[ Page 11923 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Taxpayer Protection Act (Bill 92). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 11923

Mr, Rose

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Brummet

Ms. Cull

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Sihota

Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 11929

Prorogation address. Hon. Mr. Lam –– 11929

The House met at 1:15 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 92.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 92; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 2.

MR. ROSE: I have a question, Mr. Chairman, that I think is pretty important, since we're planning to prorogue some time in the not-too-distant future, I hope; I have a couple of questions. Since we don't have a budget, a supply bill, interim supply or anything else, I want to ask the minister whether or not special warrants have been prepared for presentation to the executive council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may wish to answer, but it is not relevant to section 2.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm at loss, Mr. Chairman, to find which section that appears in.

MR. ROSE: Since we're dealing with a tax freeze here We haven't seen a budget. We don't know what the debt is, although we assume that it will be humongous. I'd like to ask therefore whether or not the special warrants that have been prepared involve a tax increase, and whether he can confirm or deny that this is the case. The public will have no opportunity to know, since this open-government financial measure is going to be conducted behind closed doors, completely in the dark.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. EDWARDS: This section allows the price of gas to go up. It says that we're going to have a general tax freeze but, of course, it doesn't put any tax freeze on the increases that have already been put in place on a litre of gas. I use that term advisedly, Mr. Chairman, although there are hundreds of thousands of litres of gas that people are going to be paying for. They may be paying more, although this government says they have a tax freeze on.

In my constituency, people need to have a vehicle. They do not have transit in any of the urban centres. Certainly they are required to meet the demands of the day by driving their cars. As an example, if they happen to be on unemployment insurance, they are not allowed to stay on or to be considered eligible for benefits unless they have a vehicle and are able to get throughout the riding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is having some difficulty in speaking with all the interruptions in the House. Probably we could have a modicum of decorum and allow the member to continue on section 3.

MS. EDWARDS: We have no transit system in the city of Cranbrook, but if anyone in Cranbrook is on unemployment insurance, they have to prove that they have a car in order to prove eligibility for benefits. For example, it is an absolute requirement that people in Cranbrook have a car to get around if they intend to be working members of the community. That being the case, I would like to ask the minister whether he is going to recognize that it is a need and a necessity. Will he assure that there will be no tax increases on gasoline?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, as the section states, "During the tax rate freeze period" — three years — "there shall be no tax increases in the tax rates imposed by or under the Motor Fuel Tax Act other than a rate determined by a formula to which subsection (2) applies." The rate is 22.5 percent of the retail price before tax. The world price of oil has been declining, therefore the retail price and the wholesale price have been declining.

It might be instructive for the committee to look at a few provinces in Canada to determine what the rate is — that's the gasoline tax in cents per litre. In the province of British Columbia, it's currently 11 cents; in the province of Ontario, it is 12.4 cents; in the province of Quebec, it is 14.4 cents. It is — other than in the province of Alberta — reasonably consistent across the board with the other provinces or lower. In Newfoundland, it's 12.4; in Prince Edward Island, it's 11.3; in Nova Scotia it is a little lower, at 10.7; and in New Brunswick, it is 11.2. So we are either lower or consistent with all of the provinces except Ontario and Quebec, which are the highest.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, the minister points out correctly that the provincial tax per litre is 11 cents. Even the farthest from the boundary We have two boundary entrance points from the United States in my constituency. That's about an hour; anybody can get to them. The U.S. federal and state tax is less than 11 cents a litre.

What we need is relief. We need assurance that when other taxes are not going up and the government says there is a general tax freeze, there is a tax freeze also on gasoline.

MR. BRUMMET: Would the minister correct me if I'm wrong. It would seem that the tax rate of 22½ percent will be frozen by this bill. The actual amount will vary according to the price of gasoline as the price goes up or down. Similarly, I believe the sales tax is frozen at 6 percent. But depending on whether the purchase price goes up or down, the amount will vary. I don't know whether the member is saying that you should freeze it at 6 percent but then freeze the amount no matter what happens to the prices of the goods purchased. I relate that to gasoline.

[ Page 11924 ]

Am I correct in assuming that the rate of 22½ percent will be frozen but that the amount paid in cents on the gallon will vary according to the price of gasoline?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member for North Peace River, as always, is absolutely correct. Section 3(2) freezes the formulas used to calculate the per-litre tax rates on motor fuel under the Motor Fuel Tax Act. The tax freeze does not apply to the CPI variable in the formula, nor can it of course apply to the world price of oil, which is not within our jurisdiction.

Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MS. CULL: I have a couple of questions to the minister on this section. As I understand it from reading section 10, the forecast amount of expenditures over a five-year period has to balance with the forecast amount of revenue over that same five-year period. There's a balance there. I want to point out that this is certainly something that seems to be needed. In the last year, government spending rose by 11 percent but economic growth was only 8 percent. If you look back to the year before that, there was a 12 percent increase in spending compared to an 8 percent increase in revenues.

If this government feels that it needs some kind of legislative control on its ability to balance the budget, then far be it from me to argue with it. But I do want to understand exactly how this is going to work. I'll go through a series of questions here.

Is it possible under this act that in the five-year plan that's presented, there would be, for example, three years of a deficit budget followed by two years of a surplus budget, which would in sum total come out to a balance over the five years? Is that what is intended?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It would be inappropriate to discuss numbers or percentages for any future budget. But the forecast of expenditures cannot exceed the forecast of revenues over the five-year period of the plan. This means that the budget must be balanced over the five-year period covered by the plan. A surplus is permitted by the wording of this section, but it must at least be balanced. What we're doing is balancing the budget over a five-year business period.

MS. CULL: I didn't want the minister to talk about future budgets and deficits and surpluses. I was just trying to use a hypothetical example, and to ask; is it allowed under this act that in the five-year plan that's contemplated under section 8 there could, for example, be three years of deficit budgets followed by two years of surplus budgets, equalling a total balance over the five years?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It would be possible to have a deficit in any one or more of the fiscal periods during the five-year plan, as long as the budget is balanced in aggregate over the five-year period.

MS. CULL: Let's just take this example a little bit further. If in the next fiscal year the five-year plan included — just to go along with the numbers I was using — three years of deficit and two years of surplus, but balanced over the total, does that mean that in the following fiscal year, when a new five-year plan is introduced...? So we've chopped off the first year and we're moving forward with this five years. Does this then mean that the plan could include another three years of deficit followed by another two years of surplus?

[1:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Since we're dealing in something that's slightly hypothetical here, I can say that it would depend on what the size of those deficits and surpluses was in those years. If you had huge deficits in any period, it would be very difficult to make them up in the period that follows. You have to be very cautious during the five-year period that you present a plan, as is set out in this bill, as to what stage the government is in in its five-year plan; and also a plan showing how it will eliminate the deficit. There's also a deficit reduction plan included in this.

We're doing several things. We're freezing taxes. We're saying yes, we're going to balance the budget over a five-year cycle. Also, we are going to be reducing our deficit even further than the $800 million that we've already reduced it. We will be reducing deficits over the period alluded to in this bill.

MS. CULL: I want to point out that we're not talking about a fixed five-year period. In fact, we're talking about a rolling five-year plan, so every year we start a new five years. Every year is year one in a new five-year balanced plan.

I didn't really hear the answer to my question from the minister, but I conclude from what he said in answer to my first question that it is possible for the government to bring in, in its first year, three years of deficit and two years of surplus; and in the next year, when we go back to the starting-point and start another five-year rolling plan, to carry on. So we could go on year after year with a deficit budget always balancing at sometime in the future by projecting revenues into the future that will finally balance this.

If that's the case, this is a very misleading section. It doesn't guarantee to the taxpayers of this province that they will in fact see a balanced budget over any kind of cycle. It's just another way of fooling the people in the province into believing the budget is to be balanced. We've gotten rid of the BS fund with this budget, so now we've got to come up with some more smoke and mirrors.

My final question to the minister is: what happens if the budget doesn't balance over five years? Does the government resign? What is the penalty?

[ Page 11925 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I guess you have to look to history in order to judge the future, and this government has consecutively, over the two-year period, balanced its budgets each year. We're the only jurisdiction in Canada that has been able to do that. When Social Credit is re-elected sometime this year, you will also find that we will continue the same prudent fiscal and financial management of the province's affairs. If we say we are going to balance over a five-year period, we'll keep our word the same way we've kept our word every year since 1952.

If the member wishes to tie all of this together, I would suggest we could discuss it more appropriately in section 13 of this bill.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. LOVICK: The heading for section 11 is very straightforward and very clear: "Forecast expenditures not to exceed growth in British Columbia economy." In the section itself, however, the language is cumbersome, to put it mildly, and I think most of us would have considerable difficulty with it. If I might, simply for purposes of clarification, I'd like to begin just by stating what that language is and then asking if my rendition of it is correct:

"In a balanced budget plan the rate of increase in forecast expenditures for the first fiscal year covered by the plan must not exceed the preceding fiscal year's estimates of expenditure by more than the average annual compound growth rate of current dollar British Columbia gross domestic product over the five years ending in the current calendar year."

