1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 1, Number 20
[ Page 507 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I have a pleasant task to perform this morning for the member for Comox Valley. I would like the Legislature to welcome here this morning Paul Wright and his son Seth. Paul is a long-time supporter of the New Democratic Party. His son Seth is a 12-year-old student at Airport Elementary School, here to see the wisdom carried on in this Legislature. I'd ask the members to welcome them.
F. Garden: It's with great pleasure that I rise this morning to introduce some very significant people to this Legislature. They're up in the balcony. They are members of the St. Andrew's and Caledonian Society and also the Sons of Scotland society of Victoria. In their midst is a group of Scottish dancers. I'd like them to stand and be recognized this morning, because some of them have got some wonderful traditional Scottish garb on. Would you all please stand as we welcome you to the Legislature.
Hon. J. Smallwood tabled the annual report for 1989-90 for the Ministry of Social Services. Point of Privilege
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege today. I've given the Chair notice of this question of privilege under standing order 26, practice recommendation 7.
Yesterday in this House during the budget debate the Attorney General said: "Some members may know I was the Deputy Chair of the constitution committee in the previous parliament, and as a result of the preliminary work we did last year, I sure have a sense of how difficult a task it was for members of this committee. I read that report yesterday. I thought it was an absolutely outstanding report."
The report was not tabled in this Legislature until yesterday afternoon, yet the Attorney General clearly indicated in his remarks that he read a copy of the report of the Members' Committee on the Constitution the day previous to that report being tabled in this House. This is an extremely serious matter and a breach of the privilege of all members of this House. Furthermore, the fact that at least one member of the executive council reviewed a copy of that report before it was tabled for review by all members and the general public brings into serious question the independence of the work of this legislative committee.
As a member of the committee, I feel that this matter reflects poorly on the integrity of all committee members. It also reflects poorly on the important work of the committee. The important work of the committee has been compromised in a manner that I believe constitutes a violation of our collective privilege as Members of the Legislative Assembly.
Hon. Speaker, I believe that this matter constitutes a prima facie case of privilege. If you agree, then I'm prepared to move the necessary motion, which I will now tender to you, along with a copy of my statement relating to this question of privilege.
Hon. G. Clark: On behalf of the Attorney General, I'll reserve the right to respond after we peruse the documents. The Attorney General is not here. That's the normal approach.
TARTAN DAY
F. Garden: It's with a great deal of pride that I rise in the Legislature this morning and bring before the House a subject that is near and dear to my heart as a Scots Canadian.
Many of you, by this time, will have received a letter from Nova Scotia suggesting that British Columbia and this Legislature recognize Monday, April 6 as Tartan Day. They've already done this in Nova Scotia; it's now an official day. It's not a holiday; it's just a day when they recognize the contribution that Scots Canadians have made to this country over the centuries. They've also endorsed it in the Ontario Legislature, and as an MLA I am looking for guidance in presenting a private member's bill before this House, at a later date, for you and my colleagues here to consider making it an official day in British Columbia.
The history of Canada is linked up in the closest possible manner with people who chose to come to Canada from Scotland in one form or another. In many cases it was to get away from persecution by the regime they were living under in Scotland. But from the very outset of their arrival in Canada, Scots Canadians have contributed greatly to the mosaic that we love as this country. From the very early days of Confederation there was input from Scots Canadians. Sir John A. Macdonald, who we consider the father of Confederation, had his origin, or his links, to that great country. Numerous Scot fur traders, working for the Hudson's Bay Company, explored the length and breadth of this land, opening it up for others to follow. And in doing so, they brought a kind of fierce independence and hardworking determination that has turned this country into the great country that it is.
I mentioned in my throne speech Alexander Mackenzie and how he was seeking a way to the Pacific Ocean. When he came to the Cariboo, he met with aboriginal people there. Instead of heading down the Fraser as he was planning to, these native people, in a spirit of cooperation and brotherhood, showed Alexander Mackenzie the way to the west coast. And we indeed became a nation from coast to coast.
Simon Fraser, as an overlander, came to the Cariboo also, and the great river Fraser was named after him. Simon Fraser never made it to Scotland, but he remembers being told at his mother's knee all about that beautiful country -- so much so that when he saw the hills and rivers of the Cariboo, he called the new
[ Page 508 ]
country he had found New Caledonia -- New Scotland. Caledonia is just another name for Scotland, as Nova Scotia is -- New Scotland. So I think they were trying to make the whole thing Scotland. And if that had occurred, you might all be wearing the kilt today.
But seriously, these Scottish adventurers helped to make this country as we know it: free, fiercely independent, hardworking and turning this country into a model of democracy for people all over the world.
It wasn't just Scotsmen; there were all kinds of French-Canadians and people from other countries of Europe here. But all exemplified the same spirit. People were leaving lands where they were being persecuted and where freedom was at a premium. They came to Canada, found a new land and founded a country based on democracy and freedom. I'm proud this morning to stand here and ask your support for this important day.
Not only did they explore the Scottish wilderness, but they left their imprint all over the country. The first governor of this colony of B.C. was James Douglas -- a good Scotsman. His picture is outside the door here somewhere. He was the first Governor of British Columbia. Again, his Scots heritage showed, because he took this province and welded it and helped to turn it into what we have today. So you can see that Sir James Douglas came right to Victoria. From a fur-trading colony, B.C. expanded into this beautiful province that we know today.
Scots also played a fundamental role in Canadian military life. They were here in the very beginning, when we were fighting against the Americans, of all people, to protect Canada as an independent country.
