Hansard -- Volume 18, Number 9 -- Thursday, March 30, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 9

[ Page 14665 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, you'll know that it's not very often that I get to introduce people in the House that travel all the way from northern British Columbia. In the House today are two ladies from Fort Nelson. They're down here to talk to the Minister for Children and Families about some serious child care issues in my constituency in Fort Nelson. I'd like the House to make Shannon Murphy and Kathy Dolan welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: It's not often I get a chance to introduce people from Victoria, but I have the pleasure today of doing just that. They're taking kind of a trip in their own town -- being tourists in their own town. I'd like to introduce to the House my staff member Barbara Hogan, who's got her friend Trish O'Doherty, who has never been in the House. It's her first time, and I'd like the House to welcome her.

G. Abbott: I've a few introductions to make. In the gallery here today is a friend and former colleague on the Columbia-Shuswap regional district board. It's Rhona Martin, who's the chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district board, and she's here for the Municipal Finance Authority. I'll ask the House to make her welcome.

[1410]

Also in the gallery are ten former participants in the forest worker transition program, who are here, I gather, to meet with Minister of Forests later in the day. They are Shirley and Matt Siren of Black Creek, Bob Cooper of Courtenay, Debby Zigay of Black Creek, Bob Ell of Union Bay, Helen Gamble of Comox, Reg Klugh of Campbell River, Mike Winstone of Victoria, and Avtar Khosa and Munprit Sidhu of Abbotsford. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

T. Nebbeling: In the House, somewhere in the gallery, are two friends of mine, Susie and Geoff Gimse. They are from D'Arcy, and Susie is the chair of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district. I have no doubt she is in pursuit of a minister today to stand up for her communities. I would like the House to make her welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery today are four interns for the government caucus, and I'm pleased to be able to introduce them: Jennifer Vornbrock, Sean LeRoy, Deborah Cooper and Sean Edwards. Government caucus obviously enjoys their work for us, and I'm sure they're learning a lot, as they're teaching us a lot. Could the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I see in the gallery today Mayor Jack Talstra from the great city of Terrace, and I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. J. Doyle: I'd also like to join with the hon. member across the floor in welcoming Rhona Martin, the chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. Also from my constituency of Columbia River-Revelstoke are two guests and friends today: Ellen Zimmerman from Parson and John Bergenske from Skookumchuck. Welcome.

K. Whittred: In the gallery today are 100 grade 10 students -- here, I'm sure, to study part of their Canadian history curriculum. They are from St. Thomas Aquinas School, along with their teacher Mr. Grenier. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: Hon. Speaker, I wasn't sure he could see you down here. I'd like to introduce a person who is no stranger to these precincts, a man by the name of Mr. John Les. Since 1987 until November of last year he was the mayor of Chilliwack. But he's not done with politics yet, because on Tuesday night he won the B.C. Liberal nomination for the new riding of Chilliwack-Sumas. What that means is that as soon as the government gets around to calling an election, we'll see a lot more of John right here.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: This morning I had the opportunity to introduce my father John Bowbrick and his spouse Alinda Ware, who are with us in the gallery again with Alinda's sister, Elva, from Victoria and Bob Norrington from Sydney, Australia. Will all members join me in making them welcome.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I have in the galleries two very active members in my community of Burnaby-Willingdon. I would ask the House to make welcome Lorraine Shore and Brian Pound.

Oral Questions

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF LABOUR DISPUTE ON FAMILIES

G. Campbell: Yesterday the government admitted that it's saving $7 million a day as a result of the strike that is shutting our children out of their schools. That's $28 million that the government has already pocketed, in spite of the fact that they're depriving our children of their education. By tomorrow that windfall will be $35 million.

My question is to the Premier: will the Premier undertake today that the government will not take any of those dollars but indeed will reimburse those costs to parents of elementary school children, who have suffered the costs of this government's inaction?

Hon. P. Ramsey: When disruption of public service occurs in colleges or universities or schools in this province, the authorities responsible for them are charged to return saved money to the Crown to general revenue, and that's what will occur in this case.

[1415]

The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

G. Campbell: My question is to the Premier. Working parents of elementary school children have suffered substantial additional costs. Their paycheques have been shrunk by this government's inaction. Only because this government will not declare education as an essential service are people having to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are losing their money while their children are losing their education. Will the Premier not do the right thing and tell those parents of elementary school children that they will at least have some of those costs partially offset by the $35 million that the government intends to pocket as a result of this inaction?

[ Page 14666 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Our goal in the next three days is to get an agreement between the school trustees of the province and the workers represented by CUPE, so that our schools are open and there is no further loss of school time in our province. We are seeking to balance the need to make sure that people have the ability to bargain collectively and the importance of education. That is the balance that we are striking here. We will work hard toward that goal, and frankly, that is the goal we should all be working for.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

G. Campbell: This is an opportunity for the Premier to show some leadership. Parents of elementary school children have been charged hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of his government's inaction. But it's not just those parents that are going to pay the price of this strike. Taxpayers may be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a special sitting of the Legislature to do something which we could do today -- which we should do today. Will the Premier not do the right thing: end the strike today, put our children back in class and save the taxpayers any additional expenditures?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'm actually astonished at the contradiction in the positions that the opposition takes. When we try and do a universal child care program for the people of British Columbia, the opposition goes on the hustings across the province and says it is not a good thing -- that we should not be doing it. And when we have in British Columbia an IIC process that is trying to have a settlement brought forth on Saturday -- have the issues resolved so that children's and families' lives could be certain once again by Monday -- we have the opposition leader standing up crying crocodile tears.

LABOUR DISPUTE NEGOTIATIONS AND INTERIM ACCORD AGREEMENT

M. de Jong: Here's what we know. Yesterday we learned about a secret deal that the government struck to pay CUPE a half-million dollars for so-called negotiation costs. The Finance minister says: "Well, that deal is dead -- kind of." CUPE says something far different. They expect to get that money. You know what, Mr. Speaker? I think the NDP wants to give them that money. I think they want to give them that money.

My question for the Premier is: how can he defend the government agreeing to use taxpayers' money to subsidize CUPE for negotiating contracts? And will he, the Premier, assure taxpayers today that his government will refuse to include a similar provision in any subsequent settlement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think it's well to review for this House what this so-called secret deal actually is. This is an interim accord. It's reached between parties and signed by representatives of the school trustees, representatives of CUPE and representatives of government. It is an agreement that sought to make sure that schools stayed open and that agreement could be reached on issues of major significance to all parties.

The clause that the member refers to says simply: "To assist in the costs of development of new models for regional and provincial negotiations, which all parties agree are in the public interest, the government will partially reimburse CUPE's actual costs and BCPSEA's actual costs." That's what this says; that's what this agreement says. We will look at anything we can to get schools open, including issues of importance to both parties.

[1420]

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, I'll take that as a no. That response will hardly be comforting for the parents who are having to dig into their pockets to pay child care expenses caused by this government and this Premier's inaction. That's deplorable. They want an absolute assurance from the Premier that he will not, and his government will not, authorize a settlement that funnels their tax dollars in this way to a union that the NDP relies upon for thousands upon thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. It's his job to give them that assurance today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, the member opposite misleads the House as to what this agreement actually is -- misleads the House. There has been no money paid to BCPSEA. There has been no money paid to CUPE under the terms of this interim accord. I am distressed that the members opposite would not see that the items in this accord are matters of importance to the parties that care about our children and schools, CUPE and the trustees that are negotiating hard to reach a deal by Saturday. I understand that maybe the opposition doesn't think pay equity is important, but all parties to this agreement do.

I understand that they might not think improvement of benefits for workers and savings of benefit plans are important, but the trustees do, CUPE does and this government does. We will negotiate on items and work with the parties to get a deal on matters which are important to them and can help us reach an agreement and get schools open by Monday.

G. Plant: A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy, and that's what that deal is -- nothing more and nothing less. And it's a pretty darn good investment -- $62,000 in campaign funds and a half-million-dollar return. Why, CUPE may get listed on NASDAQ next week, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier talks about openness and accountability. Well, yesterday we learned about the half-million-dollar deal with CUPE, but we didn't learn about that from the government. Today we learn about another one of these so-called accords, in which we learn that CUPE workers -- university workers this time -- will be paid millions more in a benefit package way outside the zero-zero-and-2 guidelines. We didn't learn about that deal from the government either. When will the Premier stand up, get off his hands, stop his dithering and table each and every one of these accords right now?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I might point out to the member that since this interim accord is signed by BCPSEA, CUPE and the government, every school district in the province and every CUPE local in the province has a copy of this. Secret? Far from it -- well known within the system that this was underway. We have committed to tabling the costs of all collective agreements and all accords in this House, and we will do so. You will see the facts of what has been negotiated.

I am concerned, however, that the members opposite do not see some of the objects of these accords as important to both employers and employees in the public sector.

[ Page 14667 ]

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Are you not supportive of pay equity? Do you not believe that we should offer low-wage redress?

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Don't you think that saving money on benefit plans and distributing those might be useful? We do, and we'll negotiate with parties to make those deals happen.

[1425]

G. Plant: Well, here's an interesting development. I've got a news report here from the Premier commenting on this CUPE deal, in which he says that the deal looks bad. And now we have the Minister of Finance standing up in the House and apparently defending it. Which way are we going on this? Which is it? Is it a good deal? Is it a bad deal? More importantly, when will the people of British Columbia get to see every single one of the deals? And I know where they're found. They're found in the Premier's filing cabinet. The filing cabinet has a label on it: "Things I never wanted to know when I was the Attorney General." Let's fix that problem: table them now.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, over the last two years we have worked very hard with public sector workers in tough financial circumstances to achieve collective agreements with a limited ability to raise wages of zero-zero-and-2. We also sought to work with workers' representatives and employers to address other issues that would improve the workplace and help reach agreements.

I'm sorry that they don't feel that is an appropriate way to do so; we on this side of the House do. We think issues of pay equity are matters that can be addressed. We think improving benefits for workers should be addressed. We think issues to gain-share savings in the public sector are something we should encourage. That's the basis on which we negotiate; that's the basis on which we will continue to do so.

FOREST WORKERS AND FEDERAL BACK TAXES

G. Abbott: The NDP continues to refuse to accept its responsibility to more than 6,000 forest workers who are knowingly misled by Forest Renewal B.C. Today in the gallery we have ten forest workers who each owe thousands of dollars to Revenue Canada because FRBC told them that their training benefits were not taxable, when in fact they were. Will the Premier tell us why he continues to evade his government's moral responsibility to these forest workers? And will he tell these forest workers here today that they'll not be forced to pay one cent for this government's outrageous avoidance of responsibility?

Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, this crew over there say that they care about people and workers in this province. When the Leader of the Opposition said last year that seven members of this caucus should take a ride through the Fraser Canyon with a drunken driver, that's an example of how much they care about people in this province. Not one of those people I know as disciples of his said anything about that -- not one of them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.

Hon. J. Doyle: Since becoming Forests minister one month ago, I have said I was focused on a solution to this issue. The member opposite for Shuswap has said we should negotiate a fair settlement on behalf of the workers. The member for Matsqui, who has spoken quite a bit about this, said in Duncan about a month ago that the province should pay the provincial portion of taxes.

The agreement-in-principle goes beyond what the Liberals indicated should be done. Two key elements of what I announced yesterday . . . . Number one, we will pay the full portion of the provincial taxes for all clients. In addition, we'll pay the interest on the federal taxes for two years. This package is worth between $8 million and $10 million, and that is in addition to the $75 million in income support to those people.

Also, 80 percent of the people that took this training through FRBC are working in full-time jobs. Forest Renewal has done some very good work in this province, including in my constituency. That crew over there voted against Forest Renewal when it was set up.

M. de Jong: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the course of question period, I heard the Finance minister suggest to the House that I had misled the House, and I'd ask him to withdraw that remark.

[1430]

Hon. P. Ramsey: If the member has been offended in any way by what was said, I will certainly withdraw.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Evans: I have the honour to submit the annual report for the Ministry of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending March 31.

The Speaker: Order in the House, please. Can I see who's standing in the House?

Hon. D. Lovick: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I would accordingly move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would now ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would therefore move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the

[ Page 14668 ]

third session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled the "Report on the Preparedness of the British Columbia Government in Dealing with the Year 2000 Problem." I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: I move that the report be adopted.

Hon. Speaker, this report describes work conducted by the Public Accounts Committee in March, July and November of 1999 to consider the actions taken by government to ensure that its computer systems and government programs were ready for the transition to the year 2000. The report also contains two recommendations to the government regarding the maintenance of all hazard business continuation planning and the final assessment of the total cost of all Y2K projects across government. I would also like to thank the Deputy Chair and all members of the committee and all those who worked so diligently on this very important report.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the tenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Miscellaneous Matters." I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

This report describes work conducted by the Public Accounts Committee in December '98 and March '99 with respect to two items. It considers the initiative to make the public accounts of British Columbia available on the Internet through the Ministry of Finance and Corporation Relations' web site. The report also reviews the annual report of the office of the auditor general for 1997-1998. I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and I would like once again to thank the Deputy Chair and all members of the committee for their input and dedication to this last session, as well as the office of the Clerk of Committees for its ongoing assistance and support.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have the honour to present a report entitled "The Renewal of Trust in Residential Construction,

Part II, Volume Two," severed edition.

[1435]

Standing Order 35 Motion

G. Campbell: I rise pursuant to standing order 35, as outlined in my letter to you of this date, for the purpose of debating a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the school strike affecting 400,000 students.

Thousands of British Columbian students are being denied access to the education to which they are entitled, and thousands of working parents are paying the price. This is the last opportunity for this House to ensure an immediate resumption of school services so parents and students can be assured that the schools will be open on Monday, without incurring substantial overtime costs for an unnecessary weekend sitting of the Legislature. Taxpayers cannot afford to waste tens of thousands of dollars in overtime wages, travel, per diems and expenses to debate a decision that could and should be made today.

It is urgent that this House give clear direction to the government to ensure immediate resumption of school services today.

Therefore, hon. Speaker, I move the following motion: that pursuant to standing order 35, the House do now adjourn in order to deal with a definite matter of urgent public debate, namely the denial of school services for nearly 400,000 British Columbian students and the need to immediately restore and protect their educational rights.

Hon. D. Lovick: The literature in our rules regarding standing order 35 is absolutely crystal-clear. The fundamental point to be made is that it is the urgency of debate rather than subject matter. The argument that one needs to suspend the normal rules and proceedings of this House in order to have a debate on that, to be sure, important matter, would only obtain if there were no other opportunities to have the debate. I would offer, however, Mr.

Speaker, that we have had this matter raised in the throne speech debate by the new member from Delta, we have had question period for three days on this matter, and we have had budget debate on this matter. The evidence is absolutely clear that there is no argument to suggest that there is not another opportunity for debate on this matter. Therefore, logically, by our rules the standing order 35 rules do not obtain. This debate should not proceed.

G. Plant: On the matter of urgency, Hon. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that indeed the matter raised by the motion is in fact fundamentally important; and yes, it is urgent; and it is urgently required that there be a debate on that matter.

What is urgent, as the Leader of the Opposition has set out, is the fact that this opportunity to debate now represents the last opportunity to debate the particular issue presented by the motion in order to attempt to ensure that the schools of British Columbia will in fact be open on Monday. I would certainly not want to be among those members of the House who may get called back here on Sunday, only to be told by the government that the matter has then suddenly become urgent.

It seems to me, with great respect, that the motion presented under standing order 35 is in fact right and is in fact appropriate for debate now, within the meaning of the rule as it has been laid down and applied in the authorities.

The Speaker: I want to thank the hon. member for bringing the matter forward and the Government House Leader for his response. I will take a little time and come back as soon as possible with my decision on this matter.

[ Page 14669 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Weisgerber: My initial response to the budget was probably very much like the response of most British Columbians, and that was one of real, genuine despair. I really felt frustrated and a little bit helpless and more than a little bit angry that after nine years in government, nine successive budgets, we were looking at not only a $1.2 billion deficit but a $3 billion increase in taxpayer-supported debt. You have to wonder: who is ultimately going to pay the price for this kind of reckless and irresponsible spending? Is it going to be the members who are in the assembly today and our peers? Or are we going to put this off to my children and my grandchildren?

[1440]

I think about what has happened in Ottawa. I think about what happened during the Trudeau years and the Mulroney years and the price that we as Canadians continue to pay for that kind of irresponsible behaviour. Over the last nine years, I've watched precisely the same pattern of spending as we saw in Ottawa a couple of decades ago. When the Socreds left office in 1991, the total taxpayer-supported debt was less than $10 billion. By the end of this fiscal year, it will probably be $28 billion.

When you think about that, Mr. Speaker, what that means is that all of the successive governments in British Columbia since Confederation -- a period of about 130-odd years from when British Columbia joined Confederation until 1991 -- managed to accumulate about $10 billion in debt. Take your mind back to 1991 and think about the infrastructure that was in place in British Columbia: the road system, the railway systems, the bridges, the highways, the schools, the universities -- all of those public facilities and public infrastructure.

The total bill left over -- the mortgage, if you like -- on all of the infrastructure that was in place was $10 billion. That's a lot of money, and a lot of people worried about that $10 billion and how we were going to pay it down.

Today, nine years later, the mortgage is $28 billion. You have to look around and try to say to yourself: "What have we got today that we didn't have in 1991?" To be charitable, we've got an Island Highway, and a very nice one. We have a university at Prince George -- UNBC. It's certainly the smallest of the four universities, but we have a university. And then I start to run out of examples. I start to find myself challenged to extend the list. So I have to ask myself: Did we really pay an additional $18 billion in order to get an Island Highway and a university in Prince George? I hope not. Heavens, I hope not.

But we also know that $18 billion is made up of ten years of deficit spending -- this year, $1.2 billion. That's $1.2 billion more that the government is spending on operations than it took in, capital expenditures aside. Last year it was $1.1 billion, and so it goes. It is with a real sense of despair that I see the government continuing along this path, which is entirely and diametrically different from every other jurisdiction on the continent.

Every other province and every other state is looking at balanced budgets, budget surpluses and paying down the accumulated debt. That's the thrust. They haven't always succeeded. Newfoundland didn't balance its budget this year. But it had balanced its budget for two or three years previously. Ontario didn't balance its budget this year, and I say shame on them. But beyond that, every other jurisdiction in this country balanced its budget: Manitoba, Saskatchewan -- we won't talk about Alberta -- Quebec and the maritime provinces, with the exception of Newfoundland, all balanced their budgets.

Sadly, and perhaps most disappointing, is that there doesn't appear to be any interest in balancing the budget. There doesn't appear to be any will. There isn't even a "Gee, I wish we could have, but we couldn't." It's just like: "We don't care; we don't think it's important."

[1445]

I talked a bit about 1991 -- pre-'91 and post-'91. This budget reminds me quite a lot of 1991. You might know that I was in cabinet in 1991. We were there with a new Premier, who was unable or unwilling to control the spending of ministers -- ministers who believed that it was more important to have an increase in their budget than it was to balance the budget. I can only assume that that kind of debate took place again with the cabinet that we have here and that our ministers decided it was far more important to try and buy an election than to earn an election. It's that kind of thinking that gives me the despair that I genuinely feel.

I'm starting to sound like I've been here too long, and perhaps I have. When I was elected in 1986 -- I came here for the first time in 1987 -- one of the most common heckles that was thrown across the floor from the Socreds, who were sitting on that side, to the New Democrats, who were sitting on this side of the House, was: "You guys couldn't run a peanut stand." I thought it was an exaggeration. I hadn't been here when the Bennett government was in office. I thought it was hyperbole.

I thought it was kind of funny, but I didn't realize, as did a lot of those members who had been elected in the seventies and eighties and who had seen Mr. Barrett and his government in action . . . . They understood that that was a factual statement: that the NDP can't run a peanut stand. Today I suppose that the metaphor will have something to do with fast ferries. Clearly the fast ferries will become the new metaphor for the New Democratic government and its approach to fiscal matters.

There are lots and lots of other examples: the convention centre, FRBC . . . . I don't know if the folks are still in the stands who are trying to find the income tax money they were told they didn't have to pay. Really, these are the kinds of things that only happen in a badly administered government.

In my humble opinion, there are elements of that 2000-01 budget -- that $1.2 billion deficit -- that, in my opinion, are even more sinister than the spending that we saw with respect to fast ferries, the convention centre, FRBC, etc. These are the sweetheart deals that the government has signed, the so-called accords that have been developed in an attempt to mislead voters into believing that public sector wage settlements in this province have been zero-zero-and-2. For the first time this year, in this budget, we see a $600 million figure that is the cost of implementing those accords -- $600 million to implement a zero-zero-and-2 program in one of the zero years.

When I say it's sinister, I think it's sinister for two reasons. First of all, it was a very deliberate attempt to mislead people

[ Page 14670 ]

with respect to how wage settlements were being made; and secondly, it's not a $600 million figure that will appear today and be gone tomorrow. It's a figure that will continue to show up in successive budgets, because in fact they are wage settlements that are built in, and there are union contracts that have been signed -- accords, etc.