I suspect that most members of this chamber would have some difficulty knowing precisely what that means. Let me ask first: is that clause telling us, in fact, that this section, this measure, limits growth in government expenditure to growth in the provincial gross domestic product?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, over the previous five-year period.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that clarification. Now, however, I'm perplexed. I'm perplexed because this fiscal year, government spending grew by just over 11 percent, whereas the economy grew by only 8 percent over the past five years; and during the previous fiscal year, government spending grew by 12 percent in contrast to the five-year growth pattern of 8 percent. Is it the case, then, that the new measure effectively amounts to a repudiation of the government's existing fiscal policy? Is this an admission of failure or something on the part of your predecessor? Are you suggesting that what you've done in the past violates the intent of this new measure? Would you be kind enough to enlighten us?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member is, as usual, wrong.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: If you were right a minute ago, that's the closest you've ever been to being right in your life.

We had the surpluses to deal with the difference between revenues from taxes and all other sources and the amount of expenditures. Through prudent management, we were able to establish a budget stabilization fund, which helped us to stabilize the economy and provide increases in education, medicare and social services during the time when the economy turned down. That's what this is all about. We've done that.

This is a forward-looking plan for a new time, a new era. I know that the NDP thinking is still stuck back in the nineteenth century somewhere, and I can't do anything about that. But we did provide for the eventuality of a slowdown in the economy. We have provided for the made-in-eastern-Canada recession that is coming our way. We've covered it. We have balanced the accounts each and every year. We will balance the accounts for the fiscal year we are in now, the '90-91 fiscal year. This is a forward-looking plan that helps us deal with the future five years in this province.

We'll be here to do it, hon. member. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything else to happen. The reports of Social Credit's death have been greatly exaggerated year after year. I can tell you: we'll be around to govern this province again next time around.

MR. LOVICK: I certainly enjoyed hearing that speech from the Minister of Finance. I enjoy it every time I hear it, and I've heard it in answer to every question that's been posed. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer the question that's been posed.

It seems to me that the minister is telling us that the actions of the present will be different from those of the past, because the government no longer has the fund that did not exist — the BS fund, which is now obsolete — in order to save it from the problem of admitting a deficit in the past. Is that a correct rendition? I think it is, Mr. Minister.

I'm asking you the very simple question I'm not going to belabour the point; we'll let the people decide, just as you suggest should happen. All I want you to explain to me is how we can construe this change in policy, which directly contradicts past practices of your government and your previous Minister of Finance, as anything other than a repudiation of past practice? It clearly is.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The answer to that is that the NDP, for political purposes, wishes to view it in that way, pure and simple. As always, hon. member, your assumptions are incorrect.

MR. SIHOTA: Just on that point, what the minister is saying is that in the past the economy grew at 8 percent but we spent at 11 percent because of a fund that didn't exist; and that to make up the difference between what the economy grew at and what we spent, we got money out of a fund that doesn't exist.

[ Page 11926 ]

Now you're saying that you admit that the fund doesn't exist; in fact, later in this section you eliminate the fund. Therefore you won't live within what the province grows at.

In the past, the economy was growing at 8 percent and you were spending at 11 percent. Surely, by saying now that you will spend at the 8 percent growth rate — if indeed that is the growth — you're saying that what you were doing before.... Because the BS fund doesn't exist anymore, you will now do it differently than you did in the past. Could you explain why that's not an admission that this is a repudiation of the past?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Perhaps Mr. Laughren would care to go to the world market every time they have to borrow funds on a temporary basis. We didn't have to do that because we had over a billion-dollar fund set up that we could use for borrowing.

I don't know if you have a chequebook or not, but if you do, go and ask them to give you the money right away and count it out for you and show you what's You've got a number in that chequebook, and even you should understand that.

This is a plan for the future of British Columbia. The budget stabilization fund worked very well, thank you; I'm glad we had it. We were so fortunate we had the forward thinking of this government to take us into the period we're in, or we would be starting down the slippery slope they are well into in Ontario. That's the kind of administration we could expect if an NDP government — God forbid — should ever be elected in this province. I can tell you, the people are on to you, sir. They will not elect you.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Section 12 speaks of preparing a plan for reducing the public debt of the province. I assume that means both the historical debt of the government and the Crown corporation debt. Could the minister tell us what the accumulated government and Crown corporation net debt was in 1990?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I think I'll send over to the hon. member a copy of the 1990 budget. It was discussed under another motion in this House, and dealt with and tabled in the 1990 budget. If the hon. member would like a copy of that, he can find it on page 97, with the net debt summary. It's under table K6.