An Hon. Member: We still are.
F. Garden: We're still fighting against the Americans to keep this an independent country.
[10:15]
In two world wars Scottish Canadians covered themselves with glory in fighting for this great land, in brotherhood with the rest of the people who went to fight for freedom in this country. I'm proud of the role they played in the military part of their mandate.
They also played a tremendous part in founding universities in this country. A Scotsman founded and provided the funds for McGill University. Scottish Presbyterians helped to found Queen's University. So you can see the contribution they made to the educational system of our land.
We also have people who were of Scots heritage in the art world -- people like Norman McLaren, formerly Canada's leading director of animated film, who was born in Scotland. Isabel McLaughlin was first elected president of the Canadian Group of Painters. Scottish people were also highly visible in politics. I've told you about John A. Macdonald, but who could forget the father of socialized medicine, Tommy Douglas; the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta, John Walter Grant MacEwan; the former Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Pauline McGibbon; and the well-respected NDP MLA and MP Grace MacInnis?
I'm running out of time. I had a few more words to say, but I'll say them at a later date. I encourage you to join with me and all Scots people in British Columbia: on Monday wear a little bit of tartan, which I will provide for you, and celebrate Tartan Day right here in the Legislature.
A. Cowie: It gives me great pleasure in supporting the member's statement regarding recognition of Tartan Day. In doing so, I also acknowledge Canada's first nations people. I also want to mention that I'm sorry I don't have a tartan tie on, but I am wearing a Scottish virgin wool jacket.
Following the precedence of Tartan Day in Nova Scotia, where I was born of fifth-generation Scottish stock -- although, mind you, there is a bit of other blood mixed in there; English and Swedish, mostly.... Probably, though, because of the fact that I am fifth-generation, I don't have the accent that my hon. colleague has.
Tartan Day would recognize the many British Columbians who either came directly from Scotland or were born, like myself, of Scottish ancestors. The only personal request in doing this is that I not be called "Scotty" in future.
C. Serwa: Seeing that we have a few minutes left on that, I would like to state that we in the Social Credit caucus also support the concept of Tartan Day. Certainly, as the earlier speaker had said, the people from Scotland have played a very large and significant role in the total history of Canada. Although we hear of the enormous publicity of the Lewis and Clark Trail, Alexander Mackenzie was the first individual to cross overland right across the North American continent without extensive military support. So we have a lot to be thankful for. They are a strong, hearty, individualistic people. Most things are very positive about them, although there are two things that the Scottish people have introduced into Canada that are accompanied by a lot of wailing. One is the game of golf, and there is an enormous amount of wailing involved in that. There's curling and, of course, the bagpipes. So we stand strongly in favour of a special Tartan Day.
F. Garden: I want to thank my colleagues in the opposition parties for their kind words. I also want to thank one of the interns who helped me prepare all this: Cori Ross. She prepared so much that I couldn't talk about it all. She did a wonderful job and told me things about Scotland that I didn't know. I'm also appreciative of the remarks about our aboriginal people.
I want to say this on a note of seriousness: at one time in Scottish history, we were banned from using our own language -- the Gaelic. We were banned from wearing the tartan, just as the native peoples here were banned from the potlatch and the teaching of their languages. So we have a lot to learn from these things. We were even banned from using the bagpipes. Some people will think that's a blessing.
An Hon. Member: What about haggis?
[ Page 509 ]
F. Garden: That's not banned. I'll bring some for you.
I'd like to finish very quickly and very briefly. The declaration of Scottish independence was signed in my home town in 1320, and it was a declaration of freedom. In the words of those Scottish nobles, when they wrote to the powers of the day to get their independence, it said: "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom, for that alone which no honest man or woman gives up but with life itself." That's what Scots people brought to Canada -- that freedom. I'm so proud and thankful of the support I have received today.
DOCTORS
L. Reid: This member's statement this morning must perform a huge task. It must be instructive about process. I speak of consultative process. We were promised a government that would listen. Instead we have before us a government that makes arbitrary decisions and delivers edicts without consultation. This is serious.
The most recent example of this behaviour is directed at British Columbia's physicians. Why not listen to the suggestions coming from our physicians? I've heard the refrain "open government" many times. When will this statement become a practical reality? Consultation means to ask the advice or opinion of, to refer to, to deliberate together, to give professional advice. Every doctor in this province is a voter. Every person in this province deserves to be heard. This NDP government has abrogated its responsibility to deal with health care in creative and innovative ways. Instead this government has selected a highly visible group to use as a scapegoat.
Real savings in our health care system will only flow from truly listening to creative solutions, asking the right questions and seeking reform. Over the past six months I have toured hospitals in this province and spoken to doctors, nurses and other employees. These people have many positive and constructive ideas for reforming the system that they know best.
D. Schreck: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The member's statement is out of order. Standing order 25A says in part that member's statements and discussions during this period "shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House." The member is clearly anticipating debate on Bill 13 and Bill 14, which the member will have ample time to debate. By turning a member's statement into an opportunity to debate future legislation rather than matters of local concern, the member is depriving all members of this House of the opportunity to discuss local matters.
Hon. Speaker, I ask that you direct the member to take her seat and pass on to the next statement.
The Speaker: The Chair is very well aware of that point of order and will continue to listen carefully to ensure that the hon. member does not transgress.
