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)

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 14

[ Page 12017 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Petter: Visiting in the gallery today from North Vancouver is Mrs. Betty Twigg, mother of Alan and John Twigg -- but we won't hold that against her. Hopefully, we will join together and welcome her to the assembly this afternoon. I'd like the House to join me in making her feel very welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have two people to introduce today who are with the B.C. Festival of the Arts, which will be held here in Victoria this year from May 23 to May 30. This is the largest festival of its kind in the country: 950 talented artists will be here to take

part in it. Tomorrow at 12:10, there's a preview concert in the rotunda here, and we invite all MLAs. Will the House please make welcome Barry Kelsey, a festival society board member, and Tom Fielding, the host community's co-chair.

[1410]

W. Hartley: Today we have a group of some 12 adults visiting us, who are with the World Federalists of Victoria. They're with their coordinator, Mr. P. Symons. Would members please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: Visiting in the Legislature today is a student who I chanced to meet in the hallway, Matt Cronmiller. He was a student in Mr. Rodriguez's socials class last year, and I had the opportunity to visit that class a number of times. I ask my colleagues to please join me in making him welcome.

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to recognize and welcome a friend of yours and mine to the chamber: Bea Holland, who is the president of Silver Threads and also a councillor in the city of Victoria. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

HIGHLAND VALLEY COPPER

AND B.C. HYDRO RATES

K. Krueger: This government continues to chase American companies for jobs while driving B.C.'s industries out of business. The Highland Valley Copper situation is a crisis. One hundred jobs have already disappeared forever, and nearly 1,000 more will die on May 15. Can you imagine how those families in Logan Lake feel, in the constituencies of the member for Yale-Lillooet and the member for Kamloops? Will the Minister of Employment and Investment commit to stop gouging B.C.'s industries through B.C. Hydro rates while subsidizing American companies at the expense of B.C. families?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Only that member could stand in this House and say that having the second-lowest or lowest hydro rates in all of North America is gouging the consumer. Only that member could seek to ignore the fact that the government is working with the JPC and the Highland Valley company to see what can be done to keep Highland Valley running in the face of the fact that we have record-low copper prices in the global commodity market. That member just refuses to recognize these things.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

First supplementary, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: This situation at Highland Valley Copper is desperately urgent; it is almost too late. One in seven mining jobs in British Columbia has already disappeared because of this NDP government's gouging with B.C. Hydro rates and its gouging of B.C. industries with tax increases. If Highland Valley Copper closes, one-quarter of the regional economy will disappear. Will the minister tell us why you have to be either an American company or on your deathbed to get action from this NDP government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the fact that the hon. member doesn't understand the global commodity market -- how it works and the fact that copper is at record lows. I understand how he doesn't want to have sympathy for Skeena, for example, but wants the government to do things for Highland Valley. I guess it's because it's in his area.

I also find it interesting that he stands up here and says that Hydro is gouging customers, when we have the lowest rates in North America. And you know what, hon. Speaker? It's too bad he didn't acknowledge it the last time he stood up in this House and said that -- when he said that Hydro was selling power cheaper to the United States. He knew that it wasn't, because it's not. It didn't happen.

B.C. HYDRO EXECUTIVE'S MOVING EXPENSES

C. Clark: While the government and B.C. Hydro are gouging Highland Valley Copper into bankruptcy, they can still find a little money -- a little perk -- for their favourite corporate executives over at B.C. Hydro. For example, they spent $75,000 just in moving expenses for B.C. Hydro's chief spin doctor. Can the minister tell us why B.C. Hydro can find 75 grand just to move the spin doctor for B.C. Hydro to West Vancouver when they can't find a cent to keep those workers at Highland Valley in their jobs for good?

[1415]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The JPC and the government have been working with Highland Valley . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 12018 ]

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . and the company has been working with the government to find a way of keeping Highland Valley open. The fact of the matter is that Highland Valley is facing the same situation that copper mines throughout North America find themselves in. We have record-low copper prices, and the fact of the matter is that that is a global fact.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . . Minister . . . . Come to order, members. It's very difficult to hear the response with all the interruptions.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said earlier in the other questions, we have the second- or third-lowest hydro rates in North America.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: That's $75,000 in moving expenses. You have to ask: did B.C. Hydro pay to move the guy's whole house from Victoria to West Vancouver? That's more than you'd get for the average house in Logan Lake if the government decides to let that mine close. That's what we're talking about here. The government gives this guy $75,000 so that he can move from Victoria to West Vancouver so that he can take a $120,000-a-year job so that he can tell the folks in Logan Lake why their houses will be worthless after B.C. Hydro lets the mine close down. That's what we're talking about.

Can the minister explain for us today how B.C. Hydro and his government can justify paying more in moving expenses for a senior Hydro employee than a newly unemployed worker at Highland Valley Copper . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . . can hope to be able to get for their house . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . . once this government allows that mine to close?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, another member of the opposition who doesn't recognize the challenges the copper industry faces from having the lowest commodity prices in decades. This member doesn't want to recognize the fact that market conditions are dictating what's happening at Highland Valley. This member doesn't want to recognize that Hydro has the lowest hydro rates in North America. Only an opposition member could say that the lowest rates in North America is gouging.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

M. de Jong: There's a lot of noise in the chamber, so maybe the minister didn't hear the question. Let's try it again. We've got people sitting in their homes in Logan Lake wondering if they're going to have a job after May 15. They'll be lucky to get $70,000 for those homes if that mine closes. In the meantime, we've got this government and its Crown agency paying $75,000 worth of moving expenses. What the minister needs to answer for British Columbians and, more particularly, for those people in Logan Lake is: how can this government justify the payment of that kind of perk to an NDP hack at a time when those people are confronted by a bleak future in Logan Lake?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's really interesting to see this opposition standing up and crying about Logan Lake and saying that the government should be doing something in Logan Lake, when the fact is that government has been working with the JPC and has been working with the company to ensure the long-term viability of Logan Lake. It's really interesting. They don't do that with Skeena Cellulose. They don't do that with any of the other companies -- come and talk about the JPC to try and ensure long-term sustainability in their communities.

But because it's in the member for Kamloops-North Thompson's area, they are prepared to speak about it. Clearly they've got one set of rules for people in their area but a different set of rules for the rest of the province.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: What this minister seems incapable of understanding is the desire of all British Columbians to be dealt with equitably by B.C. Hydro -- to stop gouging them -- and for this government to stop using B.C. Hydro as a tax collection agency. That's what British Columbians want.

[1420]

Government is about setting priorities, and British Columbians understand what this government's priorities are. They've got money to pay moving expenses to Shawn Thomas. They've got money for an inflated propaganda and advertising budget. They've got money for ill-conceived adventures in Pakistan. But what the people of Logan Lake want to know is: how come they haven't got a plugged nickel to try and save those jobs at the Highland Valley Copper Mine?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That member talks about priorities. On this side of the House our priorities are ensuring that we have long-term, sustainable jobs in this province. That's why we've seen investment today by Louisiana-Pacific in northeastern British Columbia. That's 450 jobs. Those are our priorities, even though they were pooh-poohed by the members opposite. What are their priorities -- to take $3 billion out of a budget? What type of problems is that going to create in the province? How many people would lose their jobs if they were on this side of the House? Those are their priorities.

[ Page 12019 ]

HIGHLAND VALLEY COPPER

AND B.C. HYDRO RATES

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, we know how many people are going to lose their jobs while that government's in power. It was 21,000 people in the forest sector, thousands in the mining sector, thousands in small businesses right across British Columbia. That's been the record of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia.

My question is for the minister who is supposedly responsible for B.C. Hydro. Can he tell us why it is that his government is managing to gouge industrial customers across British Columbia, driving jobs south of the border, at the same time that they've had $9 million in the last year and a half to two years to spend on advertising and propaganda campaigns?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, in the last year there were over 100,000 jobs created in this province. That opposition doesn't want to recognize that. We've seen investment coming into this province. We've seen the forestry firms . . . . Their first-quarter profits are up. Mac-Blo is in the black. They don't want to talk about that. They don't want to recognize the announcement that was made, with the hundreds of jobs that are being created in northeastern British Columbia.

This government recognizes the challenges that face B.C.'s economy in the resource sector. This government understands the challenges that have been created by the crisis in Asia and low commodity prices. That's why this government is ensuring that we have long-term jobs in this province. That's something that they don't want to acknowledge.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, people used to come to British Columbia to invest all on their own -- without government incentives, without buyouts, without payoffs, without breaks. Now, when somebody comes to British Columbia to invest, it's a national holiday. It's Glen Clark Day in British Columbia because somebody came and invested in B.C. today.

My question is for the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. How does he explain to the people in Logan Lake who run the risk of losing their jobs how he can come up with $9 million for slick advertising campaigns on television, on radio and in newspapers, but not one red cent for a regular old hydro tax rate for Highland Valley Copper?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again this opposition and that member claim that having the lowest hydro rates in North America -- the lowest -- is somehow gouging the consumer. Only that opposition could do that, hon. Speaker.

Only that opposition -- only that negative opposition -- could stand up and not want to recognize the fact that the government has been up front with Highland Valley, has been working with Highland Valley and has been working with the job protection commissioner to come up with solutions to deal with Highland Valley . . . that are there not because of Hydro but because of the record-low commodity prices, where copper has been down around 61 or 62 cents a pound. Three or four years ago it was up at over a dollar a pound. That's the real problem.

[1425]

G. Farrell-Collins: My question again is for the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. And what he might realize is that he's wrong. B.C. doesn't have the lowest hydro rates in North America; they have them in Washington State and Oregon. Both Intalco and Longview Fiber get B.C. Hydro at half the rates that people here in British Columbia pay.

Can the minister for B.C. Hydro explain to the people of Logan Lake how it is that they're about to lose 1,000 jobs at Highland Valley Copper when the people at Longview Fiber and Intalco are keeping their jobs with cheap B.C. Hydro power?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That member is wrong, and he knows it. The fact of the matter is that Intalco pays higher than the industrial rate here in British Columbia. That's a fact.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They do so.

The second point, hon. member . . . . The second company he talked about is the one that that member over there talked about. In fact, they don't get their power at the cheap rate direct from Hydro. They bought their power through a second company that bought it from Hydro at higher than the commercial rate. Why didn't they come clean and tell the people that? Because they're gutless.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 1997-98 annual report of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

Petitions

R. Kasper: I rise to table a petition. The petition is from some 35 constituents of Malahat-Juan de Fuca opposed to the aerial spraying of Foray 48B.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call the budget debate.

Budget Debate

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, who might wish to wait just a moment.