Mr. Speaker, the accords are not only in health care and education but also in the social services sector. The latest deal with CUPE is, quite honestly, enough to make you sick. It really is. Let's have a look at this deal. You have a Minister of Education in a leadership race. You have an accord signed with one of the public sector trade unions for a half-million-dollar bonus not to go on strike, and two days later -- two days after that accord is signed -- the union supports the Minister of Education in his bid for the leadership.

[1450]

An Hon. Member: It's not a coincidence.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I've always been very, very cynical about coincidences, particularly political coincidences. If there is anything that gives me a sense of good feeling about this thing it is that neither of them appear to have gotten what they wanted. The minister had to withdraw from the leadership race; CUPE has gone on strike and apparently may not get their half a million dollars. So at the end of the day, there may be some justice after all.

The health care accords particularly seem to me to simply add cost. They don't add any value. The government -- this government -- has bragged, year in and year out, about increases in public health spending. Indeed, they've made increases. But the money has all gone to their friends in the public sector unions. There are no more nurses, no more doctors and no more hospitals -- just longer waiting lists. My friends across the way love to criticize Ralph Klein and the Alberta government. If there's anything you can depend on it's that that's a topic that will get them going. A couple of them have actually perked up just at the mention of the names.

I live in the Peace country. Dawson Creek is ten miles from the Alberta border. I'm confused, Mr. Speaker, because we keep sending more and more sick people from the Peace country to Alberta to be treated. We send more people to the Grande Prairie hospital; we send more people to Edmonton hospitals. We send more people to specialists in both of those centres. I'd like to issue a challenge now to the Minister of Health -- something he can think about between now and estimates time.

I would very much like to see a list of the number of people in the last year or five years -- whatever time frame works for him -- to find out how many people have travelled from British Columbia to Alberta for treatment and how many people have travelled from Alberta to British Columbia. I'd like to know how many went from B.C. to Alberta and how many came back to this province, with its best health care in Canada. How many came back here to get treatment?

I'd also like to see, in the broader sense, how many British Columbians our health care system paid for, for treatment outside of this province and how many times we received payment from other provinces or other countries for the treatment of people who have come here for treatment. I believe that the results would not be very flattering. I'm confident that the results won't be very flattering. I'm not pleased with that; nothing could be further from the truth. But it's something that I raise now and something that I'll pursue in the future.

Before I go on to talk about some local issues, I would like to hit on a couple of things that I think are at least rays of hope in the budget. One is the so-called green budget, particularly as it applies to a problem I raised the other day with the Minister of Environment. That is the continued use of MTBE as a gasoline additive. I believe that it poses a real danger to drinking water in British Columbia. I believe we need to move to an alternative gasoline additive, an octane enhancer. It seems to me to make absolute sense that ethanol be the additive of choice.

Countries like Brazil use ethanol almost exclusively for automotive fuel, and the U.S. is moving in that direction very rapidly. I'd like to encourage the Minister of Environment and the Premier to take up an offer that was rejected earlier to join the U.S. Governors' Ethanol Coalition, which is a group of governors around the United States who meet regularly to pursue the opportunities in that area. To date the only province in Canada that's a member of that coalition is Quebec, and I would genuinely urge the minister to pursue that.

Currently there are grain-to-ethanol conversion plants in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Those of us who stop at Mohawk stations will know that for the last decade or so, Mohawk has used ethanol in place of MMT or MTBE. There is a real opportunity.

[1455]

I applaud the government for the moves with respect to the beehive burners; the 3 percent investment tax credit; the $5 million for made-in-B.C. inventions, because there is a made-in-B.C. invention for ethanol production that's leading edge, world-class; and for the continued exemption of ethanol from fuel taxes. I hope that will be enough to see an ethanol plant in British Columbia in the near future. I also want to acknowledge the $100 million contribution to resource roads for gas and oil. That's over five years. It's not a huge amount of money.

It's mostly in North Peace, so it will benefit that area more than the South Peace, but it's going to be a benefit to the region. Again, I'll give credit where credit is due.

I do have a few minutes left, I believe, and I want to touch on a couple of issues that are of importance locally. One is this issue that has been quite well publicized, and that's the separation of the Peace country and the desire to move to Alberta. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that that's a very genuine sentiment -- not one that I happen to support, but a very genuine sentiment. It has deep historical roots. The Peace country wasn't part of British Columbia when the province joined Confederation. It wasn't until 1898 or 1899 that the Peace country was added to British Columbia.

There wasn't a road or a railroad that connected the Peace country with the rest of British Columbia until after 1950. There is a saying in the Peace country that it's 2,000 miles from Dawson Creek to Ottawa, but it's a lot further from Dawson Creek to Victoria. So that sentiment is there.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

J. Weisgerber: It was very evident it was there and very evident with . . . . The Electoral Boundaries Commission made note of that.

Today the alienation is primarily around taxation and what is perceived as pretty heavy-handed stuff by the

[ Page 14671 ]

Workers Compensation Board. I want British Columbians outside of the Peace to recognize that this . . . . Just because there was a petition circulated around about smoking in pubs, I want them to know that this is not a frivolous activity but that in fact these sentiments run much deeper.

Mr. Speaker, I'd wanted to spend a considerable amount of the time I had available talking about Tumbler Ridge, and I think I've nearly talked myself out of my time allocation. What I would like to do is just very briefly talk about Tumbler Ridge and perhaps come back at another time to the topic.

I had the opportunity once again to go up to Tumbler Ridge with the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development. It was an opportunity, I think, for both of us to remind ourselves what an attractive community it is -- the assets that are there in terms of housing, recreation and setting.

I believe that the move to set up a task force to examine the opportunities there was entirely the appropriate thing. We want to look at tourism; we want to look at the forest industry, gas and oil, at-home business, retirement -- all of those things. It is key that Central Mortgage and Housing get real with respect to the houses that they have in Tumbler Ridge and put them on the market -- to do it quickly and to do it effectively.

[1500]

I think also, Mr. Speaker, that it's important for us to recognize that the whole northeast coal development was made to and because of the commitments of northeast coal -- Quintette, Bullmoose and the Japanese steel industry. There was a strong commitment made to the province on that project. As a result of that, there were B.C. Rail investments, Hydro investment, highways, ports at Prince Rupert and housing all made. Quite honestly, I don't think that either Teck Corp. or the Japanese steel industry have dealt very fairly with northeast coal and with Tumbler Ridge.

Teck is a private corporation, and they will make their business decisions as they see fit. The point I want to make is that I think that the Japanese steel industry has a much deeper obligation and responsibility than they've shown. Those plants and those mines and that infrastructure were built because the Japanese wanted them built. Just the other day, onto my desk -- and I expect onto the desks of most members of this assembly -- came a document from the Canada-Japan Trade Council. In the 1999 fiscal year Canada exported to Japan $8.6 billion worth of goods. We imported $13.9 billion.

We imported nearly twice as much we exported to Japan. We allow Japan to continue to put a tariff on finished goods going into Japan. If you want to go into the chopstick business in Dawson Creek or anywhere in British Columbia . . . .

R. Neufeld: Fort Nelson.

J. Weisgerber: My friend from North Peace says, "Fort Nelson" -- classic example. Both communities had chopstick plants. They had to ship them to China to have them finished because of a preferential tax arrangement -- duty arrangement -- between China and Japan.

An Hon. Member: That's not free trade.

J. Weisgerber: I'm a free trader. I absolutely believe in free trade. But I can tell you that if your partners aren't trading fairly and aren't trading freely, then I don't think you have an obligation to either. I wish that the federal government had the courage to stand up to Quebec -- well, I wish they'd stand up to Quebec, too, but that's another story.

I wish they would stand up to Japan and say: "Look, we're not going to continue to allow you to dump automobiles and electronic goods duty-free into Canada if you are going to punish our goods and if you are going to put the kind of pressure and deal the way you've dealt on northeast coal." The hope of that happening, I understand, is slim, but I still I believe that it's an important issue.

In closing, I want to talk just a minute about an issue that was in the news today. Finance minister Paul Martin is on record as saying that he would like to consider reductions in gasoline tax because of the obvious increase in gasoline prices, and he's waiting to see what the provinces will do. You know, I'm getting so sick and tired of listening to Ottawa say: "Well, we're going to do something if the provinces do something." First of all, they know that there are ten provinces, so the likelihood of all of them doing something is much reduced.

Secondly, the only people who are enjoying a windfall in taxation as a result of these gasoline prices are Ottawa's, because the GST is based on the retail price of gasoline. The provincial excise tax and the federal excise tax are per-litre taxes -- 10 and 11 cents, respectively. Sure, I would agree: we should look at that.

But, darn it, we also know that at least the province spends more on roads and highways than it collects in excise tax. Ottawa spends about 10 percent of the gasoline excise tax collected in British Columbia back into our road system.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says, "Not that much," and I think he's right. I was being generous.

[1505]

But my response to Paul Martin is: don't worry about what the provinces are doing. You've got a surplus; you've got a windfall on your GST as a result of the price going up. First of all, drop the GST on gasoline. There's a movement that doesn't need the consent of the provinces. If I'm right, the province doesn't put sales tax on gasoline; they use an excise tax in lieu of the sales tax. So there's a movement, Mr. Martin, if you're listening. And I'm sure you're hanging on every word that I say -- not.

Nevertheless, this is a serious issue for British Columbians; it's a serious issue for Canadians. Instead of Paul Martin wondering about what the provinces are going to do with gasoline taxes, I think it's time he dealt with the issue from his own perspective. If one looks at that from any sense of fairness, I would say: "Drop the GST and significantly reduce your excise tax. Then we'll see what we can do here in British Columbia with our excise tax."

T. Nebbeling: Like my colleagues, I must also say that I'm very disappointed with the budget that was presented to this House last Monday. But more important is the fact that the people in my constituency that I've spoken to and who either had knowledge of what the budget contained or just asked about it and were given some facts about the budget . . . . The disappointment and often the anger that I got from these constituents, because many expected this to be the last chance for this government to come in with a budget that

[ Page 14672 ]

truly would do something for the problems that this government or this province is facing . . . . In spite of the government saying, "No, no, there will be another budget, because we will come back next year and present the last budget," people do realize that this was the budget that clearly could have made the difference and that it could have been kind of trusted by the population at large.

If indeed we do get a budget next year -- if indeed this government is going to go right until the end of its term -- no doubt that next budget will be a budget that nobody will believe, because it will be a budget like 1996's that was full of promises and misinformation. After the election that was won on that budget, many or all of these promises quickly disappeared.

