Hansard -- Volume 18, Number 6 -- Tuesday, March 28, 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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 6

[ Page 14561 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Hon. Speaker, I have two groups of people that I would like to introduce to the House this afternoon. In the first group of four is Judith Kumin, who is a representative in Canada for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, based in Ottawa. With her is Suzanne Duff, regional legal counsel for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, based in Vancouver. Also, from the Ministry for Children and Families is Vaughan Dowie, assistant deputy minister, and Robin Pike, who is the manager of Migrant Residential Services in the Ministry for Children and Families. Would the House please make this group welcome.

The second group . . . . Mr. Speaker, should I do the second ones now?

The Speaker: Another introduction?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Yes, I have another four I would like to introduce. These are representatives from the Métis Family Services society: Tom Lalonde, Rosalyn Drescher, Agda Neumann and Alisha Barbieri. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I have a couple of introductions. Firstly, I notice above me, across the room here, Frank Breault, a friend and grain grower from Dawson Creek who's obviously here to see what we're going to do with his money. And at the other end of the room, there are three people that I owe my job to. They would be Sandy Korman, Jane Burton and Jo Brown. They are here to talk to various ministers about the needs of Nelson-Creston. I would like to say to my colleagues: whatever those women think, that's what I believe too.

[1410]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have an introduction to make on behalf of myself and my colleague the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. Her name is Joan Rysavy. She is a good friend of ours, and she's all the way from Smithers. Many of you know her in her capacity from Central Mountain Air or as a board member of the Vancouver Hospital and Health Science Centre. Would the House please make her welcome.

G. Abbott: In the gallery today are Tony Toth and Rick Jeffrey, who are representatives of the Truck Loggers Association. I'll ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

J. Dalton: I would like the House to welcome some family members. Until today, I've only had one family member actually visit the House. But today I'm very pleased to introduce my wife Leah and my younger daughter Karmen.

Hon. J. Kwan: We have two special guests today from Richmond. They are Gordon and Beth Hughes. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome to the House and introduce Kathryn Dawson, the managing director of our caucus. But more importantly, I'd like to introduce her in-laws from Alberta, the Dawsons. Welcome to British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: Every year we in the opposition and on the government side are privileged to have the services of the members of the intern program. This year the Liberal caucus is very pleased to have with us four -- as usual -- amazing young people, who show us all up with their education and their intellect. We have Marc Coward, Jennifer Erickson, Simrita Johal and Jerry Muir. I would ask the House to make them welcome and thank them for all their hard effort that we're going to receive.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2000

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2000.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 2000-2001 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial three months of the 2000-2001 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because spending authority will expire on March 31, 2000.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. It seeks supply for 50 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for capital expenditures, loans and investments, and 100 percent of financing transactions for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because spending authority will expire on March 31, 2000.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISPUTE IMPACT ON EDUCATION AND FAMILIES

G. Campbell: For the second day in a row, 350,000 children are out of school, because this government doesn't think education is an essential service. That's 700,000 student-days that have gone by already. They're lost forever, and only because this Premier and this government aren't willing to stand up to their union paymasters. My question to the Premier is this: how many days of school is the Premier going to sacrifice before he finally stands up to his union affiliate, keeps our kids in school and declares education an essential service in British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Education of children is very, very important. As you've seen from our budget yesterday, we've

[ Page 14562 ]

infused more cash into education for our young children in schools. It is also important that we are a province where free collective bargaining is respected. It's important that we recognize that yesterday provincial officials contacted both CUPE and the school board officials, and they're talking to them. I'm hoping to hear from them with respect to a process they might be able to find in the next couple of hours to resolve these issues. These are complex issues. CUPE knows that they are complex; so do the school boards. They'd better get to work -- start resolving them.

[1415]

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

G. Campbell: There's no need to find the answer; it's there. We can declare education an essential service today. The Premier doesn't seem to understand that it's not just our children that are suffering. Parents and working families across this province are paying the price for his government's inaction.

For most parents, any tiny tax cut that they may have received in yesterday's budget was spent yesterday on day care. It will be spent again today on day care; it will be spent every single day until this government finally acts. What will it take for this Premier and this government to declare education an essential service in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is obviously a huge difference of opinion across the aisle -- a huge difference of opinion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That difference of opinion exists whether it's about funding for education or for health care. That difference exists whether it's the direction the budget should take in terms of protecting those vital services. And that difference exists as to how important the opposition thinks the education of the children is.

We believe that the education of the children is important. That's why we're infusing cash year after year into their education. The opposition is always asking for massive cuts in spending, because they want to balance the budget yesterday rather than having a moderate budget that goes in the right direction at the end of the day.

I have said very clearly that it is important that children's lives and their families' lives be more certain than they are today. I have asked the provincial officials to meet with both CUPE and the school boards. They're meeting with them as we speak. I'm hoping to hear from them with respect to a process that might resolve the issue.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the Premier is correct in this regard: there is a huge difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. On this side of the House, we put children first. On this side of the House, we say that education should be an essential service.

Yesterday the Premier heard about Sue Elder from Kamloops. She had to spend over 100 of her hard-earned dollars to find day care for her daughter and her special needs son. She's not alone. There are thousands of single parents across this province who have had to do exactly that thing. How deeply are this Premier and this government going to demand that single parents dig into their savings so they can pay off this government's political debts to its union bosses? How long are the kids going to have to sacrifice?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Education is not measured sometimes by a day or two lost in free collective bargaining. Education is measured . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, the Chair has been listening. Questions have been listened to; answers should also be listened to.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, there has to be a balance between the needs of the children and families that are very, very important, and this government respects those rights -- between that right and the right to free collective bargaining. The commitment to education is measured when year after year we've been pouring money into education and when the opposition leader in the last election said he'd cut 15 cents out of every dollar and massacre health care and education in this province. That's how one measures the commitment to education.

I want to say to the hon. members through you, hon. Speaker, that there's a process underway. The provincial officials are talking to both sides. I'm as anxious as anyone to ensure that children's and families' lives are not disrupted. I want to find a process. I'm hoping to hear from those talks that are going on.

[1420]

G. Campbell: I'd like the Premier to understand this. Declaring education an essential service does not take away the right for collective bargaining in the province of British Columbia. Declaring education an essential service ensures that our children get the education they deserve -- their educational rights are met -- while you maintain free collective bargaining. Will the Premier not at least do enough homework to understand how essential services work, protect our kids, give them their education and maintain collective bargaining in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We fully understand the value of our education system for our children. We fully understand, as parents whose kids actually participate in the education system, what the education system does for our children. But what I think the opposition fails to recognize is that the people who actually contribute to the well-being of the education system are exactly the people who are engaged in collective bargaining right now: school board trustees, many of whom support the opposition party -- God knows why, but they do -- and also the workers who deliver the education services.

Those are the people who are engaged in collective bargaining right now. They are the ones that are going to make our education system better. They're the ones that both have complex issues that are being decided. It's not just the workers that are facing difficult issues here; it's the school board trustees as well. This opposition would interfere in that process instead of getting down and saying to whoever they know that's at the collective bargaining table: "Get on with resolving these issues, and get our kids back to school."

[ Page 14563 ]

P. Nettleton: While the government side is waiting, here's one instance of what's happening in the real world. Seventy children at the Carney Hill Neighbourhood Centre in Prince George are facing the second day without day care. A quarter of these kids have special needs, including children with cerebral palsy, fetal alcohol syndrome and autism. Their child care centre is behind CUPE picket lines, because the centre happens to be on school grounds. Will the Premier tell us why he is letting the care of 70 children in Prince George be held hostage to a labour dispute?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The picket lines that exist in this province at our schools are put up with every legal right under the Labour Relations Code. I also know that there are many, many thousands of parents that are facing issues where there is after-school care on the school site as well. The day care centres are asking for and receiving assistance from the government in relocating the child care services. There's every amount of cooperation being given amongst those who are on strike and are legally picketing various school sites and the child care centres themselves. Yes, it is true.

We're facing some very difficult issues here. But I'd rather be facing the issues of providing the day care, than saying day care is unnecessary, as the opposition Liberals would have you believe.

The Speaker: The member for Prince George-Omineca with a supplemental.

P. Nettleton: No schools, no day care -- and it appears that the Premier has no solutions for this problem. How much suffering do these parents and their children have to endure before the Premier will take action?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We are very concerned about the children. I am very concerned, as are all of my colleagues, about the fact that there is certainly some inconvenience to parents and difficulties for children. There's no question about that. I have instructed my staff to ensure that parents who qualify for subsidy can get that subsidy for a full day. I have instructed my staff to deal with the 34 child care resource centres we fund to try to help parents in every way possible. If we had in place the kind of system that those members over there are objecting to . . . .

The Leader of the Opposition and the critic say no to universal child care. They say no to publicly funded child care. If we had that kind of system in place, this would be a much easier issue for everyone to manage.

[1425]

C. Clark: This minister talks about her concern for parents and how inconvenient it's going to be for them. She should go and talk to a parent like Lyann Knight in Maple Ridge. She's got an eight-year-old son named Brandon. He's autistic. He's shut out of his school, and she can't go to work because she's got to stay home and care for him. So while this minister is concerned about her inconvenience, Brandon is being denied his education, and his mother is being denied her paycheque. While she expresses her concern for this terrible inconvenience, this Premier dithers away.

When will he stand up and tell Lyann Knight and Brandon -- and all the rest of the parents in British Columbia -- that this isn't just an inconvenience, that kids should be back in school and that he will declare education an essential service?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The fact that this government cares about children and their education and social services is evident from all of the last eight or nine budgets that this side has introduced for children and families and education. That side, if they were in government, would cut 15 cents out of every dollar. That is the gulf that separates the commitments that we have on either side. We are concerned about the children.

We are concerned about the disruption that this particular strike is causing to their lives and to the lives of the families. That's why I asked the provincial officials yesterday to start talking to CUPE and to the school boards, and I'm hoping to hear from them in the next few hours to see if they have a process to resolve these matters. These are complex matters. I would in fact urge the opposition to use their good offices to talk to each and every school trustee in British Columbia and to talk to each and every union member that they know in British Columbia -- CUPE member.

They should talk to both sides and urge both sides to get to the table to negotiate a settlement so that this matter is dealt with at the earliest possible.

The Speaker: Member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on a supplemental.

C. Clark: I would ask the Premier to use his good offices. I would ask the Premier to stand up today, to stand up for students, to stand up for education and to declare education an essential service in this province. The Premier has the office to do it; he has the opportunity to do it. The only thing that's left standing between him and declaring education an essential service is his lack of leadership. That's the problem.

