tragic death hurt many other people in deeply personal ways: spouses suddenly forced to carry on alone, children deprived of their parents, grandchildren denied the opportunity to experience life with this loved one, and parents, co-workers and friends left to resolve the hurt and emptiness. The families, workplaces and communities of these workers were much diminished by their loss, as were we all.

Although the number of workplace deaths in B.C. is decreasing over the years, each such loss is a deep personal tragedy, especially for those who were loved, sheltered and supported by these workers and who will never be able to greet them again at the end of the working day. The loss of a loved one takes an immeasurable toll. It is fitting, good and right that we honour those who have died and pay tribute to their memories in this way. At the same time, we must rededicate ourselves to the duty of ensuring safe working environments for British Columbians.

[ Page 12091 ]

As elected members of this Legislative Assembly, we have unique opportunities and responsibilities to protect working people. We must be vigilant and effective in fulfilling these duties, keeping the loss-prevention priority high and ensuring that all public sector workplaces serve as examples. Although diminishing statistics may tempt government to pride itself on progress -- and perhaps deservedly so -- we all recognize that a single preventable death would still be one too many.

Further, new risks emerge and must be safeguarded against. British Columbia's state of earthquake preparedness, for example, is an issue for which all MLAs share concern. The recent terrible tragedy in an Ontario Transit garage, while criminal in its outcome, was also an awful reminder of the potential consequences when people do not feel respected, or experience personal harassment in the workplace. It is our duty to learn from the tragedies which occur and do our part to eliminate the risks which we identify.

It is also our duty to ensure that injured workers and the survivors of those who die receive efficient, supportive, prompt, fair and caring service from the Workers Compensation Board. We recognize that caring people are in place to address the dramatic deficiencies of the past at WCB, yet progress is still unacceptably slow. I recently reviewed a case submitted by my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton, where the WCB had taken seven years to determine what it deemed to be payable to the widow of a worker killed in a clear-cut workplace tragedy.

That is unacceptable to any member of this Legislative Assembly. I'm sure that every member supports the official opposition in our firm message to those who are entrusted to deliver services and benefits to injured workers and their families: we expect and demand prompt, thorough, respectful delivery of service and benefits to British Columbia's workers.

It is not difficult on this day to join our thoughts and our wills from both sides of this House in standing together to honour, mourn and remember those workers who have died. We dedicate ourselves to the duties of ensuring safe workplaces in British Columbia and delivering entitlements to the survivors of those we have lost, as well as to injured workers and their families.

[1440]

The Speaker: I'd like to remind all members about ministerial statements not being partisan or argumentative. I just want to remind everyone of that point.

I'd now like, as the minister requested, to offer us an opportunity to stand for a minute's silence.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

D. Symons: I'm just finishing off the comments I started yesterday. I do note that my time is running short, so I'd just like to make a few final comments.

I want to get around to Richmond schools and deal with some things in Richmond. As time is running short, I'll make it brief. Basically, in Richmond, 92 percent of the school board's budget now goes for salaries. That leaves the remaining 8 percent that will go for building maintenance, teaching supplies, heat, light and all the other things that are required in a school district to operate the schools in a safe and meaningful manner for the students of this particular municipality, and it's the same across the province.

What we're finding has been happening in the last few years, though, is that our PAC groups -- our parent advisory committees and so forth -- that used to raise money through hotdog sales and other things for extras like field trips, playgrounds and things of that sort are more and more finding it necessary to now raise money for needed materials such as paper, books, art supplies, sports supplies and things of that sort, which before had come through the normal funding process for schools. PAC groups are now more and more filling in the gaps where money is short in the education process. I find that a little bit difficult to deal with.

[1445]

Also, the municipal grant system in our municipality in Richmond. We used to get about $6 million through the municipal grant system each year that went toward operation of the municipal services that are given to the people of Richmond. That grant has now been cut to virtually nothing in the last year.

The government in power has complained frequently, again and again, about how much the federal government has cut back in transfer payments to the province. At least I'll say for the federal government -- not supporting their cutbacks -- that they gave the province years of warning as to what the grants would be in the years to come. Basically the municipalities find out what their municipal grant will be for that year six weeks before their budgets are due to be made.

Really, it's unacceptable for a corporation to find out that shortly before the time they have to have their budget ready what their grant will be for that year. Indeed, I say that for Richmond, it's virtually nothing now. That means that we now have to have either fewer services or higher taxes because of this downloading by the provincial government.

I'd like to just finish off with a few other little comments. One is that I note, in relationship to this budget, that the Vancouver Sun , in its March 31 edition, had an editorial headlined: "Credit Card Budget Strains Credibility." I won't read the rest of the article, but you do get an idea of what the content of it might be.

Also, I think we find some words from the very members themselves on the government side of the House that strain credibility. For instance, back in 1994 the new Finance minister of that year who took over from our Premier, the previous Finance minister, said: "Unless we can reduce and eliminate the deficit, we will not be able to continue providing first-rate education for our children or quality health care for all of us." Remember, that was said five years ago by the Finance minister, and what we find now, looking today at what they've brought forth in this year's budget, is precisely the opposite.

This government is now, with the Finance minister and the Premier, running a really huge deficit compared to what it was back then. Basically they turned around 180 degrees from what their philosophy was only a short five years ago and what they said in the budget address then to what they're saying in the budget address this year.

We find out that the same Finance minister said in 1995 that there would be no budget deficit that year. Remember

[ Page 12092 ]

that? That was the one leading up to the election. A little later in 1995, on that same budget, she said there would be no more borrowing or adding to the debt to finance operating deficits. This is, again, just the opposite of what the government is doing today, four years later. There's been about $2 billion more of borrowed money added to the direct debt since that speech was made.

In 1996, just prior to the election, that same Finance minister said: "This year I'm pleased to announce a second consecutive surplus budget." We found out shortly after that statement -- and after the election, unfortunately -- that those were budget lies, and there was indeed not a balanced budget in either '95 or '96.

Well, now we get into the new term of this new NDP government we have today, and it says . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Your time has expired.

D. Symons: Oh, goodness gracious. I had so much more to add to this. Anyway, I would thank the Chair for the opportunity to make these statements. There's so much more I would love to have said.

Hon. D. Miller: I regret that the hon. member opposite didn't have more time. I like to pick up on what members opposite say, in order to try to present some alternative points of view.

I want to talk more broadly today about the British Columbia economy -- some of its strengths, some of its weaknesses and some of the reasons why the budgets for not just this current fiscal year but for the past few fiscal years, in my view, are important to the ongoing development of this province.

[1450]

I would note, at the risk of being somewhat partisan, that Richmond is an interesting case. While we have adopted, on this side of the House, a general policy that it is important to ensure that we have adequate schools for our children, I do recall the debates of several years ago, when we were besieged -- I think that's the correct word -- by people and parents in Richmond saying: "We need new schools." They had demonstrated a need -- and I'll get to that in part of the broader overview -- for the requirement for new schools.

I recall then talking to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance about the attitude of the MLAs from Richmond, not one of whom would sign a letter adding their voice to the parents in Richmond requesting that the government try to come up with the capital money for new schools.

It struck me then, as it still does strike me occasionally, that while all of us in this chamber are guilty of taking selective positions that seem to suit the issues of the time . . . . Perhaps all of us do engage in a bit of politicking. I think that the member who just spoke, for example, clearly appreciates the need for new school construction in Richmond. But for political reasons, I guess, he chooses to say, "Yes, we need them -- but by the way, this is a terrible government, because you're incurring debt," ignoring the fact that part of that debt is for the cost of constructing new schools.

Schools are interesting, as well, hon. Speaker, if I could just deviate a bit more. I was in my constituency on Friday and over the weekend. I had the opportunity to announce the construction of a new school -- or rather, the rebuilding of a portion of an old school into a new school, which will subsequently lead to the closure of a very small elementary school, King Edward Elementary, which was opened the year I started school. It's a bit old, and it's on a very small couple of blocks on a city lot. There's gravel. There's no playing field, really, except a gravel field and a couple of portables attached.

But I was really struck, in going in and talking to some of the children . . . . First of all, a young woman -- I believe her name was Morgan Sutherland -- started a penny collection for people in Kosovo that had just taken off. The schools, in that very short time -- I think about a week -- had collected about $700 in pennies. She was a little girl in grade 2, and it was really delightful to see that someone so young had some awareness of these kinds of international issues and would start that kind of campaign. It gives you faith in these children.

Then going into one of the portables to talk to the grade 7 class about the announcement we were making, which was the new school, I really was delighted. I don't want to get anybody mad over there, but the kids asked a number of questions, and I thought that they were far better than some of the questions I have received in question period here. Again, it's just an opinion, and I don't want to get anybody upset over there. Most of them had two questions. It's interesting when you listen to these kids. Some of them were saying: "Why should we leave here? We like this classroom. We like it."

Maybe the point is that education is something that is delivered in a variety of ways. It doesn't necessarily have to be in the fanciest surroundings to be effective. I started my school life up in northern Vancouver Island in a one-room schoolhouse, and hey, it didn't hurt me.