So people really said: "No, this is the one." I think it's not just in my constituency; in general that is the feeling that the people in this province had. Here is a chance to deal with these problems that we all have recognized. I'm not telling anybody news that the communities at large feel that and know that the taxation system that we have today is out of control. It is not just taxation per se; it is also the very many service fees -- fees for users -- that have been introduced over the last couple of years. The sum of all these tax increases, hidden taxes and user fees combined has led to serious financial pressure on family life.

Of course, what made it worse over the last three years is the fact that the government -- I think they were fully aware of the pressure they were causing with their excessive tax pressure on the communities in British Columbia -- was looking for a way to somehow off-load the tax pressure and see if they could make another form of government responsible for collecting taxes.

What we saw happening in the last three or four years is that more and more money has been taken away from municipalities through reductions in conditional and unconditional grants, forcing municipalities and cities and villages, for all intents and purposes, into adding new taxation to their tax base, which is the property base in a community.

[1510]

Now, traditionally, Mr. Speaker, communities were given grants. There was a formula that created this fund that was disbursed every year amongst communities to assist them with infrastructure programs such as water and sewer plants, roads and bridges. That has been the way business was done in British Columbia. The money that was collected on a local level was purely for the purpose of running the administration of a town; providing amenities for the recreational purposes of a community; and paying for the public safety -- policing, fire brigade -- and public works. That was the only reason that municipalities collected funds.

Now today, they are forced to collect over and above -- hundreds of millions of dollars, actually, because it has been well over $800 million that has been off-loaded in the last number of years onto these communities . . . . That's money that communities had to find within their own citizens' groups.

So the tax burden in this province has been enormous. If you listen to the economists, in general they calculate that of every dollar you earn these days, you're lucky if you can get 46 cents to keep for yourself. Now, with that 46 cents, of course, you still go to the store and pay your provincial sales tax, and you pay your GST. At the end of the day, there is very, very little left over. That has caused a lot of people to leave this province.

I think one of the hopes that many had in the community of British Columbia was that there would have been some considerable tax reductions that would have restarted the economy, which has truly suffered because people no longer have disposable income. When there is no disposable income, the consequence is that you can't go to the stores. So the stores lay off staff, or they close down altogether, and a number of people are unemployed. When the stores close down or don't sell consumer goods as a consequence of that, we see the manufacturing sector having less output, which means less need for employment.

As a consequence of that, over the last years we have lost a tremendous number of jobs in the small business sector.

The statistics show clearly that 67 percent of every job that is created in British Columbia is created in that small business sector. So the taxation strategy of this government over the last year has driven not only an enormous number of people onto the welfare roll, but it has also driven a lot of people out of this province. And I think -- I know -- there are people who would love to come back if things turn around in this province with the economy.

This budget should have addressed it. This budget had the opportunity to address it, and this government chose not to do that.

As a consequence of that, it is no surprise that the business sector, who I believe made a very compelling case for some of the changes that should have happened in this province . . . . When this budget was presented, the business sector clearly identified that their advice had been ignored. But on top of that, they also declared this a sunset budget. This is a budget that could truly drive British Columbia into deeper debt -- not into deeper debt, because that's already happening, but into deeper despair.

So the lack of dealing with the taxation issue has really angered a lot of people, because as I said before, this was the last chance that this government could have done something. And it will be up to the next government in this province to take that bull by the horns, and we have committed to do that.

The second area where I think nobody should be surprised is of much concern is the area of the pieces of labour legislation that have been introduced in this House in the last couple of years. The one thing all these pieces of legislation have done is that they have empowered the labour movement far beyond what most people in this province believe is fair. It has empowered them far beyond what is reasonable.

[1515]

People in general, when they speak to me -- I speak in many places in the province, not just in my riding; I speak in other areas as well -- often express the fear that one of these days, that empowerment of the labour movement is going to be abused and is really going to be used to hurt this province. It is telling that what we see happening right now with the labour dispute between the school districts and CUPE . . . . I think many people would consider what's happening right now an abuse of power.

To see 450,000 children not having the ability to go to school today because the power of the union is so strong that . . . . The negotiation that is happening is almost based on arrogant points, and that's one of the things that

[ Page 14673 ]

many people have felt was the path we were going on. There was some hope that the empowerment of the labour movement was going to be somehow controlled, and if it could not be controlled, that this government would do the right things and at least make sure that nobody should feel abused by the system.

Right now there are 450,000 school kids who cannot go to school; they are abused. Thousands and thousands of parents either cannot go to work or have to pay for sitters to take care of the kids; they feel abused. In my riding in school district 48 right now, in the communities of Squamish and Pemberton, there are many people who truly cannot afford to stay home. There is a high unemployment level because of the demise of the forest industry. Mothers have to take on jobs to make sure there is still some bread on the table. Suddenly the kids are on the street. What are these people going to do?

They haven't got the spare cash to deal with this disruption. They are being abused. I think it is outrageous that a government that has allowed unions to feel so powerful as to do this to our children and to our families who have children in the school system is something that, as it is not being addressed, will always be a very black mark on this government.

I can go on about that subject. I can explain some of the incredible demands that the unions are making on school districts, but I'll leave that up to my colleagues. But once the community of British Columbia hears what indeed is being negotiated in Vancouver and what the unions are not willing to give up, I think anger in this province will just rise to a level . . . . It may be that anger that will get rid of this government. But something will happen. People will not accept the unreasonable demands -- antisocial demands, I would almost call them -- that the union is perpetrating on our school system today.

Another problem that raises its head day after day, of course, is the amount of bureaucracy that we face in this province, especially in the business sector -- the policies that have been brought forward by this government that have killed industries. Let's take the forest industry. I have two towns in my riding where the forest industry used to be the economic base -- Squamish and Pemberton. There are some smaller communities like Birken, D'Arcy, Anderson Lake. The forest industry was the economic base for these communities. It is really sad to see how these communities have lost that economic base.

Why have they lost it? Primarily because of the policies and the red tape that this government has created over the last number of years. Of course, the Forest Practices Code is the best example we could ever use of how policies kill industries, opportunities for people and the ability of people to stay in the community. All these things have happened because of the set of policies that is called the Forest Practices Code.

Mr. Speaker, people are looking for changes in these areas. People expected changes in these areas, because the only way we're going to create jobs again in this province is by making changes that deal with the overburdening policies that we have in this province. The only way we're going to make changes to create jobs again is to give the small and medium-sized business sector a chance again and to listen to and hear their voice. The only way we're going to get prosperity again in this province is by having labour be partners in how we build our communities -- not a bunch of dictators as they have become today.

[1520]

Instead of having dealt with these three issues, we get a budget presented with more debt -- debt up to $36 billion now. I don't care if it is corporate-supported debt or taxpayer-supported debt. It's all our debt. B.C. Ferries had $1.2 billion in debt. That was corporate-supported debt. Suddenly the minister decided that it was no longer going to be corporate debt; they were going to write off that debt. Suddenly the people of British Columbia have $1.2 billion to carry on their shoulders. It is not just us; it is also the future generations -- the children of today -- that will be paying that debt off.

Our debt is now $36 billion, costing the taxpayers of this province every year -- if we keep the same interest as it is now, but it most likely will go up. As it is today, it will cost the taxpayers $3 billion.

Do we know what we can do with $3 billion? I don't have the time to name a list of school projects, hospital projects, anything that this province needs -- more nurses, more teachers, more classrooms. I could go on. The sum of all these elements that are so desperately needed in this province to bring the quality of life back again could be paid for with that $3 billion that we spend every year servicing the debt -- not paying off the debt, just servicing the debt.

To put this province deeper into debt again is a big failure of this particular budget. The people of British Columbia are truly saying no. The people of British Columbia are saying that we should have a system as we used to have in the seventies and eighties -- a system where people who came to this province could invest and, by making an investment and putting in some sweat equity, could make a living.

I came to this province in 1977. I was very fortunate to be living in Whistler. I lived in Whistler because when I came here in 1976 on a holiday, I saw this place and heard about the plans for creating this international ski resort. I thought, I want to be part of that. I lived in Austria at that time. I skied every week. I knew that it was a phenomenal area to be created. So I arrived here and started a bakery. I thought I was going to have a lot of time to ski and then do some baking.

Well, things turned around in British Columbia, and we went through a bit of a recession. But it was okay, because even with a recession the government didn't create all kinds of hurdles to overcome. They didn't overtax you. They didn't create all kinds of fees to provide. They didn't demand all kinds of paperwork that would only lead one to be more focused on taking care of the demands of the government rather than the demands of the business. For years I was a baker. The recession disappeared, and things turned around.

I started some other businesses. That's what you could do in British Columbia. You did not need a lot of money to start doing something for your own future, and there was no government that stopped you from doing that. As a matter of fact, we had a government that was proud of its citizens taking the bull by the horns, creating their own future. That's the kind of business ambience we need in this province.

This government fights tooth and nail. Every time we talk about the unfairness of a piece of legislation and other controlling mechanisms of legislation just to make life miserable for the small and the medium-sized business sector -- every time we speak against it -- en bloc the government stands up and says: "Oh, no; we are right. We know what we're doing. We will bring prosperity into this province." Well, as the business sector has said, all that this government has done and all that they refuse to change have led to one thing: a sunset economy

[ Page 14674 ]

in British Columbia. I think it is shameful. I will not support anything, ever, in this House that drives this province in that direction.

[1525]

K. Krueger: In my previous life I spent some happy years working in loss prevention -- particularly happy working with school children, teaching them about traffic safety and so on. I met many colleagues in a large network who did the same sort of thing with regard to fire safety and so on.

One of my friends had an amusing story. He had gone with a group of teachers to a fire hall with kindergarten children, and they showed them around the fire hall. They decided to try and teach them one basic message that day -- what to do if they ever found themselves in the horrible situation of having their clothes on fire. They boiled it down to this little slogan: stop, drop and roll. Stop what you're doing, lie down on the ground and roll until the fire goes out. Stop, drop and roll -- they repeated that to them all day, throughout their little tour. They even taught them a little dance and a little song to do this stop, drop and roll.

There was one little girl that just didn't seem to be happy -- wasn't taking the message in real well. They never really did really seem to please her with their presentations that day. As she was getting on the bus, my friend decided that he'd try one last time and amuse her. He said, "So what will you do if your clothes are on fire one day?" -- expecting, of course, that she'd say: "Stop, drop and roll." She said: "I wouldn't put on those clothes." We all thought that was a really cute story, and it is -- a five-year-old saying something like that.

It strikes me that there's a similarity between that little story and what's gone on in this budget and in the other eight budgets that this government has tabled, because like the little girl in the story, this government has never been able to get the message. The message is that these approaches are failed approaches.

Continually running a huge deficit, continually increasing debt and continually interfering in labour-management relations have driven our economy onto the rocks, so that we are indeed the worst economy north of Cuba, with the questionable company of Chiapas, Mexico -- the only two economies in North America that are struggling. It's very sobering -- the damage that it is doing to British Columbians, the way that it is hurting British Columbians.