If the Premier will stand up and show some leadership, will he say to parents like Lyann Knight, will he say to kids like Brandon, who asked his mother 17 times yesterday why he couldn't go to school . . . ? Will he tell them when he's going to stand up, when he's going to show some leadership and when he's going to do the right thing and make education an essential service?

Hon. J. MacPhail: What the opposition fails to recognize and fails to admit publicly is that the issues that are being discussed at the bargaining table, between the school board trustees and the workers who deliver the education services, are about better education for our children. Somehow the Liberal opposition thinks that those that actually deliver the services, those that actually engage and love . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1430]

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . and support, each and every day . . . . The workers in the system with our kids and the school board trustees are attempting to work out some very complex education issues here. I must say that this opposition simply would completely abandon a fair, free collective bargaining system that works for school board trustees, works for teachers in the system, works for the education workers represented by other unions in the system and works for our kids too. Let the process work. But I must say that if the Liberal opposition won't use their good offices to advise how best to reach a conclusion of that, we will do it on their behalf.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

[ Page 14564 ]

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Hon. C. Evans: I rise on a ministerial statement.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Proceed.

Ministerial Statement

FEDERAL AID FOR B.C. AGRICULTURE

Hon. C. Evans: Last week we in British Columbia ended a four-year crusade and a two-year battle to get B.C. farmers a fair share of federal funds -- funds from the Canadian agricultural safety net. What British Columbia did last week was to change fundamentally, and I hope forever, the way this country helps farmers survive hard times and poor markets and the way they assist them to take advantage of good times and good markets. But in order to understand what happened, I think we need some background on what's gone on in recent years.

Post-free trade and post-GATT, Canada moved faster than any other country on Earth, save New Zealand, to eliminate subsidies. And B.C. moved faster than any other province in Canada to eliminate ad hoc or cost-of-production payments. In order to make this work, we had to do two things differently. We decided to aggressively diversify our production into crops and products we never grew before, and we had to invent an insurance system that would allow the producers themselves to hedge against risk with business planning instead of handouts.

Unfortunately, our aggressive diversification made us less and less able to qualify for national programs, because Canada's safety net had been invented to reward monoculture rather than diversity. For that reason, in recent years B.C. led the fight among the provinces in Canada to reconfigure the Canadian system so that federal funding would be based on the relative size of the industry. Last year, for example, while we produced 5 percent of the national farm-gate income, Canada only gave us 3 percent of federal funding.

Last week we reached an agreement on a three-year funding allocation that will give B.C. more money -- over a 50 percent increase and in excess of $8 million in additional federal funding. We did that by tying a province's share to its size of production for the first time.

Now, briefly, I know that we sometimes discuss these matters in this room and that almost nobody understands what the safety net is, so I'm going to digress for just a second. The agriculture safety net is a combination of programs that are available to farmers in times of drastic loss in income or weather disaster. It's programs like the whole-farm insurance program, which we invented and which paid out $15 million last year to farmers with income crises; crop insurance, which insures crops in times of bad weather and, in the last three years, has increased 170 percent in farm take-up; and NISA, which allows farmers to save money in good years to have money to spend in bad years.

Why do we care? Why do we care about helping this industry grow? Quite amazingly, agriculture in British Columbia has sales of over $1 billion a year, and it's growing at the second-fastest rate in Canada.

Last year B.C.'s net farm cash income was up to $459 million -- or a 24 percent increase from 1998, the highest increase on record in history. We're going to work with farmers to advise us to spend this increase wisely, but all MLAs of all parties can also help. We need you to tell citizens the story that the old days are over.

We no longer invest their money in production for production's sake or to maintain a way of life. While both those ideas may be morally correct and politically defensible and might even be the norm in Europe or the United States, our province and our country have made other decisions. Our choices will not work unless the Canadian system is changed to accommodate our interests. That has now happened. I want to stand here and congratulate the federal minister and ministers of other provinces for their willingness to change.

[1435]

Lastly, I would also like to thank my staff for their help building the case for the last few years and all of Canada for listening to British Columbia, almost for the first time in my experience in this portfolio. I'd like to thank the opposition critic for joining me in Ottawa while we made the case in order to show that in British Columbia, support for the family farm supersedes partisan politics and that we all work to make it happen.

B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for the opportunity to be part of the safety net negotiations. These negotiations were of great importance to B.C. farmers, and a collective voice from B.C. was critical to reaching a favourable agreement. I believe what took place in Ottawa on March 22 and 23 should result in greater stability for all farmers in Canada. The new safety net is established for three years. I would hope that it will continue into the future and provide B.C. farmers with a fair share of federal funding, something that has been lacking in the past.

The $3.3 billion agreement is made up of programs designed to help farmers in those disaster years for both crop insurance and income stabilization. British Columbians do not want to see mass bankruptcies in our farming community. The 60-40 split between the federal and provincial government is something that I would hope the Minister of Finance and the entire government will support. It is important that this funding not be stripped from other agricultural programs, especially when both our agrifood processing sector and our tree fruit industry continue to face significant obstacles in future stability and growth.

Our farmers provide a safe food supply while creating stable jobs and diversifying both our economy and our environment. We must not forget that the farmers are the backbone of our province and the backbone of our country. The official opposition holds out some hope that this agreement will provide much-needed stability for the B.C. farmers.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the minister for providing me with copies of his speaking notes and for giving notice of this ministerial statement. The minister says that he's concluded a successful four-year crusade -- I'm not quite sure where he was crusading to -- and a two-year battle on behalf of farmers.

[ Page 14565 ]

What I'd like to know is when farmers in British Columbia are going to start getting a fair share of the provincial budget. I'm quite honestly sick and tired of hearing provincial ministers talk about their concerns with the federal government. I'd like to know what the province is going to do for farmers who live in British Columbia.

A few years ago farmers in the Peace had a crisis with drought. There was no help available. A few years later, farmers couldn't get their crops off because of wet weather and an early winter. Again there was no farm assistance available from Victoria. All farmers got were vague promises about safety nets and an ever-changing set of rules with respect to crop and whole-farm insurance.

The rules change every year; the formula changes every year. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it progressively works to the disadvantage of farmers who are seeing continual crop losses or a series of bad crop years. The minister knows that at least as well as I do.

This year the international price of grain is at an all-time low. A farmer from Dawson Creek drove his combine all the way from Dawson Creek to Ottawa because he was so concerned about the crisis in the farm community; he drove it down to Victoria as well.

The fact of the matter is that this year, as a result of the cereal crop price crisis, farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan got millions of dollars from Ottawa. Alberta and British Columbia got nothing. Now, if that's the end of the crusade, if that's the winning of the battle, I would hate like heck to see what would have happened had the minister lost.

[1440]

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Well, perhaps he would have crusaded somewhere else.

At least in the speaking notes that the minister provided to me, Mr. Speaker, he asks the question -- a rhetorical question, I guess. It says: "If farmers are doing so well, why do they need more money?" He then goes on to answer his own question and says: "So they know help's there if they need it."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I've got a flash for the minister: farmers in the Peace country need help, and they need it today. Grain farmers in the Peace need the minister's help to get the same deal as farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba got. What they don't need is a bunch of platitudes. They don't need a bunch of rhetoric about how good things are. What farmers in the Peace want is somebody who will roll up their sleeves, forget about campaigning for the leadership and get to work on behalf of farmers.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

The Speaker: While members could quietly go about their business, we'll get on with the debate here. I recognize the Minister of Social Development and Economic Security.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased to stand in my place today and to support this budget that our government has just brought in. This budget sets a new standard for transparency and openness in Canada, and I'm very pleased with that. It responds to the needs and values of the people of British Columbia, and I'm very pleased with that. This budget also supports a modern, balanced direction for our economy in British Columbia.

The budget we've just announced signals the start of the most open, transparent process for budgeting that exists in Canada today. We have taken advice from the auditor general. We have taken advice from the Enns panel that we put in place. We have taken advice from concerned citizens -- even from the media and the opposition. And in taking that advice, we have listened to and acted on the legitimate requests and calls for more openness in the budgeting process. In doing so, we have moved beyond the other provinces.

We have moved beyond what the right-wing coalition, when they were in office before us -- before '91 -- has ever done in this province. So I'm very pleased with that step forward. I'm glad B.C. is again leading the way.

In the months leading up to this budget, the minister responsible -- the Minister of Finance -- and others met with people and organizations across the province. Certainly people like me and, I know, most MLAs did that in their own ridings. This budget is a reflection of the concerns, issues and priorities that people laid out. It's a reflection of the things that British Columbians said they need and want. It's a reflection of the kinds of values that British Columbians articulated and said they want government to respond to.

[1445]

After listening to British Columbians, we have acted on those priorities. We're doing so in a number of ways: by strengthening the health care system in the best way we can with little federal support; by investing in education, making sure B.C.'s kids and all British Columbians have the best access to education anywhere in Canada; and by cutting taxes -- not cutting taxes in the way the opposition would cut taxes, which is the majority going to the highest-income earners and the biggest businesses, but by cutting taxes in a way that low-income, modest-income and middle-income families get the majority of the reduction, the majority of the tax break.

We've also made small business taxes in British Columbia the lowest in the country. Given that the job growth in this country is in small business, given the importance of small business in our economy, given the fact that small businesses provide more community stability than very large businesses -- although they are an important piece of it -- given that, I think it's very significant that we have cut small business taxes to be the lowest in the country.

One of the main tasks of this budget is to support our new economy, the green economy, innovation in our economy. This budget rejects megaprojects. It also rejects the extreme approach that we hear daily from the members of the opposition. It rejects the approach that says that child care is not a priority -- which is what I heard just recently from members of the opposition -- but that cutting taxes in a way that provides the benefits to the biggest corporations and the highest-income citizens is a priority. We reject that extreme approach.

We have chosen instead to chart a balanced approach, to chart an approach that maintains our economic momentum in this province and strengthens our competitive advantage. This new approach puts money towards stimulating new

[ Page 14566 ]

sectors of the economy. It puts money towards strengthening the more traditional sectors of our economy. It allows tax cuts for the low-income and middle class and small businesses that will stay in the economy, that will be spent in British Columbia and that will pump money back into creating more jobs for British Columbians.

The business community has told us that they need tax cuts to compete with other provinces and to grow the economy, and that's why we're cutting small business taxes again. Last year they were the second lowest at 5.5 percent; this year they're the lowest at 4.75 percent. To encourage investment and help businesses, both large and small, we're introducing an investment tax credit on machinery and equipment for B.C. business, and that, in my view and the view of my colleagues, is good news.

This new, modern economy, the new direction that our economy has been going in for a number of years . . . . Our budget looks towards those sectors that are growing, that are new and that are part of the green economy.