[1:45]

MR. SIHOTA: I always thought the Minister of Finance could read. I would have thought that the first thing he'd know or want to find out was the size of the debt.

The minister's got the documents there. Will he kindly read to us the amount of the accumulated historical government debt and the Crown corporation net debt? Could you please tell us what the amount is, Mr. Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I know that the question is out of order, as it does not pertain to this particular bill, so I'm going to answer it in this manner. I'm going to say that the government of the province of British Columbia has provided you with thousands of dollars in excess of what it provides the Social Credit caucus for research. Go talk to your researchers, who are paid out of the public purse.

MR. SIHOTA: The House should know that the Minister of Finance is unwilling to admit the extent of the debt accumulated by this government. It just so happens, Mr. Minister, that I have the figure right here. The figure for 1990, in terms of the historical government and Crown corporation net debt, is $15,970,400,000. Does the minister dispute that figure?

HON. MR. VEITCH: An important percentage that the hon. member should take into consideration is the amount of money out of every tax dollar that is collected to service the debt of any jurisdiction. It's somewhere around 37 or 38 cents out of every dollar at the federal level. In the province of Ontario, it was 10 cents out of every dollar before the socialists got into power. It looks next year as though it will be 20 cents; it looks as though it will double. It's gone up 100 percent.

We spend about 3.5 cents out of every dollar for interest. It is the lowest of any province in the country, including Ottawa itself. It's a proud record. It's the record of Social Credit management, and we intend to carry on that record.

MR. SIHOTA: This is British Columbia, Mr. Minister, not Ontario, and this is a debate about a bill that the Social Credit government has brought in. In the context of that bill, there's a discussion about the extent of the government debt. Now does the minister take issue or in any way disagree with my view that the accumulated debt of this province currently is approximately $16 billion? That's both the government debt and the Crown corporation accumulated debt. Do you, Mr. Minister, disagree with that number — yes or no?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member has research. He has the same information in front of him that I have. What this section requires — just so we can return to relevance, if that is important to committee, and I'm sure it is — is that the minister table a debt reduction plan at the same time as the estimates and the balanced budget plan are tabled. The plan is to indicate how the public debt of the province is to be reduced. I can tell you that since this administration was elected in 1986, we have reduced the public debt by over $800 million.

[ Page 11927 ]

MR. SIHOTA: We'll get to the matter of the $800 million reduction. But it seems to me that we have to put it in some kind of perspective here, Mr. Minister. I don't know why you have such difficulty admitting the fact that your debt is $16 billion. In fact, according to your own documents, it's $15,970,400,000.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I know. The reason I raise this is that we're dealing with a debt reduction plan being proposed under this bill, so the minister should have to know how much he's got to reduce. I'm telling him it's about $15.9 billion — unless it's higher and he isn't telling us.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Social Credit was elected in 1975. Could he tell us the total amount of the historical government and Crown corporation net debt in 1975?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is entirely inappropriate for this member to try to confuse the public by lumping together the Crown corporation debt and the direct debt of British Columbia. Crown corporation debt is covered off in two ways; by revenues and assets within those corporations.

The member, who is always trying to put words in someone's mouth and always trying to assume things, is trying to mix apples. and oranges, and he knows it very well. Crown corporation debt is covered off by revenues and by the asset value within those corporations. The direct debt of the province is another story. The direct debt of the province has been reduced over the last four and a half years by over $800 million. We have the best record of any jurisdiction in Canada. We spend less on interest on the debt of the province than any other jurisdiction in Canada by far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I would like to point out to all hon. members that section 12 deals with the preparation of a plan for reducing the public debt and the laying of the plan before the Legislature on the date of tabling estimates, not with how much the public debt is. To be relevant, we should confine ourselves to the preparation of the plan.

MR. ROSE: You know, Mr. Chairman, that I'm dazzled — at least always impressed — by your wisdom and good judgment, and. certainly wouldn't want to quarrel with you on this our last day, perhaps. But I wonder if you might reconsider that since we're dealing with debt and the reduction thereof, it's not imprudent for us to ask how much it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but I thought, hon. member, that you might also be dazzled by the requirements of standing order 61.