L. Reid: Doctors in this province have told me that they are prepared to explore treatment protocols, to sit down and consult with the Ministry of Health and the minister to discuss issues in depth and to create a process of reform of our health care system. Doctors have also told me that they are prepared to explore the issue of salaried physicians in depth. They want to be part of the discussion. They deserve to be part of the process.
Doctors are keenly aware of the challenges facing the system. They are positioned to cite specific examples. It's time to listen to physicians across this province. Doctors have spoken on the need for clinical support for rural practices. It is an effective way of bringing more experience to bear on a patient's case.
We have clinical support teams in urban areas. Rural doctors also deserve that service. Doctors in rural areas are calling for a central registry for locums. They deserve to be listened to. Currently the inability of doctors to readily access a list of substitute doctors is one of the major disincentives for practising in the rural areas of our province -- not a new problem, but there is not a solution on the horizon. We need to listen, and listen to all stakeholder groups.
D. Schreck: On a point of order, I again draw the member's attention to standing order 25A, and in particular draw the House's attention to the fact that in Bill 13 there is specific provision for dealing with location allowances. The precise matter that the member is on is specifically dealt with in a clause of Bill 13. The member is clearly out of order.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. While certainly the point of order that has been raised is an important one, and the standing orders are very clear on that, I will just remind the hon. member who's speaking to stay with as general a comment as possible and not touch the provisions in the bills under question.
I appreciate that we are taking some time with these points of order. I think it is important to discuss these, and certainly I will extend the member's time to allow for that interruption. But I will be watching closely, with the bill in front of me, hon. member, and I would ask you again to ensure that you stay away from the specifics of the bills in front of us.
L. Reid: I thank you, hon. Speaker. In fact, that concludes my remarks. I will remain seated until the end of the discussion.
Hon. E. Cull: I want to....
D. Jarvis: Point of order. On standing order 25A, MacMinn says: "For the purposes of this standing order, 'private member' in British Columbia has been interpreted as any member of the House who does not hold cabinet rank....
The Speaker: To the hon. member who raised that point of order, most certainly that makes reference to the making of statements, since it is private members. But in terms of response, the cabinet member can reply.
[ Page 510 ]
Hon. E. Cull: I want to thank the member for her statement, but I have to start off by saying that I think it's regrettable that the member has fallen into the old style of provoking confrontation, which the Liberals assured us they wanted to get beyond and move away from. In my short time in this House over the last two years, I've learned that that's the rule. I think it's regrettable, because while we have some differences with the physicians in this province, we need to move beyond pouring salt into the wounds and talking about confrontation. We need to move toward more discussion and the kind of consultation she's talking about.
I might point out to the member that I, as the Minister of Health, have met with the BCMA now more times than probably all other Health ministers in the last five years have met with the BCMA. So if we're talking about consultation and discussion, my door is clearly open.
I think that we have to be careful not to get drawn into escalating this matter, because there's really a much more important agenda here in B.C. today, and that's the need to reform our health care system. Medicare is what makes us different as Canadians. Our medicare system is one of the things that we are most proud of as Canadians. I think it's really critical that income is not a barrier to access to health care services. That's what we've accomplished here in Canada in the last quarter of a century. But it's time now for us to move into the second phase of medicare, because while income is no longer a barrier to getting needed medical care, it's certainly still a barrier to good health.
[10:30]
The thing that's most closely correlated to health is not whether you smoke, abuse alcohol or other substances or whether you work in an unsafe work environment or are exposed to pesticides or chemicals. The thing that most closely correlates to poor health is poverty -- income. We have to now stretch our ideas about what we're talking about when we talk about health care and start to focus on preventive health care and healthy public policy, and on the recognition that there are things like poverty, homelessness and unemployment, the sense of self-worth in your community and your workplace, that have far more to do with our health than the number of hospital beds in a community or the number of physicians.
To make this happen, I think we have to shift our emphasis from the medical model to a community-based model. That's precisely what the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs has called for. In the response to the throne speech, the member applauded the royal commission, applauded the recommendations, said let's get on with it, let's implement all of those 300-some-odd recommendations. Hon. Speaker, that's clearly what we're doing. We're doing it through the budget. We're doing it through legislation. We're doing it through changes in policy in the ministry.
Doctors play a very critical role in all of this, because they are the gate-keepers of the system. For most patients, they are the first point of contact. They determine who gets treated and what kind of treatment they get. They have immense power over the spending of our health care dollars, because it's doctors who refer patients. It's doctors who order lab tests. It's doctors who hospitalize people.
We all have a responsibility here: doctors, patients and government. For that reason I am working with the BCMA and the physicians in this province to develop practice guidelines and protocols, to develop a patient education program, so patients are aware of the decisions that they're making. I know doctors welcome this focus and this change in emphasis in the health care system, because they have led the way in calling for more attention to preventive health, more attention to health promotion, and more services in the area of homemaker and home-nursing care.
But doctors can't be taken in isolation; they are part of the bigger package. We have to look at their role with respect to nurses and other people in the health care profession. I think it's time we started looking at the role of nurse practitioners, at legalizing midwives, at moving away from the medical model, and at focusing on community health care, instead of putting all of our eggs into the medical baskets of doctors and hospitals. In short, it's time we started challenging some of the sacred cows in our health care system.
I know from the discussions I've had to date with the BCMA and with doctors all across this province that they want to be part of the reform in health care. I know they as much as anyone else understand that they have a very important role in bringing about this change in emphasis in the redirection of health care. With them we will have a more sensible and compassionate system that makes sure health care is not only accessible to everybody in this province but that we actually raise the health status of people in British Columbia. Doctors are part of the system, and I look forward to working with them over the coming years.