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. The member for Matsqui rises on a point.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Speaker. Just on a point of order and in this new spirit of non-partisanship, I know the minister doesn't want to dispense inaccurate information during the course of her speech. She clearly is not aware of the latest information regarding small business taxes in the country. I bring that to her attention today, and I know that she'll want to check that fact.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. You'll have opportunity for debate.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm disappointed to see that the opposition continues with its very rude behaviour and also continues to abuse the rules of this House. The member knows full well that's not a point of order. It is simply a way to inject himself, with his rhetoric, into the debate. I'm very disappointed to see that they're going to continue in that vein; that's unfortunate. I do hope that they will change their behaviour.

[1450]

As I was saying, what this budget does is support the new economy. High-tech is one of those new areas; it has an incredible rate of growth in British Columbia. We are supporting high-tech in this budget by increasing the high-tech research and development tax credit. Last year this program produced over $10 million to keep B.C. firms on the leading edge of technology, and this year we forecast that figure will be increasing to $28 million, making British Columbia a logical choice for the location of high-tech corporations. We've seen that begin to happen, and I'm confident this will encourage that trend.

We're also going to create a new B.C. high-tech marketing commission to market our potential to the new wave of high-tech entrepreneurs around the globe. Using the universities as incubators for innovative technologies, the B.C. knowledge development fund invests in capital infrastructure for research at all post-secondary institutions, including the new ones in British Columbia that we have built -- despite and over the objections of the members opposite who would prefer to go to the Ontario model, where they throw it all to the marketplace and resulted in relatively inaccessible education.

Rather than doing that, we have chosen to support education. We are using our excellent universities to support and to be incubators for innovative technologies. We're doing that through the B.C. knowledge development fund.

One of the stories that hasn't been told well enough in British Columbia is the story of the success of the film and TV production industry in this province. Over the past decade the growth in that sector has been phenomenal, and we now have more than a billion-dollar industry in British Columbia. It has grown to be the biggest in Canada, and it has grown to be the third-biggest in North America. It has grown to the degree that Hollywood, although it remains much bigger, is starting to get concerned about the drain of film projects and TV production to British Columbia. That's a real success story.

We are working to sustain that success with tax incentives but also, more important, with the first support for regional film offices in key locations around British Columbia. What those offices will do is provide potential productions with the kind of information that they need about the region to help them locate either part or all of their production in the regions of British Columbia. We made tax changes a couple of years ago to encourage the film industry to move beyond Vancouver, beyond the lower mainland, and to grow in the regions of British Columbia.

By providing these centres across British Columbia in key locations, that will again stimulate and support the film sector, particularly in the regions.

A third new sector and one that I predict will take on increasing importance in this province and in our economy is the green economy, which, as we know, is a mixture of environmentally oriented opportunities -- businesses that not only don't do damage to the environment but in fact support the environment and enhance the environment. That part of the economy is everything from ecotourism to renewable energy initiatives. I know that in my riding we have an ecotourism initiative -- led by the community but supported by this government -- for Lake Cowichan as a gateway community, which I know will help very much in diversifying the economy of that small, traditionally resource community.

[1455]

This budget provides for a range of ecotourism projects. It also will engage British Columbians in a discussion on tax shifting -- a green tax shift. Essentially, what a green tax shift means is that you start to move taxes off things that are good and worthy and onto things that are doing damage to our environment. In other words, you pay taxes based on the problems that you create for future generations and for all of us in terms of the economy.

This budget proposes to invest $5 million in new green sector businesses and community enterprises, as well as to support green technology research and demonstration projects for made-in-B.C. inventions.

But while it's very important, of course, to support the new economy and a green economy and to help it grow even faster than it has been in British Columbia, it's important for ridings like mine -- and for British Columbians across the province -- that we strengthen the more traditional sectors. They have always been the backbone of B.C.'s economy. While in the seventies and eighties they lagged behind in terms of modernizing and paying attention to the need for parks and land use planning, that wasn't the fault of the

[ Page 14567 ]

industry or of the workers; that was the fault of governments. We simply didn't pay any attention to those things. We're moving forward strongly to do that. We are nearing completion of the land use planning across this province.

But we also need to do things to make sure that the move to value-added -- that we get more jobs out of every tree that's cut in this province -- continues. And we need to make sure that the traditional sectors remain strong as they modernize.

In forestry, which counts for about half of the exports from this province, we're continuing the reduced stumpage rates. We're proceeding with the results-based code pilot. Industry has said that they can maintain environmental standards, but that there are easier, better ways to do it that are less expensive, less onerous on industry. We've taken them at their word. We've introduced some pilots, and we're moving forward with that.

We're also providing protection and renewal for our forest ecosystems. Again, the opposition objects to the environmental laws. They object to the Forest Practices Code. They object to the forest land reserve. They object to Forest Renewal B.C., which has pumped millions back into our forests and millions into forest communities. They object to the parks that we've created; we're nearing 12 percent. They've rejected the protected areas. They've rejected all of those green initiatives.

Essentially, their argument has been and remains that we should simply hand it all over to the companies. In fact, their think tank, the Fraser Institute, essentially is making the argument that we should simply hand ownership of all the land over to the forest companies as well, because -- according to their argument from the other side -- that would mean it would be better managed. Unfortunately, we haven't had that experience in British Columbia historically. While I respect that they have a very different view, I doubt very much that if we were to go along that road, it would do anything but take us back a long way in terms of forest management.

So we have done land use planning. We're nearing completion of land use plans across B.C. We will continue to try to manage this resource and work with the industry and workers and communities to make sure that we have sustainable forests and that we have the most jobs that we can get out of every tree that's cut and that British Columbians, not people outside our borders, get the majority of the advantage of that.

In my riding we have created a community forest a few years ago and allocated a timber sale to a community group. Also, we've changed the legislation. We're moving towards more community forest pilots. The trees belong to the people of this province. The more control over the forests we can give communities -- in a way that doesn't disrupt the workforce, in a way that gets more jobs per tree -- the better off we'll all be. So I'm pleased to see that we continue to do that.

We all know that we've had difficulties with fisheries in British Columbia as well. In response, in order to try to stabilize fish and essentially do the same thing we did with forests by cleaning up the mistakes of the past and moving forwards, we created Fisheries Renewal B.C. That is a very grass-roots, bottom-up approach that's working well in coastal communities. We've put a significant amount of money in that. In the coming year we're going to invest another $7.5 million though Fisheries Renewal B.C. on conservation projects that will help protect and restore B.C.'s fish stocks.

[1500]

We're also implementing our new aquaculture policy. It balances growth and diversification with protection for our coastal ecosystems, and that too is good news -- again, a balance between the very real environmental concerns and needs that we know about and the need to ensure that people have jobs and we have economic development.

We're also investing $1 million to further develop our freshwater fishery and to diversify seafood and shellfish sectors, and $100 million over the next five years in road projects in the northeast of this province to support the resource industry up there, the oil and gas industry.

So we recognize in this budget that B.C.'s traditional resource economy remains one of our critical strengths. It's central to our success in the global marketplace and to our identity as British Columbians. We recognize that central role. We aim to ensure that there are sustainable opportunities for the next generation of workers in forestry, fishery and other resource sectors. We can only do that if we begin on the assumption that we must protect the environment and protect the resource through a number of the initiatives that we have put in place.

This budget does support a modern, balanced economy. It moves along the new economy; it supports the green initiatives and takes us in the kind of direction -- the balanced direction -- that British Columbians have said they want.

But it also responds to the needs and values of British Columbians in another way. For example, this budget supports low- and moderate-income families with an income tax cut. It again, for the ninth straight year in a row, increases funding and support to health and education. It continues our commitment to support health and education that everybody depends on.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

This budget is there for families in health care; it has increased funding. Again, it has steps to improve continuing care for our aging parents and grandparents. There's a plan to deal with the burnout pressures and reduce the shortage of nurses, most of whom are women. It provides practical support for families who care for special needs children and adults. The budget is there for families to create a health care system that's there when they need it.

This budget is there for families and students and education. B.C. has become known as the education province in this country, and there's good reason for that. Again, we see a solid commitment to giving our young people the opportunity they need to get ahead through their own hard work at school. Again we see a tuition freeze; that's the fifth year in a row. We see more spaces and more courses in our universities and colleges.

In provinces like Ontario and Alberta particularly, we see education getting more and more expensive as they throw it to the marketplace, with budgets that reflect the values of the marketplace and the values of globalization and a global economy. What British Columbians want is the values of their community economies -- their local economies -- and they want the values of the families and the needs of their children met in a budget. This budget does that. We have continually frozen fees, so that we've gone from the second-highest to the

[ Page 14568 ]

second-lowest fees in the country. More people are going to university. The numbers are increasing in British Columbia,

whereas they are shrinking in other provinces.

We've also increased K-to-12 education funding for the sixth year in a row. There's no question that with the smaller class sizes that we're moving to in British Columbia we have a higher quality of education. We have excellent teachers and more of them. We have a dwindling number of portables. We are building the schools that children need. In my riding we've invested nearly $70 million, and I know that's true across the province.

Because we built nothing in the 1980s, because the only focus was the bottom line, and because there was no attention paid to the growing social deficit, we had virtually no funding for building schools or highways or hospitals throughout the entire 1980s.

It's the same kind of problem we're seeing growing in Alberta today under the same ideology. The auditor general in Alberta is starting to ring the alarm bells and say that because they're not investing, because they're playing number games with debt . . . . Instead of recognizing that you do need to incur mortgages when you build things, they're playing number games and buying into an ideology. The auditor general in that province is starting to ring the alarm bells and saying: "You're heading for the wall. Your infrastructure is falling apart. You're going to have a massive problem ahead of you.

You're going to have a social problem. You're going to have an economic problem, and you're going to have a need to build enormous amounts -- unattainable amounts -- of infrastructure in order to try to keep up, to meet the needs of your economy and your citizens."

[1505]

In B.C. we've taken a different approach. We have tried to fill some of the backlog from that ideological time of the 1980s to try to make sure that our children have the kinds of schools, buildings and facilities they need in order to get the kind of education they need to realize their potential -- but that all of us need for us to realize our economic potential. This is an information-based society and economy that we're moving to. Unless we invest in education and invest in our children, we won't be able to continue to move forward and to build our economy.

I'm very pleased that again in this budget we're focusing on our children and on the future by making sure that we are investing in education.

Education doesn't just begin when you're five and go to kindergarten in the school system. Education begins when you're born. All children, no matter what their socioeconomic income or background, benefit from access to licensed quality child care -- the kind of stimulating environment that kids enjoy so much and parents need so much.

I am extremely pleased that in this budget British Columbia is becoming the second jurisdiction in North America to start to move towards a publicly funded universal child care program. In this budget we're investing $14 million in our children. I can't think of anywhere else that is more important or anything that matters more to us today or in our future than investing in our children.