But let's look at the broad issues of the B.C. economy and try to go back over the decade to try to understand the kind of unique position of British Columbia and why the current budget -- as I say, in my view -- is appropriate. Unlike other Canadian provinces, British Columbia experienced a phenomenal boom in the population over the last decade -- a phenomenal boom. We also, unlike other provinces, did not feel the effects of the kind of recessionary influences that were afoot in the world. So we escaped, largely. The growth of the economy over the last decade, I think, has been very healthy; I'm not sure what it averages year over year.

[1455]

But while it's been healthy, we were faced with a fundamental challenge. I recall Bill Bennett talking about this years ago when he was the Premier, about how on the one hand the growth in the population was good for British Columbia in terms of new opportunities and expansions of the economy, but on the other hand how difficult it was to try to keep pace with the growing need for infrastructure.

How do you, for example . . . ? When you see the population increase that we've experienced in some years, as many as 70,000 per year, that's a pretty good-sized city coming into British Columbia every year. Clearly we, and those people who have children, require the expansion of school spaces, post-secondary spaces and health care facilities. All of those things cost a great deal of money. Faced with a choice, I think the reasonable and best choice was to decide that we would invest in those new facilities, because -- and again, I want to talk about this a little later -- one of the keys to improving our economic prospects is the kind of investments

[ Page 12093 ]

we're making in what's called human capital -- investments in people. Clearly the need to spend capital and to incur debt in key areas in terms of providing infrastructure is absolutely critical.

I don't know that we as citizens necessarily associate some projects with debt. When you drive the Island Highway -- and I do that a little more frequently now, because I have a couple of grandchildren up in Comox -- I know that I contrast that with the old highway. My wife and I really enjoy the fact that we've got a nice superhighway and we can get there quicker and everything else. The people I talk to all over the Island all say the same thing. It was long overdue. We needed this linkage. It certainly will provide new economic opportunity, because we have a better highway transportation system on Vancouver Island now.

But I don't think, when people are talking about it, that they necessarily in their own minds realize that this Vancouver Island Highway represents about $1.2 billion worth of debt. That's debt. So that debate we have, largely in this province, about debt being an odious and terrible thing . . . . I don't think we necessarily relate it to the kind of infrastructure that I'm talking about.

Whether it's the small, very modest, $3.5 million school project in Prince Rupert, some of the very larger school projects around the province or some of the university projects and health care facilities, those kinds of things are debt. Yet a different ways to look at those is that we're making investments in our infrastructure which will pay a return in future years to the citizens of this province. I think that's a smarter way to look at it.

We have a province that now, in a very short time, has increased its population to slightly more than four million people. It might be that that's a good thing. I think British Columbia can stand to have a greater population. I think it represents more of an opportunity to develop a more sophisticated domestic economy, as opposed to one that at this juncture, at least with respect to the kind of revenue that's obtained, is very much an export economy. There's nothing wrong with that, but there are some issues around being the captive of international cycles like the one we're going through now -- the commodity price cycle.

How, then, do we develop this province? What are the strategies that are required -- the foundation, if you like -- so that over time we can expand the economy of the province and provide new opportunities? Well, I think that in the more heavily populated regions of the province -- the lower mainland -- we see that to some degree the economy is different than the economy in other parts of the province. There is urbanization, a massive population base and the opportunity to have at least the domestic economy within the heavily populated regions: sort of sales and service, the retail side.

There is the growth -- in fact, very healthy growth -- of new industries, industries that are not traditional to British Columbia. My colleague the Minister of Small Business and Tourism talked about the growth of the film sector, which is, I think, nearing $800 million or $900 million in value as an industry in British Columbia. It is providing new opportunities for skilled workers, which in turn provides new opportunities in the film sector.

[1500]

There is the growth of the knowledge-based sector, the high-tech sector, with the relocation now to British Columbia of some very good firms -- Hewlett-Packard comes to mind, and others -- starting to develop that cluster. I think that we in British Columbia have a reputation internationally for expertise in niche areas in the high-tech sector.

We see that that economy needs capital spending, but not in ways that are exactly the same as in the regions. The debate earlier today in question period is a good example. If we are to avoid the issues of gridlock that have plagued other major cities around the world -- and if you want to see some really bad examples, try going anywhere in Seoul, Korea, in rush hour; you can't -- then we know that we're going to have to invest in transit, both conventional and SkyTrain, and try more and more to move people out of their automobiles. Those are massive public expenditures.

There's no way around it; there's no nice, neat way to say: "We would like to have these things, but, by the way, we hate debt." In the classic case, you really can't have your cake and eat it too, and if you think you can, you're only fooling yourself. So those are necessary expenditures, but there are cost savings that come from that. But mostly it's the ability to maintain transportation networks, linkages and all of that. In addition to the benefits for individual members of the public, it has significant benefits for business interests as well.

But in the regions of our province, we've got a different challenge. We don't have the kind of diversity -- or at least not to the degree that is required. It's very clear that the regions of our province, to varying or lesser degrees, are really in some sense . . . . Their core economies are based on the extraction and processing -- some very primary, some more extensive -- of the natural resources that we find in our province. The difficulty, of course, in being captive to that kind of economy is that you are subject to what happens in the global marketplace more than ever before.

I know we went through a very tough period, '81 to '83, in terms of the falloff in demand for our products, and declining lumber and pulp prices. I suppose it was exacerbated at that time by interest rates, which reached about 20 percent. But I think this has been a more profound experience, and it's one that is worth looking at to, hopefully, learn some lessons with respect to the nature of our economy and what we can do to try to improve it.

In the regions, my view is that infrastructure investment is even more critical. I regret to say that we do not, unless we would seriously push the limits with respect to debt . . . . We're not able to actually spend as much money as I would like to see spent on northern infrastructure. That's the message that came out of the group we put together in the north -- the Premier's summit on northern development. Clearly it's a message. The member for Peace River North, I think, has been pretty focused and constant in talking about more spending on infrastructure.

His colleague the member for Peace River South and all of my colleagues in the north, whether they are in this party or not, generally agree that spending on infrastructure in the north is a top priority.

We tried to respond to that. I know that the Minister of Highways has been very good in terms of allocating his budget. I know that last year fully half of the budget for the Ministry of Highways was allocated to northern B.C. I think it is somewhat the same this year. It's going to take more than that, quite frankly, over time, but I think we've made a good start over the last couple of years in allocating more resources for infrastructure development in northern British Columbia.

[1505]

Some of our past decisions -- and this perhaps leads me into the second point I want to make with respect to our

[ Page 12094 ]

economy -- have been really well placed. I'll speak particularly . . . . Today we had in the gallery Charles Jago, the president of UNBC. I was talking yesterday with the Israeli Ambassador and the Israeli consul, who had recently taken a trip through northern British Columbia. He told me how impressed he was with the University of Northern British Columbia, particularly the campus in Prince George, not only with respect to how it looked but with the fact that they had a significant number of graduate programs and that they seemed to be representing interests broadly across northern British Columbia.

He's not the first person that has talked to me about the University of Northern British Columbia and its potential to contribute enormously to changing the nature of the economy in northern British Columbia.

We spent $140 million building the campus. That's part of the debt of this province. I ask you, hon. Speaker: while it's debt, is it also not an investment that will return dividends far greater than $140 million over a relatively short period of time? I think the answer everybody in this chamber would come to is yes. The solution, in my view, to trying to escape or mitigate against the influence of commodity price cycles is to move your primary industries up the value chain.

I spoke in Prince George at the Northern Forest Products Association convention a couple of weeks ago and talked about several of these issues. I guess I was also fairly provocative in talking about some new ideas -- which, by the way, was quite welcomed by the delegates, or at least the ones who talked to me afterwards. They think it's long overdue that we have some new ideas in terms of forest issues. I talked about adding value and adding knowledge to our primary sector. Surely the key over time to changing some of that dependence is to add knowledge.

Knowledge can be in the form of workers that have received training so that their skills are greater or of adding the technology -- whether it's computer technology or other technologies -- to existing industries to add knowledge to our primary industries to make them more sophisticated, to drive them up the value chain, to look at marketing additional products.

To give just one example, the Minister of Forests was in Houston on Friday at a forest products conference. One of the people I was talking to there told me about an individual who has come up with a new idea. They are taking the kiln sticks, which were garbage -- those sticks that are used to separate the piles of lumber when they go through the kiln -- and working them through machinery and creating panel boards.

Now, that was just an idea that they added some knowledge, technology and skill to, and out of something that used to be junk, they are now producing a product that is not just a simple 2-by-4 or 2-by-6 but rather a product that is less subject to the kind of cyclical demand that commodities are usually subject to.

I spoke at the Northern Forest Products Association about an endeavour that not many British Columbians are aware of: the fact that a number of years ago -- and I was proud to be part of that when I was Minister of Advanced Education -- on the campus of the University of British Columbia was a centre of excellence, a federal initiative but a really shining example of collaboration and cooperation in British Columbia. The government directly, at that time through the Ministry of Advanced Education, provided $6 million in capital debt; Forest Renewal provided $8.5 million. The forest industry provided money, and the federal government provided money.