[1430]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, thank you very much, hon. Speaker. It is indeed an unexpected privilege for me to rise today and participate in a debate on a budget which is forward-looking; a budget which has been constructed to speak to the priorities of British Columbians, as those British Columbians have spoken to us about their priorities; a budget that addresses the critical issues of the health care needs of an aging population; a budget that speaks to the education needs of our children and our future; and more importantly than even that, a budget that looks to the future, that looks to the opportunities that lie not only in social areas but in economic areas and in the

[ Page 12020 ]

linkage between the two. I think particularly of the investment in education and the investment in our economy through a small business tax cut, and what that will mean to this province and to the future.

The Speaker: Minister, would you wait just a moment, please?

I would draw the members' attention to the noise level in the chamber. If members have other engagements elsewhere, please leave quietly -- otherwise, conversations outside.

Minister, continue.

Hon. A. Petter: I sense a rising excitement within the chamber as people comprehend exactly the impact that this budget has in terms of our future, our economy and our children. Let me just focus on a few areas of the budget, because this budget makes some very clear choices in terms of the priorities this government has set and, as I said at the outset, more importantly the priorities that British Columbia has set and that British Columbians have told us that they wish to set.

We're well aware of other jurisdictions that have chosen in a very shortsighted way to sacrifice investments like health care, to sacrifice their commitment to hospital care, extended care and home care and, by doing so, to pursue a short-term fiscal strategy that will cost their populations and their provinces tremendously in the long term. This budget takes a very different path from those other jurisdictions and indeed a very different path from what we have seen in the past on the part of the federal government, when the federal government cut funding for health care -- although, thankfully, in the last year it has put some of that funding back.

In particular, this budget increases investments in health care by some $615 million. That is the eighth year in a row that government has increased health care spending in this province. As I say, those increases have come about despite the fact that the money that has been received from the federal government has been reduced in previous years and is finally, to some extent, restored in this year. The operating budget is going up by some $478 million, a 6.6 percent increase. The health care capital budget is going up by $137 million. What does that mean?

Very simply, it means more beds, more nurses and shorter wait-lists. In terms of the people -- the people that I talk to in my constituency, the people that I talk to as I travel this province -- it speaks to their concerns and anxieties for themselves and also for their children and their parents.

We know the demographics are such that we have the baby boom generation starting to become a generation that is increasingly in need of health care services. Many people today worry about their parents. Will there be the health care services, the home support services, the Pharmacare support services, the acute-care hospital beds and the intermediate, extended and continuing care that are necessary to ensure that people that people can continue to lead quality lives, despite the facts that we have an aging population and that we are a province that, because of our quality of life and our climate, tends to draw people from elsewhere in the country who are in their senior years?

This budget makes a clear statement in terms of our commitment to protect and enhance the quality of health care. It says to young people that there will be health care services to educate them in terms of preventive care to make sure that they get the health care services they need to lead healthy lives.

It says to people of my generation not only that the health care services will be there for us but that our parents, who may be increasingly in need of health care services, will be provided for through home care, through support of varying kinds and through increased extended-care beds of the kind that are being expanded here in greater Victoria. This budget makes a commitment to the quality of life of those children worried about their parents, to those people who are of more senior years and to those who have suffered particular health concerns.

This budget makes a major commitment to them and, through them, to our community.

I think that one of the things Canadians and British Columbians take such pride in is our commitment to each other through health care. It's one of the things that sets us apart from the United States. Regrettably, it's starting to set us as British Columbians apart from other provinces, which have moved in the other direction. What this budget says is that British Columbia is not about to be taken in a different direction. We are going to expand and enhance and improve our health care services. We are going to make sure that our medicare system is there for future generations.

We are going to make sure that those waiting lists are reduced. We are going to make sure that those extended-care homes are provided, so that people of all generations can be assured that the things we have built for generations in this country and this province to provide a universal form of health care are not sacrificed. That's a very, very important commitment, and I'm just delighted that this budget makes a very strong statement in that regard.

[1435]

I look at my own community. Just a week or so ago I had the privilege to attend, along with other local MLAs and Island MLAs, the groundbreaking of a new cancer treatment facility here in greater Victoria -- a facility that will be world-class, that will provide both research and care and that will ensure that cancer patients on Vancouver Island can receive the care they need here on Vancouver Island. It will add to the expansion of cancer facilities and services provincewide that has resulted in us being a leader in Canada in terms of reduction in death by cancer over recent years. That's something we can collectively take some pride in.

But it doesn't just happen; it doesn't just fall from trees. I regret that the members opposite think that this is amusing. This a serious issue, hon. members, an issue that should be of concern to all members: the need to make sure that we invest in health care for our future.

I'm also pleased to see that new extended-care beds are opening here in greater Victoria -- and more are on the way -- because of our previous commitments and this budget's commitment to health care. That system of health care is one that is too easily taken for granted, too easily squandered and too easily forgotten. I regret to see members opposite so cavalierly talk about cuts to health care, as they did in the last election: "Oh, we can manage the health care system with less resources.

It's a matter of doing it smarter." I fear that what "doing it smarter" means is throwing out the commitment we've made to medicare, throwing out the commitment we've made to a publicly funded, universal system and starting to buy in to some of the privatization and balkanization of the health care system we see occurring elsewhere in Canada and the kind of health care system we see in the United States,

[ Page 12021 ]

where the cost goes up, as people have to pay more and more through private premiums, and the gaps become greater, as more and more people who can't afford those costs fall through the cracks. This government is not prepared to let that happen in British Columbia, no matter what the opposition says. No matter how hard they try to attack our health care system, this government, through this budget, is determined to protect health care in the years ahead.

I want to turn now to education, hon. Speaker. When we talk about our future, education is critical. We are increasingly as a society, as a world, becoming a knowledge-based economy, in which those who have access to knowledge have access to the fruits of the economy. Those who have access to knowledge have access to the opportunities that are provided by our economy and other economies around the world.

It's important, if we are to ensure that young people today have the same kinds of opportunities that existed when I went to high school or to university, that we invest more in education, not less. When I went to high school, it was still credible to suggest that a high school diploma completed your basic education, and going on to college or university was a secondary or tertiary add-on. That's no longer the case. Now, in order to succeed in today's economy, one must go on and do some post-secondary training. It doesn't have to be academic training.

It can be technical training; it can be apprenticeship and skills; it can be training in the service sector or in the technology sector. But without education, the opportunities that young people require and deserve -- that parents are concerned about in terms of the future of their youth -- won't exist. Far from closing the door to advanced education, we as a society should be opening the doors to advanced education, treating advanced education in the same way that we treat basic education from K to 12. Advanced education is now basic education beyond K-to-12.

That's why this government and this budget again bucked the trend of other jurisdictions and goes in the opposite direction to what I know members opposite would go, in its commitment to education in general. In terms of K-to-12 education, we've made a commitment to reduce class size -- a reduction to a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten through to grade 3. That number is coming down, because we know that those early formative years are the most critical years in setting the direction, in ensuring that young people get the kind of training and nurturing and attention they need to start to move forward through the education system.

We've also made a commitment to reduce the number of portables throughout the system, and that's happening in my constituency, throughout this region and throughout this province, so that the facilities are there. In this day and age in our school system, facilities means computer facilities; it means facilities to educate young people in the new technologies and the new ways of learning -- as well as the basic facilities of classrooms, desks, books and the like.

We are committing a major commitment to funding to improve the quality of education, to increase the number of teachers throughout the system, both those within classrooms and non-enrolling teachers -- teachers who can help in terms of counselling, librarians and the like -- and making the major commitment, as I say, in terms of the reduction of the number of portables and ensuring that there are good, permanent facilities.

[1440]

In post-secondary education, the commitment that we have made is even more in stark contrast to the policies of other provinces and the policies of the opposition party.

That's because what we've said is that while other provinces increase tuition fees for post-secondary education, while the members of the opposition speak out against the government's policy of investing to keep tuition rates down here -- as the critic last year in this debate spoke about or read letters from constituents calling for tuition increases -- we in this province are committed, and this budget is committed, to keeping tuition rates down.

That's why our tuition fees in this province now are about $1,000 less than tuition fees for undergraduates in Alberta and about $1,200 less than undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario -- the two jurisdictions that are so often emulated by members opposite.

You know, hon. Speaker, the members opposite talk about tax cuts for the wealthy and for big business, but they wouldn't blink an eye to increase the taxes for families in terms of what their kids have to pay to go for post-secondary education. They never mention that a family with a couple of kids in high school in Alberta is going to pay $2,000 more a year to get those kids into first-year university or college programs and $2,000 for every year thereafter -- or in Ontario, $1,200 more. If they're in a professional program in Ontario, the differences grow to $5,000, $6,000 and $7,000.

What middle-class family can afford to have their child become a lawyer or a doctor in Ontario when that child and family have to pay $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 a year for that education? That is a direction we're not prepared to take in this province, and we're not prepared to see the opposition take us there either.

I'm pleased that we have resisted that trend. You know what's happened, hon. Speaker? By keeping tuition down and by increasing the number of student spaces throughout the system by 16,000 in recent years -- 2,900 in this year's budget alone; 2,900 fully funded new spaces, 700 of those for high-tech training, 100 to deal with the particular needs of resource-based communities -- spaces that will help to build communities, spaces that will help to prepare young people for opportunities . . . .

By doing that, by investing in those spaces, by funding the institutions to provide quality education to those students and by keeping the cost of tuition down, we have gone from a situation in which, when I first ran for office in 1991, we were the second-lowest jurisdiction in the country after Newfoundland in terms of post-secondary participation rates -- the number of young people attending post-secondary institutions -- to the point that . . . .

The most recent statistics I saw a few weeks ago show that we are now second-highest in the country -- the most educated province in the country and the second-highest rate of participation in post-secondary education facilities by people under the age of 26.

Now, that's an achievement that we can take some pride in, but it doesn't come easily. It shouldn't be taken for granted. It's because of priorities. Because this budget makes education a priority, as it did health care, those opportunities, those doors, will continue to open for young people in our post-secondary institutions. I hate to think what would happen if the agenda we've heard expressed by members opposite were to take hold in terms of post-secondary education -- if we

[ Page 12022 ]

were to provide market-based access to post-secondary education in this province so only those who could afford a post-secondary education would be the ones to get it. Of course, without a post-secondary education, no middle-class family could afford such an education.

That's the direction we're seeing in other provinces. It's a direction that we're not prepared to follow here in British Columbia, and this government will fight tooth and nail to protect the right of young people to have access to a quality education and to increase those participation rates further. In fact, I would like to see us reduce tuition fees; I would like to see us move towards a set of universal education . . . . Last year this government removed tuition for adult basic education. Today no adult in this province who is without basic K-to-12 education will be denied that education, and no adult will be charged for that education if he or she is prepared to take it on.