The first step we're going to take is to pull the six-to-12-year-old school-based child care into a publicly funded system and expand it. That's what we're going to do this year. I have committed, as the minister responsible, to walking arm in arm with parents and providers and school boards to make sure that we do this in a way that reflects their needs and allows for the diversity that is necessary in order to adequately provide care for our children and to make sure that we do it right.

North America is, I think, the only place left in the developed world where publicly funded child care doesn't exist as a matter of course. It's the only place left -- North America -- in the entire developed world. The only jurisdiction in North America that has taken this step to fix that problem -- and it is a huge problem -- is Quebec. But Quebec rushed into it too quickly, and Quebec has had a number . . . . I applaud them for their initiative, and I know that they'll work it out and fix it. But they have moved too quickly. Unfortunately, there have been a number of problems as a result.

We have undertaken in B.C. to walk this road carefully. Over the years, we have expanded supports to parents, we have expanded supports to child care centres. We have worked closely and talked a lot with the child care community -- parents and providers -- to find out what we need to do. The most recent was an intense consultation, with a document my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin released last fall. You know, hon. Speaker, I think all of us were astonished. We knew there would be interest. We knew there had been response, but there were over 10,000 responses. There was a high degree of consensus about what government should do, and we're acting on what the public said.

[1510]

We know that in 83 percent of families, both parents work. That's the reality. When I hear the critic for the opposition say, "We have to live in the real world," and argue against the child care system and say that we shouldn't do it because it's not a priority, I don't know what real world they're operating in. The real world is that we are in an economy where both parents need to work to live, in the majority of cases. The real world is that we have 83 percent of families where both parents work.

And the real world is that only 10 percent of kids who need it have licensed child care. This is a huge need. And even if they don't think it should be a priority -- their bigger priority is to do tax cuts for a handful of the highest-income earners and a handful of the biggest corporations -- we believe that our children are a priority. I'm very pleased with the support on this side for child care and for taking this first step into a publicly funded system.

You know, when we debated the Nisga'a agreement, I was astounded to listen to the opposition say: "You know, it's not a bad idea, but we shouldn't do it now." Good lord, after 111 years, 25 of them in negotiations, their argument was: "We shouldn't do it now." Well, guess what. What that really meant was that they don't want a Nisga'a agreement. They don't want to settle with aboriginal people.

You know what they're saying about child care? They're saying: "The timing is just not right. We shouldn't do it now." Hon. Speaker, if not now, when? We have 83 percent of families with two parents working. Because of the changes in the economy, because of globalization, we're seeing a gap between haves and have-nots. In the 1980s that gap grew faster than any other decade in our history. We have child poverty, and we have problems of latchkey kids, which is obviously untenable. Yet they're saying that they're not sure it's the right time.

I am pleased that we're taking this step. We're going to move forward as finances allow. We're going to move forward

[ Page 14569 ]

over the next five or six years to implement a child care system in which every child in British Columbia has the right to licensed, regulated, safe, affordable child care. I think this is a milestone for British Columbia and a second milestone in Canada, and I am pleased that we're taking that step.

This is a budget that finds the balance between the need to maintain and control the deficit and ultimately reduce it . . . . It finds a balance between that and the need to support education and health care and look after our kids with a good child care system -- the beginning of it. It finds the balance between all of those things and the need for us to sustain our environment. This is a modern, balanced approach. It's one that will support the economic growth that's happening in British Columbia right now.

It's one that will foster a modern, green economy and that reflects the needs and values of B.C. families in health, education and child care. It is a balanced and supportable budget, and I'm very pleased to support it.

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm pleased to get up in support of the budget debate in the House. First of all, hon. Deputy Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you on your new position and also the Speaker on his new position. I'd also like to welcome the new member for Delta South to this House. Also, congratulations to the member for Richmond East on becoming a mother --congratulations to you.

I'd also like to say that I'm very proud of our new Premier and the job that he's doing on behalf of our province. Our new Premier generates light, not heat. He wants to run and will run an open, honest and good government on behalf of all the citizens, all four million people in our province.

The economy of our province is on the mend, is coming back. Growth is great in all sectors across our province. Since we last sat in this House, I had the honour to serve as the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I very much appreciated working with many regional directors, councillors and mayors across our province during the time that I had the honour to sit in that position.

I'd also like to say a thank-you to Steve Thorlakson, the president of UBCM, for the way that he worked with me and other members of the UBCM executive during my tenure as Minister of Municipal Affairs -- which was a great challenge and a great honour, to work with these elected leaders in the communities across the province.

[1515]

One month ago I was appointed by the Premier as the Minister of Forests. This is a great challenge for me and a great responsibility for me on behalf of the many communities in our province which depend on the forest sector. The forest sector, as you know, is the engine that drives our economy in the province, a very important sector across the province, including in Vancouver. There wouldn't be all those tall buildings with forestry companies having their executive offices in there if there wasn't a healthy forest sector in the province.

During the many years that I hope to serve as Minister of Forests, some of the items that I would like to work on and some of the challenges that I see are to work on the quota system. Markets are something that we must continue to develop in the world -- protect our old markets and work in new ones. For instance, at the present time we only sell about $3 million worth of forestry products to China. That would only keep China in toothpicks, no doubt, for about half a day.

The value-added sector, too, is a very important sector for us to work on to expand. A lot of work has been done on that; there's always room for more. The more we can get out of those trees, the better it is for all of us, so there's more jobs. Especially, for many years, there are communities in the province that have had a tough time. But a lot of the forest products are leaving there in the raw state and being made into value-added products elsewhere in the province, the country or the world. It's nice to see that more of those products are being made in the community which is close to where the trees grow.

While I'm speaking of forests, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the hon. member for Cariboo South and all the hard work he did in the four years that he served as the Minister of Forests. Good job to you.

I hope that I have had some experience in this task, as Minister of Forests, as an MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke. Something I was very involved with about seven years ago was the setting up of the second community forest in the province of British Columbia; that was in Revelstoke. There's a 100,000-cubic-metre community forest in Revelstoke. Every year that it's been in place it has made money. It has been very, very good for that community.

One of the concerns that community used to have before the community forest was set up -- because there was very little processing of forestry products in Revelstoke -- was that the only time that the trees stopped in Revelstoke was at the traffic light on their way out of town. Revelstoke had enough of that. I worked with the community leaders, the community, the Minister of Forests at that time and the government to set up this community forest, which has been a real success story.

In the community of Golden, the community that I live in, I've worked hard with that community on the forest sector. Three and a half years ago the major employer had financial trouble. I worked with the Premier, the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Employment and Investment, community leaders, the company in Golden through to Malakwa and workers to make sure that we got that company up and running again.

Today that company, which is Evans Forest Products in Golden -- which has recently been bought by Louisiana-Pacific -- is a great success story. They've now got a laminated veneer lumber plant -- the first one in the province, actually. They're still doing plywood and cedar products over in Malakwa. It's a great success story, and I'm pleased to have worked on that on behalf of the community. This company is one of the outstanding companies in our province at this time.

In the last couple of years, Crestbrook Forest Industries down in Cranbrook -- who operate very, very close to Golden and Canal Flats, up through to Parson and throughout the member for Kootenay's riding -- sold out to Tembec, a very large company from eastern Canada. They bought the company some time last year. Again, they're investing many, many dollars into a value-added plant in Cranbrook. Additional dollars have been invested into the pulp mill at Skookumchuck. So hopefully, I have that experience in the forestry sector, because that's what my constituency and the province depend on -- that is, the forest sector.

I'd like to spend some time speaking on different investments in the constituency that I'm honoured to represent. I feel that British Columbia . . . . It's the B.C. advantage. That is what it is to invest in British Columbia. A couple of weeks ago the Premier joined with me and other people up in Golden when we announced a new ski hill, a new resort, in Golden -- a $200 million investment in the community of Golden. This is new money coming into Canada, into British Columbia and

[ Page 14570 ]

into the community of Golden from the Netherlands. Ballast Nedham is the name of the company. The only other investment they have in Canada is the Prince Edward Island bridge. They're a 38 percent owner in that.

[1520]

This new resort is going to be very, very good news for a community like Golden, which is on the Trans-Canada Highway. It'll be a reason for many of the people who pass through that community to stop, shop, stay and invest some dollars into this community. I'm very, very excited about this new investment in Golden.

In total, there's about a $1 billion investment in the recreation services throughout the East Kootenays, starting in Fernie, in the member for Kootenay's riding. In Fernie and Kimberley, Charlie Locke bought both those resorts -- Kimberley is in my riding -- and is putting about half a billion dollars in investments into both these resorts, helping to diversify the economy of those communities.

At Panorama, Intrawest owns the resort up there. They've put massive dollars into that resort over the years. Last year they opened one of the best golf courses in the province, Greywolf Golf Course, and in the first year they exceeded all expectations of people for people using that resort. Fairmont Hot Springs has also had millions of dollars going into condominiums and the expansion of recreation services in that area. At Radium Hot Springs there's also a fine little community, and massive dollars have been invested there in golf courses and hotels.

In Revelstoke, in the west end of my constituency -- a very fine, proud city -- last year they celebrated their 100th anniversary of becoming a city. I was pleased to have cabinet and caucus up there for a caucus meeting last fall. It was great to be there with them to help them celebrate their anniversary. Geoff Battersby, who was the mayor then and has since stepped down, was a very, very fine mayor. He worked with me to set up the community forest some years ago. Geoff decided not to run last November. I'd like to wish him all the best in his retirement, but no doubt he'll keep busy, because he still continues to be the chair of the community forest.

They have a new mayor in Revelstoke, Gail Bernacki, and I look forward to working with Gail on issues that we will work on jointly, as far as me being their representative in Victoria and their voice for the community of Revelstoke.

I mentioned earlier that the community forest in Revelstoke continues to do well. In Revelstoke, too, is the value-added manufacturer Selkirk Specialty Wood, a $4 million value-added plant employing 100 people -- new jobs in the value-added sector, which is very, very exciting.

As I mentioned earlier, the community of Golden where I live . . . . We have a new mayor up there, Red Scott, a very fine person who has served as a town councillor for three years. He succeeds Norman Macdonald, who has served that community very, very well for three years. He decided to spend some time teaching in Africa. I wish Norm the best.

We also have a new regional director in the Golden area. That is Ron Oszust, a very fine young man who used to be a school trustee and is now the regional director. He succeeds Duane Crandall -- who was my predecessor in this building -- who was the regional director for three years following his time in this building here.