[1510]

Do you know what we now have on the campus of the University of British Columbia, linked into the new Forest Sciences Centre -- a magnificent building -- on the campus? We have a centre of advanced wood-processing, a centre of excellence for advanced wood processing. The first graduates from that centre graduated on the very day I was speaking to the Northern Forest Products Association in Prince George. That centre has been described as being very similar to an institute in Germany, the Rosenheim Institute.

The theory is very simple. I'd go back to what I said about adding knowledge, whether that's in the form of the skills of the people that we have or is in fact the hardware, the technology, that we use. In this case, we now have a facility that is graduating students in those areas of expertise that we require to change the nature of our forest sector industry from a commodity base to a value-added base. These are students who are acquiring sophisticated skills in the area of design and of process.

In other words, how do you actually set up a mill -- a small mill, a value-added mill -- that is efficient, that is not one where you have wood being handled three or four times, that can produce whatever it is at the lowest possible price and therefore be competitive in those international marketplaces? We've got people coming out with sophisticated skills on the marketing side. In other words, we have made a considerable investment in people, both in capital and in operating.

People are surely just as necessary an ingredient for changing the nature of the forest industry as some of the changes that perhaps might take place in how we allocate wood, and those kinds of questions -- how we price wood and what kind of machinery we manufacture. These people, I think, are just as valuable and perhaps more valuable. Again, that is consistent with the other key principle that we've identified for growing the British Columbia economy, because we think the key is knowledge.

We looked at other jurisdictions around the world that have done well, that have grown their technology sector. Israel, by the way, is another example. I think that now about 50 percent of their economy is related to high-tech. They also realized that knowledge . . . .

So what have we done over the last five years? We have expanded the number of spaces in our post-secondary institutions dramatically. We've frozen tuition fees for the fourth year in a row, because we think that one of the critical issues in British Columbia is to allow students to get access to the kinds of training, to acquire the kinds of skills, that you need as companions if you're going to grow certain sectors of our economy.

It's not been without its challenges. It costs money to freeze tuition fees. It costs money to build new universities. We're now proceeding with the work required to develop the Technical University in the Fraser Valley -- a new technical university. You can see the synergy in the relationship between that Technical University -- say, a mini-Cal Tech or MIT -- and the growth of that high-tech sector in the large urban regions that I talked about. These are strategies for which -- while you may not see a payoff instantly -- over time, there will be an immense payback to the people of British Columbia.

I know it's fashionable to some degree in our era, I guess, to talk about the issues of finance and the issues of debt and

[ Page 12095 ]

deficit in rather stark terms. It's not my view, having watched, looked at and read of events in other parts of the world, that anybody has a monopoly on a formula that you could apply anywhere. Let's just stick to Canada. I think you have to consider the unique circumstance that each province faces; you have to look . . . .

I've talked about some of the pressures we had here in British Columbia that other provinces did not face: the growth of the population by about half a million people; the need to spend that kind of money so that we had the schools, universities and hospitals, so that those people could not only receive adequate health care but get the kind of training; and the need to develop our transportation infrastructure, both in urban and rural settings, so that access to resources and the movement of goods and people are made easier. All are strategies that contribute to the growth of our economy.

[1515]

There is no magic formula, Mr. Speaker. I've read a little bit about what economists have to say about debt; there is no magic formula. If you want to ask the question, "What is an appropriate level of debt?" people may have opinions on that question. But the opinions that I read about, from a range of economists across Canada -- not NDP economists, and in fact quite the opposite -- were generally that for government, debt that was in the 25 to 30 percent range . . . .

In other words, as a percentage of your gross domestic product, if your debt is in the 25 to 30 percent range, that is generally considered a fairly comfortable margin by economists. To illustrate that point, the current debt-to-GDP ratio at the federal level is 70 percent.

British Columbia is fortunate. Our debt-to-GDP is, I think, the second- or third-lowest in Canada. We're about on par with Alberta. It's interesting that while Ontario is often lauded as the place to look for those on the right who want to find a model, one only has to look at the deficit numbers in Ontario to realize that perhaps it might not necessarily be so. The question we have to ask ourselves in British Columbia is: what are the challenges, and what are the strategic investments that have to be made now and in the near future to ensure economic growth over the long term?

You have to tie that finally, to close, with numbers in the budget that represent your values. Clearly there are differences between political parties. We have tried to express our values in this budget in a very dramatic way. We think those values are values that are shared by all British Columbians.

Education. Would anybody in this chamber dare to stand up and say that we should not spend the money we're spending on education? I don't think so.

Health care is a tough debate right across this country. I have some personal opinions about whether the partners to the health care system are using the money that's there in the system to get the maximum efficiency. Notwithstanding that, we've said we've made a commitment to the people of British Columbia that health care is one of our top priorities. Will there be bumps along the road in health care? Will there be circumstances where individuals may not get the best? Probably. But by and large, relative to other provinces and other countries, do we have a world-class health care system? Absolutely.

We think those two areas, education and health care, are important to this province. They represent the values on this side of the House. We are not apologetic in the least for having put a significant amount of the resources in this budget into those two areas of health care and education.

We need to see some things happen internationally; there's no question about it. I find myself, as the Minister of Energy and Mines, looking almost daily at the commodity price list. This morning, finding that copper was at 69 cents, I was really happy. My parliamentary secretary applauds, and I do too. But let's not forget that two years ago, copper was $1.20 a pound.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. Your time has expired.

Hon. D. Miller: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity. I look forward to listening to the members opposite.

[1520]

J. Doyle: I'm pleased to get up in support of this Budget '99. First of all, I'd like to mention a person who used to represent a part of my constituency that I'm honoured to represent today and also a part of the Kootenay member's -- that is, Leo Nimsick. Leo Nimsick was in this Legislature from 1949 to 1975 and served the people well. He must have, or he wouldn't have stayed in this building for that long. I just want to mention his name to honour him, to remember a man that served the people in British Columbia for 26 years. It's good to mention his name because of the service that he gave to our province.

On the budget. Our budget for 1999 increases B.C.'s health care investment by $615 million, provides funding for more teachers and school construction and gives the province a lower small business tax rate than Alberta, our neighbour. In every part of this province, British Columbians have sent us a strong message: improve health care. We've heard what you had to say in Budget '99, and we're acting on your priorities.

B.C.'s population, as was mentioned by the Deputy Premier, is continuing to grow and age, placing ever-increasing demands on our health care services. Drug prices continue to skyrocket, pushed ever upwards in part by federal government drug legislation. Since B.C. has the most generous Pharmacare program in the country, rising drug costs have hit us particularly hard. The federal Conservative government of Brian Mulroney went to bed with drug companies all over the world. The Liberal Party in government today in Ottawa, when they were in opposition, said they would change that legislation. They have not. That continues to cost our province a lot of money. So I say shame on them.

This government has increased health care spending eight years in a row, in spite of drastic cuts to federal health care transfer payments since 1995. But we still have a lot of work to do if we want to make sure that B.C.'s health care system remains the best in Canada. What did the Leader of the Opposition say a couple of years ago about the cuts in funding from the federal government? He said that the funding cuts from Ottawa weren't big enough; they should have cut bigger cuts. Now he's trying to say different things. But that's what he is on the record as saying a couple of years ago.

That's why our government is increasing health care operating funding by $478 million in the operating budget for 1999, a 6.6 percent increase. We're also increasing the health care capital budget by $137 million, for a total of $615 million in new money.

[ Page 12096 ]

Our goals for the health care dollars in Budget 1999 are simple: more beds, more nurses and shorter wait-lists. I'm proud to say that we will be taking immediate action to reduce wait times. The new funding in this budget will provide 58,000 more surgeries and procedures. By this time next year, we expect that children waiting for surgery, to get the treatment they need within the time set by provincial standards, will also meet the standard waits for cancer treatment. We expect to increase the number of cardiac procedures this year by 700.

We expect to increase mammography screening by 19 percent -- 3,800 procedures in the coming year. But our efforts won't end there. The 1999 budget will create 480 much-needed long term care beds across British Columbia. We provided funding to hire 400 more nurses to help address workload issues and improve the quality of medical care in our province.

What is the opposition saying? During the election in May 1996, the opposition leader, when he was campaigning in Nanaimo, said he would cut the budget for health care by 20 percent. Who do the opposition really care about when it comes to health care? The only people that I see them caring about are their friends in the B.C. Medical Association, which I consider to be B.C.'s most militant union. The tactics they get away with . . . . Do you know, hon. Speaker, that the BCMA and their 7,500 members have the highest fee

schedule in all of Canada? Yet I never see the opposition criticize the tactics of the B.C. Medical Association -- their friends. There are 20,000 additional people on waiting lists because of the tactics of the doctors and surgeons in British Columbia, because of the tactics of the opposition in supporting the BCMA in their quest for more taxpayers' money.