One of the most moving experiences I've had in the past year was to travel the province and talk to some of those adults -- single parents who never thought they would be able to go back to school -- now back in school, getting training and looking forward to the job opportunities they're going to get. That's how we build a province for ordinary British Columbians -- not through huge tax giveaways to a few rich individuals or to big business, but helping people get the education they require to get on and have opportunities.

[1445]

The third and final theme I want to talk about in this budget has to do with the economy and with small business, and the link between education and small business. In the last year since becoming the minister responsible for technology, I have been impressed by just how much our educational commitments in this province provide a direct link to economic growth. It's quite extraordinary, actually. In the last eight years, the high-tech sector of our economy has grown over 70 percent in British Columbia.

That's more than twice the national average -- 71 percent growth for B.C. versus 28 percent growth for the rest of Canada and 31 percent growth for the national average, if you include B.C. There's more than twice the rate of growth here in British Columbia.

Why is that? It's in part because of our quality of life; it's in part because we do have major innovation taking place in British Columbia as a result of our existing industries. But it's in large part because we've invested in education; it's in large part because we've invested in the infrastructure we need and because we're supporting those businesses in the high-tech sector as one sector that can help to grow our economy and help our economy to diversify.

So as we see commodity prices go up and down the roller-coaster they go on, and our markets go up and down the roller-coaster they go on, as we've seen in Asia . . . . Of course, in the last two years we've seen a double whammy, as our Asian markets have declined at the same time as commodity prices have declined. But throughout all of that, our high-tech sector has provided a major stabilizing force and is one of the reasons why we have not entered into the kind of recession that occurred in this province in the early 1980s, when we didn't have these dynamic sectors.

Film, high-tech and tourism are doing very well in this province, and high-tech in particular is evidence that by investing in education -- by investing in children and their future -- we are investing in our economy.

I had the privilege to attend a very exciting announcement earlier today by MacDonald Dettwiler, a homegrown, B.C.-based company that has gone from a small presence in B.C. to being Canada's leading space technology company and a leader in satellite imaging. It is soon to become a leader in electronic commerce as a result of a very dynamic and exciting partnership between MDA and the provincial government to take over the operation of the B.C.

OnLine service, grow that service within the province and export it worldwide, using Victoria as its base -- a very exciting opportunity and a very exciting example of how we can grow high-tech jobs. MDA estimates 2,000 jobs over the next ten years out of this one partnership, because we have excellent education facilities, a good quality of life and excellent infrastructure.

This is not an isolated example. Last year the government partnered with IBM to open a new world-class software development centre. I had the privilege of touring it with the Premier last week. It has far exceeded its expectations of growth in the first year alone, through export business. Through gaining contracts and opportunities around the world, out of B.C. Ericsson Communications, in another partnership with municipalities and the provincial government, it moved its regional headquarters from Calgary to Burnaby to take advantage of the opportunities here in British Columbia.

Ballard, one of the leading fuel cell development companies, is a homegrown company that is a world leader in fuel cell technology. With a little support from the federal government, it can continue to grow and stay ahead of the pack, and I hope that the federal government will recognize Ballard and come through with support for a national research centre for Ballard, as they were expected to do. I can name other companies: Electronic Arts, headquartered in Vancouver, is a world leader in games software; Quadra Logic is a world leader in biotech and cancer research.

In Victoria, there has been incredible growth -- 15 percent -- in high-tech in the last year as a result of the fact that this economy is starting to take off. And it's no accident that we have three post-secondary institutions in this province feeding the talent pool for those industries. In the last year, ISM-BC, the largest data-processing centre west of Toronto and established as a result of an agreement with the province, is right here in Victoria. EDS systems decided to locate its regional headquarters to Victoria, Viking Air has undertaken an expansion, and Compugen has opened its regional headquarters.

Agresso, a major Norwegian institutional software company -- the Norwegian answer to Oracle -- has decided to take over a company in Victoria, to locate its North American headquarters and market its institutional and educational software out of Victoria.

That's the kind of growth we're seeing. It's because we have such strength in our education sector, because we have invested in education, and we are targeting spaces for high-tech training -- 1,200 over the last two years. That is one of the key reasons why this sector of the economy is growing and why there are jobs waiting for young people who get the training they need. Through the commitments we've made, that training is taking place, and we are seeing huge growth in jobs and opportunities through these investments.

[1450]

This is a budget that helps to build for the future. In addition to cutting taxes, it also makes a continuing commitment . . . . I congratulate the Minister of Finance for reducing red tape and streamlining government services. Again, we saw an example of that in the high-tech sector, which I have a particular interest in, with the modification of employment

[ Page 12023 ]

standards laws to take account of some of the needs and peculiarities of that sector -- an initiative that has been very well received and has helped to grow . . . .

This is a budget that looks to the future, not by joining the race to the bottom that the members opposite would have us join, not by throwing our lot in with the Kleins and the Harrises and the view that all we've got to do is let things trickle down and be trickled on, but by building from the ground up -- by talking to ordinary British Columbians and listening to their aspirations for a better health care system, a better quality of life, educational opportunities and a government that partners to create new opportunities in high-tech, a government that works with the film sector and other sectors of the economy to ensure that we have lasting opportunities and overcome some of the economic difficulties that a resource-based economy sometimes encounters as we diversify, as we grow and as we work together.

That's a positive vision. It's the kind of vision that I think speaks to the aspirations of British Columbians.

What I would ask members opposite is . . . . I would challenge them when they stand up: what is their positive vision? We've heard for two or three years of their negative vision. We know how negative they can be. What British Columbians want to know is: do they have one ounce of positivity in their veins? Do they have one positive idea that they're prepared to put before this Legislature?

I expect that they'll get up and make some cute argument. "Well, our positive idea is: let's get rid of the government." That's about as positive as they get. But British Columbians are getting tired of negativity. British Columbians want to know where they stand. They want to know what investments in post-secondary education will be made and what cuts will be made. If British Columbians aren't given the answers, they will arrive at those answers for themselves, because those answers right now lead to the race to the bottom. They lead to cuts in health care and cuts in education.

It's about time that the opposition party stood up and told us where they stand and where they would take this province. If they don't, people will reach their own conclusions, as they did in the last election. It's time for them to come clean and put their agenda on the table, as we have in this budget. Let's hear what they have to say.

E. Conroy: Let me begin by maybe talking a little bit about an issue that I think is near and dear to all our hearts here in the province of British Columbia, and that's our health care system. Our budget for 1999 increases B.C.'s health care investment by $615 million. It provides funding for more teachers and more school construction and gives our province a lower small business tax rate than Alberta's.

In every part of this province, British Columbians have sent us a strong message: "Improve health care." We've heard what you've had to say, and in Budget '99 we're acting on your priorities. British Columbia's population is continuing to age and grow, placing ever-increasing demands on our health care services. Drug prices continue to skyrocket, pushed ever upward, in part by federal drug patent legislation. Since B.C. has the most generous Pharmacare program in the country, rising drug costs have hit us particularly hard.

This government has increased health care spending eight years in a row, in spite of drastic cuts in federal health care transfer payments since 1995. We still have a lot of work to do if we want to make B.C.'s health care system remain the best in Canada. That's why our government is increasing health care operating funding by $478 million in the '99 budget, a 6.6 percent increase. We're also increasing the health care capital budget by $137 million. Our goals for new health care dollars in Budget '99 are simple: more beds, more nurses and shorter wait- lists.

My constituents have told me that they're tired of having to wait for important medical procedures and surgeries. I've been taking the message back to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance. I'm proud to say that we will be taking immediate action to reduce wait times. New funding in this budget will provide for 58,000 more surgeries and procedures. By this time next year we expect that children waiting for pediatric surgery will get the treatment they need within the time set by provincial standards. We'll also meet the standard wait-lists for cancer treatments.

[1455]

We just saw in newspaper articles here in British Columbia last week where the cancer success rate in British Columbia far outstrips that of any other jurisdiction within this country. I think that we in British Columbia can be proud of that record. When I hear our critics across the floor slam us for what we're doing in health care, I think that maybe they should go to a family of one of the cancer victims whose life has just been saved by the procedures that we and only we here in British Columbia are engaged in and tell them how they don't think that what we're doing in health care is correct.

We expect to increase the number of cardiac procedures next year by 700. We expect to increase screening mammography by 19 percent, or 38,000 procedures, in the coming year. But our efforts won't end there. The 1999 budget will create 480 much-needed long term care beds in British Columbia. We've provided funding to hire 400 more nurses to help address workload issues and improve the quality of medical care.

Protecting and improving health care has always been very close to the heart of our government. We believe deeply that a strong, effective medicare system speaks volumes about us as a province and as a society. Nothing is more important to this government than the health of British Columbians and their families. In Budget '99 we're taking the necessary steps to make sure that B.C.'s health care system fully meets the needs of British Columbians and remains the best in Canada.

British Columbians come from many different backgrounds, and along with those differing backgrounds come different values. But there's one thing upon which all British Columbians can agree: there's nothing more important to the future of our youth than a good education. As the minister responsible for post-secondary and universities has just said very eloquently, on the importance of our situation here in British Columbia around the cost for our students in order to attend universities, it's something that for ordinary working people . . . . If there wasn't a freeze on tuition fees, hon.

Speaker, there would be many people who would be hard-pressed to be coming out of the universities to take advantage of the wonderful economy that this government is going to be creating in British Columbia within the next couple of years. So not only do we have a huge and wonderful opportunity for our youth to attend post-secondary education, but with more issues like this budget, there'll be plenty of things to do for those people who are coming out of our post-secondary institutions.

[ Page 12024 ]

For our government, improving learning and ensuring that our students have the best environment is one thing that we do want to give top priority to. I feel that we have, from day one; 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 more schools, hire more teachers, reduce class sizes for primary grades and reduce the number of portables. 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 Budget '99, $45 million for new operating funding for B.C.'s education system will allow for the hiring of 400 new teachers and will reduce class size in the critical early years from kindergarten through grade 3. This year, as part of our 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 classes from K to 3, so that our kids can get the time and attention they need to learn effectively in those, their most important years.

In this budget, the new funding per pupil increases 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 replacement schools and 103 renovations throughout the province. Parents have told us that they don't want their kids to be learning in portables, which are supposed to be temporary classrooms. As a result of this year's budget, 560 portables will be eliminated. Our strategy reflects the priorities of British Columbians, who want better learning for their kids.

[1500]

We're keeping our commitment to B.C.'s post-secondary students too. There are 141,000 full-time post-secondary students in 108 communities. Budget '99 keeps tuition fees frozen in our British Columbia universities and colleges for the fourth straight year, to help keep post-secondary education affordable. Tuition fees in B.C. are in fact the lowest in Canada after Quebec and lower than tuition fees in Ontario. That's something that we're all very proud of.