A recent example is one that I touched on in my throne speech response, as I began to guide the new Premier through my constituency on a virtual tour. That was the example of the WCB smoking ban. Everybody agrees with the goal of protecting workers from secondhand smoke or from anything else that hurts them or makes them sick in the workplace.

But the way the ban was implemented, the lack of due consultation, the failure by the government to even follow the consultation process that this government had the responsibility to lay out with the WCB in its regulations -- it's all an example of the kind of endemic administrative incompetence of this NDP government that, together with the ongoing collateral damage inflicted on this economy by that same government, is bringing tremendous pain to British Columbians.

Of course, since that throne speech of two weeks ago, the courts indeed have told the WCB to go back to the drawing board. You can't behave this way; you can't be arbitrary. You can't fail to follow your own rules for establishing new regulations. That is another sad reflection on the WCB and on an NDP government that, time after time, has abused its power. It has gone to court with British Columbians and lost, over and over again, at huge financial cost to the other sides in that court action.

Many times ordinary British Columbians find themselves financially ruined in a struggle with their own government: charities, for example, that have had to sue this government over their entitlements to gaming proceeds; private individuals of all kinds; Carrier Lumber . . . . The list goes on and on. As a result, this government has a terrible credibility problem which it can't shake. It's an unshakeable credibility problem, because this government doesn't deserve to be able to shake it.

[1530]

There is nothing new in this budget and nothing new in the so-called new government across the floor. There is no demonstrated resolve to actually practice full disclosure and honesty. For example, everyone wants to know the real price tag of these public sector policy accords, which certainly set up the current situation where we have our educational system shut down by CUPE. Their expectations have been put right through the roof by this government's behaviour in its negotiation of this series of under-the-table, behind-the-veil policy accords. It started out with the B.C. Teachers Federation.

By the way, there the NDP even betrayed its bosom friends, the BCTF. The teachers were told: "There is nothing financial in this for you. This is a policy accord, so don't look for us to put anything in your pocket." In the end, the teachers, through their B.C. Teachers Federation -- and I don't think they're very happy with it -- walked away from some 130 issues on the table and came away with the agreement on maximum class sizes and early retirement packages.

The present situation is not genuine collective bargaining. It's a pillow fight between bedfellows: the big bosses of CUPE and the NDP government -- just a pillow fight. But workers and children are being hurt by it, and our economy is being hurt by it. Once again our own government is attacking the people and the economy of B.C.

There's a school in my constituency called Marion Schilling school. Right now there's a picket line in front of it. Six little kids with picket signs. They want to go back to school. They can't understand why the educational system -- the government -- is letting them down the way it is. Employees, teachers, students, families and the economy of British Columbia -- all British Columbians -- are victims of this situation and this mismanagement by an NDP government.

The abuse of volunteers is becoming a year-after-year litany by this government. Once again, CUPE attacking the

[ Page 14675 ]

work that volunteers do in the schools, through this process is a very reprehensible situation. I think it's wrong that this party -- the NDP -- and its government benefit by donations given to them by public sector unions. That money is coming out of civil servants who are being paid taxpayers' dollars. It's all such a cosy system now; it's just set up to fund NDP election campaigns. It's wrong; it's reprehensible.

When we call out to this Premier -- who says he's something new, even though he looks exactly the same to me as he did all those years that he was sitting there beside the previous Premiers -- and ask him to do something for these students, to get our schools open again in British Columbia, all he can do is express his concern, say that he's monitoring the situation and finally start talking about how he wants them back in school by Monday. Assuming he has the gumption to actually deliver on that commitment, why won't he do it today?

If his concern is genuine, if his intent is genuine, the Leader of the Opposition has provided him with a vehicle. Let's designate education an essential service in British Columbia and never see this happen again.

That being said, I'd like to carry on with the virtual tour that I was taking the Premier on in my response to the throne speech. This province of ours and that constituency of mine, having experienced a lost decade over the last ten years with the NDP at the helm in B.C., are now being confronted with a budget wherein there is absolutely no hope of change -- a budget that is entirely locked in the NDP past and cannot possibly take British Columbia into the future where the rest of the world is marching well on ahead.

[1535]

As we would travel down my constituency together, the Premier and I would come to a place called Heffley and Heffley Lake. We'd go and visit a constituent of mine, Sandra Milla, who has the Heffley Lake Resort. She's part of a coalition of fishing resort owners in British Columbia who are on the ropes once again because of the actions of this government. When the Minister of Finance who presented this budget was the Minister of Environment, I attended an annual general meeting of their association in Kamloops, and he was the guest speaker.

When he invited questions from the floor, a gentleman walked up and gave him a little package. The Finance minister thought it was a gift, and he smiled as he took it. Then he stared at it, because it was Q-Tips in a little plastic bag. The questioner said: "Sir, those are Q-Tips, because I would like you to clean out your ears so that you can hear what I am saying to you, because you haven't been listening." The current Finance minister, then Environment minister, was very offended and gave him a scolding: "If you're going to talk to a minister that way, don't expect the minister to come back to town."

Indeed, they've never had any redress of their problems. Their problems are that this government insists on taxing them and jacking up their leases year after year to the point where they really can't make a living in their resorts. There's no recognition of the huge contribution they make to the economy, of all the taxes they collect from their clients for the government, of all the enjoyment they provide to British Columbians through the use of their facilities.

The fact is that we are able to take our children out fishing on lakes throughout B.C. because of people like those who have poured in their own sweat equity as well as their financial equity to establish these little resorts -- some of them over 50 years old. Many of them are on the brink of going out of business. I know that Sandra Milla and her association and Dick McMaster, a very learned man who has studied this situation and made presentations to this government, would really like the Premier's attention on those matters.

The taxes and the lease payments are putting them out of business, and it is not a positive thing in any way for British Columbia.

We wouldn't get very much further, and I would show the Premier the site of Tranquille. It's a former mental health facility, before that a TB sanitorium -- a beautiful piece of property. It's been for sale for some time, the B.C. government wanting to liquidate the asset. There were a number of people interested. There have been negotiations. There was actually a purchaser who didn't make his payments, and the government had to repossess.

For the last several years there's been this process underway where they're looking for a purchaser. I knew of business people who were trying to come up with the millions of dollars to purchase Tranquille. Suddenly this government sold Tranquille for $492,000 -- less than its value as a farm -- and forgot to include the city of Kamloops, which was owed $1.1 million in back taxes. There's all sorts of litigation flowing around that, because there were other people who would have liked to bid and, in the end, did bid; and the $492,000 purchaser lost the place and then regained it.

It's just another debacle, another legal tangle -- financial wrangling that will probably end up costing the government far more than it realized in the sale. My friend from Kamloops, the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, was embroiled in it because she was Minister of Environment at the time. It's a mess. It's incompetent management by an incompetent NDP government once again.

We wouldn't get very far past Tranquille and we would visit the Overlander Extended Care Hospital. There we have seniors whose quality of life has taken a dramatic turn for the worse in the past few years since this government appointed its regional health board, having done away with the elected boards. That health board fired the competent administrators of our acute care hospital and our extended care facilities, and it hired people -- for whatever reason -- who in some instances are doing a terrible job.

I've had so much negative input from union members working in those facilities about the terrible consequences to them of this government's incompetence, it would make every member on that side of the House blush.

It should make them blush. They should be embarrassed, because the quality of life of those residents has gone downhill. The staff do not feel valued. The place is in a mess, and it's being badly run. We have 363 people on the wait-list to get into extended care facilities in Kamloops, and we have a budget that doesn't begin to address the problem of providing that many beds in the whole province. There are 363 on the wait-list. It's ridiculous.

These wait-lists and the trauma that families go through while their loved ones are waiting to get into a facility signify a tremendous amount of heartache and pain for the families that are involved. It's no way to treat seniors, and it's no way to treat families. It's no way to treat British Columbians.

[1540]

After Overlander, we'd probably make a little stop at UCC. We could talk to the administration there about the problems they've had with this government doing away with

[ Page 14676 ]

the library degree grant. They don't have the money to keep the facility up to par even for the courses they have, and they'd like to be offering so much more.

Yes, finally this government has come up with $85 million in this budget for post-secondary education. That's just 11 days of the interest that this government is now committed to paying because of the huge debt it has run up with its foolish decisions around things like the fast ferry scandal, the coming SkyTrain extension scandal, the Skeena Cellulose scandal and the long list of scandals that pretty well any British Columbian could enunciate.

Our universities are all hurting because of the so-called tuition freeze and the failure of the government to replace the revenue that's so desperately needed. They don't have the research facilities that they need to attract the kind of staff they're going to have to attract over the next half-decade as people retire. They've had their ability to manage severely compromised by yet another -- their very own -- public sector accord between unions and this NDP government -- big unions, the big union bosses that own and operate, control and run the New Democratic Party in British Columbia.

Education province indeed. We haven't been funding them for research. We haven't been giving them enough money even to provide the courses they have. It's taking students five years to get a four-year degree. People are frustrated. People don't look at British Columbia as the education province at all.

There's a nursing program at UCC with excellent people running it. For years they've been asking for the creation of some more spaces. They can handle at least 24 more spaces each year than they are. It's as if this government with its head in the sand never, ever dreamt that we would have a nursing shortage. It never looked ahead to when the big bulge in the population, the so-called baby boomers, would begin to need more of the health care services that they've paid for all of their lives. So there hasn't been an increase in the number of spaces provided at UCC, and that's another huge lost opportunity.

This government seems incapable of looking at practical approaches like having a co-op program in our nursing schools. I'm not saying that they should go back to only having a diploma program. I've heard the arguments -- and they resonate with me -- about why nurses today should graduate with a bachelor of science in nursing. It makes sense to me. But along the way, why not allow them to work in the hospitals? That would take some of the pressure off the nurses who are being burnt out by this system, by the foolish casualization of the existing nursing workforce that has gone on.

Instead, these people who are working their way through a four-year program to get a bachelor of science in nursing are having to work at minimum wage in the hospitality industry. They're burning themselves out doing that, trying to make a little paycheque, when they're worth far more than minimum wage working alongside nurses in the existing facilities and taking pressure off them.

Why is our government so foolish? It's very hard for me to answer that question. I would like to benefit from the opportunity of hearing the Premier answer that question when it would be posed to him by my constituents -- or anytime now would be fine.

In the little communities of Barrière and Clearwater in my constituency, there are regularly about 600 people looking for work and filed with the employment services offices in those communities. Sometimes there are six part-time jobs on the board, and 600 people per community with very little hope because of the shoddy kind of government that the NDP has provided in British Columbia over this last decade.