The B.C. Liberals don't criticize the federal government for being in bed with the multinational drug companies. They refer all the time to Alberta, yet their answer -- the Alberta government -- is, for instance, to blow up one of their hospitals in Calgary. It was a big event some months ago. Are they in favour of that kind of thing? Which one of Vancouver's hospitals would they blow up if they formed government?

[1525]

Students and education. British Columbians come from many different backgrounds, and along with those differing backgrounds come different values. But there's one thing on which all British Columbians can agree: nothing is more important to the future of our youth than a good education.

I'd like to speak about public education from K to 3. For our government, improved learning and ensuring that our students have the best learning environment we can give them has been one of our top priorities every day since we were elected. That's why we've increased education funding by 23 percent since 1991. Beginning last year, our government embarked on an ambitious strategy to build new schools, hire more teachers, reduce class sizes in the primary grades and reduce the number of portables in our province.

This budget is about improving education to ensure that our young people have the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in the new economy in our province and in the world. In Budget '99, $45 million in new operating funding for B.C.'s education system will allow for the hiring of up to 300 new teachers and reduce the class size in the critical early years from kindergarten to grade 3.

This year, as part of the class-size reduction strategy, kindergarten classes in B.C. have been reduced to a maximum of 20 students. Within five years, we'll be moving to an average of 18 students or fewer in all K-to-3 classes, so that our kids can get the time and attention they need to learn effectively in those important early years.

In this budget the new funding increases per-pupil funding from $5,849 to $5,992 -- a $143 increase per student and the highest per-pupil funding in Canada. In addition, $341 million in capital funding will fund the planning and construction of 13 new and replacement schools, and 103 school renovations and expansions.

Parents have told us that they don't want their kids to be learning in portables, which are supposed to be temporary classrooms only. As a result of this year's budget, 560 portables will be eliminated. Our strategy reflects the priority of British Columbians who want better learning for their children.

Post-secondary education. We're keeping our commitment to B.C.'s post-secondary education students. Today there are 141,000 full-time post-secondary students in 108 communities. The 1999 budget keeps tuition fees frozen in B.C.'s universities and colleges for the fourth straight year. The opposition is opposed to this tuition freeze, and they've mentioned it at different times in question period or in other comments in this building. We want to keep post-secondary education affordable. Tuition fees in B.C. are in fact the lowest in Canada after Quebec. That's something that I'm very proud of, hon. Speaker.

We've also provided a $7.7 million increase in student financial assistance and a tuition compensation fund for the universities and colleges. Funding for post-secondary education has gone up by more than $245 million since 1992-93 -- an increase of 23 percent. This year we're providing new funding to create 2,900 new post-secondary spaces for students, for a total of nearly 16,000 new spaces in B.C. colleges and universities over the last three years. Those measures have had a real impact on opening up B.C.'s secondary institutions to more students.

More people than ever before are attending post-secondary institutions. Enrolment at B.C.'s institutions has increased by 10 percent since 1991, while in the rest of Canada it has gone down by 4.4 percent. I would like to know if the opposition would follow the example of Alberta, when some years ago they said that kindergarten wasn't compulsory anymore, and if you wished to send your children there, you had to be charged. That's the government that they most often refer to when they're speaking in this House.

[1530]

Cutting taxes to help small business. Small businesses are the incubators of new industries, the seeds from which healthy economies grow. They are the most creative and the most powerful entrepreneurial force in the province. B.C. has the fastest small business growth rate in Canada. Governments want to make it easier for people to do business in this province and give business room to grow and create jobs with as little interference from government as possible. When it comes to building a thriving provincial economy, the small business community plays the starting role. We need to continue to work with the business community to find out what their needs are and to meet those needs.

Tax cuts were also mentioned in the budget. Let's look at tax cuts for a moment. Our tax cuts have been carefully targeted to ensure that we maximize the bang for the tax-

[ Page 12097 ]

payer's buck and benefit the B.C. economy without hurting the province's ability to protect services like health care and education. In last year's budget, we introduced a combination of tax cuts and incentives to help B.C.'s private sector grow. Those initiatives included tax cuts for the film sector, a cut in the marginal tax rate for high-income earners, cuts in farm and jet fuel taxes, and a reduction in stumpage fees, just to name a few. In the 1999 budget, we're building on the tax cuts and incentives of last year's budget with further reductions in small business taxes.

The small business tax rate is cut by 35 percent in this budget. The rate goes down to 5.5 percent, effective July 1. That's lower than in Alberta. This means that small business will pay $63 million less a year, and it builds on last year's commitment to reduce the small business rate by 20 percent by the year 2000. That's something that business had asked for when the Minister of Finance travelled throughout the province, and I was at some of those meetings with the minister.

We're going to go even farther than that. In this budget, we're committing that B.C. will keep its small business income tax rate lower than Alberta's. Any further reduction will be matched dollar for dollar by British Columbia.

This year the corporation capital tax threshold has gone up, from $2.5 million to $3.5 million. The threshold will increase to $5 million in 2001, at which time 90 percent of B.C. businesses will pay no corporation capital tax. In this budget, we intend to extend the corporation capital tax holiday to four years from the existing two years.

Mentioning items in the constituency of Columbia River-Revelstoke, which I'm honoured to represent . . . . First of all, I as their representative in this building would like to take this opportunity to pass on my best wishes to the people of the city of Revelstoke. This year they're celebrating their 100th anniversary as a city. I was up there on March 1 to help them celebrate the actual anniversary, and they will be having further celebrations on July 1.

As the elected representative of the people of Revelstoke, I was pleased to work with the city of Revelstoke and the people of Revelstoke to set up the second community forest in the province of British Columbia. What did the opposition say about that? They said that no, we shouldn't fool around, setting up a community forest in Revelstoke. Every year since that community forest was set up, it's made money, and it continues to employ people in Revelstoke. It keeps the wood in Revelstoke.

Another company I've worked with in Revelstoke is Selkirk Specialty Wood, which is a new finger-jointing plant in Revelstoke. There's an investment of about $5 million by a local company. There are 70 new jobs in Selkirk Specialty Wood in Revelstoke, something that I feel good to have worked with the community on, to direct the wood. And the company, Selkirk Specialty Wood, delivered with the jobs.

Over in Golden, Evans Forest Products were in some financial trouble two and a half years ago. This government -- the Deputy Premier, the then Minister of Forests; our Premier today; and the Minister of Forests today -- worked with that community, with myself and the elected leaders, the workers in the mill and the management of the mill to restructure that company. Today the ownership in that company has invested about $90 million in the plants. They are producing laminated veneer lumber. I would at this time like to commend the majority owner in that company, Mr. Georges St.

Laurent; the management of that company; the IWA, who work and give up some of their wages to make this restructuring possible; the many contractors; and the people in the community of Golden that banded together to make the restructuring of this company possible.

[1535]

At the same time, shortly after this restructure, the now Liberal member of this Legislature for Peace River North was up in my constituency and was asked about the restructuring of this company. He said that no, a Liberal government would not have participated or worked with the communities from Golden through to Sicamous, where Evans Forest Products has got businesses, to restructure this company. That was a very sad thing to say, because this has been a great success story that this government has been involved with -- also with the late Doug Kerley, the job protection commissioner at that time.

Interact Wood Products, another success story in Golden, has got 100 new jobs in the last couple of years in their finger-joining plant. I would like to commend them and their workers for the new jobs in the value-added sector. Next year in my constituency we are going to have the value-added wood forum for the Kootenays in Golden, just to show the people in the East and West Kootenays an example of what people can do in the value-added sector to produce more jobs per cubic metre of wood cut.

I am pleased to have worked with the community of Invermere in the Columbia Valley. They now have the first-ever permanent facility for the College of the Rockies -- the satellite office in Invermere. The first permanent facility ever is going to be opening sometime this spring. It's up and running as we speak today. I toured it some while ago. It is something I am very, very proud of, as are people in the Columbia Valley.

Other capital investment in my constituency, down at Bull River in the Fort Steele area, is a new bridge that has gone in there -- $2 million. Investment in the tourism sector -- ski hills . . . . Intrawest owns the Panorama ski hill in the Invermere area. They are building a new golf course, opening up this year. They have done a terrific job. They are to be congratulated in the work that they have done. But again, Panorama is another success story. Lots of money has been invested in our province and in the area I represent.

Charlie Locke, as we know, bought the Kimberly ski hill and the Fernie ski hill in the member for Kootenay's riding. He is very happy to be in British Columbia. He is putting, over the next ten years, about $500 million in investments into both of those ski hills. I would like to congratulate him on the investment he is making in our province.

Golden Peaks Resorts. Ballast Nedam from the Netherlands -- a major company all over the world -- has bought the ski hill in Golden and is going to be investing $150 million in a gondola and ski hill development in Golden. I congratulate the people that have made those investments in the constituency I represent.

The Columbia Basin Trust, which we worked . . . . The four representatives in the parliament, then and today, continue to work with Columbia Basin Trust. We've set up an 18-member board, independent from government, to make sure that the people who lost a lot of their livelihoods when their valleys were dammed by the Columbia River Treaty many, many years ago . . . . We are finally bringing some of that money home. Government is a 50-50 partner with those many communities that were shafted and dammed by previous

[ Page 12098 ]

governments. We're working with them to bring home some return to those people after 30 or 40 years of being shafted and seeing their valleys and best forest areas flooded, wild life areas wrecked and recreation areas wrecked.