As far as Golden is concerned, just before I was appointed as Minister of Forests by the Premier, I was very pleased to announce a 300,000-cubic-metre non-renewable forest licence for the community of Golden to help it further diversify its forestry services. I'm very, very proud of that. There is another small company that has worked hard in Golden over the last few years: Interact Wood Products. I've worked closely with them. Again, they have roughly 100 people working in a value-added plant in Golden.

Also, about two weeks from now -- I think April 7, 8 and 9 . . . . For the last five years . . . . Actually, I must give the member for Nelson-Creston credit for this; he had started as a Kootenay MLA. The value-added wood forums in the East and West Kootenays had been in many communities throughout the East and West Kootenays over the past years. The forum is being held April 7, 8 and 9 in Golden. I think we have a lot to show off in Golden and other parts of my constituency and in the East and West Kootenays of just what we have done as far as value-added wood products and the growth of that in the constituency that I represent -- and in the Kootenays too.

In the community of Invermere -- a very proud old community in the Columbia Valley -- there is a new mayor, Mark Shmigelsky, who is a fine young fellow who had served on council for some time. I look forward to working with Mark, as I have in the past months. Retiring as mayor of Invermere is Chuck Blanchard, who served as the mayor for six years and has done a very, very good job.

[1525]

Over the last year, since we last sat in this House, I was pleased to have worked with the community of Invermere and of course to announce a new college. There's a new community college up and running in Invermere, the first ever new college for that community. Before, they were renting quarters in different parts of town. I'm very pleased to have worked with government and the community of Invermere and the Columbia Valley to get that new college up and running -- a very proud moment for the community and for all of us.

Also, over the last year -- the millennium -- to have worked with government and with many, many community leaders and groups throughout my constituency to make available millennium grants for different very worthwhile causes from Revelstoke to Golden to Invermere, Radium, Kimberley and many other smaller communities around about there . . . . It is very important that we are building many worthwhile facilities on a 50-50 cost-share basis, which will serve those communities for many, many years to come.

Another item that I'm very pleased about, as far as being from the Kootenays, is that the four Kootenay caucus MLAs have worked over the last years to make sure that the Columbia Basin Trust was set up. As the members in this building may know, many years ago when the Columbia River was dammed, many communities suffered badly. The best timber, wildlife and other items were lost under the dams. Of course, those dams were built so that we could have lights in this building down here at the cheapest hydro rate in all of Canada. I think we owe the area that I represent and the other areas in the Kootenays a lot -- so that this government and this opposition could see some light.

An Hon. Member: Through B.C. Hydro, it's cheaper than in the United States.

Hon. J. Doyle: That's right. So I'm very, very proud of that, hon. Speaker. But because the communities in the Koote-

[ Page 14571 ]

nays suffered so much from the damming of their best valleys for the Columbia River Treaty, we as government -- after listening to people for many, many years, when those people over there were in government under a different name, and the hurt that was inflicted on those communities because of the Columbia River Treaty -- worked with the communities throughout the Kootenays to set up the Columbia Basin Trust. This has been a great success story. There are 18 people -- 12 regional directors, six appointed by the provincial government and two first nations people -- that sit on the Columbia Basin Trust board.

So the majority of members are regional directors or mayors or councillors from the communities.

The Columbia Basin Trust works for and invests in different services throughout the Kootenays. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston is also the chair of Columbia Power, and there are projects that are shared 50-50 with Columbia Power and the Columbia Basin Trust. It's been a great success story not just for this generation but for the generations to follow. After the damming that happened in our constituencies and in the Kootenays, we are finally getting something back for our children and their children.

I continue to be very honoured to serve as the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke. I know I am more often than not on the road as a minister of the Crown. I have very capable staff working in my office in Golden and in my part-time offices in Revelstoke and Kimberley, who do their best during my absences either as I sit here as a member of the Legislature or travel around the province as the Minister of Forests. I'd like to thank them.

I'd also like to thank my dear old family who put up with me while I'm gone -- and all our other members who are gone serving their constituents in the province. They put up with a lot during the absences that we have, taking care of our political needs as individuals who have been elected as 75 members of this Legislature. So I'd like to thank my family, my wife Judy and the two boys, Adam and William, for putting up with my absences during my time in Victoria or travelling through all the parts of the province.

I'd like to say that as far as the budget . . . . The budget that was brought down this week is very good news for British Columbia. The budget protects services for people. Investments that we've made in the last nine years as government make up for the many years when there was no infrastructure built in this province by former governments -- things like new schools, hospitals, colleges and the new child care program announced in the budget this week. Tax cuts for small business are very important.

[1530]

Also, high-tech in British Columbia has become a very big part of our economy. I'm very proud of that. The more diversification we have, the better. I'm also very pleased to have worked with a small company in my constituency that wanted to provide wireless Internet service, which we have now across all schools in our province -- something we're very proud of. This little company was free to get the contract to provide wireless Internet service to the schools in Kimberley, Invermere and Golden, and I think they've been down as far as Cranbrook.

Instead of giving the contract out to one big company across the province, it was my wish to work with this company back in my constituency so they could have a chance to provide high-tech services and have people hired and doing this kind of work in the constituency that I represent. I'm very proud of the company that's going to take on this challenge. I'm pleased that the minister I worked with -- Advanced Education -- worked with me so that we could break this contract up and have services available and high-tech growth in the communities that I represent out there.

Tourism is up to all new heights, as far as people who want to come to see our fantastic province that we live in. It's great to see the many licence plates, the different languages that we hear in the province from people who are visiting us from all over the world. People come here to our great province because of the beautiful open spaces, the mountains, the river rafting, the skiing, the golfing and many other things. So we have a lot to offer. I'm very pleased to see the growth and the further diversification in our province.

British Columbia, as has been mentioned by other speakers on the budget debate, is the education province. We have done a lot, invested many millions of dollars in education in our province. What better place to invest money than in our youth -- the greatest resource that we have as a province? The greatest resource that we have in our province is our youth.

Also, tuition fees have been frozen now for some years. It used to be that many people could get past with not having finished grade 12, or finishing grade 12 and having a couple of years in college. More and more jobs now demand that you have further education. There are people in communities like where I live who have to move from many, many miles away to go to university. So it makes it a bit easier for those students to attain university education and get a well-paying job at the end of the day if tuition fees or the debt at the end of the day is not going to break them. Again, it's a very, very good investment in our students.

Other work that we've done as government over the last years is that we have allowed the chief forester of the province to do his job. Every five years, in all areas in the province, there's a cut determination made, independent of government, to make sure that we have sustainable forests -- which is very good for the many communities throughout our province, and not just for us today -- and to make sure that there is a forest there for our youth and their children to harvest or do other activities or recreation in. It's a very important thing that this government has done -- to ensure that the chief forester is allowed to do their job independent of government.

Another item that we've done as government is put in place the Forest Practices Code. I know the opposition have said they would scrap it. Do they not realize, if they were to get into office, the harm that scrapping or racking around with the Forest Practices Code would do to the land and also to the markets we have in the world for forest products? The work that was done is very, very important. A lot of work was done by the former minister, working with many people throughout the province to make some changes to the Forest Practices Code; that was to do with red tape and things like that.

But the Forest Practices Code is in place. It's doing a good job. It's making sure that we're good stewards of the land in the province. This is all I have to say at this time. I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to stand up and debate here today.

[1535]

J. Dalton: I'm pleased that my family members are still in the audience. Aren't they patient? It wasn't of course planned

[ Page 14572 ]

that I might be on my feet and able to address the budget while they were still here. I know they do have to rush off to a ferry, and I'm going to talk about the ferry in a moment. Again, I hope they will be patient for at least a few more moments, and I can get started on my response to this rather dreadful news that we got yesterday called the budget. However, yesterday my wife, younger daughter and I rode the fast cat. And of course, yesterday over 30 school districts and 350,000 students were strike-bound. Then, to top it off -- and if this wasn't a bad day, I don't know what was -- we had the budget. So it's three very bad experiences that I had personally in one day.

I found -- and I'm sure my family members would agree with me -- that the ferry rocks, the schools are closed and the deficit and debt are out of control. Now, what else can go wrong, I wonder. Hopefully this government won't last too much longer, because God knows where the next trouble will come from. Hon. Speaker, we know the impact of the fast ferries. A waste of $463 million -- that's the impact. And we know the impact of the closed schools. Yet the Finance minister spoke yesterday in his remarks in presenting the budget of cutting class sizes -- rather ironic on the day when many classes were at zero.

We know the impact of deficit and debt. But of course all of my colleagues either have been or will be addressing the very significant financial burden that our children, whether they be in school or otherwise, will be facing -- thanks to this government. The minister yesterday in his comments admitted that 9 cents of every dollar goes to service the provincial debt. He sort of dismissed that as not being a significant figure. Well, let's examine what 9 cents on the dollar translates into. That works out to approximately the cost of the SkyTrain expansion, in fact.

That works out to approximately the cost of the SkyTrain expansion -- in fact more, although we fear that SkyTrain will probably go well over budget.

It translates into interest costs at $2.8 billion -- annual interest payments of $2.8 billion. That's a jump of $300 million over last year. That's a daily rate of approximately $7.5 million, which, if you like, is an elementary school every day. So instead of being able to build that elementary school or perhaps reduce waiting lists or improve the ferry system -- and God knows it needs it, because we're going to now be without these three beer cans, as I call them, that are on the block -- we face this horrendous interest payment on the public debt.

The NDP have mortgaged their children's future and at the same time deprived them of access to education. I've heard members opposite -- even today, on their feet -- saying: "Isn't it proud for British Columbia that they've increased funding to education?" And the schools are closed. It's shameful, hon. Speaker. Of course, the Premier has no answer, as we've seen both yesterday and today.

In the meantime, his government continues to run up deficit after deficit. The projected deficit in this 2000-2001 budget is $1.278 billion. We throw these billions around. Somebody many years ago, we'll all remember, said: "What's a million?" Now, of course, things have escalated a bit, and it's: "What's a billion?" We can't comprehend that until we break it down into daily rates or things that actually hit home in people's pocketbooks, in their lives.

Last year's deficit was $1.145 billion. So of course, typical of this government, we're going in the wrong direction. Many years ago they were claiming they would be wiping out deficit over the business cycle. Well, nine years of NDP -- and all the deficit does is escalate. Typically, we're going the wrong way.

[1540]

What else did the Finance minister offer us yesterday? He said there would be no more megaprojects. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway missed that announcement, I believe.

The Finance minister admitted that revenue for last year was up $1.1 billion. That means that they actually had some unforeseen revenue last year. But of course, again typical of the NDP, once they get a chunk of change in their pockets, what do they do with it? They spend it. Their spending was up $1.25 billion. So they took the $1.1 billion extra revenue, and they said: "Great -- we'll spend all of that and more so."