L. Reid: Management of our health care system must become a more interactive process. Commonsense measures do exist -- and must be heeded. We need to involve physicians in the future of our health care system. They have promoted a concept of asking critical questions in health care research. They understand what the process should look like. It is incumbent upon us to value this dialogue between professionals, between the public, between the ministries, between the health care consumer. It is not appropriate for any group to be disfranchised. When doctors come together to discuss issues of concern, their selection of one of their own to advance issues of health care should be a given, on every committee, panel, task force which this minister creates. They are indeed one aspect of the health care delivery system in our province. That is not reason enough to leave them out.
We have heard that this government will not marginalize any group in our society by not listening. Why is it then appropriate to marginalize physicians by not consulting with them on the future of our health care system? All stakeholder groups and British Columbians have a voice which must be heard. We cannot afford instability, hon. Speaker. Redirecting dollars is essential for the very survival of universal medical care. Those are the stakes. I trust the minister will consult. I would like to be part of the process; I would like to receive this
[ Page 511 ]
material in time. This can no longer be a one-woman show, hon. minister. Disdain for process is not justifiable. Our health care system is too important.
I would leave you with this thought. We do nothing if we pit one aspect of the health care system against another. The education system in our province did not benefit from teacher-bashing. Our communities will not benefit from doctor-bashing.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
B. Copping: When I was elected to represent the people of Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, they made it clear to me that apart from many personal concerns, the number one overriding issue was the traffic congestion in our riding. I promised I would bring their concerns and continue to lobby our government to have something done about this.
There is no question that public transit is a necessary and workable solution to both our transportation and our environmental problems. The northeast sector has been one of the most neglected areas in the lower mainland for public transit. Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain is unique. While we are classified as an urban riding, we have many parts that are almost rural. We have Belcarra and Anmore that have virtually no public transportation in the way of bus service. We are the home of Simon Fraser University. One has only to go up the Gaglardi Way and look at the congestion there for the commuters going home in the evening into Coquitlam. Of course, up Gaglardi Way they have to go along Broadway, which is very congested. We all know about the Lougheed Highway, and Port Moody is the final...on to the Barnet for all the congestion coming from the eastern suburbs to the east of us.
My hon. colleague from Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and one of the hon. members of the opposition both spoke on transportation problems a few days ago. This just represents the concern of the area. My colleague mentioned the growth in his area and said that they wanted to prevent gridlock from happening. In my riding we are there; we are in gridlock. We are a growth area, but we are also receiving, as I said, the results of the growth in all the suburbs to the east of us. And there's just no question that traffic congestion is a daily irritant and a source of frustration to many of our commuters, so we must have an effective transportation system.
One of the nice parts about this job, of course, is going out and meeting with all the people in the community. And on many occasions there have been discussions of air quality. I must thank the hon. Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks for all the initiatives he is bringing in to protect our environment and for an air-quality strategy for the province. Nevertheless, how does this province bring about cleaner air? One of the ways must be through an effective transit system. There is no one form of transit. We must encourage people to get out of their cars. There must be multi-occupant vehicle lanes.
My constituents have told me of other methods they want to see. They want bike lanes. A lot of my constituents would use a bike, but they don't want to be killed by the exhaust fumes or by the traffic. That is something that has to be looked at. We certainly need extended bus service. New developments go into my riding, but there are no buses there. I think commuter rail still has to be looked at. There is $16 million from the federal government to look at commuter rail in our riding, so there are lots of options and alternatives.
Of course, I realize that a transit system isn't the province's only priority; health, education and social services have to be our number one priority. I also realize the tough financial position that we inherited, and we are forced to make some difficult choices, but we are committed to living within our means.
I still cannot emphasize enough how important a conscientious and effective public transit system is for the proper stewardship of our environment. For a public transit system, of course, doesn't only move people; it protects our environment. It must be active, and we must take steps toward having this happen. I realize that planning is necessary, and the provincial government is currently providing funding toward planning in the GVRD and the Coquitlam regional district. It certainly would be nice to see the comprehensive transit strategy that is planned for this province, as opposed to knee-jerk announcements.
For the people in my constituency I serve notice that I am going to continue to actively lobby this government for an effective public transit system that works for the environment, the economy and the people in my constituency.
A. Warnke: In my remarks I want to assure this House that I did not receive an advance copy of the member's statement beforehand. As a matter of fact, the traffic congestion in her particular riding has not just recently developed in this way, but has been there for quite some time.
I was a resident in 1981 at the foot of Burnaby Mountain, and I taught at the University of British Columbia. I had to do a daily commute between Burnaby Mountain and UBC. Those who know me know that I like to use public transit. I'm not one to get in a car and drive all by myself. I do like to use public transit wherever possible. It took me in excess of an hour and a half to go from my residence -- this is ten years ago -- in Burnaby Mountain to the University of British Columbia. I do visit the member's riding from time to time -- either teaching at Simon Fraser or, these days, once in a while I pop over to the Lougheed Mall -- and I'm still quite familiar with it. I'm still quite astonished, as a matter of fact, that there has not been improvement since 1981. So in a way, I wholly endorse her particular position, because I certainly recognize there is a problem.
As a matter of fact, there is a whole problem in Vancouver that has existed, I would suggest, for more than 20 years. The east-west linkages throughout the city of Vancouver and in metropolitan Vancouver are the most difficult I've experienced anywhere. I remember in the early 1970s especially being exposed to places like Montreal and Toronto, where you can go quickly on a subway.