I am pleased to have worked in the small community of Field, close to the Alberta-B.C. border. Close to the community of Field is the Burgess Shale -- up in the mountains there -- which was a find of world renown. There's going to be a $6 million centre built in Field. Government, through the Ministry of Employment and Investment, has contributed $500,000 towards this new centre.

Throughout my constituency, major upgrades are going on in many of the schools, from Kimberley through to Revelstoke.

[1540]

We have a new owner of one of our major forest product companies in the Columbia and Kootenay area. Tembec from Quebec has bought Crestbrook Forest Industries. There are 30 new jobs going to be created in the community of Canal Flats, a small community of about 300 homes -- 30 new jobs created there, good-paying union jobs. Also, at the pulp mill down the road from Canal Flats in my constituency, Tembec is going to be putting in many, many millions of dollars to build a new cogeneration plant to absorb a lot of the waste from their own plants and from other mills throughout the area.

I'm pleased to have worked with the infrastructure moneys that were announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs some months ago. Revelstoke has got $3.3 million for a new treatment plan because they had problems with the water a couple of years ago. Radium Hot Springs announced at the AKBM meeting -- the Association of Kootenay-Boundary Municipalities meeting -- a couple of weeks ago that they're getting $475,000 to assist them, with assistance from the provincial government here down through to the municipal government.

I was pleased last year, along with many, many people from the constituency that I represent, to attend the Premier's economic summit in Castlegar. It was a good chance to consult with about 200 people from many sectors in the five constituencies in the Kootenay and Boundary area that we represent in parliament. We now know better the feelings of those individual people and those groups, and already we're working in fact with those groups to return what they as stakeholders feel as to services in their communities.

I mentioned that we have the infrastructure fund up and running. It goes for three years -- $50 million per year, 50-50 with the municipal government.

On millennium grants, I'm working with many communities in my constituency. There's $20 million in place to help British Columbians celebrate the year 2000. Again, it's a 50-50 agreement with the people.

Many areas in my constituency also are pleased to have B.C. Hydro, with the lowest hydro rates in all of Canada . . . . Many of the forest companies in the communities, which are up and running and creating new jobs as we speak, are pleased to have worked with our government as we restructure the Forest Practices Code -- which the opposition said they would rip and tear and do away with and go back to the old ways -- and work with them as government instead of going back to the old ways, which the opposition would like to do.

Hon. Speaker, I think it's time for the opposition to say what they do stand for. They change day by day. They don't have any policies. Most of the ones they do have are written in disappearing ink, I think.

I've been in this building since 1991. One of the proudest moments that I feel I've had was the debate . . . and working with the Nisga'a people, who had waited 111 years. From their behaviour over the last month -- of intolerance -- I feel that had that opposition been government, the Nisga'a would have been turned away at the gate again. It's something that made me as a British Columbian very sad: to see their antics, all to do with trying to clean up a few votes on the Right out there. That's all that was about.

When the Liberals were up in Kelowna a couple of weeks ago -- and of course, we know the gaming revenues . . . . It was really nice for that, thank you very much -- the $105,000 in increased gaming activity that weekend. Of course, they don't believe in gaming. It must have been other people in the Grand Okanagan Hotel that weekend.

One of the things they talked about was open government: "We believe in open government." Yet when the media asked them about how much their director, Martyn Brown, gets paid, they said: "No, no. We can't tell you that. That's a secret. No, no. We don't believe in that."

They say they would like more legislative committees to sit, yet when the freedom of information committee tried to get a meeting together a couple of weeks ago -- I think it was a couple of times -- there was none of the official opposition available to sit on that committee.

Their policies, if they have any, change day by day, if not hour by hour.

We all know of the despicable remarks of the Leader of the Opposition some weeks ago when he was addressing the Board of Trade. It's my honest opinion that the only reason he finally apologized was because of the pressure from the media -- not because he felt he should but because he was finally pressured and shamed into making a half-assed apology for his disgraceful remarks.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a point of order.

B. Penner: We all heard unparliamentary language from the member, and I ask for a withdrawal of his remarks.

J. Doyle: When I said half-assed . . . . If that's what the member is referring to, I do apologize for that. That's what offended you? Okay.

[1545]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Continue, please.

J. Doyle: It's interesting to hear the opposition talking about workers and unions, yet the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, when he was talking about workers and unions not too many months ago, said that the way to deal with the workers and unions is to whack them now and then. Give them a whack. That's their way of working; that's what they think of working people in this province.

[ Page 12099 ]

I'm very pleased to get up and support this budget, because many investments -- as was mentioned by the Deputy Premier and others -- throughout our province for our children, for our health care, for future citizens in our province . . . . I'm very, very pleased to get up and support this budget.

J. Weisgerber: I rise today to speak to the budget. I'm going to try hard not to repeat those things that I said almost a month ago when we did interim supply. I do want to focus a good deal of my thoughts today on economic issues, economic confidence and the need for us to build a stronger and more vigorous economy in British Columbia. I want to talk about some of the successes and some of the failures that we've seen.

Before I do that, however, I feel obliged to talk about some of the fundamentals in the budget. I want to, and believe it's important for us to, recognize the tremendous growth we've seen in public debt over the last decade. In 1991, when the government that I was a part of left office, taxpayer debt was about $9.3 billion. That was the total taxpayer-supported debt, not including self-financing debt with Crown corporations but including not only accumulated deficits over 125 years but also debt on provincial institutions where the province and the taxpayer were primarily, basically, responsible for the debt.

That figure, again, was $9.3 billion. Eight years later, that debt has grown to $21.5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder how much longer this increase in debt can continue. It seems to me very reminiscent of what all of us saw and were appalled by in Ottawa, where, in the 1980s and early 1990s, we had a federal government where spending was simply out of control and there appeared to be no will or focus for the government to live within its budget. The federal government didn't only run a deficit in bad times; the government ran a significant deficit even at the peak of economic activity.

When prosperity in the country was at the maximum, when the economy was as strong as anyone could reasonably hope it would be, and when unemployment was as low as it would ever be, the federal government continued to run a deficit and to build taxpayer debt to somewhere around $600 billion in Canada today.

What we've seen here in British Columbia over the last eight years is very similar. The government now, today, argues that its $890 million deficit is necessary because of downturns in the resource sector, because of difficulties with Asian markets. Those are very real facts. But looking back over eight years, British Columbia has enjoyed some very strong years in the time that this additional $11 billion or $12 billion in debt was being accumulated.

[1550]

The debt and the deficit are in some ways less than totally candid . . . . I looked, for example, at the way this government handles the disposal of assets. Under the Social Credit government at the time that highway maintenance was privatized, the revenue taken from the sale of that maintenance equipment wasn't taken as provincial revenues but rather put in a privatization benefits fund, which was there until this government raided it, first for about $400 million, and then they just cleaned it out the next year. Tragically, that fund has disappeared.

This year, we see the government selling off its fleet of automobiles, pocketing the money and then leasing the cars back, a very short-term solution with very long-term implications. With the sale of the B.C. Systems Corporation and now with the privatization of that -- $50 million in benefits for the sale of a company that provided information that was free to British Columbians, and that's not the case any longer -- B.C.

Systems will have to generate about $15 million a year in revenue, in order to pay back the province for that corporation that it bought and to pay the expenses of its employees -- and, hopefully, for them to make a profit. So $15 million in fees that we didn't see before . . . .

We've also seen a dramatic cut in revenues and transfers to municipalities. A look at this year's budget indicates about $100 million taken out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That's about a 40 percent cut in revenue to municipalities -- this coming from a government that has complained bitterly over the years about cuts in transfer payments from Ottawa.

But if you examine the documents, if you examine or take our budgets, the budgets produced by the New Democrats as the source of your information, you will see that in no year has there actually been a reduction in the number of dollars coming from Ottawa, year to year. There hasn't been an increase at the rate that the government believes is appropriate. The government believes that with a growing and aging population, there should in fact have been greater increases in transfer payments from Ottawa.

But nowhere and at no time has there actually been a dollar loss to British Columbia as a result of transfer payments from Ottawa. If you look at and examine this year's budget, you show a whopping 20 percent increase -- a $462 million increase -- in transfer payments from Ottawa to British Columbia, at the same time that a $100 million cut is being passed along to municipalities.

To the members opposite and particularly to the members on the cabinet benches: when you meet with municipal officials, when you go to groups like the UBCM or NCMA and find that the politicians there, both the New Democrat politicians and the free-enterprisers, are all hopping mad, don't be too surprised. They too can read budgets. They too know that they've been dealt with much more harshly than the province has with respect to its relationships with Ottawa.

In a recent column that I wrote, I suggested that there was good news in the budget and that some of that good news in the budget was in the area of health care spending. I don't think that any thinking, caring person would want to simply ignore the fact that there were substantial amounts of money -- about half a billion dollars -- earmarked for more nurses, for more beds and to cut waiting lists. That has to be something that provides some comfort to British Columbians generally.