The previous Finance minister, who is now the Deputy Premier, defended one of her budgets by saying that the public demanded budget overruns to protect health and education. Of course that is not the case; that is not what the public demands. Just as in its own household, the public expects the government to live within its means. The public counts on a strong economy and jobs to fund its personal endeavours; the government should do the same to fund its. This government doesn't get it. I and some of my colleagues have been here for coming on nine years, watching this province decline. Every year they bring in a budget, and every year it's the same story.

Then the minister, to comment further on his remarks of yesterday . . . . He said in this House, hon. Speaker, that we "need to control the deficit." He said it at the time he's tabling a budget with a $1.278 billion deficit. So he said it, but he didn't do it, which is very typical of this government.

Then the minister introduced the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Firstly, I would have to ask: why did it take nine years of NDP government to get around to introducing

an act that shouldn't really be needed in the first place? Why do we need a law to identify accountability? I'm just referring to this government now. But should not any government -- federally, provincially, regionally, municipally -- be accountable to the taxpayer that funds it? I certainly hope so.

Another comment from yesterday's speech by the Finance minister was that the reduction in class sizes continues. Well, that one keeps jumping off the page, hon. Speaker -- a very strange statement on the day that class sizes in many school districts were zero. I don't think the government, when it wrote this speech, had in mind that they were going to reduce class sizes to that level, but that is the reality. This government can't even grasp the fact that it is vital that school students be in class and not out in the street or at home or elsewhere, and they really don't get anything.

Our previous Education minister . . . . I might say, as an aside, that it's funny that when you go through this government, we're continually talking about previous ministers and previous Premiers -- previous this, previous that. Then they recycled them all. It reminds me a bit of NHL hockey coaches. They don't really get any new ones; they just sort of shift them around from team to team. It's still the same old bunch.

Well, the previous Education minister -- he used to be the leader and member of other parties, just to let you know who I'm talking of -- said that he would leave class sizes as is. He actually was on record, when he took over that portfolio -- and he wasn't there very long -- as saying that he wouldn't touch class sizes. So I'm wondering: does the new Education minister support the old view of that minister, or does she support the new view of what the Finance minister said yesterday? I guess we'll have to stay tuned for that one.

[ Page 14573 ]

[1545]

Now, what else did we see in yesterday's exercise? Well, the Minister of Finance cavalierly wiped out a $1.08 billion B.C. Ferry debt. Of course, it isn't wiped out, but he just summarily dismissed it as not being important. So what they've really done is just shifted the figure away from the B.C. Ferry Corporation books onto the taxpayer-supported side of the ledger. Again, who's going to end up paying for it? Well, our children, of course.

I would invite members opposite to check very closely in the estimates book and in the budget reports where that over $1 billion ferry debt has gone and reflect upon the fact that if they can't run a corporation of that importance properly, then in fact what can they do?

This is what the Minister Responsible for Ferries, who again is the Deputy Premier -- these people wear several hats, depending on which day it is -- announced on March 13 that the removal of B.C. Ferry's debt of $1.1 billion will occur. Well, she was true to her word -- it has occurred. But it's not the removal of the debt. The people of this province, the taxpayers, still have to discharge that obligation. But what they want to do, of course, is clean the Ferry Corporation books to make it look good as we head into who knows what disasters ahead.

I might say as an aside that we have a very serious issue with the Ferry Corporation. The fleet is aging; the terminals are wearing out. In fact, as an example, there's talk that they may have to close the Snug Cove terminal on Bowen Island for up to two months for repairs to the terminal. Well, how are the people of Bowen Island going to accept that? Are we just going to dismiss that as nothing of importance?

Maybe that's enough of yesterday and the horror story that the minister introduced. Let's go back in time. In fact, it was funny. When I arrived on Monday, in my mail package that I presume all other members received as well, there were two annual reports of the Ministry of Human Resources. But the dates were curious. One of the reports was for '97-98; the other was for '96-97. So you have to ask: why are we receiving ministry reports that are four years old? Not only can this government not get the budget correct, but it can't even do a timely thing such as filing reports within the required time lines.

I also came across another annual report of some interest. It was the B.C. Ferry Corporation report of 1993-94, and I have it in my hand. It was rather intriguing to look through that report, firstly because the minister responsible at the time was the MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway. Have we heard of him before in my comments? Yes, we have. Of course, he's another one of these former somethings -- in his case a former Finance minister, a former Investment and something-else minister and a former Premier.

What does the '93-94 annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation tell us? Some interesting comments. Whether we can directly attribute them to the minister of the time or not doesn't matter. We are told under "Business Practices" -- I think for the NDP it's a bit of an oxymoron to talk about business practices -- that they "foster integrity." The report goes on: "And fiscal responsibility is especially vital, in light of rising costs and successive subsidy reductions since 1992." Now, this is the B.C. Ferry Corporation 1993-1994 report.

Of course, that was before the fast cats came on the scene -- probably then not even a gleam in anyone's eye. We know about the whole question of fiscal responsibility and integrity that has come out of the fast cat mess.

[1550]

The report goes on to say: " . . . financially, the year was difficult." Well, that was 1993-94. In 2000 it got so difficult that we had to remove a billion-plus debt from the Ferry Corporation books. I guess the years got even more difficult in the interval between '93 and 2000. As I've already said, we also threw in the fast cats to really mess things up. I'm wondering, mentioning fast cats: are there any buyers out there who truly are even going to make a serious or otherwise offer for the three of them? I very much doubt it.

Also looking back . . . . In my exhaustive research to prepare for these budget remarks, I came across the

summary of Budget '93. It was titled "Choices and Challenges." To be honest, I must tell the House that I came across it in my research because I had dropped something on the floor by my desk, and I reached down and found some papers that had been sitting there for seven years. One of them was this budget

summary from 1993. But it's an interesting read.

An Hon. Member: What does it say?

J. Dalton: Stay tuned, my friend, because we will see some of the things that are contained in "Budget '93: Choices and Challenges." The Premier of the day was Mike Harcourt. This is the rejuvenated Mike Harcourt we all read about in the Vancouver Sun the other day.

Highlights from the '93 budget -- these are direct quotes; I'm not making this up. I've got the document in my files, if anyone wants to borrow it. "Holding the line on spending" -- seven years ago. "Continuing to reduce the deficit" -- seven years ago. The deficit, by the way, for that year was projected to be $1.5 billion. What was it -- two or three years later? Suddenly that deficit supposedly disappeared. But we know that David Stockell and his lawyers have another version of that particular story.

Another quote: "The need for new taxes must be faced." Oh boy, there's a dangerous thought. "Cut waste and spend smarter" -- another direct quote from 1993. Then they went on to say that they're going to have a 5 percent cut in the Premier's and cabinet ministers' pay. That's a token gesture at best. Maybe if we could just cut the Premier and the cabinet ministers, period, then there would be some savings. And again: "Get spending under control." These are all comments right out of the 1993

summary document.

Then the

summary goes on to talk about a legacy of deficits. We know the legacy of the NDP. What it was referring to in '93 was those nasty old Socreds and the deficits that they left behind -- and also taking a swipe at Ottawa, which this government is always doing anyways. We've had nine consecutive NDP deficits. That's the legacy. Forget what 1993 said. The budget of 2000 is the damning legacy of nine consecutive deficits. Heaven forbid, if this government hangs around for another year, even, we'll never see a balanced budget. There is no way that they could balance the books. Of course, they won't be around to be in a position to do that.

The '93

summary also had some questions and answers that I thought the members might be interested in. The question asked was, "Why deficits?" and the answer was: "It's Ottawa's fault, and it's the previous administration's fault."

[ Page 14574 ]

They just dismissed that. "Is the deficit going up or down?" was a question. The answer: "Not as quickly as desired." "Will you balance the budget over the business cycle?" the document asks. Answer: "We're working hard on it."

[1555]

Now, hon. Speaker, lessons learned? Of course not. We've learned nothing from '93 or any year since -- or even '92, which of course is the first year that this government took over.

What should be done? We in the opposition have put forward a package of economic and legislative reform. I'm not going to go through all of it. Certainly there should be balanced-budget legislation. There should be personal income tax cuts that make sense -- not the token gesture, the one movie that this government gave us yesterday. You must cut red tape -- no question. On that subject we learned recently that the government study looking at red tape reduction is both late and over budget. Isn't that a surprise for the NDP.

I wonder why we cannot run this province in a businesslike manner and not as an exercise in social engineering. Why can we not do that? If we don't, it will only get worse, and the few people that are left in this province will be driven to Alberta or Washington State. Or the couple that some of you may have read about recently in the paper . . . . They arrived here from Britain and intended to retire here. They arrived in this province, looked at the tax structure and went home. They're gone.

The Finance minister, of course, was invited to comment after he'd given his budget speech yesterday. Here's one quote from the Finance minister's remarks, post-budget. "We have chosen not to make any extreme or reckless decisions that would undermine the steady and stable economic progress now going on in our province." I'm wondering if the Finance minister truly believes that there is economic progress in this province.

We must admit -- and of course on the opposition side we never cloud the issues; we present things in a straightforward manner -- that the economy of this province has actually moved out of the negative into the positive. Don't get too excited, government members, because it's a very marginal positive side, and the rest of this country -- including Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island -- is well ahead of us. We are still number ten on the list of provinces and their economic activity. That's nothing to be proud of in this province. We should, without question, be number one, not number ten.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Well, of course, some of the tax cuts my colleagues are commenting on are token, at best. In the case of small business tax, the minister said yesterday that that meant we were the most improved in the country. But I believe it was New Brunswick that today tabled its budget. Guess what. Someone else caught on to the true tax cuts that this government doesn't understand.

Now, before I wind up, I want to make reference to "Budget 2000 Reports." I would be remiss if I didn't make at least a passing reference to a project in my own riding. That's the rehabilitation of the Lions Gate Bridge. It is mentioned as a capital expenditure, a major project for the upcoming year.

[1600]

I see that the MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway has kindly joined the House, and it's certainly nice of him to do so. I don't know whether that member ever has the opportunity to travel over the Lions Gate Bridge, but I think we all have to be alerted to the fact that very soon we won't be able to travel over that bridge, because the project which is at least happily going ahead is well behind schedule. We're very worried on the North Shore, in tourism in particular, about the summer impact of these pending closures. At least I will give credit to the government. They've listed it as a major project, and it will be going forward in this current year.

However, let's not just talk about the Lions Gate Bridge, because there are other projects listed here. Here's one that we in the opposition continually call on, particularly my colleague from Richmond Centre, our critic and one of the cabinet ministers way back when . . . . The continued construction of the third fast ferry is listed. We said many months ago, if not years ago, that that one should have been stopped. But it's too late to stop it now, so we're going to end up with three of these floating beer cans and no market for them. They don't work. I was on one yesterday.