We've also provided a $7.7 million increase in student financial assistance and a tuition fee compensation fund for 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.'s colleges and universities over the past three years. These measures have had a real impact on opening B.C.'s post-secondary institutions to more students.

More people are attending post-secondary institutions than ever before. Enrolment at B.C.'s institutions has increased by 10 percent since 1991, while in the rest of Canada it's gone down by 4.4 percent.

I'd just like to talk for a moment about the Premier's summit that happened in my constituency but was for the entire Kootenays and the Boundary region. We had the Premier's summit in November of 1998 at Selkirk College in Castlegar, and we are just now beginning to see some of the results of the Premier's summit come to fruition in our area. I know that sometime in the next month or so there's going to be another Premier's summit, to be held in the Cariboo.

Without going into too much detail on how things have worked out in the one in the Kootenays and the Boundary region, just let me say that I'm hopeful that they have as much success in the Cariboo as we've had in the West Kootenays with regard to things beginning now to roll out.

We've also had another initiative that I think has been kind of highlighted in this budget, and that's our attempts to try and understand small business and to be of as much assistance as we can to help small business meet the challenges that it faces during these difficult times. Small businesses are incubators for new industries. These are seeds from which healthy economies grow. They are the most creative, most powerful entrepreneurial force in the province. And B.C. has the fastest small business growth rate in Canada, believe it or not.

Government wants to make it easier for enterprise to do business in this province and to give business room to grow and create jobs with less interference from government. That means cutting red tape and taxes. When it comes to building a thriving provincial economy, the small business community plays a starring role. We need to continue to work with the business community to find out what their needs are and to try and meet those needs.

Before I continue around small business, hon. Speaker, just let me tell you a little bit about what's going on in my part of the world with business in general, maybe -- or maybe a little bit larger business than what we would normally call small business. As many of you may know, I have the Cominco smelter in the city of Trail. It's been with the help of this provincial government that I'm proud to say now that the smelter in Trail is just kind of humming along very, very nicely and very successfully. It wasn't too long ago that this smelter was in serious trouble.

Their lead technology wasn't working; they'd invested all kinds of dollars in the facility. Indeed, many of us in the communities were afraid that it may not survive.

[1505]

But our government went in and did a business deal with Cominco that allowed them to get new technology, which they've done, and it's been absolutely wonderful. Cominco, as I said earlier, is just kind of humming along out there. I was very pleased to say that they announced that they made a profit in their last quarter. So I just want to say how pleased I am about the way everything has worked out with Cominco.

Government went in and worked with Cominco, but what we did with Cominco was a business deal. From putting money into Cominco, we got rights from Cominco to develop power that Cominco owned, and we got some land that Cominco owned. From that, our government formed the Columbia Power Corporation, which is now a partner with an organization that was formed by the MLAs from the Kootenays, the Columbia Basin Trust. We now have underway a $300 million power project to generate power around the Keenleyside dam, which is right now just beginning to start and will be a huge benefit to our region over the next number of years.

It should also be said that what we do have, in essence, is a 12-year plan to develop three hydro projects in the Kootenays. I have to say very proudly that if it weren't for our government and its involvement with Cominco and its involvement in Columbia Power Corporation and its listening to the MLAs from the Kootenays, insofar as forming the Columbia Basin Trust goes, I wouldn't be able to stand here and talk to you about these wonderful employment projects that are going on now and projects that are going to return benefits to the people of the Kootenays and the Columbia basin for generations to come.

[ Page 12025 ]

We also have the possibility of more industry coming into the lower Columbia -- all of it as a result of negotiations with our government. I'll be very, very pleased when we are successful -- and we will be -- to share with the members opposite the wonderful news about more jobs coming to British Columbia as a result of the wonderful job our government is doing in dealing with issues around raw resources in these very difficult times throughout the world.

Again, I just want to alert the members opposite and put them on notice by saying that without the direction that this government is going in right now, this recession we've had in British Columbia would be far deeper than it is now that we're here. We're going to bring us out, and you won't be able to talk about it pretty soon, folks. So that's very encouraging news.

Let me move for a moment to taxes. Our tax cuts have been carefully targeted to ensure that we maximize the bang for the taxpayers' 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. These incentives 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 Budget '99 we're building on the tax cuts and incentives of last year's budget with a further reduction in the small business tax. With the small business tax rate cut by 35 percent in this budget, the rate goes down to 5.5 percent, effective on July 1. That's lower than Alberta. This cut means that small business will pay $63 million less next year in taxes and builds significantly on last year's commitment to reduce the small business tax rate by 20 percent by the year 2000.

We're going even further than that. In this budget, B.C. will keep our small business tax rates lower than Alberta. Further reduction will be matched dollar for dollar by British Columbia. This year the corporate capital tax threshold has gone from $2.5 million to $3.5 million. The threshold will increase to $5 million by 2001, at which time 90 percent of B.C.'s businesses will no longer pay the corporate capital tax. In this budget we've extended the corporate capital tax holiday to four years from the existing two.

[1510]

Let me talk a little bit about what our government is doing to cut red tape. I'd like to talk a bit about cutting down on government regulation and red tape. Business people have made it clear, both at the British Columbia Business Summit and at other consultations without our government, that the issue of red tape and overregulation must be addressed. That's why we struck a business task force last year with representatives from small business, government and labour. This is a direct result of our efforts, and we're streamlining over 30 provincial laws.

Our review of the liquor regulations has led to a number of forward-looking recommendations that will simplify licensing and processing. It will make it easier to obtain a liquor licence. It will eliminate the regulatory processes that serve no public health or safety purposes, like the number of television sets allowed in a bar. It will deregulate liquor advertising provincially by adopting the federal code and eliminating the need to provide for provincial approval.

I hear the members across the floor oft-times talk about the issue around red tape and what the need is to cut red tape, and I concur. But a lot of what the opposition calls red tape are things that many people in this province have fought for, for many years, to have brought into law. I think, for example . . . . On a personal note, I went through a subdivision where I purchased some property to adjoin my farm. I experienced what the members opposite would call red tape, and yes, it was frustrating sometimes. I confess that it was. But when I looked at the reasons for it, I began to understand.

There are reasons why, for example, one can't just go and put in a septic tank wherever one wants. There are reasons why certain things around highways, new buildings in municipalities, road access . . . . There are all good reasons why these things have to be there.

I don't suggest that the members opposite necessarily mean that we should take all of these things away. But I think that when they want to criticize red tape, they should tell us exactly what it is that they're criticizing. Just throwing the reel of red tape out to the public makes it look like they all want it to go. I know that they're more responsible than that; I know they are. But I would just ask . . . .

When it comes to the debate on red tape, the government's doing as much as it can in order to deal with this issue. I myself am on one of the task forces looking at red tape, and I think we're going to be successful in dealing with a number of issues. But there are going to be a number of issues that will be difficult to deal with, because there are good reasons why things are the way they are.

Small business creates more jobs in British Columbia than any other sector. Did you know that over 98 percent of B.C.'s businesses are small businesses? Yet starting a new small business is among the riskiest ventures that any entrepreneur can embark upon. We recognize the courage it takes to open a small business, and that's why we're acting to give small business people the support they need.

In conclusion, I think the nature of our budget is beginning to be seen by the people of British Columbia, probably more quickly with regard to this budget than any other budget that we've delivered since I've been here. It's an on-the-ground budget; it's affecting people right now. I want to say to the members opposite that when they see the results of what this budget is going to do for the economy of British Columbia, they'll be sitting over there hanging their heads in shame that they criticized it.

[1515]

R. Thorpe: It's always a pleasure for me to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents in Okanagan-Penticton. But let us look not at what the official opposition is saying first or at what the government is saying about this budget; let us look at what very credible British Columbia institutions are saying about this budget. Let's remove some of the politics.

What did the B.C. Central Credit Union have to say about this budget? "Borrowing money and increasing the debt to cover operating costs is not a viable long-term strategy." They went on to say: "An ever-increasing debt burden is not sustainable." They also said: "Over the long run, an unabated spending-and-debt approach will result in poorer economic performance." That's what the B.C. Credit Central Union had to say about this current budget.

What did the B.C. Business Summit have to say? They said: "Sixty-one percent of British Columbians believe the provincial budget will not improve the B.C. economy." They went on to say: "Fifty-six percent of British Columbians believe the provincial budget will not improve the quality of life in B.C."

[ Page 12026 ]

What did the very professional Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. have to say about this budget? They said: " . . . high debt levels are a deterrent to investment and economic growth . . . . The province's increasing debt will make it very difficult to lower taxes, and make it very difficult to sustain current levels of spending on important services such as health care and education."

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce is saying that this budget is a budget of half measures and token gestures.

The Canadian Bond Rating Service says: "The B.C. economy has underperformed the rest of Canada's provinces in recent years and is not expected to emerge from the relative lag this year or next." We've seen, since the tabling of this budget, two downgradings by reputable bond-rating services in Canada.

The Business Council of British Columbia said: "Future generations of taxpayers -- and future governments -- will be left to pay the price for what amounts to a pattern of reckless fiscal irresponsibility by the current administration."

What did this government's partner in Skeena Cellulose, the TD Bank, have to say? They said, in a very recently issued report dated April 22: "British Columbia is the sole exception to the trend towards fiscal improvement." They go on to say: " . . . British Columbia's fiscal position will deteriorate relative to that of the other provinces, its debt burden will rise markedly, and British Columbia will have little room to cut its high tax burden." That is what the professionals -- not members of the opposition, not members of the government, but the outside world -- that understand these things and the impacts that they will have . . . .

Let us get into, if we could, what was said last year in the budget. There was a promise -- and I'm sure, hon. Speaker, that you remember it as well as I do -- that no matter what, this government would meet its target of a deficit of $95 million. The Minister of Finance said in December: "We will do whatever we have to do to reach those objectives." But now we have the truth. The target was a deficit of $95 million. In the government's own report on the budget, on page 29, you can see that the deficit is $837 million. What is the minister saying for the coming year, the budget year 1999-2000?

The minister says that the deficit will be $890 million, but in fact, the real deficit for the province, shown on page 29 of "Budget Report" -- the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations budget report -- the deficit will be $1.5 billion, or $4.189 million each and every day of the fiscal period.

[1520]

The debt is now projected to stand at $34.7 billion. When this government came to office in 1991, it was $17.262 billion. In a mere eight years, through their irresponsible approach to the province's finances and to our children's and grandchildren's future, they've been able to run it up 101 percent. We'll all remember that in 1995 they brought forward this new and exciting debt management program. That didn't last. They also said in there that they were going to maintain B.C.'s credit rating to be number one in all of Canada. That's not happening now. We're number three and falling.