[1555]

I find myself sometimes offended and sometimes amused when I hear the members opposite, in their defence of the budget, saying that their response to criticisms of the deficit is to ask which of these hospital services British Columbians would like to see cut. I'm often puzzled to know whether the members really are that naïve or whether they're simply using the same old ploy that the bureaucracy has been using with politicians for decades and decades and decades.

When I was in cabinet and we wanted to cut a ministry's budget, the bureaucracy always identified the two or three highest-profile, most sensitive services that they provided and then brought a cabinet document forward, suggesting that they cut either A, B or C, leaving the politician with the

[ Page 12100 ]

unhappy choice of deciding which of these high-profile popular programs should be cut. Nobody every suggested that they look somewhere else for the money. I have to sit here and think: what about the public relations budget?

When the members opposite are talking to their constituents about the cuts that they might like to see, I'm often curious to know: did they just list hospitals and highways, or did they also list multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns? Do they ask their constituents: would you prefer an $890 million deficit, or would you prefer that we be more prudent in the construction of fast ferries? Do they ask their constituents: would you prefer an $890 million deficit, or would you prefer a more competitive labour environment on projects such as the Island Highway?

I don't think so, any more than the bureaucrats offer those kinds of suggestions to cabinet and to politicians -- nor do these members apparently offer those kinds of options to their constituents when they're talking about options with respect to government spending.

As I watch and listen to this debate, I'm amazed to hear the government go after the Harris government in Ontario. That's no surprise. I'm not surprised to hear them criticize the Klein government in Alberta; that's no surprise. But I'm a little more surprised to hear them criticize the Romanow government in Saskatchewan. But those criticisms are there, I guess, because they all balance the budget.

One of the things that I find most interesting about the criticisms of Alberta and Ontario . . . . Someone mentioned that Ontario doesn't have a balanced budget, and the minister is correct. Sadly, that's the case. But we're all led to believe that these reductions in spending have come at the expense of health care. I don't pretend to know all about the health care system in this country; what I do know about is the health care system in northeastern British Columbia. We continue to send far more patients to Edmonton, to Calgary and to Grande Prairie than we ever see coming from Alberta to British Columbia.

I would challenge the Minister of Health or someone in the ministry, if they happen to be listening, to tell us what the statistics are with respect to the number of people who are transferred from Alberta to British Columbia for health care versus the number of British Columbians -- particularly northern British Columbians -- who are air-evac'd or who, by commercial aircraft or road, go to Alberta for health care. I believe it would be incredibly revealing.

I think we would find, in that old slash-and-burn province, that they somehow are able to accommodate the people in their hospitals that we in British Columbia, with our $890 million deficit, are unable to accommodate. We should think about that. We should think about what that means in terms of budgeting strategies, in terms of priorities, in terms of the necessity -- as the members opposite would have us believe -- for a deficit.

[1600]

I believe that if you did an objective examination of that issue, you would find, in fact, that there isn't a direct correlation between the cuts necessary to balance the budget and damage to the health care and education systems. In the long run I'm absolutely convinced that the opposite is the truth. I'm absolutely convinced that in the long term, the best protection we can have for our health care, education and social programs -- and let's not forget our infrastructure -- is a balanced budget and a strong provincial economy.

On that note, I'd like to move to what I think of as sort of the second part of my response to the budget, and that is to deal with economic issues. I'm going to avoid the temptation to talk very much about the provincial economy generally, because there has been adequate discussion on that from both sides of the House. I do want to talk about what's been going on in northeastern British Columbia.

I know that the Minister Responsible for Northern Development is here, and I will say to him and to all British Columbians that in large measure, what has been happening in the northeast has been quite positive, particularly the government's response with respect to the gas and oil industry. I say that in all sincerity. I believe that the Premier met with people in the oil industry a couple of years ago. I believe he developed, along with the minister, a better understanding of the things that drive that industry, and I believe that the government responded in a way that was very admirable.

As an independent representative for the northeast, I'm very pleased with that and very much supportive of the government's attempts in that area.

With respect to northeast coal, things haven't been as rosy as I would like, and I know that they've not been as rosy as the minister would like. Northeast coal is an important part of our provincial economy, closely tied to the Japanese steel industry and to the economic climate in Asia -- particularly in Japan. When I travelled to Japan, it was clear to me that we were facing very tough competition from the Australians.

I believe that we're obliged, not only as a province but as a country, to let the Japanese government know -- as we attempted to let the Japanese steel industry know -- that for Canadians this issue of coal exports is a much larger issue than simply the marketplace as it relates to hard coal and the competition that exists from Australia. I believe that Australia is a less reliable supplier than northeast coal is. I believe we've demonstrated, over the last ten or 15 years, our ability to produce a dependable source of supply and a high-quality product.

I look also at what we as Canadians buy from the Japanese. For every dollar that we as British Columbians and Canadians get from the Japanese, we send $2 back -- at least $2 -- for automobiles, television sets, appliances . . . . There are areas in our economy, in the retail marketplace, where you simply have trouble identifying a product that isn't made in Japan. I think we've got to have some hard conversations with the Japanese, and we've started that.

But I think that the federal government is obliged, and should be obliged, not only because of the importance of northeast coal to the people of Tumbler Ridge . . . . And heaven knows, as my constituents and as people who are in a one-industry town entirely reliant on northeast coal, nothing could be more important to them.

[1605]

But for the people of the northeast region, this is an important source of economic activity. And it's much broader than the northeast. It's the transportation industry and the coal trains that go through Prince George. It's Prince Rupert; it's the port in Prince Rupert. It affects the entire northern economy. I'm confident that with some goodwill amongst all of the players, we're going to continue to see coal mined -- northeast coal. I can't give you any conclusive evidence for that fact, but I can tell you that I'm going to keep trying. I believe that I can depend on the minister to continue efforts on behalf of all northern British Columbians with respect to coal and to coal exports.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I also want to talk a little bit about the recent announcement with respect to Louisiana-Pacific and the aspen industry

[ Page 12101 ]

in the northeast -- obviously good news. I think, in fairness, it's a bit premature. I think that it's an announcement that perhaps, if it were made three or four months from now, might have a little more flesh on the bones. We might be able to say with a little more certainty where the plants are going to be located, what kinds of volumes we could expect from the plants, etc. But let me say, Madam Speaker, that in general, the approach to the development of an underutilized resource is one that I think we need to pay a lot of attention to.

Aspen was a weed product up until 1985, when Louisiana-Pacific first agreed to build an OSB plant -- an oriented strand board plant -- in Dawson Creek. There was a lot of controversy, and I'm not going to go back and rehash the debates in this House. I don't think that's particularly important. What is important is that it was the right decision. It was the right decision in 1985. I believe it was the right decision, although a less spectacular success, with the pulp mill in Chetwynd in 1990-91. And it's the right decision today.

One of the reasons that it's the right decision is that it's not simply trying to carve up, one more time, the softwood supply; but rather, it is a move into an underutilized species. The fact is that with three or perhaps four OSB plants in the northeast, there will be the efficiency of volume that will allow for a peeler plant so that we can do plywood veneer -- again, very good news -- and an I-beam plant where you use OSB board to build floor joists, etc. These new plants, at least the OSB plants, will most likely be in the North Peace, in the Fort St. John-Taylor area.

In the northeast particularly, there is a very genuine sense of a regional economy. If there is employment -- employment opportunities and economic activity -- in Fort St. John and Taylor, then the people of Dawson Creek and Chetwynd and, to a lesser degree, Tumbler Ridge are able to benefit from that.

I am delighted, then, that we're going to see this kind of ongoing diversification, particularly with respect to these underutilized species. I wonder, without being an expert, if there aren't parallels in the rest of British Columbia with other species of wood, other minerals and other kinds of resources that we couldn't take greater advantage of.

[1610]

Having said those things, let me close by saying that with every activity, there are some good and some bad. I think it's important to recognize the positive elements, just as I believe it's important to be critical in areas where performance is less than adequate or less than desirable. I can't believe for a moment that this continuing growth in spending and this continued growth in debt can be good for British Columbia. I don't believe that this kind of spending is necessary to protect social programs.

I believe that to those people on the government side who genuinely want to reduce government spending -- and I'm convinced that there must be; logic would suggest that there must be people over there who want to do that -- you start to look a little bit lower than the three items that the ministry trucks out as possible slash items.

I've been there. I've got the scars, because I didn't ask enough hard questions, because I took as gospel the fact that the only way the ministry could reduce its budget would be to somehow kick sand in the face of all of my own constituents. I've done that and regretted it.

So I think that we've got to approach this notion of fiscal management in a much more pragmatic way. We can't, as the members across the way have done, stand up and say that the only way we could possibly reduce this $890 million deficit would be to cut hospital beds or deny students education and post-secondary education. When I say that . . . . I try not to talk too much about provincial issues, but you can't ignore the news today with respect to the layoffs of aides for special needs children in Vancouver. You have to be concerned about that.