[10:45]
[ Page 512 ]
As a matter of fact, hon. Speaker, I had the experience once of being in Germany and travelling from Frankfurt to Darmstadt; it's about the same distance as from downtown Vancouver to Abbotsford. I was so impressed with the rapid transit that got me that distance in only 15 minutes. I thought that this was the way it should have been in the lower mainland throughout the metropolitan Vancouver area. So I endorse this idea that we need to very quickly concentrate on some sort of improvement on our east-west linkages. I certainly understand the gridlock. She is quite right on this, and we must do everything possible. I've been a strong advocate of that for more than 20 years.
In so doing, I would also like to mention that the member visited my riding of Richmond-Steveston. She opened up the Tomekichi Homma Elementary School. I trust, then, that she is also quite aware of some of the problems in my riding, especially those concerning the transit linkages between Vancouver and Richmond. I wholly endorse her position. I hope she also wholly endorses my position, which is that what we need to do is improve the traffic linkages between Vancouver and Richmond. Thank you very much.
The Speaker: There's about a minute left in the response time.
H. De Jong: A couple of years ago, under the previous administration, quite a consultative process took place as to the needs of transport and transportation in the various areas. I'm happy to note that Mayor Sekora, many of his council members and other local governments were very involved in that process. The outcome of that study, however, was that in the overall province there was about $10 billion worth of work needed within the next five to ten years, and certainly we knew very well that it couldn't be accomplished all at once.
The lower mainland area was one of the heavy cost implications in the overall study, and I believe it's unfortunate that this government has decided to cut the construction budget of the transportation budget in half for the coming year. I don't think, if the minister had notice of all of the things that have been studied and the cost implications, that this government made the right choice in cutting back the transportation budget -- and the construction budget in particular -- by $150 million or $180 million.
B. Copping: To the hon. member of the opposition from Richmond, I'm not aware that private members' statements are sent ahead of time. I don't think that has ever happened before.
Interjection.
B. Copping: Well, no. In fact, I think quite the opposite. To me it shows areas where we can work together where we have common concerns.
D. Lovick: And the rest of you will eventually come around to this.
B. Copping: And you will get your turn, hon. member from....
Interjections.
B. Copping: I'm addressing the hon. member from the opposition. I'm sorry, that's through the Chair.
The Speaker: Thank you.
B. Copping: As I said, this identifies areas where we can work together. We're all very concerned. As a physician I don't like to see people gassed to death by exhaust fumes. It's going to save us dollars in the long run, of course, if we do something about what's happening to our air because of the traffic. I appreciate your comments very much.
TAXATION
F. Gingell: There are two things to which human beings resign themselves: death and taxes. As a legislator, I can do little about death, but it is my duty and my responsibility to try to do something about taxes. It is with firm conviction and resolve that I rise today to speak to the House about the need for a more fair, simple and affordable system of taxation. One of the reasons I sought election to this House was to attempt to defend the overburdened taxpayers of British Columbia. I stand before you today to decry the cruel attack of this government on the hard-working citizens of this province.
The first recorded tax can be traced back to the third millennium B.C. in Mesopotamia. There were taxes prior to this date, but this is the first recorded date. It came in the form of able-bodied men giving their labour to the state for a number of days per year to build and maintain infrastructure. By the year 200 A.D. the amount of labour contributed in Asia was one month. It seems like so little now when compared to the six and a half months that the average Canadian contributed to the state in 1991 -- now extended five days by this government.
To add to this is the fact that there are three different levels of government, and each level of government has its own authority to tax. Each government taxes for different things and in different ways. I find it frustrating -- and most everyone I talk to feels the same way -- that every time you open your wallet, you pay a tax. We have sales taxes, income taxes, sin taxes and property taxes. We have so many different taxes that it takes computers and special accountants to deal with the system.
When the Income Tax Act was passed in 1917, it was ten pages long. Seventy-five years later it is 2,876 pages. This gives us an indication of where taxation policy has brought us. Further, the act is so plagued with legal terminology that anyone other than accountants and lawyers are hard-pressed to acquire a working knowledge of the act that no doubt affects us on a daily basis more than any other act. As King Edward VI, King of England, said some 400 years ago: "I would wish that the superfluous and tedious statutes were brought into
[ Page 513 ]
one sum together and made more plain and short to the intent that men might better understand them."
Out of the French Revolution came the strong notion that the aristocracy -- the rich -- should be taxed more heavily than the less fortunate. When the Dominion was formed, low taxes were used to attract hard-working immigrants to this country. Somewhere along the line governments have forgotten all about that concept. It would appear that governments would rather not attract investment and individuals with the ability to invest, spend money and make the economy grow, because higher taxes deter people from spending money and making investments.
High taxes stifle growth. Small business entrepreneurs, who hire the majority of employees in this province, are not encouraged to reinvest their earnings in their own growth, and governments have the gall to tell them that they need to become more creative and efficient in their operations.
British Columbians are not lazy, inefficient or uncreative. The reality is that they can't afford to pay any more taxes without sacrificing necessities.
Furthermore, taxes should be consistent so that people can budget, secure in the knowledge that their income will not be tampered with to the extent that a personal budget means nothing. A taxation system that changes dramatically over a short period -- for example, one which increases sharply -- does not help the small business woman in Prince Rupert plan a business, nor does it assist a young couple in Burnaby to determine whether or not they can afford to start a family when every dollar of their income counts.