Of course, they then came out in 1997 with the fiscal management plan -- that's after the debt management plan failed -- and they projected balanced budgets, a balanced operating budget -- what they now attack the opposition for advocating. Of course, the 1997 financial management plan failed too. Then in 1998 they moved to the modified financial management plan, and now, of course, that's failed. Now we're moving into the new five-year fiscal planning framework. It starts to sound like some countries that have failed miserably.

This incompetent government . . . . The end result for hard-working British Columbians is that this government now rings up, on an annual basis, $2.6 billion in interest costs, or, in terms that people like myself can understand, $7,232,000 per day. That's a lot of money. I'll talk a little bit later about what we could do with $7,232,000 in interest each and every day.

This government tries to tell British Columbians: "You know, we've managed this thing as tightly as we possibly can, and there's no waste anywhere." Let us just look at some of the things that this government has done, some of the choices they've made when they've told British Columbians they were on their side: Skeena Cellulose, $450 million; Ferrari fast ferries, $450 million; SkyTrain, $1.5 billion -- or will it be $3 billion? -- and sweetheart deals to their friends for $500 million; the fixed-wage program, $250 million; and of course, the Nisga'a template treaty and the propaganda program of $8 million.

When we look at those numbers, we have a range of between $3 billion and $4.5 billion that that incompetent government decided to go forward on.

Overall, what has this government done with its spending? In 1991 it was at $15 billion. In the year 2000 it's forecast to be at $21 billion, and that is after several hundreds of millions of dollars have been off-loaded from the central consolidated accounts. Just those numbers are up 40 percent. Then they tell unemployed British Columbia families, struggling small business owners and families that are apart that there is no waste in British Columbia, that they're managing the very best that they can. It's just totally unacceptable.

[1525]

Of course, we hear about the great break they've given small business. We've heard the two government speakers today say what a wonderful thing they've done for small business. They reduced taxes from 8.5 percent to 5.5 percent; savings this year are $38 million. What they forget -- I don't think they forget; neglect is probably a better word -- to talk about is the $47 million in new fees and licences that they're imposing on British Columbians, and many of those are on small business operators. But they don't say that in their advertising. They don't tell the whole story.

So the net result to small businesses is that they've once again picked their pockets for an additional $9 million. Yet they say they're on your side. Small business knows.

But the real catcher, which they don't talk about in their misleading advertising, is on page 65 of the budget book. Let us just look -- and let me quote from this -- where it says: "Fees and licences." That's page 65. Perhaps some of the government members would like to follow along. The last paragraph: "Other fee and licence changes will be introduced during the year as ministries continue to examine their fees and services to ensure that users pay a fair share of the direct costs of providing services." Now, why haven't they told British Columbians that? Why is that just hidden quietly on page 65?

Of course, we have the former Minister of Small Business and Tourism here today, and we know what a great job was done under that reign.

Let us just look at the interest cost of $7.232 million each and every day of the year that this government has burdened

[ Page 12027 ]

my children and my grandchildren with. What could we do with $7 million? Well, we could do 3,500 cardiac surgeries right here in Victoria. We could do 1,723 children's surgeries at B.C.'s Children's Hospital in Vancouver, which services all the children of British Columbia. Or we could do 1,158 hip replacements -- with the interest of one day.

In my riding, the riding of Okanagan-Penticton, we've seen wait-lists for hip and joint replacements rise from 14 weeks to over a year for people in my riding who have worked so hard to build British Columbia -- the seniors of this province. We could remove the backlog with one day's interest saving if we had a government that understood how to manage the finances of British Columbia. We could also put in 140 long term care beds with $7 million. In my particular riding we are short 350 long term care beds because of the disproportionate number of seniors there.

Or with $7 million, if they wanted to, we could hire another 105 police officers to stop the crime in the lower mainland -- the home invasions. The list goes on. With just six days of savings of $7 million in interest, we could also remove the backlog in the court system. We could hire 49 Provincial Court judges for one year to help remove the backlog that this government has created in the provincial courts if we just took a sound and competent approach to managing our finances.

But if you talk about professional management, this government is very, very short of that. If you talk about balancing the books, all of a sudden you're a bad person. If you talk about telling the truth in how you account for the fiscal state of our province, all of a sudden you're a bad person. That's the scare tactic of the government.

[1530]

Of course, then they go to the lowest level of all, and they scare the most vulnerable people in our society: those that need health care. Anyone with half a brain would know that the only way you can have solid, growing, protective long-term health care is with fiscal soundness, with long-term vision and management. But they want to scare people by saying that fiscal responsibility somehow is going to rob people of health care. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially when I look at my own case, knowing that I almost didn't make it and had serious surgery.

I know the value of solid health care in the province of British Columbia, and I am going to do whatever I have to do to make sure it's protected and there for those who need it.

Let us take some examples. Let us take the example of a constituent of mine, Lily Preston, a 95-year-old lady who was born and raised in Penticton, who worked all her life in Penticton and helped build that community. Now she needs long-term care, but her family cannot find it in Penticton. Now she's 40 minutes down the road, in Oliver. It is wrong, hon. Speaker, that at 95 years of age, a family has to be apart. Let us look at the Bailey family -- a family that reluctantly called me and talked to me about the passing of their father, and father-in-law, because of the growing wait-lists at Vancouver hospitals.

We in the interior depend on those hospitals for heart surgery. But because of growing wait-lists, this gentleman was not able to receive his surgery. Unfortunately, he passed away recently.

As I mentioned earlier, we have long-term problems with hip and joint replacements for the seniors in our community. I have letters on file from the Minister of Health that say that the average should be 14 weeks. Yet when you bring forward information, in a non-partisan way, that shows it's over one year, you're sent away. "You don't understand." The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Health should be working together with the members of this opposition to ensure that British Columbians receive timely health care in their communities when they need it.

Then one of the saddest situations that I've had to work with has to do with a five-year-old, Jeremy Rodrigues. Here is a family, Barbara and Joe, who have worked so hard to look after their son, their autistic child. I've had the privilege to work with them and to admire their courage as they fight the bureaucracy of this government. His government was providing services worth $1,000 a month, but because this family wanted to have their child take Lovass treatment, they have singled out this family. The child is not receiving the assistance he needs.

You know what, hon. Speaker? If the family wants to take the child, Jeremy, and put him in day care, they'll spend $1,600, but the child won't get the care he needs. Now, I ask: does that make sense? Here is a family that wants to work every day with their child. At $1,000 a month, because it's Lovass treatment, the government says: "No. But we'll give you $1,600 a month to go to day care." It makes no sense.

This government says they care about families and children; this government says it cares about fiscal responsibility. I'm sorry. It doesn't work. When you start talking to individuals and families, they tell you what's really happening when you deal with this government. But you know what? The Rodrigueses and myself are going to continue to pursue the care of Jeremy no matter what, and one day we will win.

The NDP government says that the 1999 budget is about fundamental choices. If that is it, why can't they tell British Columbians the whole story in a truthful manner? Why can't they stop with the politics? Why can't they stop the half-truths? Why can't they tell the truth in their advertising? If anyone else advertised the way they do in British Columbia, they'd have them in court.

[1535]

Well, let us look at the real choices this government has made in the 1999 budget. The Minister of Finance says it's about improving health care and improving education. Well, then why will 44 percent of the increase of $3.1 billion in debt go to offset operating costs? They say it's about health care and education. Then why does only 16 percent of the $3.1 billion run up in deficit pertain to education and health care? They say it's about choices. They're borrowing to build new schools and hospitals.

But the truth is that this government is borrowing almost twice as much to fund their politically expedient SkyTrain and B.C. Transportation Financing Authority than it is to build schools and hospitals. We know where their priorities are. It's with their friends; it's not with the students and patients of British Columbia. That's where it is.

Then, of course, they talk. We heard the very strong socialistic views of the member for Saanich South when he talked about taxes. I just want to take a second here and really talk about taxes. I didn't do these calculations; I had a world-renowned professional accounting firm -- by the way, one that's done a lot of work for the government, I think. Let's see what they're saying about what really happens in British Columbia.

Now, let's see. If you happen to be single and make $30,000 a year, what happens in British Columbia? You pay

[ Page 12028 ]

less taxes in Saskatchewan. Oh, you pay less taxes in Manitoba. Oh, you pay less taxes in Quebec; you pay less taxes in New Brunswick; you pay less taxes in Nova Scotia; you pay less taxes in P.E.I.; you pay less taxes in Newfoundland. But remember: they're on your side. No, they're not. They're on their own side.

What happens if it's a married couple making $30,000? Let's . . . .

An Hon. Member: How much is the federal subsidy to those provinces?

R. Thorpe: Let's listen. These are the people that you so proudly stand up and say you look after. Let's just show them how well you look after them. Oh, they pay less in Saskatchewan. Oh, they pay less in Manitoba. Oops, they pay less in New Brunswick. Oops, they pay less in Nova Scotia -- less in P.E.I., less in Newfoundland. I guess you're not telling British Columbians the whole story. You're just not telling people the facts. So, ladies and gentlemen, please do not be fooled -- and we know they're not being fooled any longer -- by the untruths and the NDP propaganda. But you know what, hon. Speaker?

There is hope -- and it's not the community just before you come into the interior. There is hope for British Columbia.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: The member for Saanich South said: "Tell us what you'd do." Well, I am going to tell the people what our government will do. First of all, we will restore a professional, non-partisan civil service. Secondly, we will pass truth . . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Listen. This may be a hard word for you to understand, but listen. We will pass truth-in-budgeting legislation. And then we're going to pass balanced-budget legislation. Then . . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Listen! Listen over there; listen up. We are going to cut the basic personal income tax rate to be the lowest in Canada. Did you get that? The lowest in Canada. And because we're going to have a professional civil service and members who have actually signed the front of the cheques instead of just the back of cheques, we are going to be able to protect and improve health care and education, because we are going to focus in on the patient and the student. That's what we're going to do.

Of course, as my good friend from Rossland-Trail said -- and I agree with him -- he wants us to enact fair and balanced labour laws, especially for that small business sector that's going to grow. I agree with him. We are going to cut the red tape by at least one-third in our first term of office. Of course, we've never heard from the government what they define as red tape, what their goal is and when they're going to do it. Maybe on May 17, after the last meeting of their red-tape committee, we'll see. But I think they're also supposed to be bringing forward legislation. We haven't seen that yet, though.

We are going to protect private property rights and increase access to Crown land and resources. We're going to fight for B.C.'s fair share of federal tax contributions, and we are going to continue to work on behalf of the people of British Columbia to ensure that we negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements.