I can tell you that it's a very uncomfortable experience. My daughter had a very queasy stomach when we got to Nanaimo, but she survived the exercise. I would invite everybody to take at least one chance and ride one before they sink out of sight forever. It's too bad that the continued construction is actually even listed here, because that thing should have been scrapped, as we all know.

Just to wind up, this budget is not good news. There's very little, if anything, in it that we could even give any positive comment on. We will, of course, be going through the estimates process to drag out the detail from each minister as to why he or she has fallen short in their expectations.

The real damning feature of the budget is the legacy that this government is leaving for our children and grandchildren -- the tax burden, the debt, the interest, the $2.8 billion in interest payments just to service the debt, the lost opportunities, wait-lists that get longer, schools that get older, ferries that no longer operate properly. Why? It's because they wasted the taxpayers' money. Yesterday's budget is just another example of government waste, government mismanagement, incompetence, and failure to grasp the serious economics and the serious fiscal issues that we face in this province.

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, I rise to address the budget on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Vernon. Yesterday Budget 2000 brought with it the history of NDP tradition that we've seen after nine years. In that nine-year history there are six basic principles that this government follows in formulating a budget.

One is to spend more than you get in revenue. The second is to pretend that, in some way, budgeting and the honesty of budgeting is a privilege that government bestows on the public rather than a right of the taxpayer. The third is ownership of tax cuts from the federal government provided in the B.C. budget, and for the provincial government to therefore take credit for those that have come from the federal government budget. Fourth is to brag about additional dollars in health care when they're actually federal moneys and not provincial moneys that you are taking credit for.

Fifth is to rack up debt with credit-card spending on megaprojects -- the third ferry continuing, SkyTrain continuing without a business plan in sight. Finally, to wrap it all up with a ribbon, blame others for the mistakes of the past if you can get away with it. I even remember the present Minister of Finance

[ Page 14575 ]

blaming the Socreds for something. I mean, goodness gracious, we haven't had a Socred around for the last ten years, let alone one in this House.

Let's look at the history of the NDP budgets. I think it's important for everyone to remember that there is no dress rehearsal for government. What this government has done over the last decade, we're stuck with. It's here; it's part of the Velcro nature of B.C. We can't get rid of it, and it has set the stage for what's going on now.

[1605]

This government has a proven track record. It's one that demonstrates beyond a doubt financial incompetence in the present administration. The record up to date and up to Budget 2000 demonstrates little about the differences in ideology of right and left and a whole lot about right and wrong in terms of decision-making.

There was a young MLA in opposition a number of years ago who now sits in the government benches who said: "There's no magic in balancing the budget in British Columbia . . . [it's] absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing."

An Hon. Member: Who was that?

A. Sanders: Who was that? Was that the MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway? Was that a previous Finance minister or a retreaded Premier? Someone from that side said that comment, and here we sit a decade later without a single, balanced budget to show.

What is the history? Let's look at the promise of 1992, in the Speech from the Throne, March 17: " . . . when this government sought its mandate from the people of British Columbia, it promised no miracles. It committed that it would do no more than British Columbia could afford and would manage the province's finances openly and responsibly." Further in the budget address: " . . . this government is committed to sound and prudent management of the province's finances . . . .

Prudent fiscal management means getting British Columbia's budget deficit under control." The result: net debt, $20 billion; deficit, $1.79 billion; increases in personal income tax, new corporate capital tax, increased additional surcharges; increased government spending -- 7 percent.

What happened in '93? Surely there must have been a change in direction, '92 having not been a profitable year for the province. In 1993 this government made the following promise in the Speech from the Throne, March 18:

"First and foremost, this government is making the difficult decisions necessary to control spending growth and cap the deficit. At the same time, with a carefully balanced and fiscally responsible approach to the budgetary process, this government has reaffirmed its commitment to vital services, especially health care and education . . . . The second is to build our economy for the long term. This government will lead a coordinated effort to build British Columbia by investing in our people and in our regions . . . . This government will ensure that we remain among the lowest-taxed jurisdictions in Canada and that our tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiently."

The result in 1993: net debt, $23.4 billion; deficit, $1.5 billion; tax increases, $600 million; increased government spending, 5.7 percent; concern from the New York-based Moody Investors about the deficit and the resulting downgrade in British Columbia's credit rating.

Well, what about '94? Here's the chance, after two years of bad luck, to make a difference. What was brought to us from the former MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, who used to sit over in the Finance chair? Speech from the Throne: "By pursuing a fair, progressive and responsible fiscal policy, this government has brought spending under control and lowered the deficit by $1 billion, while maintaining vital public services. In addition, this government will balance the budget by 1996, and will soon put in place a plan to manage provincial debt." The result?

Third year in a row: net debt: $25.9 billion; deficit, $4.46 million, and an attempt by the former member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head to sue the bond agencies by placing a 2 percent cap on government spending to try to stop the disgruntled agencies from further downgrading our credit rating.

[1610]

So what happened? Here's '95, another chance in the budget speech to make a difference. Budget speech, March 28, 1995:

"With this year's budget, we have completed a key part of the job we started when we took office. There will be no budget deficit for the government of British Columbia this year. With this 1995 budget, we balance the budget a full year ahead of our promise to the people of British Columbia, and we have done it while maintaining our commitment to freeze taxes . . . . To ensure a strong fiscal foundation we must do three things. First, we must eliminate the deficit and begin to pay down the debt created by previous deficits . . . .

Second, we must ensure that our debt levels remains affordable over the long term . . . . Third, we must reduce the cost of government and make it more efficient by eliminating waste and duplication."

The result? Net debt now up to $27 billion; deficit that year, $356 million. This was the year that a $16 million surplus was claimed in the Speech from the Throne and the budget speech. Spending grew by 3 percent, well above the cap of 2 percent put on by the same Finance minister one year earlier. Private sector investment was down a negative 4.6 percent. A debt management plan was instituted again to try and get rid of the grumpy bond-rating agencies, who were looking at British Columbia with a jaundiced eye.

So, here's the '96 budget, another chance to do it right. We've had '92, '93, '94 and '95 deficit budgets. Let's change it in '96. The Finance minister at that time, again Oak Bay-Gordon Head, in the budget speech April 30: "In 1995 the surplus was $16 million . . . . The result is a second surplus budget -- a surplus of $87 million . . . . I'm pleased to inform the Legislature that total government debt will decline this year by $99 million and direct debt by $53 million."

The Speech from the Throne: " . . . B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row. Jobs will be up; the debt will be down. Health care and education will be protected . . . tax relief for small businesses and the middle class . . . . The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years, and includes a reduction in overall debt."

The rest is history. An election was called. This NDP government was returned to government by the people of British Columbia, and a budget address with the new government in tow, and the MLA for Saanich South now in the Finance chair -- the previous minister Elizabeth Cull defeated . . . . The new minister came in with a very different message than what we heard prior to the election. In the budget address of June 25, 1996, it was found that our net debt was $28.7 billion, and we had a deficit of $337 million. This was quite different from two budget surpluses projected for '95 and '96, of $16 million and $87 million consecutively. We had private investment down minus 4.3 percent. British

[ Page 14576 ]

Columbia was starting the inevitable spiral down that started in '92 with this government, and it continued through the entire decade and culminated -- well, it probably hasn't culminated but continued -- in Budget 2000.

In 1997 the MLA for Saanich South, the now Attorney General -- promoted for his efforts, I suppose -- delivered, in the 1997 Speech from the Throne:

"The Finance minister's budget will show significant progress toward my government's goals. It will continue to reduce overall spending growth through cuts in the size of government, cuts to administration, cuts to overhead, and the elimination of some programs, grants and subsidies. And the budget will deliver on my government's commitment to continue to provide tax relief to B.C. families and small businesses."

The result: $29.2 billion net debt; deficit, $152 million. Private sector investment down again, minus 2.8 percent. The '95 debt management plan -- now discredited, obviously -- was replaced with the new financial management plan and replaced the plan with a budget balanced, hopefully, in '97-98. There was a promise of 21,000 new jobs in forestry by the year 2001. The record will show that none of those things have come to fruition.

The 1998 budget speech, the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings:

"I have decided to set the deficit target for 1998-99 at $95 million, close to half the level of last year's deficit and less than half of 1 percent of the overall budget . . . . If our economy performs at the levels presently forecast, it is our plan to have a balanced budget in 1999-2000 and to have a small surplus the year after."

[1615]

The result: net debt, $30.1 billion; deficit, $544 million. The Vancouver-Hastings Finance minister and now Deputy Premier said at that time: "Based on our consultations, we have developed a plan to stimulate the economy [and] encourage investment . . . . " The result? Private sector investment went down 10.5 percent -- again, a modified financial plan and the budget hopefully to be balanced in '99-2000.

Now we're into 1999. We've gone through '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97, '98 -- every year promised, every year failed, every year deficit financing, every year the debt rising. In 1999 the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings, now Deputy Premier, said: "This is a budget of choices." This was followed by a platitude of choices that were sweet enough to make your teeth ache. "We intend to grow our way out, not cut our way out," she said, then announced plans to borrow and spend with off-budget capital spending on around $2 billion worth of projects.

The result of that wonderful financial wizardry: net debt, $32 billion, up from $20 billion in 1992, when these financial gurus took office; deficit, $890 million. Private sector investment in this government, which was going to stimulate the economy and stimulate investment, is down 31.4 percent since they took office -- 31.4 percent of the people getting out of B.C. and investing somewhere else, where they could actually do business under some rules that business might understand. And $7.23 million a day in debt servicing last year -- congratulations, NDP government.

In 1999 there was a new five-year fiscal planning framework to replace the other budget deficit planning programs that had failed -- and now a balanced budget by the year 2003. Along with that whole budget of choices -- NDP choices, job-killing choices -- we got a number of booby prizes. We got the Ferrari ferries instead of hip replacements. We got a loan of $25 million to develop Burns Bog into a theme park, for goodness' sake. We got $350 million to Skeena Cellulose instead of more intermediate care beds. We got lawyers' fees to deal with government members' scandals instead of legal aid for battered women.

We got a whole lot of choices. But they weren't the choices British Columbia wanted, and they certainly weren't the choices that were going to make British Columbia a better place to live.

So what did we get, after all those years, when we came to the House for Budget 2000? We got a decade of decline. That will be the legacy of this NDP government to our province: a decade of decline, an administration that brought in, with Budget 2000, not very much.

Did we get a new day for economic hope in B.C. yesterday? Did we get a new, modern direction of the new government, as the Finance minister said? Did we get a change in direction? Did we get an invigorated British Columbia? Did you feel the electricity in the air in British Columbia yesterday, when people were so happy to see what great news was in the budget for them? Did you feel unbridled excitement in the streets when we were talking about Budget 2000 yesterday? These guys even missed their own clap lines. Nobody on that side was even awake when Budget 2000 was delivered; they were so bored with the content.