Consistent should also be taken to mean taxing people who are in like circumstances the same amounts. Taxpayers should not be categorized on the basis of their incomes alone. The principle of taxes should be based on ability to pay. Unfortunately, this government has equated ability to pay with ability to pay a lot more, and $60,000.
Need I remind this House of the cyclical economic phenomenon? Increasing taxes does nothing to spur the economy, which, in case the government doesn't know, is at this moment in a recession. Increasing taxes leaves nothing for people to spend. Increasing taxes encourages consumers to shop across the border, where they can avoid paying taxes they would pay at home. How ironic! The more we tax, the less we get. But that's not the end of it, because when consumers are spending their money across the border, it means they're not spending it at home. This causes businesses to suffer, and they in turn pay less taxes when their revenues are down. When their revenues go down enough, it forces layoffs and company closures. Rumour has it that a number of these same companies are merely relocating on the other side of the razor-thin line. So the cycle goes.
I ask the government: do they not realize what their taxation policy is doing to the hard-working people of B.C.? In my home community of Tsawwassen, I can already see the lengthy lineups to the border.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret your time has expired.
Hon. G. Clark: I enjoyed the presentation from the member opposite. I think he gave a very good defence of the trickle-down theory. That's where you give money to the wealthy or the large corporations, and it eventually trickles down through the system. I always ask the thousands of unemployed people in British Columbia and Canada whether they've been trickled on lately.
Unfortunately, I think we've seen evidence that the trickle-down theory doesn't work. We've seen evidence in the United States and here in Canada. There has been a dramatic shift in the tax burden in this country, away from corporations, away from wealthy individuals and onto the backs of average people and the poor. And the relative share of taxes paid by low-income people has increased quite significantly. That was true in Ronald Reagan's United States and Brian Mulroney's Canada, and under the Bill Vander Zalm and Bill Bennett Social Credit governments. And it's disappointing, to be honest, that the Liberal Party would choose to take up the cudgels in defence of the wealthy and the large corporations.
Hon. Speaker, no one likes to pay more tax, and no Finance minister likes to levy more tax. Believe me, it's not something anybody enjoys. The problem is that in some respects taxes represent moral choices. People say we should reward risk-takers. When they say that, they don't mean reward police officers or firefighters or ironworkers or nurses or people who take risks in their daily lives when they work; they mean reward entrepreneurs. These are risk-takers. They're risking their money, whereas people who risk their lives every day never get rewarded by the tax system. So when we have a choice to make between who pays, it reflects in some respects an ideological or moral choice, a philosophical choice.
What we tried to be in this budget was balanced and fair. We cut spending by 3.6 percent on everything except health, education, social services and advanced education. So we were tough on the spending side, perhaps in some respects too tough. I know members opposite have said that, and I share that in some respects, but we have this difficult financial situation to deal with. Then on the taxing side, we're balanced. Half of our tax is from business, half from individuals. And when we dealt with individuals, of course, disproportionately the taxes fell upon those who could most afford it. I know members opposite and many of my constituents would say that $60,000 is clearly not wealthy, and it isn't -- except that only 8 percent of British Columbians make more than $60,000. So we unfortunately had to levy higher taxes on those individuals in order to make sure the burden was not too tough on the average-income British Columbian. I think this reflects fundamental choices that we had to make in responding to this very tough financial situation.
[11:00]
It's also true that one has to put it in perspective. The annual taxes on corporations are in fact $300 million lower than in 1984 under the Bill Bennett administration. Prior to 1984 there were some very good years in the mid and late seventies, and the tax burden was higher on corporations relative to what it is today.
[ Page 514 ]
While I know that corporations find it difficult to pay more taxes and are complaining about the tax burden that this budget imposes upon them, it's important to put it into perspective, which is that it's less of a burden today than it was in 1984. The alternative, frankly, is to raise taxes even higher on lower-income people and working people. Ninety-two percent of British Columbians will not pay more income tax as a result of this budget, and the majority will not pay more taxes even in terms of the supplemental homeowner grant, which does not affect the majority of British Columbians. A minority of British Columbians -- a significant minority, about 30 percent -- will pay slightly more in property taxes. Again, it's only returning the tax burden to what existed two years ago. It was going into an election when the previous administration implemented that tax break, which disproportionately affected wealthy individuals.
We have been balanced and fair. It is true we've made some choices. In many respects they are moral choices, philosophical choices, which are eminently defensible based on balancing the load. Everybody pays a little more. Wealthier individuals, the top 8 percent of British Columbians, pay slightly more again. Large corporations pay a little more.
It's important also to note that 80 percent of B.C. businesses will not pay the corporation capital tax. When you take out the banks and other financial institutions, you realize that it's a modest tax increase on those other businesses.
F. Gingell: We've heard an awful lot of federal-government-bashing and lacklustre justifications for the NDP's new and increased taxes. This might do something to prop up the government's guilt-ridden self-image; however, it does little to keep the economy growing, instead of the lineups to Washington State. Blaming other governments ignores the responsibility and the mandate of this administration to act in the best interests of the good people of this province.
Before B.C. joined Confederation we had low taxes in this province. Now we have three times as many government tax levels as when we started. Most people in the province, save the ones opposite, would agree with me that taxes are too high and too complicated. People are p.o.'ed because they have to pay PST and GST. They have to pay PST and GST on their TV and their VCR, and whether they drive a GM, a VW or a BMW. If you try to get a BA, an MA, an MBA or a BSc at SFU or UBC, you may also have to pay GST on your student loan admin fee. On top of paying ITD, your paycheque is deducted by UIC and CPP. This leaves very little PDI, hon. Speaker. I wish the government would do something about it PDQ.