You have to ask yourself: if the $890 million deficit was necessary to protect education, why then are these kinds of cuts going on? It seems to me that the government simply can't have it both ways.

In summation, I'm disappointed with the debt and the growth in debt and deficits in our province. I continue to be encouraged by the economic growth in the northeast and by the support that my constituents get from this government with respect to the resource industries.

G. Campbell: I rise today to speak on this budget with some real sorrow about what has taken place in British Columbia and what took place here on March 30. It's sorrowful, because the fact is that this government has once again misled the people of British Columbia about their goals. They consistently mislead the people of British Columbia about the position that the opposition has taken.

To be candid, as I sat here and listened to the Finance minister give her comments when she issued the budget on March 30, I found it a breathtaking document. I was literally breathless to see a Finance minister who was standing up after eight years and telling us that she didn't know quite how to manage the economy and that what she was promising was an $890 million deficit once again.

For all of the members in government, all of the members opposite, I would like them to remember that one of the ways that we restore the economy and restore private sector investment is that we have to be able to restore the public's confidence and trust in government. Listen to the words of the leader of the government; this is a direct quote: "There's no magic to balancing the budget in British Columbia. In fact, it's extremely easy, absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing." That's what the leader of this government said to every person in British Columbia ten years ago.

It was the easiest thing he could imagine doing. Year after year we've been promised balanced budgets, and year after year this government has broken that province to the people of British Columbia. The Finance minister stood up and said to us all that it's time for one of the "most transparent budgets" that we've ever seen in the province, and proceeded to underestimate the deficit once again. The chartered accountants of British Columbia have told us what's the true deficit in this budget: $1.5 billion.

[1615]

This is a budget at a time when we're watching increasing bankruptcies of small businesses across this province. We watched just last month 16,000 people lose their jobs. This is a budget that's been brought in at a time when we're watching record foreclosures. For the members opposite, foreclosures are about people losing their savings, losing their lives and losing their futures as their houses go down the tubes. They feel so hopeless that they say: "I'm going to let my house go." It's the most valuable asset that most people in this province will ever have.

We've watched as those foreclosures have increased and increased and as more and more families have felt the pain and hurt of an economy that's in a recession.

[ Page 12102 ]

While the rest of the province is figuring out how to deal with a shrinking economy, how to deal with increasing government costs and shrinking revenues for them, what does this government do? It adds over half a billion dollars in costs -- a half-billion-dollar increase in spending. You watch as the budgets of half of the ministries of government increase. You watch as we add 116 additional people, which the government has admitted they've added, to the public service at a time when we have the highest youth unemployment rate in British Columbia, because we're hammering small business day in and day out.

We're increasing the costs of government and the size of government. We're not being responsible, we're not being prudent, and we're not protecting health care and education.

In fact, what we're doing is driving a nail into health care and education. The minister tells us that there's a 6.6 percent increase in health care spending. But what do we really discover with this newly transparent budget? What we find out is that it's not an increase in terms of spending; it's simply a paper increase. In fact, when you look at what this government has done, you're going to find that the increase in support to health care is less than it was last year.

You're going to see that there is almost $100 million set aside in this budget, because the government finally figured out that we're on the verge of the year 2000 and thinks we'll deal with the Y2K bug. You're going to find $35 million in the health care budget for interest costs. It's not going to take care of any patients. What this budget really is about is increasing costs and, most importantly, a massive, historic increase in public sector debt -- $3.5 billion of additional debt.

You know, it was funny. Yesterday I heard from the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the new convert. Just a few years ago he was saying, "It is irresponsible for government to increase debt by a billion dollars," and he's sitting there voting for an increase in debt of $3.5 billion. You talk about a conversion on the road to the bank. That's incredible.

[1620]

What's missing from the budget? What do people hope to get from a budget? They hope to get a sense of perspective on where the government wants us to go. It seems that what the government wants us to do is to continue to dig that debt hole that is gnawing away at the very fabric of public life in British Columbia. There is no plan for economic growth in this budget. There is no real tax relief in this budget. There's no plan to reduce the debt in this budget, and the critical thing here is that for years this government promised that they understood they were going to reduce the debt. In fact, they were so concerned about it in 1995 that they introduced the debt management plan.

That debt management plan was introduced because they claimed to understand that interest costs eat away at our ability to support essential public services like health care and public education. Well, after one year they couldn't quite handle the debt management plan, so you know what they did? They created the revised debt management plan. What a surprise! After one year they found they couldn't meet those targets, so then they created the new financial plan. Then they found out that they couldn't meet those goals, so they created the modified financial management plan.

Then they found that they weren't going to live up to those commitments either, so what they discovered this year was the brand-new, five-year fiscal framework. Let's see what happened with that. What's happened over those five years of broken promises, broken commitments -- those five years of shattering the people's trust in the institution of government? What's happened? The debt management plan said that we were going to have a debt load in this province. We were going to strive for a debt load in this province of about 10 percent of the provincial gross domestic product.

This year the new fiscal plan calls for a 27 percent debt -- deadweight government debt. I guess one of the things that I just can't understand -- and I would welcome someone on the other side explaining this to me -- is: why was debt bad in '91, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97 and '98, and suddenly in '99 it's a great thing? Let's be really clear about this. This government and that minister told people they had a balanced budget in '96, and she wasn't telling the truth. This government and that minister said they'd balanced the budget in '97, and they were not telling the truth.

What they've done is they've taken taxpayer-supported debt . . . . For those opposite who don't understand this, there's only one way to support taxpayer-supported debt: that's for the taxpayers pay for it with their taxes, with someone else's money, with the hard work of people across this province. This government goes in and cavalierly says: "Let's add $3.5 billion in debt."

What's happened with taxpayer-supported debt since Mr. Premier told us that he was going to balance the budget, that there was nothing he could think of that was easier? What's happened is that it's gone from $9.8 billion to $26.1 billion. What's happened is that British Columbia has been driven from the number one economy in this country to the worst economy in this country, under this government's incompetent, inadequate indifference.

What's happened with gross provincial debt? That's the total debt of all of our public institutions. What's happened to that? It's gone from $17.2 billion and it's doubled. I want everyone on that side of the House to understand what they're doing when they double that debt. They're saying to people two generations away that they're going to pay for something that they'll never, ever see, at the same time that we've got young people who need teachers. We've got young people who need support in school districts across this province. We can't do that. Why can't we do it? It's not just this government's incompetence; it's the massive amount of debt that this government has built up.

What has happened? What really goes on here is that the fastest-growing cost of government in British Columbia since 1991 . . . . It hasn't been health care. It hasn't been education. It hasn't been social services. It hasn't been taking care of our children in the province who are in need. It has been interest. The biggest benefactors of this government's largesse and incompetence have been the banks. And these are the people that claim to be working for the working people.

[1625]

What's $2.6 billion in interest? Ever think of this? That's more money than we get from the combined revenues from business income taxes, from fuel taxes, from property transfer taxes and from corporate capital taxes all together. That's more money than we get from the forest industry, from the mining industry, from the natural resource industry, from the energy industry and from B.C. Hydro all together. That's what $2.6 billion is, hon. Speaker. That interest tab continues to run, and it doesn't provide for anything in the long-term future of British Columbia.

[ Page 12103 ]

When we raise the issue, even though this very government suggested . . . . In 1990 and 1991 they understood it. For a decade they pretended that they got it, as they went and taxed, and they borrowed, and they spent -- and spent some more and borrowed some more and taxed some more. They say: "We can't deal with this. We're just not capable of dealing with it. Of course, if we dealt with it," as the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke said, "we'd have to blow up a hospital."

Let's start with a couple of questions. Which hospitals was this government planning to close if it didn't increase the budget by half a billion dollars? Which schools were they going to close down if they didn't increase the budget by half a billion dollars? Let's be very clear about this. I'm going to say this slowly so that the other side understands it, and maybe they'll stop saying what they've been saying. Right now in our current budget, health care is 38 percent of it. Right now in our current budget -- in this year's budget -- education is 29 percent. That's what it is.

This side of the House intends to make sure that of that 38 percent, 38 percent is going to take care of patients in the province -- not bureaucracies, not experiments, but patients. This side of the House intends to ensure that 29 percent of the provincial budget goes to take care of student and teachers in the classrooms of this province, whether they're in the Kootenays, in the Peace, in the north, on Vancouver Island or in the lower mainland. We're going to make sure that students and teachers see the benefits of that 29 percent.

I want to be very clear about this: we're going to cut the waste in government. We're going to cut the special deals that this government has made with group after group after group. Where could we go . . . ? Can anyone think of where we might go, except for closing down hospitals and schools? I can tell you that the B.C. Liberals, the opposition, have no intention of closing any hospitals or any schools.

What we intend to do is go back to open tendering in British Columbia and make sure that the taxpayers get the best possible value for every single dollar that we spend. That would save a quarter of a billion dollars. What we intend to do is have a forest practices code that works, that's based on results, and not waste a billion dollars on that. What we intend to do is not carry out projects like the fast ferry fiasco, which has cost taxpayers $215 million and counting in additional debt.