What did we get in that sonorous mantra, hon. Speaker? What did we get after a past decade of financial ruin? We got the same old lines about protection of health care and education, stimulation of investment and jobs -- and then everything to do exactly the opposite.

The present Premier, the appointed Premier -- Vancouver-Kensington -- when he announced his candidacy, said: "We will balance the budget as quickly as we can." That was November 1999. Well, it looks like we aren't going to have a balanced budget till 2005. That will be 14 years after the NDP came in, if we grant him the grace to continue this performance.

[1620]

What will we get as a result of Budget 2000? We're going to get our ninth consecutive deficit budget. We're going to have a deficit this year, as of April 1, of $1.2 billion. That is the second-largest deficit that even this government has brought into British Columbia. The last person to bring in a deficit that big was Premier Harcourt. I'd like to know who is advising this new Premier, because the last time we got a budget with a deficit that big, it was Mr. Harcourt sitting in the Premier's chair.

We got a $2 billion jump in spending on projects, without a business plan to be seen. This is a government that says we're going to have open, transparent government, even though they were forced into it. Where's the business plan for SkyTrain or any of the other projects?

And where are those documents that we are supposed to get? Now, we've been told we'll get them for next year's budget; we need them for this year. This is the second-largest deficit since 1992. Where are the plans? How did we arrive at that deficit, and what are the plans for subsidizing the projects that have been put in place?

The now Premier, the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington, said: "We also need to make sure that all big and small projects are well managed and backed by solid business plans,

[ Page 14577 ]

so we don't spend or waste money unnecessarily." Well, bring those business plans forward. We'd love to see them on this side of the House.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This budget has brought in a $3 billion increase in taxpayer-supported debt, bringing us to $36.5 billion from the $20 billion that the NDP inherited in 1991. That is double the figure in terms of debt that has come with this government to the province of British Columbia. We've got interest on total provincial debt of $2.8 billion a year. That's more than every other ministry's budget, except for health care and education.

If you look at what you could buy with $2.8 billion for one year . . . . You could look at what you could buy for that. Just coincidentally, I'm going to tell you: 1,200 teacher salaries for one year; 2,400 nurses; 1,200 RCMP; eliminating all wait-lists for hip and heart surgery; 42 rural hospitals; 3,600 kidney and 240 liver transplants; 1,500 air ambulances; 60 mobile mammogram units; 5,400 long term care beds; 36 MRI scanners; 72 CT scanners; 1,200 kids' care in foster homes; and 60,000 high school students' book purchases for an entire year could be bought with what we're paying in interest on the debt that this government has brought into British Columbia.

The government talked a lot yesterday about tax cuts. As was pointed out by my colleague, those tax cuts can be consumed at the movie theatre. They're consumed in one day of the child care that will be necessitated for parents whose kids are off school Monday and Tuesday. And who knows about Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and next week? They'll be gone long before the end of the week is out.

An Hon. Member: Remember what Anita Hagen said? They're probably learning more at home than they do in school anyhow. Remember when she used to be Minister of Education? And the next day she was gone.

A. Sanders: That's right.

We've got $454 million in one-time revenue from the federal transfer payments. This government, in their press releases, had the nerve to claim responsibility. They were actually going to pass on those transfer payments to us, as if that should be a privilege that they have bestowed on us.

There is a $14 million child care initiative -- again, without a business plan. It won't be implemented until January 2001. I'll stand in this House today and say that this government will never bring that plan in, because in January 2001 they'll be planning their own election, and there will be a reason for those dollars to go somewhere else. How many spaces will $14 million provide? I would say that it won't go anywhere near what's necessary for child care in this province.

There is a tiny cut to the small business income tax rate. Now New Brunswick can claim the lowest at 4.5 percent with their budget being tabled -- again, a balanced budget in that province, one that we've never seen in this province.

[1625]

There's a 3 percent manufacturing tax credit which again, in a $114 billion economy, only amounts to about $20 million.

There's nothing from 1992 to the year 2000 that would make this government stand up and feel proud. There's nothing they've done there that shows they have any idea of fiscal responsibility or any protection of health care and education -- something that is dear to the hearts of all British Columbians. What should have been in Budget 2000? Well, there are seven or eight or nine things that should have been there. I'd like to tell the government what they are, so that some time in the future, when we're in power, we can have these things in place.

The first is a dramatic personal income tax cut. The second is balanced-budget legislation, something that all other provinces are capable of doing. The third is full disclosure of all capital projects and how much money should be spent. The fourth is no subsidies to business. The fifth is long-term planning for health care. The sixth is long-term planning for education. No. 7 is full disclosure of all public sector settlements. Tell the people what we're giving the public sector. They have the right to know. Let them be the judge. Let your record stand on what the public thinks, instead of trying to hide it under zero-zero-and-2. You're not even in the ballpark; you're $600 million out.

We need to reduce business costs, and we need to have merit employment. When we have a British Columbia government that is a B.C. Liberal government, we will bring in all those things, and this will be a better province for it.

Hon. Speaker, until we have a dramatic personal income tax cut, you will not be able to stimulate this province into spending and getting prosperity. The only tax relief we got in this minister's budget was from the federal Liberals. It wasn't from the provincial NDP.

We need balanced-budget legislation. We will not have a balanced budget under this government until the year 2005, and that's way too late. We need full disclosure on the fast ferries so that we can never have it happen again. We need a comprehensive plan for all of the capital projects that are in Budget 2000, so that we know that this group has even thought about how they're going to plan and arrange those projects.

We are suffering under the mantle of poor government from last year: $463 million lost in the ferries; $73 million lost to the Vancouver Convention Centre; $1 billion in business subsidies, including Skeena; $125 million lost in federal revenues to Nanoose Bay; $310 million lost for fixed wages; and maybe as high as $500 million that we haven't even accounted for yet in Carrier Lumber, when that decision comes through.

We've got a big problem. The big problem is to get long-term planning for health care, long-term planning for education, leadership in those ministries, leadership in this government and full disclosure of public sector wages -- and we need truth. If this government does not have the courage to stand up for the changes they've made in Budget 2000 and take those to the people, then they should think again. If they truly feel that this is a budget to stand on, then let's go to the public. Let's have an election, and let's see what the public truly feels.

Interjection.

L. Boone: Well, I will be kind and gentle to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, from Prince George.

I am very pleased to stand here today and rise to support this budget, a budget that rejects the traditional -- and you've

[ Page 14578 ]

heard the stuff that came across from the other side there -- radical Liberal philosophy that says that when times are tough, we should be giving tax breaks so that the wealthier can become more wealthy, and that those who have little should actually tighten their belts, so that the wealthy can save more money so they can invest, so that they can make more money. That is the type of philosophy that we've heard from this side the whole day.

Interjection.

L. Boone: Yes, the budget rejects that. Therefore I'm not surprised at all that the Liberals over there and their friends -- their big business, big money friends -- do not support this. This is a budget that is targeted to the low- and middle-income families and to those who need the dollars the most -- the small businesses as well. This budget does contain tax cuts. Those tax cuts are targeted, and they're targeted not to the friends of those on the opposite side, who want more money so that they can invest outside Canada, but to low- and middle-income families so that they can spend those dollars here in British Columbia.

[1630]

We've also targeted tax cuts to small business. Let me remind you that these tax cuts follow four years of previous income tax cuts. You'd think that we'd never been cutting taxes, but in fact we have -- four years of previous income tax cuts. Last year we also had a massive tax cut for small business, and that was brought in by the previous Finance minister. In fact, this year we have furthered those tax cuts to small business so that small business now has a reduction from 5.5 percent to 4.75 percent, which makes it the lowest in Canada for small business. I think that's something that we should be very proud of, and I and all of my colleagues certainly are doing that.

You know, hon. Speaker, I've read some criticisms from some who say that tax cuts aren't enough. They say that the deficit is too large. Have they realized that if you give more tax cuts, in fact that would make the deficit larger? Do they realize that we have lost revenue in tax cuts for the past four years and that if we had that revenue, we would almost have a balanced budget? That's what my colleague tells me. My colleague tells me that if we did not give the tax breaks that we did in the previous four years, we'd be very close to a balanced budget this year.

So what do they want? I'm not quite sure myself. Do they want more tax cuts and an even larger deficit? Is that what they want? Or perhaps they want to reduce the deficit and then have more taxes so that they can have more revenue. No, that doesn't make sense either, because they've said they want more tax cuts and want to reduce revenue. So that doesn't add up either. Or maybe what they have to do then is do tax cuts, reduce the deficit and then do massive cuts in delivery of services. Well, hon.

Speaker, that's a scenario we're facing right here, and those guys can live in Lalaland all they want, but there is no other alternative to this. If you're not going to reduce services, you are not going to be able to reduce taxes, nor are you going to be able to reduce the deficit.

This budget recognizes that government revenue is collected to deliver services to taxpayers. It is not something bad; it is not something awful. It is revenue that is taken in to deliver services such as health care services: physicians -- paying doctors; hospitals; home care; care for the elderly and disabled; preventive services; Pharmacare services. It goes on and on.

In fact, this budget has $549 million more, a 7 percent increase in health care, to deliver those services that I talked about. In fact, since 1991 we've had an increase of $2.9 billion in health care. That's a huge amount of money, a lot of money. You know, I still have people coming into our offices saying that they want more. They don't want less services; they don't want less health care. They want more. They want more money put into health care, and that's what we're doing.

We've also got more money in the budget for the hiring and training of nurses, the hiring of new licensed practical nurses, continuing care, chemotherapy, cardiac procedures, funding for the shortages of doctors in the rural areas -- something that I'm sure will gain support from every member on the other side that lives in the rural areas. We've got new money in here for doctors, new capital projects. We're going to start the hospital in Prince George -- aren't we, hon. friends? Yes, we are actually going to see this hospital starting to be built in Prince George.

There's the Children's and Women's Health Centre of B.C., plus numerous other places throughout the province that have projects starting.

[1635]

Hon. Speaker, I am really surprised, and I am shocked and dismayed to hear the Liberal opposition criticizing the new money that's going into wages for those that deliver the above services. You heard the member that spoke just before us. In fact, they are saying that we are doing wage increases, and yes, we make no apologies for that at all -- wage increases for nurses, for health care workers, for those in the community sector. I make no apologies whatsoever. I think the opposite side should be apologizing for their behaviour.

In fact, they should be applauding the fact that we are paying these individuals who are committing to deliver services to our families -- to our parents, to our children. All of those people out there that are delivering those services are finally getting some wage