(continued)
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure for me to rise and take my place in this debate. This is the first opportunity I've had to speak in this Legislature since the provincial election. As a consequence, I just want to take a few minutes in my opening remarks to thank the people of Esquimalt and Metchosin for having provided me with the opportunity to serve in this House. It's an honour and a privilege certainly to be a member of this House and to represent people of any given constituency. It's a responsibility I'm sure that all of us on both sides of the House take very seriously, to represent the people that voted for us in a forthright and honest way.
On October 17, 1992, the people of British Columbia voted for a change not only in government, but in attitude, style and philosophy. All of that, I believe, is reflected very much in the Throne Speech that the government introduced on March 17, and certainly in the budget that was tabled by my good friend and colleague the Minister of Finance. The budget we tabled on March 26 is a fulfilment of many of the promises we made during the election campaign. As a consequence, the Minister of Finance should be applauded for the way he was able to craft a budget that ensures that the philosophical and political agenda of working people in this province will be realized through the administration of this budget and the policies of this administration.
On several occasions during the election campaign, this administration -- and, I know, myself in particular -- made it very clear that we felt that too many of the large corporations in this country were not paying their fair share of taxes. It's been my view that it's high time that those corporations that were avoiding paying their fair share of taxes paid their fair share. It is inexcusable in a country such as ours to have situations where a bank teller working for a bank pays more in taxes than a bank, and a gas jockey working for an oil company pays more in taxes than the oil company does.
Most British Columbians will recognize that those kinds of outcomes, which have historically occurred in Canada, need to be redressed through a taxation system that is both fair and reasonable. This budget says that those large corporate interests who have not paid their fair share of taxes or have avoided paying taxes will now have to pay their fair share. And I'm pleased to see that the budget makes sure that the promise we made then is now being fulfilled. It's being fulfilled in part through the corporation capital tax in this budget. I know that the philosophy I've just outlined about corporations paying their fair share is for some reason not shared by the Liberal opposition, and I earlier saw the Liberal opposition leader shaking his head when I raised the whole matter of fair taxation for corporations. But I want to remind him that the budget provision we've introduced applies to the top 20 percent of large corporations in British Columbia and asks them to pay their fair share of taxes. That is only fair.
As well, we have in this budget increased the taxation levels to large corporations by 1 percent -- from 15 percent to 16 percent. Hon. members should be reminded that this means that taxation levels for those large corporations are still below the 1987 levels. Inasmuch as this budget, on one hand, can be tough on those who have avoided paying their fair share of taxes
[ Page 515 ]
in the past, it's also fair in the sense that it recognizes economic realities in this province, in this country and in the jurisdictions that we compete with. And that's why, for both the large corporation and the small business tax rate, which increased from 9 percent to 10 percent, we've kept them at or below 1987 levels -- tough, but fair.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked what's so spectacular about 1987. I think it's a reflection of the fact that this administration is recognizing the economic realities and is still saying to those corporations: "Yes, you must pay your fair share." But recognizing current times, we are going to leave the levels at 1987 levels.
Since the Leader of the Opposition has taken a moment to raise this issue, I must say I take some umbrage with his argument that our tax levels should be set at the same level as the jurisdictions that we compete with as our trading partners. His argument is that our taxation levels should be equivalent to the taxation levels of Pacific Rim countries and of countries and states to the south of us.
I must confess I'm at a loss to understand that argument. This political party does not want us to have the same kind of economic conditions that countries like Thailand have, quite frankly. Nor do we want to have the same absence of social programs that are found in countries like Mexico. And if it is his view that our social standards and our social safety net ought to be reduced to the level in those countries, I'm telling him that he is wrong in terms of the position he's advocating. He's out of sync with the majority view of British Columbians. Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, if I may put it this way, one of the benefits and attractions to companies that wish to locate in British Columbia from the Pacific Rim and from the south, and one of the things we have to offer to them and to their employees, is a wonderful array of social programs. Nowhere else in the world can employers offer to their employees a country that offers a fully funded medicare system, a Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance programs and a comprehensive family allowance system. Those are attributes that attract investment to this country and are not seen as impediments to investment, as the Liberal leader would suggest.
Hon. Speaker, we made a fundamental commitment during the election campaign that in dealing with taxation policy in this budget, we would implement fair taxation programs. This budget makes it very clear that this government is going to be dealing with raising of revenue in a fair and evenhanded way. We have made a conscious decision in this budget to rescind the $25 million pension plan that was a gift to physicians in this province. I have seen and read with great interest the criticism coming from the opposition with respect to this matter. Well, quite frankly, again I think the opposition is out of sync with public opinion. At door after door as I canvassed during the election campaign in the summer and, indeed, since the election campaign, people have said to me over and over again: "When are you guys going to get rid of that $25 million gift to physicians?" I'm pleased to say to all members in this House that the government has made a conscious decision through its budget to seek the support of this House in repealing the doctors' pension plan. I'm sure that at the end of the day the opposition will join us in attending to the elimination of that pension plan.
We've made a conscious decision in this budget to cap the earnings of physicians to try to get a better grip on the costs of the Medical Services Plan. We've done that because past right-wing governments have made conscious decisions to attack and make significant cuts to nurses and other workers in the hospital system. We think it's fundamentally fair that there be a cap placed on the earnings of physicians. We've said to them: "You can earn up to $300,000 a year, which is certainly not an unreasonable number, and after that there will be a cap on your earnings."