I wonder sometimes if the government pays any attention at all to the things that experts are telling it. For example, the B.C. Business Council, when it recently elected its new president, Jeff Mooney, elected a man who is terribly disappointed in this budget. This is a quote from him: "First, I got angry. Then I just got sad. It was just such a missed opportunity to send a message of change. The budget was a chance to send a signal that we've awakened from this devastation. And what happens? The same old course."

[1545]

Then he goes on to say: "We are fiddling while our house is burning. This idea still at play that big government has all the answers has left our children with two times, and soon to be three times, the debt with which we started out the nineties and a serious lack of capital and talent to fix it. That's our legacy."

What a pathetic thing -- because it's true. This government tries to brag that it's putting $14 million into a new day care program. As Les Leyne said in his column the other day, the poor little tykes will be grown and having to pay for their own day care themselves before we ever get around to addressing that portion of the debt. And it's because this government can't focus on the real priorities. It's always running hither and yon on a political agenda, doing the wrong things for the wrong reason, but always spending the same taxpayers' money.

We see British Columbia continually having to import its professionals from outside the province. We have only 6 percent of the doctor-training spaces in Canada in our one medical school in British Columbia. We have 14 percent of Canada's doctors. Why is that? We're denying all of those young British Columbians who would like to have that extra 8 percent of spaces the opportunity to become British Columbia's doctors in the future. Once again, we are facing a tremendous crunch in that aspect of the health care system as well. The doctor force that we have is leaving, because they're so disgusted with the way this province is managed and the way this NDP government has behaved.

Why won't this government get with the program, Mr. Speaker? I know you won't be doing any talking to us over the next while on matters like that, but I wonder what your answer would be. I wonder what the Premier's answer would be. Why can't the NDP get its act together? And if it won't, why doesn't it call an election and give a new government a chance to deal with all of these problems? Why don't we have a school of rural medicine in British Columbia? We just have an urban school that tends to have a lot of urban candidates. We have a problem throughout British Columbia which is growing, where we don't have doctors out in the rural communities. And we need them.

I was recently in Alberta. I spoke with people in government in Alberta. They're sad about what's going on in British Columbia, even though they've been tremendous economic beneficiaries as wealth has moved out of British Columbia to Alberta, as head offices have left the lower mainland and gone to Calgary. They're sad about it, because they recognize full

[ Page 14677 ]

well that if their neighbour's doing badly, then they're not doing as well as they could either. They'd like British Columbia to resume its rightful place in the economy of Canada once again.

The federal government doesn't trust this government. Why would it? They're reluctant to partner with such a government, such an irresponsible group of people. The Vancouver Convention Centre was a classic illustration of that. They dragged their heels on everything, because they do not trust the New Democratic Party, judging by its record in British Columbia.

We have two facilities in Kamloops that I'd also like to show the Premier, called the New Life Mission and the House of Ruth. Both of them were established through the wonderful sacrificial giving of residents of Kamloops. New Life Mission is for men who have found themselves on the street, many of them addicted to alcohol, drugs and gambling. Through this facility, people help them get on the road to recovery and into a new life -- break those chains that have them in bondage. The House of Ruth is for women. They were both really only built and established in the last year -- wonderful facilities.

But they can't get any operational funding from this government, even though there's a wait-list for both of them -- people who desperately need assistance with their addictions. But the government had half a billion dollars to throw away on fast ferries. People just can't understand it.

In my throne speech response, I touched briefly on the fact that the Ministry of Highways, for whatever perverse reason, has created a furore in my constituency between the communities of Valleyview and Juniper Ridge, asking people to choose between two $80 million options for a change in the east Trans-Canada Highway through Kamloops, which this government has absolutely no money to deliver anyway. I made a trip this week up the Trans-Canada Highway and confirmed for myself what I've known all along.

There are much worse problems on the east Trans-Canada Highway in British Columbia than Valleyview -- Three Valley Gap, the Kicking Horse canyon, all kinds of places. This government just has not kept up with the responsibility that it has to maintain British Columbia's infrastructure.

[1550]

Instead, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, no doubt directed by the minister, is off squandering money on unnecessary projects like the four-laning of the Aspen Grove

section of phase 3 of the Coquihalla, like the straightening of a number of curves on the highway that leads out past Highland Valley Copper -- when Highland Valley Copper, by its own prediction, is going to close in nine years. There are much higher-priority locations in this province where this government should be spending money, like Preacher Hill and the curves on Highway 5, a deathtrap I also referred to in my previous speech known as pig corners by the local populace.

The public should be protected by its government. That kind of priority has to be the government's priority, not some political agenda so that the Minister of Highways, the member for Yale-Lillooet, can get himself re-elected in his own riding.

I talked about the desperate need for a hospital in Clearwater, a multilevel-care facility that was promised to Clearwater eight months before the last election -- not just one of those vote-buying promises that the NDP leader of the day ran around making to the people of the province in my constituency, but a business decision -- because it's needed. And one is needed in Chase. In neither circumstance is there even a spade in the ground.

So if you have a loved one and you live in Clearwater, and that person has to go to a continuing-care facility, they can end up four hours away in Lillooet in the Fraser Canyon. Their family can't get out to see them. They die very quickly, because they wilt without the support of their friends and loved ones. I cannot be cynical enough to believe that it's what this government wants -- that it actually would want individuals to just give up and die because this government has failed to provide the kind of health care facilities they need, in their hour of tremendous need.

I thought it's interesting to read some of the quotes from the new Premier and some of his cabinet ministers over past months. When this Premier was asked about this budget and its sorry failure to depart from the miserable track that the NDP have been on the last nine years in British Columbia, he had this to say: "The budget represents balance. If we had not tried to be fiscally prudent, it could have been much worse." Well, some quote -- if he had not tried to be prudent, it could have been worse? That's like a drunk driver after his collision, telling the police: "If I'd had my eyes closed, I probably would have had a worse accident."

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

We expect this government -- British Columbians expect all governments -- to be fiscally prudent. Frankly, we don't expect the NDP to be particularly fiscally prudent, because they have absolutely no track record of it. If you want to turn over a new leaf, then a human being changes their approaches. But this government hasn't changed anything.

It throws the word "new" in -- I think it's 18 times in the budget speech, a couple of dozen more times in the throne speech -- referring to itself as a new government when there's just been a little shuffling of the chairs over there, the same blank faces staring back, same silly heckles coming across the room. There's nothing new. In fact, it's a bit of a theft to even refer to yourselves as new or refer to the word "balance." Those are misappropriated words, because they don't apply to anything that this government is doing. There is nothing new here and nothing fair about this situation. It's a government that is incapable of change.

The Premier feels that he has said "Sorry," and he can move on. But there's far too much to apologize for. He couldn't begin to make all the necessary apologies in this government's time left in office.

So the time for an election is now. As Winston Churchill put it, these are sheep in sheep's clothing. This is all that this government is capable of delivering to British Columbia; this is the best this government can do. The new Premier has repeatedly said he's looking forward to the next budget. Well, of course, that's really going to be on the eve of an election, if this government manages to drag its sorry self to the end of a five-year mandate.

These people are sheep in sheep's clothing. As Jesus put it, "By their fruits ye shall know them," and the fruit of this government is deficit -- an admitted $1.3 billion deficit in the coming year. And the fruit of this government is debt -- $36.5 billion at the end of the coming budget year and almost $3

[ Page 14678 ]

billion a year in interest. Isn't that a curious number? This government is rolling its interest into its accumulated debt, year after year. What a legacy for our children.

The fruit of this government is misery, impoverishment, unemployment, broken families; people having to move away; failure to look after the needs of British Columbians; failure to address the terrible concerns of people being dealt with by the family maintenance enforcement program, whose contract has been renewed, year in and year out, by this government, when it is utterly failing to provide for the needs of children of broken families.

I see you're about to tell me to wind up, hon. Chair. I'll do that, although I hate to.

What we need is an election. We desperately need an election. I call on this Premier, on this government, to do the right thing . . .

[1555]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

K. Krueger: . . . and do the honourable thing, quit slogging on through the mud and let the people have their say.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I hope you know what I mean when I say I couldn't help but listen to the last speaker. A cheery sort of fellow -- upbeat, optimistic. As he travels around his constituency, I don't know if people run away when he's starting to approach. He's got to have just a little tiny corner there that might say there's something positive in this world -- in British Columbia. Maybe he's talked himself into this sorry state.

But as I was saying to Ralph Klein not too long ago . . . . I was very pleased that Mr. Klein had made an investment in British Columbia -- in my constituency, as a matter of fact. To the extent that it shows some faith in making an investment in British Columbia, I was also pleased to note -- notwithstanding the member's very dour outlook on life in general -- that tourism has achieved unparalleled growth in British Columbia. I know that is true in the Kamloops region as well. I don't know why the member is so downhearted about life, but maybe there are some other factors at play here that are eluding everybody.

I was pleased, by the way, as the Minister of Energy and Mines, to participate with other ministries and with Cominco and the Steelworkers in putting together a major economic initiative that saved 1,000 jobs -- some of which are in that member's riding -- and which now allows Highland Valley to operate in a very tough competitive world when copper prices are as low as 60 cents. Perhaps the member, whose advice to the House is, "Don't fix the road to the mine so that the mineworkers might have safer driving conditions; don't take those dangerous curves out of the road to the mine.

After all, the mine's only going to last another nine years . . . . " What a doomsayer! I've been talking to the same company, and there's great hope that the mine will last longer than nine years. But if the member who represents the region doesn't care, and doesn't care about the safety of the workers driving to that enterprise, then how do we achieve some progress -- with that kind of black and negative view of life?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Now, now. I never heckled once, not once. In the new spirit of cooperation, Mr. Speaker, I bit my tongue. I listened patiently, and am I given the same kind of . . . ?

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I'm not. Well, it's a tough world, but we shall try our best to prevail. I actually think we could educate more doctors, but I understand that the doctors are actually in control of admissions. Perhaps the member there might want to take it up with others.

I want to talk about a couple of specifics in the budget relative to my portfolio, because it's an area that I have some pride in. But it's also an area that holds great promise for the province. It's also an area where the changes that are contained within the budget, I think, show some promise with respect to what I would call an environmental initiative.

[1600]

I also want to mention that the balanced approach in the budget is one that I think most British Columbians do appreciate. It certainly almost mirrors what I read a number of weeks ago in a Sun editorial, which called for a balanced approach. The priorities of health care and education, I think, are right ones for British Columbia. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson talked about the future.