MR. ROSE: On a separate point of order, Mr. Chairman, I also have been reading standing order 43 about being tedious, repetitious, irrelevant and boring, and I wonder if you could apply that rule to the hon. Minister of Finance over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN. I could probably apply it to everyone in the room.

Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Except me, of course.

In 1975, the accumulated debt of British Columbia, both in terms of government expenditures and Crown corporations, stood at $3.8 billion. Now I know why you've been unwilling to answer my questions. Because what this demonstrates — and I'll tie it right into the plan that we're going to have to reduce — is that between the years 1975 and 1990, under 15 years of Social Credit, the accumulated debt of this province has grown by some $12.1 billion. There was $15 billion in 1990, minus the 1975 amount of $3.8 billion. In fact, if I may say this. between the time that British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871, I believe, to the year 1975 — a period of some 96 years — the total debt of this province was $3.8 billion. In the last 15 years, under this administration, the deficit has grown by $12.1 billion. You have done four times as much damage in 15 years as it took all the other governments to do since Confederation. Do you want to defend that record, Mr. Minister? Be my guest.

Mr. Chairman, I think we in this House all know that one billion dollars is one thousand million dollars. The minister talks about an $800 million reduction in the deficit as some evidence of great progress. But that is a fifteen-thousandth of the reduction. Yet this minister says that this is somehow a great achievement on the part of the current administration. Would the minister not agree that the track record of the administration is not particularly great, and in fact that the amount of the deficit, of the total debt, that you have accumulated now is a remarkable amount for any administration?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I was interested to hear the hon. House Leader expound on the rules, and he's quite correct, because he and I and a group of other people had the great privilege of working on those rules. I must admit that he's a Druid when it comes to going into that sort of thing; he's very accomplished in that area.

I guess if we were going to look back in history at this debate, it would be called — I can't use your name — "The Selected Readings of the Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew." I remember one time in this House when the member who became Leader of the Opposition, Bob Skelly, said: "You are making up facts." Well, if it is possible, you are making up facts.

Debt and guaranteed debt as a percentage of the GDP declined every year since 1985; they declined each and every year. The asset base in British Columbia has grown tremendously under Social Credit governments since that time. That's the difference. We didn't stay static; we're not locked into the nineteenth century.

[ Page 11928 ]

Look where it's going in Ontario; look back to where your model is. It is going down, down, down that deep tube. I pity the people of Ontario. I was born in Ontario and, I tell you, I pity the people back there. It's going to take them generations to get out of the mess that your type of administration is putting them into.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's the day of epitaph: the epitaph of the BS — the budget stabilization fund, a mythical fund.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN. Yes, I'm in mourning today. I'm wearing black. It's the death of a mythical fund.

I think it might be useful for us to spend just a moment in this moment of epitaphs to remind ourselves about that non-existent fund with the non-existent dollars in it. The Minister of Finance has not had any occasion to defend this fund. In the past that is something his predecessor did on many an occasion. Because we are in a very serious debate here today about the state of the province, I think that in the eulogies to this particular fund, we need to remind ourselves what it isn't and to assure ourselves, for the next manifestation of this House — whenever it might be — that we have some idea of what's going to be done with this nebulous and non-existent fund.

We need to remember the words of an analyst of the budget stabilization fund, who said. "If the proliferation of funds to be created by this budget are any indication, the B.C. government must be pleased with the general confusion created by its budget stabilization fund.... In reality, this is not a fund at all — at least not a fund" that there is any money in that's identifiable. In fact, if we go back to the points being made by my hon. colleague a moment ago about the real debt of this province, the writer of this analysis notes that between the budget stabilization fund and the privatization benefits fund we actually are dealing with a deficit of over $2.6 billion in the relationship between assets and liabilities.

[2:00]

We know too that last year this mythical fund was used for some sleight of hand to try to hide the fact that in 1990-91 we would be dealing with a deficit of $500 million in the province. We are happy, Mr. Chairman, as I think was noted in second reading debate, to see the demise of this fund, but we want to know for the record what the minister has to say about what he thinks exists in that non-existent fund and what he is now going to do, as he presides over the death of the fund, in respect to a budget that is as yet uncast and that may never see the light of day in this House.

We want some immortal words from the Minister of Finance about something that doesn't exist. I think it's quite apocryphal that we should be talking about something that doesn't exist at this particular time in this House. I would like him, in his own immortal way, to describe what doesn't exist, so that if and when this parliament sees the light of day again, we can perhaps review the veracity and insight of those words as we proceed to the next phase of the marvellous accounting by which this government has been known and for which it will go down in history: the budget stabilization fund. No money, no fund, but lots of fun.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member and other hon. members like her on the opposite side have been talking about something which does not exist for a long time: democratic socialism. It just does not exist...