[1540]

That's what we are going to do on this side, and we're not going to be flipping and flopping all over the place. We're not going to be saying one thing in a book and another thing in the House. We have our principles, we have our vision, and we have our plan. And we're going to do it.

But you know what, hon. Speaker? It really is best said by constituents, because that's who we're here to represent. Let me take a moment to quote a constituent I've never had the opportunity to meet. She phoned our office and left a message on our tape machine, and my staff talked to her afterwards -- Marie Baller. I'd just like to quote this. She was watching the legislative channel, and she said: "The reason I am doing this is to ingrain into my brain never to put that incompetent, asinine government back in again, and I don't think I'm the only one. I've seen nothing but lies and deceptions, and nothing seems to get done except spending . . . . " And that is from my constituent . . . .

The Speaker: Member, I must interrupt. The remarks you made, whether quoted or stated straight out, are not appropriate in this House -- whether you quote them from somebody else or say them directly. The two particular words are inappropriate. It's unparliamentary language. We'll just have you withdraw them.

Some Hon. Members: Apologize!

The Speaker: Just withdraw them. We appreciate your correspondent's comments.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I do appreciate your guidance, and on behalf of my constituent, I'll withdraw them for the parliamentary process.

The Speaker: Fine. Thank you.

R. Thorpe: But I'm sure the message of a constituent . . . . Now, I know you don't talk to your constituents, so it's fine. Just sit there and relax. But you know what?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask that the member for -- where's that member from? -- Cowichan-Ladysmith to withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I didn't hear a particular comment made. The member was not . . . . You, as the member, have the floor. I'm afraid I didn't hear the comment, but I would encourage all members to be very cautious about what remarks are made in this House.

Proceed, member.

R. Thorpe: Yes, hon. Speaker. Thank you very much.

You know what? Why does this government have to act the way it does? Why does it have to take cheap shots? Why

[ Page 12029 ]

does it have to mislead British Columbians? Why do they have to do the things they do? It's because they are, quite frankly, incompetent -- that is it.

It's really simple. I see that some of them over there have pencil and paper, and I would like them to just take a few notes, because it's really simple. We must have a competitive taxation regime, and we must have a business climate which is very friendly and brings investment into British Columbia, because by investment we will create jobs -- as my good friend from Kamloops-North Thompson said when he talked about Highland Valley Copper.

When we have people working, we have strong families, and when we have strong families working hard together and paying fair taxation, we have a growing economy, a strong health care system and a strong education system. I guess it's just that this incompetent NDP government doesn't even understand those simple steps.

This budget is going to cause real harm to British Columbia families. It's going to hurt health care and education. So on behalf of my constituents in Okanagan-Penticton -- the folks from Naramata, Summerland, Peachland and Penticton -- I will not vote for this irresponsible approach to a budget that drives deficits to over $1.5 billion and takes debt to $34.7 billion and has British Columbians paying interest costs of $7,232,000 each and every day. It's fundamentally wrong, and I will be proud to stand in this House and vote against this irresponsible budget.

[1545]

B. Penner: Before I begin my remarks aimed at Budget 1999, I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton for his insightful remarks. I've been helped immeasurably in my analysis of the budget by his remarks.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We heard the member for Okanagan-Penticton summarize, at the end, what the big headline numbers are in Budget '99. Just to put things in context, this single budget will increase B.C.'s total debt by $3.2 billion in just one year, bringing our total provincial debt to $34.7 billion. That means that by the end of this fiscal year, British Columbia's total provincial debt will have increased by more than 100 percent since the NDP took office -- a shocking record of economic mismanagement if ever there was one.

But the story gets worse. Under this budget, total interest paid in this fiscal year just to service the debt -- not to pay it down; not to reduce or make any headway against the debt, but just to pay the interest costs -- will exceed $2.6 billion. That's $7 million a day every day -- every day on your weekend, every day that you're on a holiday and every day that you might be out hiking, working or visiting your families outside of the province. Every single day, $7 million will go up in smoke, on interest on our debt. That is the definition of irresponsibility and mismanagement.

I agree with the approach taken by my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton when he said that he wanted to step back a little bit from the political debate and look at what independent commentators have to say about Budget '99. But before I do that, I think a touchstone is the following comment, and this is where I begin my approach to the budget: "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich." That's Abraham Lincoln. Over 100 years ago, that's what he had to say.

But that's a message that simply has not been learned by the members of the NDP, as they continue to drive our province into record levels of new debt, wasting untold millions of dollars on interest on the debt. That's not thrift.

Extra regulations and restrictive labour practices are pulling down the wage payer and thereby hurting the wage earner in British Columbia. That is why in 1998 we saw more than 16,000 British Columbians vote with their feet, as they left British Columbia for Alberta; another couple of thousand left British Columbia for Ontario. I was born in British Columbia. I can't imagine what it would mean to me to have to get up and leave my province -- the place of my birth, where my family was born, where my family grew up -- and go to some other province in order to look after ourselves financially and economically.

It's a disgrace that it's come to that point in British Columbia, where people that were born and raised in our province have to leave for other parts of the country to look after their own families and to fend for themselves. It's even worse that they have to go to Ontario -- no disrespect meant to that fine province.

In beginning my appraisal of independent reviews of the budget of 1999, I refer to a March 31, 1999, editorial of that much-respected journal, the Vancouver Province newspaper. The headline says it all: "NDP Not Cracked Up to Running a Peanut Stand." Let me quote at some length, hon. Speaker, from this editorial:

"The late W.A.C. Bennett often said the NDP couldn't run a peanut stand. The cagey former Socred Premier knew the socialists were long on ideology but short -- oh so short -- on business savvy. His words proved true today in the House . . . . [The Premier's] business experience? Zilch. Most of his ministers have never had to meet a payroll, which is why we've been stuck with an $890 million deficit and a total debt of $34.7 billion -- $8,582 for every B.C. citizen."

Interjections.

B. Penner: Some members opposite are asking whether I ever had to meet a payroll. Well, I did work in private practice as a lawyer. I was responsible for making sure that my secretary got paid, that the receptionist got paid, that the bills got paid, that my clients were looked after and that I had some money to pay my student loans back -- something I'll talk about a bit later. I suspect that very few members on that side of the House have ever been responsible for generating revenue on their own to pay the people that depend on paycheques week in and week out.

[1550]

Carrying on with the editorial from the Vancouver Province :

"The flagrant waste built into the fast ferry project is proof enough that the party is brain-dead when it comes to business . . . . The NDP has alienated investors. Business revenue and confidence have never been so low, business taxes never so high. Lacking a strong economy, they've had to borrow to feed our growing social health, justice and education systems. A peanut stand . . . ? They can't even figure out what side their bread is buttered on," concludes the editorial.

Another independent review, this one from the Vancouver Sun , is dated March 31, 1999. The headline is "Credit Card Budget Strains Credulity." I'm quoting from the second paragraph: "First, the deficit and the debt are growing at an

[ Page 12030 ]

amazing rate." Referring to the Finance minister, it says: "She is going in the wrong direction. She is also understating the true deficit, which, when the red ink from Crown corporations and government agencies is added to those figures, amounts to $1.2 billion for the year just ending and $1.5 billion for the coming year." Further, they draw an analogy. They say it's like a worker who buys a new car in the belief that a pay raise is in the offing. This is in response to the Finance minister's comment that by spending more than they're taking in, they hope to improve their financial position.

They also say: "Last year [the Finance minister's] debt management plan included keeping the ratio of taxpayer-supported debt to gross domestic product in a range of 19 to 22 percent. With the debt now bumping against the high end, she has revised her plan. The range will now run from 22 to 27 percent. Her lines in the sand are washed out with every tide."

The Globe and Mail , in an editorial on March 31, 1999, by Jeffrey Simpson, looking at provincial finances across the country, makes the following observation under the heading "Waste Deep in the Big Muddy":

"Canadian governments incurred massive deficits from 1973 until recently, and the accumulated per-capita debt was much higher in Canada than in the United States. The servicing of the debt siphoned out of the economy billions of dollars each year, money that was not available for other purposes. The debt acted as a drag on investment in Canada, and the rising tax levels required to finance the books also drained energy from the economy. Governments -- except for [the NDP] in British Columbia, which blithely produced an eye-popping projection yesterday -- have learned the fateful consequences of reckless fiscal policies and have cleaned up their books."

More recently we have the report dated April 22, 1999, from the Toronto-Dominion Bank drawing a comparison of provincial budgets across the country. I'll quote some excerpts for your benefit here, hon. Speaker:

"Budget deficits appear to be in the cards this year only for Newfoundland, Ontario and British Columbia . . . . Although the Ontario government is in a position to move into the black this year for the first time in a decade, it will likely adhere to its previously stated goal of a balanced budget in fiscal 2000-01. Instead, the Ontario government will provide substantial tax cuts -- most likely to personal income tax rates and possibly the retail sales tax rate -- as well as additional funding for health care in its upcoming budget.

"British Columbia is the sole exception to the trend towards fiscal improvement. After announcing a missed budget target and a sharp increase in its deficit for the past fiscal year, the B.C. government is projecting an even larger deficit for this year . . . . "

Further on in this same report a comparison is made with our neighbour to the east. Although Alberta has retained the honour of having the lowest personal tax burden among the provinces over the past decade, the Ontario government has been narrowing the gap in recent years. In contrast, personal income tax burdens in British Columbia and Newfoundland have climbed since 1989, with the B.C. government now levying the highest top marginal tax rate among the provinces.

On the next page it says that an important consideration in assessing fiscal prospects is not only the current position but the likely changes in position based on the government's current policies. That is clearly a shot across the bow of the NDP mismanagement in British Columbia.

[1555]

As for the province itself, here are the prospects as described by the Toronto-Dominion Bank as of April 22, 1999:

"In its 1999 budget, the government of British Columbia opted to boost spending and to post significant budget deficits over the next few years in an effort to stimulate its ailing economy. As a result, British Columbia's fiscal position will deteriorate relative to that of the other provinces, its debt burden will rise markedly, and British Columbia will have little room to cut its high tax burden. Following the release of this year's budget, the province's bond rating was lowered by two credit rating agencies" end of report.

I remember what it was like going to university and trying to make ends meet. I was fortunate that in my undergraduate studies, I was able to hold part-time jobs and be a resident assistant in the dormitory so that I did not have to incur student loans. However, when I went to law school, I found I wasn't quite as able to hold down a part-time job, and I did rely on getting a loan from the student loan agency. I was grateful for the money, and I spent it on tuition, books and food. But I knew that the money would have to be paid back.

That's why I borrowed as little as possible and started making extra payments as soon as I got a job, back in my hometown of Chilliwack. Instead of paying interest to the bank, I thought it would be better to use that money for other things. And I still think that. There are times when you need to go into debt, but if you do so, you need a plan to pay it back. You can't just keep borrowing more and more.