How he failed to understand that the future of British Columbia is tied to knowledge and knowledge-based enterprises and technology, and how he failed to understand that British Columbia has the best record of any Canadian province with respect to support for post-secondary education is a bit of a mystery. The tuition fees which we've frozen once again . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I did listen, not because I accepted what the member was saying, not because I agreed with even a single word that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson was saying. But I sat here respectfully and listened, and it does appear to me that the member's inability to do that speaks volumes about his viewpoint.

I do think that the priorities were right. I'm delighted to live in a province and to be a member of government where all of the university presidents put out a press release the other day saying: "Right on; bang on. This is just what we need in British Columbia." I know Martha Piper, and I know Jack Blaney, and I know them to be pretty hardheaded, realistic people. They're the top-quality people in this country with respect to universities. When I hear them say that, I must confess I'm more inclined to accept the opinion of Mr. Blaney or Martha Piper than I am the opinion of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. No disrespect when I say that . . . .

The fact is that tuition fees in British Columbia are 30 percent -- probably a little more now -- lower than the Canadian average, and we've committed money for 5,000 new spaces at our post-secondary institutions. The member was even critical of the University College of the Cariboo -- the university college in his region -- where we have in the past allowed and conferred degree-granting status on that university college, so that students in that region now no

[ Page 14679 ]

longer have to travel outside of the region to get a university degree. I would recommend to the member, as much as his job is to be a critic, that he also ought to look for those areas where there is something positive to say.

With respect to health care, I want to briefly say -- and it's offering a personal view -- that notwithstanding that I think that British Columbia has, again, been outstanding in its record of contribution to health care, it is my view that the broad issue of maintaining the medicare system in this country, which I think Canadians value very, very much, is not necessarily going to be resolved through money. I accept to some degree some of the statements made by the federal minister, the Hon. Allan Rock, with respect to looking at this system of ours and looking at instituting reforms that will ensure that we do have medicare for the next 100 years.

I think medicare is a competitive advantage that we have in this country; I think it's a significant advantage. By and large, by the way, I think the system works quite well. That's not to say that there aren't areas that need to have attention paid to them, but I don't think it's simply a question of more and more money. I think it's a question of looking very, very hard at the system -- how it's organized.

I listened not long ago to an American health economist from Yale on the "As It Happens" program on CBC. I thought the individual had a lot to contribute to the debate. In fact, I got a transcript of the remarks. In a nutshell, he -- I apologize; I've forgotten his name -- indicated that his view as a person who has been in this field for many, many years, a noted expert in terms of health care systems, is in effect that Canadians don't know how lucky they are in terms of the system they've got. "Don't abandon the system you've got," was his message.

Now, are there problems? Yes. He indicated that there were some areas where, through restructuring and through the way we organize ourselves in the system, we could cover off and protect and make sure that we do have medicare for the next 100 years, unlike . . . . He quoted some systems in the U.S., where the HMOs have failed the health delivery mechanisms they have. In this case, it was a cooperative. The restrictions that those HMOs put on doctors and the restrictions those HMOs put on individuals, in terms of which doctors they can and cannot see . . . . If that system were ever implemented in Canada, there would be a revolution. People would be aghast.

[1605]

I suspect that some people are believing that the grass is greener on the southern side of the Canada-U.S. border. You only have to listen to this individual or read the transcript to understand that what we have in this country is precious and that we need to work collectively and collaboratively. I for one think we ought to sit down with the federal government and see how we can work together to reform the system to make sure we maintain it.

I want to talk just on a couple of specifics relative to the oil and gas sector. By the way, I should also point out, Mr. Speaker, that while there has been . . . . I do understand that the opposition's job is to oppose and to criticize, and I don't fault them for that. I spent five years on the opposition benches myself, and I tried to be an effective critic. Occasionally I must say that my experience tells me -- and quite often our experience is in hindsight -- that often I was too critical and too negative. Given my years of seniority in this place, if I can offer that up to members of the opposition as a helpful suggestion, I'm happy to do so.

I note that my colleague the hon. member for Peace River South obviously understands that as well, having been a member of the opposition and a member of government. I noted and listened with interest to his very informative budget speech, during which he levelled, I think, some good criticisms at the government. He levelled some good criticisms at the federal government.

I want to say I agree completely with what he had to say with respect to Paul Martin and fuel taxes. When the federal government restores $4.2 billion in health care, social service and education funding, and when they start to return to British Columbia even a tiny portion of the federal fuel tax that they collect in this province, then perhaps we might have something to talk about. But they're in a huge surplus position. They're in a surplus position because they cut funding to the provinces. And if Mr. Martin wants to cut fuel taxes, he should get on with it and do it. But don't talk to us about it.

Generally, with respect to the state of the B.C. economy, I wish people would look at some of the encouraging signs. You only have to look at the revenue side for the fiscal year we're still in to note that the indicators there tell you that the B.C. economy, I think, had some pretty good growth in this fiscal year.

Toronto-Dominion Bank's senior economist, David Burleton, said a number of things yesterday on a radio station, and I think they're worth quoting. He said: "We've seen very compelling evidence that B.C.'s economy has been recovering since the early part of last year. Recently, over the past four to five months, we have seen B.C. consumers jump on the bandwagon . . . Retail sales have been rising, and job markets have been improving."

I think it's worthy of note that the unemployment rate in British Columbia is the lowest unemployment rate in the last 18 years. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson went on, in very bleak terms, about touring around his riding with a rain cloud . . . . What's that -- that "Li'l Abner" . . . ?

An Hon. Member: Btfsplk.

Hon. D. Miller: Joe Btfsplk. He reminds me of Joe Btfsplk; he's got a rain cloud over his head. Wherever he goes, it follows him around. Does he not recall the economic trauma in the Kamloops region in the early eighties, when the Social Credit government was in power -- the government that he supported? Does he not recall that? The unemployment rate in Kamloops is far better now -- far better -- than it was then. The unemployment rate in British Columbia is lower today than it has been for 18 years. Now, that's got to tell you something. Things can't be that bad. They're not perfect, but they can't be that bad.

I'm not an economist, but I'm quoting an economist from the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Surely the members would accept these comments, as opposed to any opinion I might have. He's saying the B.C. economy is doing quite well and getting stronger. He said: "Looking ahead to this year as a whole, we're looking at 3 percent, which would be the best growth performance in B.C. since '94." Well, things aren't perfect, but boy, they're not bad. They're getting better.

[1610]

Let's turn to the oil and gas sector. You know, we have now initiated two initiatives in the oil and gas sector. I would

[ Page 14680 ]

venture to say -- and the member for Peace River North is not in the House -- that we have probably, as a government, done more for the economy of the Peace River than any government has done for the past 30 or 40 years. Let's look at some of the results of the oil and gas initiatives which my ministry launched -- both oil and gas 1 and oil and gas 2, which we announced late last year.

If government revenue is an indicator of the relative health of a sector, what does it mean when in 1998-99 the revenue from the oil and gas sector was $362 million, and we look at 1999-2000, and the revenue from the oil and gas sector is $660 million? It means that there is significantly more activity taking place in the oil and gas sector as a result of the initiatives we put in place.

The latest one, and one of the reasons I wanted to talk about this in the budget speech, is

section 51, which members will note, if you look at the brief description in the budget documents themselves, provides for a significant expenditure on roads over the next five years -- specifically $103 million. This is over and above the base expenditures by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. This expenditure, this $20-odd million a year to improve road access, will lead to even greater investment in the oil and gas sector. It's being paid for because revenues are higher. We're taking some of that revenue stream to service a debt of $103 million over the next five years. The potential growth in that region is significant.

In discussions with, for example, the government of the Northwest Territories and the government of the Yukon, it's clear to me that the opportunity to have British Columbia be the destination for new gas finds in the territories -- to have new pipelines, to have new gas stripping plants -- is significant. I want all members to know, as the budget documents indicate, that this is a commitment we have made -- as a result, by the way, of presentations made by the councils of Fort Nelson and Fort St.

John and the regional district in the Peace River -- a solid commitment to spend $20-odd million a year over the next five years to improve that road access. I can tell you that it's been very greatly appreciated by the elected councils and the regional district people that I've talked to in the Peace River.

Section 35 of the budget document is, I think, rather unique. We're phasing out the compressor fuel tax. Where gas companies used the natural gas to drive compressors to pump gas through the pipelines, that's an extra cost. It's passed on to the consumers in British Columbia. We're phasing that out. The budget documents will indicate a number of years' phase-out of that. Very interesting from the environmental side, we are eliminating the compressor fuel tax on compressors that are used to re-inject sour gas or acid gas back into the ground.

That is a significant environmental initiative on the part of my ministry. I want to thank the Minister of Environment for her involvement and her support in achieving this. We are looking, as well -- through the $5 million environmental fund that is in place in the Peace River -- to do even more to deal with the environmental questions that arise as a result of oil and gas activity.

We are poised, I think, in British Columbia to make a significant contribution, a positive contribution, to the broader issues of global warming and climate change. It's clear that our exports of clean energy, natural gas and indeed hydroelectricity to the United States is a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. What remains and what's a real challenge are the rules with respect to whether we will get credit for that. It has not been determined.

The Minister of Environment and I are determined to work very hard to ensure that when we export natural gas out of British Columbia into the United States, and that's used to displace coal-fired power generation, the credit should come back to British Columbia. These are serious questions with respect to our economy. We want to do our part, and we're going to continue to drive to ensure that British Columbia's interests are protected as we move forward.

[1615]

I wanted to talk about that, particularly the last two initiatives, because I think they are very, very important to British Columbians. I know that the increased revenue that has been generated -- the almost $300 million in new revenue in '98-99 to the year '99-2000 -- is very, very critical when it comes to paying for health care and for education.

I also want to note that we've made, I think, a modest beginning with respect to trying to reduce the tax burden and bring British Columbia more in line with other provinces. British Columbia is the last province to have a stand-alone machinery and equipment tax, which is a sales tax on machinery and equipment. No other province has that; or if they do, they have investment tax credits. For the first time British Columbia has made a move now -- 3 percent. It's only 3 percent. But for the first time, that will be converted to an investment tax credit for eligible investments.

I would hope, as we move forward over the years, we'll continue to look at phasing that specific tax out -- the M and E -- or converting it fully to investment tax credits. It should have wider application, in my view. But there's a cost to all of this, and affordability clearly is one of the questions.

We'll continue to try to produce more revenue for the province in the oil and gas sector, to try to ensure that perhaps in future the rest of the province can look as good as the Peace River, with respect to the very low unemployment rate, and build the economy in a way that's balanced, never forgetting that the priorities of the public -- what they expect governments to do -- is to continue to put adequate resources in our health care system, to continue to put adequate resources in our education system and, at the same time, try to address in a broad and balanced way the interests of the economy so we can continue to expand. I think this budget achieves that balance.