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Except in their minds.

HON. MR. VEITCH: ...except in your mind.

Socialist governments around the world are going down the tube. They have taken the people with them down the tube. They tried to take the people down the tube for 1,200 days in this province, and the people didn't go along with it.

We are in section 15(l). Don't you enjoy a little bit of tedium at your age?

MR. ROSE: I don't like to interrupt the hon. Finance minister in full flight, but I think 43 certainly does apply to this. It is really tedious and repetitious. But you ask if I don't like to have a little fun. Of course I do. Every time the minister gets up to speak, I have a little fun. As a matter of fact, the one he just gave is one of my favourite speeches of his. If it weren't such a late hour, I would invite him to continue. But after all, we've heard it many times, and I think mercy would indicate that enough is enough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might also mention to all members that if they take a look at the act, the first two words over section 15 are "winding up." I suggest we should be winding down.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're winding down. Let the record show that I have beaten the opposition House Leader into submission; he's now quiet.

Speaking to section 15, we are the first jurisdiction in Canada to take effective fiscal measures. The first was the budget stabilization fund; the next is the five-year balancing. It's our next step to secure the future of the people of British Columbia.

We have the lowest cost of debt to taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. Our credit rating has gone from AA to AA-plus in 1989. This didn't happen because of the rhetoric of the opposition. It happened in spite of the rhetoric and in spite of them trying to beat down the good financial measures of this province at every turn.

Our cost of borrowing has fallen well below the ratio in Ontario. In fact, four major rating agencies have increased British Columbia's credit rating. They

[ Page 11929 ]

are looking to Ontario because of ineffective fiscal management — to reduce the rating in that province because of the socialist administration. The hon. Premier said that hitchhikers were offering to go either way. Well, I don't know if this is true or not, but I understand that now tourism there is so bad that hotel-keepers are offering to steal towels from the guests.

MR. SIHOTA: I have one last question. Does the minister not see any irony in the fact that on the last act of the last day of the last Social Credit administration, this section repudiates the actions of the last Minister of Finance?

Section 15 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report this wonderful bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 92, Taxpayer Protection Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the chambers. I will declare a short recess until such time as His Honour is ready. I would recommend members stay in their seats.

The House recessed at 2:08 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:11 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Constitutional Amendment Approval Act

Compensation Fairness Act

Job Protection Act

Municipalities Enabling and Validating, 1990

Amendment Act, 1991

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991

Taxpayer Protection Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

Prorogation Address

HON. MR. LAM (Lieutenant-Governor): Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, in closing the fourth session of the thirty-fourth parliament I wish to commend the efforts and dedication displayed by all members during the past session. This session has seen the passage of over 85 pieces of legislation — many of great significance to the people of British Columbia.

You adopted important measures to ensure the economic stability of British Columbia by protecting jobs and avoiding an undue tax burden on our citizens. In addition, the Compensation Fairness Act balances fair compensation in the public sector with the taxpayers' ability to pay.

You are to be congratulated on the passage of the Constitutional Amendment Approval Act, which will assist us in addressing the major constitutional challenges facing our nation. By your adoption of the Referendum Act, you have ensured that all British Columbians will have the opportunity to express their views on constitutional reform and other major government initiatives.

To provide financial security for our people upon retirement, you introduced two important pieces of legislation: the British Columbia Retirement Savings Plan Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act.

In recognition of the increasing needs of our people in northern British Columbia for access to post-secondary education, you passed the University of Northern British Columbia Act.

By your adoption of the Carmanah Pacific Park Act, you created a 3,600-hectare park in the Carmanah Valley. This legislation will ensure the protection of the largest stand of old-growth Sitka spruce on our western coast.

[2:15]

A framework to provide standards of conduct for members of the Legislature was approved by your passage of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

With the passage of the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act, you have pledged to support the native peoples of the province in their efforts to preserve their language and culture.

Hon. members, as this fourth session of the thirty-fourth parliament comes to a close, I wish to express my appreciation for your commitment on behalf of all British Columbians. I now relieve you of your legislative duties.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, it is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's will and pleasure that the Legislative Assembly be prorogued until it shall please the Lieutenant-Governor to summon the same for dispatch of business. This provincial Legislative Assembly is hereby prorogued accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not debatable.

The House prorogued at 2:19 p.m.