What we intend to do is not incur an extra $1.5 billion for a transit project that won't get you to where want to go. We'll spend half the amount that they're spending on SkyTrain to get people where they need to go -- to Coquitlam. What we will not do is waste $8 million of the taxpayers' money on propaganda that does not tell the truth. And we will not spent $500 million on special deals for friends and insiders, as this government has done.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars in this budget that can be dealt with without even starting to think about making sure that health care and education are protected, as we intend to do. Who is driving the nails into health care and education? The NDP is, hon. Speaker. They have wasted money. They think it's better to spend money on interest than on patient care, students or education. That's the problem. This government doesn't understand.

[1630]

The real problem is that they've done serious damage to people's lives. Let's be clear about this. Everywhere across this province people have been willing to help. They've been willing to come forward and offer suggestions -- positive, concrete, real suggestions that work in the real world. Lower costs, more productivity, increased employment, greater flexibility, more imagination -- that's what we need.

It's clear to everyone that this government's taxes, taxes and more taxes -- almost $2 billion of additional taxes and fees since 1991 -- have killed economic growth. Just look at it. Don't even worry about the kinds of labels we see. Let's look at what's happened to the working person in British Columbia. Let's look at what's happened to their paycheque. As this government sits on that side and some of them get the biggest paycheque they've ever seen in their lives, remember what's happening to the average worker. This government is directly and unequivocally responsible for the reduction of the average take-home pay for B.C.'s workers of $1,000 between 1992 and 1997.

What has happened? Investment has fled this province. For four of the last five years, investment has left this province. We're in last place in private sector investment. Companies flee this province. Over 200 companies have left the province in the last year and a half. Why? Because they can't stand what this government is doing, and they can't believe they have to do all the work they do to get so little. And when they go, they take jobs with them. Jobs leave the province. People's sense of hope leaves the province. Our young people are leaving the province. And they don't want to; they want to live here.

They know that this is a great place to live. They know it's the best province in the best country, in the world. Unfortunately, they also know that this is the worst government in the history of the province.

What has happened is that for the first time in a long, long time, 19,000 people fled this province last year. They fled this province to other parts of our country, looking for opportunity and hope. Imagine people deciding to leave British Columbia -- to leave Victoria, Cranbrook, Clinton or Prince George -- for Ontario. Imagine going to Ontario from B.C. I bet you wouldn't do that, hon. Speaker, and we don't want our kids to think that's where they have to go.

We educate our young people at great institutions like SFU, UNBC, UBC and UVic. And you know what? They're starting to look to the United States for work. Go to Silicon Valley and try talking to them there. You'll find more Canadians there than you'll find in Victoria.

This government's policies have driven our economy down to the worst economy and the worst economic growth in the history of this province. The fact of the matter is that we're in last place in Canada. When we have our young people looking for opportunities elsewhere, whether it's California, Ontario or Saskatchewan, we should know that the government is failing the young people of British Columbia. We want to bring them back home. We want to reunite them with their families.

There are some very straightforward ways to do that. I don't want to leave this quick discussion without outlining for the government all they have to do. We are ready to help. This side of the House is ready to give this government a literal blueprint for the future. Instead of marching down the road to economic decay and disaster, we're willing to give this government a map to get them forward again, to move us back in the right direction.

First thing: truth-in-budgeting legislation, which will stop the manipulation of the books that this government has car-

[ Page 12104 ]

ried out for almost a decade. Second thing: balanced-budget legislation, which requires financial discipline and prudence and protects the taxpayer. Now, I know that this government wrings its hands and says: "Oh, we couldn't possibly do that." The fact is that every municipality in this province does it; the fact is that other jurisdictions are doing it on a regular basis. We can in British Columbia. Let me repeat that: we can -- and we will -- in British Columbia.

[1635]

Then, as we talk about budgets and the economy, let's remember something that's important. The economy is always about people. It's always about people, their families and their communities. It's always about people thinking that they can do better. If they work hard, they can get ahead, they can provide for themselves, and they have long-term security. Hon. Speaker, you can't -- even someone in this government can't -- walk into community after community in this province and not notice that there has been a huge change, a major change in what's taking place in B.C. People are worried.

People are in some cases frightened. In some cases, people are watching as their community seems to be disappearing before their eyes. Go and talk to the people in Gold River.

An Hon. Member: Baloney.

G. Campbell: To the minister who said "baloney . . . . " You know, this minister should go and talk to someone in Gold River and find out what it's like to have to sell, to leave your town and to know that you're going to get about 50 percent of the value of your home. I challenge that minister to leave his town and take 50 percent of the value of his home, because his government is the government that has driven those values down.

Let's think about these people for a minute. How do you create a sense of hope for people? Well, the first thing is that we want them to know that if they work hard, then they can get ahead. Wouldn't it be great if we could just give every worker in this province -- not pick the ones we like or don't like, just every worker in this province . . . ? Let's give them all a raise You know that it's in this government's ability to do it.

You know how you do it? You cut personal income tax, you cut it now, and you cut it big. I've got to tell you that I look across, and I see the financial genius across shaking her head, saying: "Oh no, you can't cut income tax. Boy, I'd hate to see you cut income tax." Just think . . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, it's really difficult to hear what's being said.

G. Campbell: I appreciate the fact that you, at least, hon. Speaker, would like to hear what I have to say. I do appreciate that.

What happens when you cut income tax? Again, you'll hear from the government: "Gee, you've got to be careful. You cut taxes, and there'll be nothing there for health care; there will be nothing there for education. Won't that be awful -- worry, worry, worry?" Well, the fact is this, and here is an announcement: the money doesn't disappear if it stays in people's pockets. Guess what. The money is more powerful in people's pockets than it is in the government's pockets. Do you know why? It's because . . . .

Let me ask: how many members of the government opened their paycheques the other day, had a look at them and said to themselves: "Whoa! That is way more money than I know what to do with"? Guess what: the average worker in B.C. is looking at their paycheque and saying, "That's $1,000 lower than it was in 1992" -- $1,000 less per year for the average worker.

When they get their paycheque -- when they get their raises because there is a dramatic income tax cut -- do you know what they'll do? They'll spend it. They might buy a book; they well might buy a book. You know what? Those people who buy those books, unlike the member opposite, will probably read them, learn from them and use them. As they buy that book, they may go and buy a pair of shoes. They might buy a sweater; they might buy a hammer. I don't know what they'll buy -- neither does the government.

But they will buy it, and those dollars will go into the local community, and the local community will find that suddenly young people and people across their community have a chance to work. And when they go to work, they pay taxes.

The government just keeps on saying that this will never happen, but the fact is that it's happened everywhere it's been tried. What happens is revenues increase. As the economy grows, revenue to government increases. As people's paycheques grow, revenue to government increases, because they pay tax and they buy things -- they contribute. Their personal contribution makes a point of the fact that as we do that, the economy grows and health care and education are supported. A strong economy means great health care and great public education, and that's the message you have to understand.

[1640]

We really do need to create a competitive tax regime. We really do need to eliminate the massive amounts of excess waste and regulation that are strangling small businesses. We really need to. As we do that, we will watch as our economy expands. We will watch as people have hope and opportunities again in this province. We will watch as dollars start to flow in. And as those dollars come in, we can focus them on making our education system the best education system anywhere on the continent, anywhere in the world. We can do it if we just do it right and we focus our resources on students.

It really is a matter of choices, as the Minister of Finance has said. Let's just recognize the choices this government's made. This government chose, irresponsibly, to go ahead with the fast ferry project, which is already $215 million over budget. What could you do with $215 million? You could provide for 69,000 heart bypass surgeries. Or you could cut that in half, and you could do 8,000 hip replacements. Even after doing that, you could provide for 1,000 new teachers and 1,000 new police officers for a year.

We think it's critical that we have an education system that every parent, every student and every teacher takes huge pride in and says: "Yes. Look at the example B.C. is setting. Look at the leadership role B.C. is taking." British Columbians are used to leading; British Columbians want to lead. And we can have them lead in education, in health care and in the economy, if we will just learn from their experience in their communities.

I was not happy with this budget, but more important than me not being happy with it is that people of British

[ Page 12105 ]

Columbia are not happy with this budget. It is a budget that promises more tax in the long term. It's a budget that promises huge debt today. It's a budget that promises to take away people's sense of hope and people's opportunity. It's a budget that's already done that. We've watched as we have had two downgrades in British Columbia. I'm sorry to see this government's budget. I think it was destructive; I think it was hurtful to people in their lives.

Therefore I am pleased to move the amendment to the budget standing on the order paper in my name, because I believe we have to send a clear message to the government that this budget is not good enough. It is not the road to the future; it's the road to ruin.

[Be it resolved that the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply, be amended by adding the following: "But the House regrets that the government has presided over successive downgrades to BC's credit rating; the government has not balanced the budget in eight years; the government has brought BC Ferries to the brink of bankruptcy with its fast ferry program; the government has wasted billions of dollars on the Skeena Cellulose bailout, Nisga'a propaganda, inoperable minibuses, assorte