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

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: It's my great pleasure to introduce to the House today some 40-plus students from Huband Park Elementary, along with over 20 parents, two teachers and their principal, Mr. Berry. I hope you'll all join me in welcoming them to this Legislature and to the city of Victoria.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: It's a pleasure to rise this afternoon to address the budget. But before I do that, I would like to offer my congratulations to our new Speaker on achieving this new position. I know that the new Speaker will find it interesting, challenging and very rewarding and will very much enjoy the situation as we will no doubt enjoy having him preside over all of us. It was for me -- the second point I want to make in this -- a real privilege to serve in that position for two years. It was a pleasure to serve the position.

[ Page 14681 ]

It was a pleasure to serve the House -- both sides -- in that role, and I want to thank everybody for the opportunity that I had. I'm now in new challenges, and I'm quite looking forward to how that all unfolds.

But before I move on, I'd just like to say a few words of thanks to the service systems, to the support systems, that provide all of us in this chamber with so much of the background that lets us do our jobs here. I think especially of some of the areas like Hansard, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the security people, the dining room, the personnel staff, the library and even our legislative comptroller. I think we all know that they have our best interests at heart, and they're here to help us do our job.

[1620]

The particular group that I worked with most closely, which I want to say a very warm, earnest and sincere thank-you to, is the Clerks-at-the-Table. They provided me, in the role of Speaker -- and they provide this House -- with excellent service. Dedicated and totally non-partisan, they know the rules, and they help us do the job that we have to do. They help us sort out what we want to do, and they sometimes help us get out of little jams when that happens too. I just wanted to put on the record my appreciation to the folks that normally don't want to be identified or recognized. Sorry, folks -- I had to do that.

Thirdly, I'd like to say thank-you to my colleague the member for Kootenay for her comments last evening during private members' statements. She talked a good deal about the Ministry for Children and Families and some of the changes that have happened and are happening. I appreciate very much the support and the interest that she has shown.

As Minister for Children and Families, I am very pleased about this budget. I believe it to be -- and feel it very strongly to be -- a socially responsible budget, a budget with a new and modern direction. The budget is open and transparent. It signals the start of a new kind of government. It is the kind of government British Columbians have said they want, and we have listened. British Columbia has said that it wants a budget that presents a complete financial picture, and that is what we have delivered.

That financial picture shows that we are investing in today's families to ensure that families of today and tomorrow have the supports and services they need in an increasingly complex world. That financial picture portrays a budget that balances the priorities of British Columbians, a budget that balances the need to control the deficit with the needs of health and education.

Families in British Columbia understand this balance. We listened to those families and delivered a socially responsible budget, a budget responsive to the needs of children, of women and of families throughout this province. We are acting on their top priorities: health care, child care, tax cuts, economic growth and education. They've told us that they want a better health care system, and we continue our commitment to provide and respond to that goal. Our health care system is indeed the bedrock of family life in Canada and in B.C.

While other governments in Canada are cutting back health care spending, we continue to increase support to our health care system. This is what families in B.C. expect, and this is what we have delivered.

For the eighth straight year we have increased health care spending. Those regular increases have amounted to $2.9 billion in increased health care services. With this budget we are continuing our commitment to the health of children and families in this province. We have committed $24.8 million to reduce the shortage of nurses, with a plan to deal with the burnout pressures these health professionals experience. Most of our nurses are women -- women whose families need their time and need their energy. We're committed to easing the pressures that these dedicated women face on a day-to-day basis.

As well, we have allotted an additional $5 million for new licensed practical nurses. Another $300 million will go to building better health care facilities for British Columbians. Families can look forward in this budget to increased funding for continuing care services for their aging parents. An example of that, a long term care facility -- Mount St. Mary's here in Victoria -- will be providing innovative multilevel care to elderly patients in its new location, thus ensuring some more consistent and continuing care in the later years of their lives.

We're also providing funding to address the shortage of doctors in rural areas -- because families live in rural areas -- as we know only too well in this province, as has been pointed out often to us here in this Legislature . . . . This budget reaffirms our commitment to universal health care in British Columbia and lets families know that they will get the services they need when they need them. This modern budget supports parents, and in particular those parents and families with children with special needs.

I am really pleased that we were able to provide and commit $8 million to reduce wait-lists for services to children, including those with special needs. In my discussions with many parents from my constituency, Victoria-Beacon Hill, and from around the province, I have been told time and again of this need. I am therefore especially proud of this commitment.

[1625]

We know that we must support with more than words a commitment to front-line community service workers, and we are doing that. We are committed to $149 million to increase the wages and benefits of these workers -- most of whom are women -- who have been some of B.C.'s lowest paid.

We are providing new supports for working families. This is a step in the right direction for parents who are juggling jobs, children, housework and their personal time. We've committed $14 million to before- and after-school child care, beginning in January 2001. This will reassure parents, especially single parents -- again, most of whom are women -- that their children are safe in facilities like the ones in my community -- James Bay Community School and Margaret Jenkins Elementary School -- while the adults and the parents continue to participate, then, more fully in the economic opportunities that B.C. offers.

This budget also allows those people who receive income assistance to keep more of their earnings, to help them move from assistance into the workforce, to be better able to meet their families' responsibilities.

This budget eases the tax burden on middle-class and lower-income families. Personal income taxes for these families will total $225 million this year and $354 million next year. These tax cuts, though perhaps modest, will help families balance their economic lives, while giving them the opportunity to be active participants in the economy of this province. These tax cuts will mean that 100,000 low-income British Columbians will no longer pay income tax, and this

[ Page 14682 ]

means that low income families will be better able to provide for their economic well-being, with more money in their pockets.

As we build on the economic strengths of our communities, we have increasingly come to understand the value and huge potential of the high-tech industry. To this end, we are continuing to work with this sector, and it is paying off. In my region alone, the number of high-tech businesses has grown since 1994 to 709 companies. That is a 40 percent increase -- and the good news doesn't end there. In Victoria the high-tech sector has grown to be the third-largest employer, growing about 15 percent per year. Statistics like this show us the big picture. This is something that is happening which we can all take a huge amount of pride in.

In addition, the budget talks about the film industry in this province. As we move toward a knowledge- and service-based economy, the film industry will play an increasingly important role. We know that success in the film industry in B.C. over the last ten years has been remarkable. For example, I am aware that according to the Greater Victoria Film Commission, over 71 film and video projects generated over $15 million in production revenue for the Victoria area in 1999. This resulted in over 38,000 hire-days with an economic impact of over $42 million to the area.

We have recognized in the budget the growth potential of this industry for the province, and for the first time we are providing financial support for regional film offices across this province. I believe this to be a very sound investment.

British Columbians also gave us some other information. They told us about their concerns about education for their children, and we listened. Because we know a healthy and constructive learning environment is essential to the education of our children, this modern budget increases support for education -- funding 300 new teachers, reducing class sizes in early grades and eliminating 387 portables. This budget provides $445 million for construction of over 100 new schools -- replacements and expansions. And for the fifth straight year we are freezing post-secondary tuition.

Funding to the universities and colleges of $87 million will restore core funding, help with the tuition freeze and create 5,025 more student spaces. I am very aware of the student and institutional needs in my own area. In Victoria, the University of Victoria, Royal Roads University and Camosun College -- at those institutions students are benefiting from the steps that have been taken for the fifth year in a row.

As I reach the conclusion, let me tell you that I feel very confident about this budget. It is a budget based on the expressed needs and hopes of families throughout this province. It affirms our commitment to the children and families of today and tomorrow. The budget provides fair wages for the professional and support staffs -- mostly women -- who teach our children, care for our aging parents, tend to the sick and provide social services to the most vulnerable in our communities. Low-wage redress for community social service workers earning close to the minimum wage was long overdue.

The working poor who were given responsibility for the most difficult social problems in our community deserved a fair wage, and they got it. The government has done the right thing.

Fred Muzin, who is the president of Hospital Employees Union, agrees. He said recently: "This government has produced a budget that's in line with the desire of British Columbians for quality health care, education and other public services. New funds to hire licensed practical nurses . . . is a very positive move that acknowledges the important role that these nurses can play in addressing the nursing shortage facing health care." He went on to say that the B.C. government's 7.1 percent increase goes a long way towards maintaining the current level of health services while funding some initiatives to modernize health care. Again we did the right thing.

This budget is a solid commitment to families and students in education, giving our young people the opportunity to get ahead through their own hard work at school. We've continued the tuition freeze, provided more spaces and more courses in our universities and colleges, and increased K-to-12 education funding for the sixth year in a row. Again this government has done the right thing.

[1630]

Maureen Shaw, who is the president of the College-Institute Educators Association, agrees. She said recently: "The British Columbia government deserves full credit for continuing to increase post-secondary education funding despite the lack of a federal commitment." She said: "We are particularly pleased that the provincial government has dramatically increased the number of new student spaces and extended the tuition freeze for another year. The addition of . . . new spaces is the best news that we have had for many years."

Mark Veerkamp, president of the Canadian Federation of Students, agreed. He said that universities and colleges have been provided the resources that they've been asking for and that are needed to provide post-secondary education in British Columbia and that the tuition fee freeze, growth in core funding and capacity, and the maintenance of the B.C. student assistance program are the foundation for an excellent access policy. So I say again: the government has done the right thing.

This is a budget that meets the needs of children, women and families, a budget that responds to the wishes of the people of British Columbia. This is a socially responsible budget, a budget that balances the priorities of families in this province.

D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, let me take this occasion to congratulate you on becoming Deputy Speaker in this House. We look forward to judicious rulings and kind, caring and firm chairmanship under you.

I'm going to take a positive approach to this budget, because I feel there is a budget here that we have submitted which supports the initiatives coming from the people in the Cariboo. I want to cover economic development; I want to cover the diversification of the economy, the traditional economy, some of the social issues in my riding and in the region. I have to say from the outset that I am proud of the fact that many of the locally initiated programs and projects are being funded by government, but that the program design and initiative have come from the people in the area themselves.

I want to start and thank people. This is the first time I've spoken that I haven't been a cabinet minister. I enjoy the extra time I have for my community and my family, and I would like to thank all those people who have worked so hard over the years for me, to support me in serving this House and this province as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade

[ Page 14683 ]

and more recently as the Minister of Forests. I have to say that when you spend as much time in a portfolio as I have in Forests, you come very close to the people who work in communities to improve that sector of the economy. It has been entirely enjoyable working with them, and I continue to have a major interest in the forest sector, particularly in my riding.

[1635]

I'd like to thank many of the volunteers who contribute to the communities, to help communities hang together in difficult times and thrive in better times.

I'd like to thank those people who serve on school boards and who serve on parent advisory committees. Many of them have been getting active in the area trying to save their schools recently, and I'll say more later.