We all know this, hon. Speaker, but it's not how the NDP has managed our provincial finances. For the eighth consecutive year this government will fail to balance the budget. In the past, NDP Finance ministers have promised to start paying back the money in future years, but they never did, and now they've even stopped talking about it at all. As a result, taxpayer-supported debt has grown by 166 percent since the NDP took office. Their latest budget, as I've already indicated, takes our total debt to almost $35 billion.

This waste of money on interest is good news for banks. Interest payments on the debt this year will be $2.6 billion. That's $7 million a day. Not a single penny is going to actually paying down the debt. In contrast, Alberta has reduced its debt by $8.3 billion and is saving $650 million in interest each and every year. Do they have a government that doesn't care about people? I don't know, but they are now increasing health care spending by $935 million over the next three years.

And even NDP Saskatchewan has reduced debt by $3.4 billion, freeing up more money for health care while cutting taxes, including personal income taxes and the provincial sales tax -- by one percentage point this year. Here in B.C. our children will be paying the price for this government's reckless use of its credit card long after the Premier has collected his million-dollar pension.

People in Chilliwack ask me why it is so difficult for this government to understand a very simple message: in order to start getting out of a hole, you have to stop digging it deeper. This government knows only one thing: it keeps digging the hole deeper. And this year they've increased the rate at which they're digging the hole.

Turning to the budget in more detail, let's start by looking at what's in it. There's an increase in spending of $509 million over last year's budget, from $20.5 billion to $21 billion. There's an additional hiring of 116 bureaucrats for the provincial public service. There's a 41 percent cut in funding for municipal governments, including $98 million in grant cuts. That $7 million a day that we spend to service the debt would almost make up for the total amount of grant cuts incurred by the district of Chilliwack over the past five years of NDP off-loading. That's a very practical example of what could be done if we weren't wasting that money on interest payments.

[ Page 12031 ]

There's a 33 percent increase in capital spending, to $2 billion, in this budget and another $57 million projected in gambling revenues and $242 million from the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

[1600]

But there are some significant things missing from this budget. There is no economic growth. In fact, this budget shows that there was a half a percentage point drop in GDP in 1998, compared to last year's budget forecast of almost 1 percent growth in GDP. This budget predicts zero percent economic growth in 1999, compared to last year's budget forecast for this year of 1.7 percent growth. As I indicated, the true deficit for this coming year is projected at $1.5 billion, up from last year's projected $95 million -- which of course came in at six times higher than that.

Let's hope that the NDP isn't that far off the mark this year, because if they are, then we're looking at a $6 billion deficit, applying the same figures.

There are plenty of ways to cut without hurting people that rely on important services like health care and education. Of the province's total annual interest tab, $900 million is due to the debt incurred just by the NDP. The NDP's extra annual interest costs are equal to more than the combined budget for ten of 20 ministries in government -- or almost the total amount raised through Medical Services Plan premiums or about half of all spending on Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

Total government spending has increased faster than the growth rate of B.C.'s economy. B.C. experienced the steepest rise in per-capita spending among all provinces from '92 to '97. By the end of 1999-2000, consolidated revenue fund spending will have increased by 40 percent to $21.045 billion. On top of the debt interest payments, the NDP has, of course, wasted billions of tax dollars on patronage appointments, propaganda campaigns, needless regulation and red tape and bureaucratic bloat.

Examples of waste include -- if any are needed -- more than $300 million on the Skeena Cellulose buyout; $250 million on the Ferrari fast ferry cost overruns; $1.5 billion in extra costs for rapid transit, for SkyTrain; $250 million on the fixed-wage policy; $8 million on the Nisga'a treaty propaganda campaign; and $500 million in sweetheart deals for NDP friends. And that's just for starters.

The member for Saanich South said: "What would the opposition do in government? What is the positive plan put forward by the B.C. Liberal Opposition?" I'm pleased to say that we have one, and I take that challenge seriously. I think it is the obligation of the opposition to show another way -- a better way, frankly. We've heard the member for Okanagan-Penticton recite the list, and I'll start with a quick dissertation of those points as well.

First of all, we need to restore a professional, non-partisan civil service. To do that, we will pass merit employment legislation to establish the highest-quality public service based on competency, not political promotion. We'll pass truth-in-budgeting legislation. We must have open and honest accounting practices. Government must not hide the real deficit or debt from the public. It's the people's money, and they should know exactly what the government is doing with it.

Remember the Morfitt report, released about a month ago, showing this government in utter disgrace and with contempt for the people of British Columbia as they deceived the public during the last election about the true state of our finances? That report was a litany of ongoing attempts by this government to mislead, deceive and cover up, and the voters of British Columbia will get their say.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, point of order.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources rises on a point of order.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member opposite is making claims that in fact don't exist. He's making claims about things said in the auditor's report that simply weren't said, and I would ask him to stick to the facts.

B. Penner: I thank the member for her spurious point of order.

The truth is there to be seen in George Morfitt's auditor general report that was two years in the making. Need I point out that there is a court case that will be proceeding in July? Disgruntled British Columbians are taking this government to court, citing them for electoral fraud by deceiving British Columbians about the true state of provincial finances. It was only a few weeks after the last election that the government had to admit that its much-vaunted balanced budget was in fact hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole -- facts that the government ought to have known, given the briefing notes that were provided by Brenda Eaton and others in the Ministry of Finance.

[1605]

Next on the list of positive reforms that I support and that the B.C. Liberal Party supports are things like balanced-budget legislation. That kind of legislation already exists in other parts of Canada, and there's no reason why we shouldn't have it here. We must create more value for every tax dollar spent. Individuals, households and businesses balance their budgets, and we should expect the provincial government to do the same. We need to outlaw deficit spending to ensure that the government lives within its means.

If we had that legislation in effect -- the one we've already tabled in this House and that the government has failed to act on -- the Premier himself would have lost $18,000 out of his paycheque for not balancing the budget, which he promised during the 1996 election campaign. That would encourage real accountability and real discipline on the part of those who control the purse strings in this province.

We need to cut the basic personal income rate to the lowest in Canada. Heavy taxation discourages investment and hampers job creation. It's interesting that this government will claim credit for those industries that are doing better after they've given them a tax break. Well, the same principle applies across the board: and every British Columbian deserves to have more in their pocket and not less. As the Leader of the Opposition often points out, money doesn't disappear just because you leave it in someone's pocket.

I think it's far more powerful for individuals to have that money to spend to look after their families, their children and their wives than it is for the government to have it, because there's always a certain percentage that gets wasted on administrative overhead.

We need to protect and improve health care and education services by devoting more of each tax dollar to patient care and excellence in education. We need fairer and balanced labour laws. We need to cut the regulatory burden by at least

[ Page 12032 ]

one-third, and we will do that within our first term of office. We need to protect private property rights and increase access to Crown lands and resources.

I firmly believe there should be no more government expropriation without compensation. In the Fraser Valley in the past year, many farmers have been told that they will no longer be able to use strips of land as much as 15 metres in width next to waterways, ditches and drainage canals. That has traditionally been part of their farmland, land that they were able to generate income from. The provincial government is coming along and saying: "You can't do it." Well, if the province wants to make that decision, then they should compensate the private land holders for expropriating that land for public use.

If that's what the government wants to do, then they have to compensate the private individuals who are being hurt in an effort to benefit the greater whole. That only makes sound public policy.

We need to fight for B.C.'s fair share of federal tax contributions. The government must fight for a fair equalization program that returns to B.C. its rightful share of tax dollars. I know the statistics over the last ten years, and clearly B.C. doesn't get back the same amount of money that we contribute to the federation.

Finally, we need to negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements, and we need to do that with the cooperation and consultation of all British Columbians, not by shutting them out of the process. Last week my constituency office had 96 phone calls about this government's move to invoke closure. I kept track of every single person who contacted me, and I phoned them. Four people supported the government's position, and 92 people were opposed to this government terminating debate in the Legislature before the treaty had been fully discussed and debated in this House.

Hon. Speaker, I know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is next in the speaking order. I'm also mindful of the fact that he is coming to Chilliwack -- on April 30, I believe. So I share that information with him to give him a heads-up. The people in Chilliwack were not pleased that this government shut down the Legislature for two months and then said that we couldn't afford two more weeks to complete full debate on the Nisga'a treaty. People in British Columbia deserve to have input.

If they can't have a direct say in a referendum, this government offered the hope of at least a free and complete debate in the Legislature. Now even that was taken away from the people of British Columbia.

[1610]

Before the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast takes his place in the Legislature to address the budget, I'd like to remind him of what he used to say about the NDP's policies of driving up the debt when he was on this side of the House, in the opposition. I have in my hands a press release from the now defunct Progressive Democratic Alliance, the party he founded. This press release is dated March 30, 1998, and the dateline is Victoria. It begins as follows:

"Progressive Democratic Alliance leader . . . " -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast --"today slammed the New Democratic government for continuing to add to the provincial debt and for failing to take control of the province's revenues.

" 'This budget increases both our borrowing and our debt . . . . The tax cuts it announces are welcome, but this tax relief is only achieved through more borrowing . . . which taxpayers are on the hook to repay.'

"Over the last six years of NDP governance, provincial debt has risen from $18 billion to $31.2 billion. He stressed the importance that the province stop adding to this sum and begin to pay down the debt. 'The government has taken some action to attempt to stimulate the economy, but their initiatives will not work if the province is encumbered with increasing debt.' "

I agree with what the member had to say when he was on this side of the House. Unfortunately, in about three months he's suffered an incredible case of amnesia and seems to have forgotten everything that he stood for when he was in the opposition. He used to rail about the problems of debt and interest costs imposed on our children and future generations. He used to stress the importance of parliament and free discourse in this Legislative Assembly and say how integral it was to our democratic system that this place be given some respect and that we be allowed to carry on with democratic debate.

Instead, last week I watched in horror as he stood up and said: "Enough talk; enough discussion." He moved closure, and the government that he's now a part of supported a move that has never been done in British Columbia in all of its history of 127 years -- that is, preventing individual MLAs, the kind of people he used to say were important, from voting on each and every

section of the bill.

That's not acceptable. People in British Columbia expect you to have some consistency in your comments, your beliefs and your principles -- if you have any. Looking through Hansard , I came across some more comments from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast last year -- perhaps appropriately enough, dated April Fools' Day, 1998. This is what he says:

"We should cap the government's legal authority to borrow money and therefore to 'indebt' British Columbians on a proscribed ratio of debt to GDP. We also believe that in any given year we should cap the ability of the government to borrow based upon what the GDP expectations are going to be and upon revenue expectations. That's not unlike, in lay terms, a credit-lending agency -- whether it's a bank, credit card company, whomever it may be -- saying: 'We have looked at what your potential earnings are. We have looked at what we believe is your potential capacity to pay . . . . Therefore we believe that your capacity to pay back debt should be limited to this margin.' "

The NDP has introduced five -- count them -- different debt management plans, every single one of which has been an absolute failure. They haven't met one projected target. They've abandoned them year after year and come up with different names. I think this year it's called a five-year economic management plan, but it's meaningless. They don't live by their own plans. The result is that provincial debt is way up, interest costs are way up, and our children are burdened with more and more debt -- it's more than $8,500 for every man, woman and child living in British Columbia.

We know that's going to be a drag on the future of our economy here in British Columbia. There are some positive things in the budget, but there aren't enough of them. There simply are not enough positive things in this budget for me to be able to support it.

Lastly, before I conclude, I want to talk about some government waste that's evident in my riding in Chilliwack. That has to do with the former CFB Chilliwack -- closed now for several years and sitting essentially idle. At the heart of that former base is a virtually brand-new engineering school. It cost Canadian taxpayers $13 million. It collects cobwebs and weeds today. I was recently in that building, and there's nothing happening. In fact, it's deteriorating. I call on the

[ Page 12033 ]

provincial government to help me get the attention of the federal government in addressing that.

I've been to Ottawa at my own expense -- paid for with my own dollars -- and the response I got from the Minister of National Defence, from the Minister of Transportation and from the Minister of Fisheries, who has a seat in Victoria, was: "It's all well and good for an opposition member to be here, but where's your government? Where are your ministers? We're not hearing from your provincial government on what their vision is for CFB Chilliwack."

[1615]

I suspect that if CFB Chilliwack was actually in an NDP-held riding, such as Royal Roads was, something would have happened. There would have been some action. With that, I'll conclude, and I look forward to hearing the member's comments.

Hon. G. Wilson: I am pleased to rise in this budget debate today and to contribute some thoughts and some ideas around this budget and how this budget may in fact play out over the coming year for British Columbians.

I was struck, in listening to the debate so far, by how interesting it is to look at the juxtaposition between those who believe that you invest in British Columbians and put British Columbians first -- you put their health care first, you put their education first, and you try to make sure that the economy has an opportunity to succeed, especially within the small business sector -- and those opposite who tend to take a different tack, a different approach. I think, as I've said many times before in this House . . . .

I'm sure that the members opposite, from time to time, might remind me of this, as they tend to, and from time to time will try to have me feast upon my own words -- which, to quote Churchill, I like to think are a "somewhat wholesome diet." Nevertheless, they will, I'm sure, raise the matter that I have said many times before: budgeting is a matter of choice.

How you start to budget, of course, depends upon what you put as your priority. What do you believe are the issues that you need to protect and to maintain your investment in? How are we going to be able to see this economy expand, grow and once again provide opportunity for British Columbians?

It is interesting that the member opposite, for Chilliwack . . . . I appreciate his offer to give me a heads-up, coming into his community. I must say that every time I've visited Chilliwack, I've always been very warmly received and treated very well by the people of Chilliwack. I think they're a very fine group of people, a very fine group of British Columbians. I would expect that they may have differences of opinion on some issues, but I expect that they will treat me as well as they have in the past.

It is interesting that the member for Chilliwack does raise an issue, and that's the matter with respect to debt-to-GDP. What's interesting is that I don't necessarily retract today the comments that I made last year in opposition. Certainly I haven't had a huge change of heart or opinion.

In fact, it would seem to me that if we're going to get into a realistic approach and discussion with respect to budgeting and how the budget proceeds, we should spend a little bit more time talking about debt-to-GDP and a little less time talking about deficit and gross debt figures, because they don't really tell you very much. The fact that you owe money is one issue. But if you owe money as a result of investment in a large number of capital investments that therefore become assets and therefore, as assets, provide you opportunity to expand and grow your economy, it puts a completely different light upon it.

A different perception is seen.

We see that with respect to the kind of debt-to-GDP discussion . . . . It is true, with respect to the difference between the 1998 and the 1999 debt, that we're looking at an increase of roughly 2.6 percent, with respect to the taxpayer debt per GDP. If you measure that against the other provinces -- the provinces that have just been quoted here by the members opposite -- you'll see that British Columbia is doing very well, thank you. In fact, we're doing extremely well. This is still one of the finest provinces in Canada to live in.

This still has one of the greatest opportunities for any Canadian who chooses to come to invest here and to seek to find opportunity. The member for Saanich South, I think, talked about a lot of those investments, particularly with respect to the high-tech sector, and about the advantages that British Columbians are able to gain with respect to that particular sector of the economy.

While it is true that this is a fine place to live and invest, it is true that over the last while we have suffered, I think, a significant downturn in the commodities market. We also have seen the Asian economy and seen the problems associated with the Asian economy greatly reduce revenue flow to the provincial Crown. It causes us some difficulty with respect to managing a provincial economy -- which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 billion, on an annual basis -- if we see revenues declining.

I suppose the choice that you're faced with, then, at this point is to say: "Do we want to recognize a reduction in revenue flow to the Crown of roughly $800 million? Do we want to say that we'll take that $800 million and simply cut expenditures out of government to the tune of $800 million?" Or do we wish to see how we can maintain services in health and education, provide opportunity for small business investment and, on the other side, seek to find ways to rebuild, to restructure and to stimulate the economy, to be able to see a greater amount of economic return back into the province?

It strikes me that what the members opposite are saying is that their choice would have been to simply cut away at the money, to cut the $800 million. In fact, it would have been more than that; it would have been in excess of $1.5 billion.

[1620]

They're not quite sure where they were going to take it from, but they were going to take it out of a bunch of projects that they thought British Columbia could do without. I think some of the ones that they talked about were SkyTrain . . . . Let's not do SkyTrain. Let's have no further construction in ferries. Let's not assist people in the north with respect to the Skeena Cellulose process; let that go down. Let Prince Rupert suffer the closure and the loss of jobs. Those would have been the choices that the members opposite would have made.

They would have said that what they want to do, I think, to balance the budget -- if I understand their choices -- is commence the firing, within the civil service, of anybody they didn't believe to be politically neutral. So there would be an assault on the civil service. Then they tell us that their choice would be to put in place a merit employment system. If you look at private sector merit, hon. Speaker, you'll know that in order to hire the best, you pay the highest value, the highest

[ Page 12034 ]

level. So the merit employment system -- which they would implement -- is, in effect, likely to be more expensive with respect to job hiring, because if you're going to get the top people based on a private sector wage comparison, you're going to have to pay the top price.

Then they would introduce what they call truth-in-budget legislation. That, of course, is not going to save any money. All that's going to be is a different reporting system. So there's no net gain there.

Then they would introduce balanced-budget legislation. Now, balanced-budget legislation, notwithstanding the fact that at their convention a couple of weeks ago, their leader said that it was going to take three years to get to this balanced budget . . . . In the interim, presumably, this balanced-budget legislation isn't going to be there. And they say that within the balanced-budget legislation, they will essentially assign a charge against the ministers of the Crown whose particular line ministry runs over budget.

I think the member for Chilliwack said that that would have cost the Premier personally, out of his own personal bank account -- under their accounting -- some $18,000 this year. I think that was the price he used.

It's hard to imagine how absurd this process of the members opposite sounds to British Columbians. No other jurisdiction in Canada has recognized that you're going to first of all put in balanced-budget legislation and assign a penalty against the minister for cost overruns. It is a nonsensical proposition -- non-sensible.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member opposite says: "Check Ontario." This is the Ontario that I understand is running a $4 billion deficit this year, member. So before you point to Ontario, recognize that a $890 million deficit looks pretty good in comparison to an Ontario deficit of $4 billion. It seems to me that balanced-budget legislation will in fact cause an increase in taxation, or it will cause a serious reduction in expenditure. It can be nothing other than that. Either you're going to cut your spending -- cut it drastically if you have a decline such as we have, of $800 million in revenue -- or you're going to have to increase your taxes. That is the only way you can balance your budget.

So if the members opposite say that they're not going to increase their expenditures -- because it's also their plan to lower spending -- then clearly it means that there are going to be significant cuts in the two major expenditure areas: health care and education. It's the only place that anybody with a rational view of how you budget in British Columbia -- or who understands how budgeting in British Columbia works -- could find it.

On this side it was decided that health care and education would be given priority in expenditures, because we know two things. We know, first of all, that we have an aging population, a population that over the years is going to require an extended amount of health care. Secondly, we know that young people today and those returning to school from the workforce, if they are to succeed, will have to have the very best education possible in order to meet a highly competitive world, a highly competitive marketplace. We need to put in place technological training and trades training programs.

[1625]

It seems to me also that what the members on this side have opted to do in this budget is to make sure that in a time when we have the lowest in terms of our revenue stream, we do not attack the two most important issues facing British Columbia: access to health care and access to sound education. Those are wise investments because we need a healthy population -- people deserve to have good health care, the best health care they can -- and because we need a properly trained, properly educated population, so that when the economy rises, we'll have people well positioned and well trained to be able to take on these jobs.

Does that mean that we have no further challenges ahead of us? Obviously not. Does it mean that we like, enjoy or somehow relish having to table a $890 million deficit? Clearly not. Nobody wants to willingly, knowingly move toward deficit spending if we have the choice. But given the priorities that are taken, clearly the choice does not exist. So what must we do now? Clearly what we must do now is move forward with programs that will provide incentives for people to invest in the economy, to be able to expand the economy and to be able to bring economic growth back to British Columbia. Those programs are underway.

We are already seeing new jobs being created in the north, which was announced today. That's a good thing. We are seeing investments that are coming in high-tech that I think will provide huge opportunities for British Columbians, as the member for Saanich South has already alluded to earlier in this budget debate.

Those who are in resource-dependent communities know that there are programs underway now to try to find ways to diversify the economy and to be able to move investment out into the rural parts of British Columbia -- to the north, to the coast and to the Kootenays -- to make sure that we have an opportunity for those economies to flourish and succeed so that people who live in resource-dependent communities have opportunities to succeed.

There are two sides to the ledgers, members. There are those which are on the expenditure side, and there are those that deal with the revenue side. It is the revenue side to which we must pay our attention now, because it is on that side that we must now start to see increased revenues to the province of British Columbia. It would be interesting for those members and for the public at large who are listening to this budget debate to make some comparisons with respect to which direction, with respect to revenue flow, the members opposite might choose to try and engage in, in assisting the building of this province.

Many people have asked me over the course of the last six to eight weeks why I would have chosen at this time to leave the ranks of the opposition benches and come over to join government. With respect to the current standings in the public opinion polls, some would suggest that that w