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Since I'm being heckled by my colleagues opposite, I can't help but point out the irony that the Liberals opposite have attacked us for taking that action with respect to capping the earnings of physicians, and at the same time they have attacked us -- and I'll talk about this a little bit later on -- for implementing a fair wage policy. I want to make it very clear to the members opposite that this government is on the side of working people. We're going to make sure that the paycheques and jobs of working people are protected in this province, and if it means putting a cap on the earnings of physicians so that we may have a little bit more money to hire nurses or hospital workers in British Columbia, that's wonderful. That's the direction that British Columbians want.
I am pleased to say that in this budget the government, in taking a look at some of the more affluent areas of society, has made a conscious decision to place a levy on the billings of lawyers. As a member of that honourable profession, I am pleased to say that it is a welcome move. This government is saying that there will be a levy on lawyers' billings because lawyers have the ability to contribute to the taxation system. As much as that measure may be seen to be tough by members of my profession, in fairness we're also saying that we want to redirect government resources towards legal aid. The new tax on legal fees will go a long way to making sure that the working poor in this province, who have traditionally had difficulty getting access to lawyers, will now have a comprehensive legal aid system that will assist them in protecting their legal rights.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I must comment on the heckling from the opposition that for some reason thinks it's unfair to tax lawyers so that working people and working families can have access to a comprehensive legal aid system -- a sad reflection of the swing to the right by what is becoming affectionately known more and more, on a daily basis, as the Liberal Credit Party.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[ Page 516 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Hopefully that will encourage some temperance on the part of the members opposite so that I can continue with my comments.
[11:15]
This government has made a conscious decision to place a surtax on the more affluent members of society. If you as a single-income-earner make more than $60,000 -- indeed, $86,000 -- a year, you're going to be paying an additional surtax. Again, that's only fair. Ninety-two percent of British Columbians will not be paying that additional income surtax. The more affluent in society, who have all the advantages of the accountants and the loopholes that can be taken advantage of, have been told: "You're going to be paying an additional surtax."
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know. I hear again the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that somehow there's something wrong with that. We make no apologies for saying that those who are wealthier in society have to contribute fairly to the programs they benefit from in society.
Not only did we say in the last election campaign that large corporations should pay their fair share of taxes, not only did we campaign and fulfill in this budget the promise of fair taxation policies, but we made a fundamental commitment during the last election campaign to maintain the integrity of our health and education programs. I'm pleased to see that in this budget we made significant commitments in terms of health care in particular.
During the election campaign constituent after constituent talked to me about the tragic effects of deinstitutionalization and the plight of the mentally ill who find themselves in difficult situations throughout the province. One need not look further than the boundary of my riding and take a look at the situation we found underneath the Johnson Street Bridge. We have made a fundamental decision in this budget to allocate more resources -- significant resources -- with respect to attending to the plight, the difficulties and the social conditions of the mentally ill in British Columbia. I'm proud that we have been able to fulfil that election campaign promise. More importantly, I'm proud to see that representatives of that industry have also applauded the government for the initiative it has taken with respect to the situation involving the mentally ill.
Historically and philosophically as a political party we have advocated the need to make sure there are adequate preventive and community-health-based programs in British Columbia, and there's a fundamental shift in this budget away from institutionalization, from hospitals and back towards community care. It is a fundamental ideological position that is reflected in this budget and it is reflective of the type of compassionate, caring and sensitive policies that have formed the foundation of the New Democratic Party platform. The resources we have allocated in this regard will go a long way to make sure that mothers who are experiencing difficulty with newborn children will have those kinds of programs maintained in communities, such as we have seen in Esquimalt through the Best Babies program.
We made a fundamental commitment that programs such as the wellness programs that we've seen in this area -- in the Capital Regional District and certainly in Esquimalt -- will be maintained through this type of budget implementation. Extended-care and acute-care facilities will be available to the elderly so they can live with dignity in their own communities instead of having to be transported from somewhere in the province to another region. Surely we owe it to those who have been the pioneers of our society to allow them to live their time in dignity, and this budget achieves that fundamental political and philosophical goal. I congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health for taking that initiative and developing it in the budget.
We've also said to British Columbians, and particularly the working poor and those on fixed and limited incomes -- and more about this in a minute -- that we have frozen Medical Services premiums. We do not believe in the philosophy that that kind of tax grab ought to exist, so we froze Medical Services premiums, and I'm sure that all members in the House will join in recognizing the significance of that change in philosophy.
We made significant commitments with respect to health care. We made significant commitments with respect to education. We've said that it is intolerable in our society that children go to school hungry. As one of this government's initiatives through the Ministry of Education, we introduced a comprehensive hot-lunch program throughout British Columbia. I know young children in some of the schools in my riding who go to school hungry, particularly in the area of Vic West and some areas of Esquimalt where we've known this to be a significant problem, are going to benefit from this positive and sensitive initiative undertaken by my good colleague the Deputy Premier and Minister of Education in British Columbia.
We made a fundamental commitment in this province to proceed with capital construction programs in schools so children can move from portables into decent educational facilities. I know that means in communities like the one I represent that finally we will be able to reopen Lampson Street School in Esquimalt -- one of British Columbia's first schools, which was shut down during the restraint era. Thanks to the capital commitments made by this administration, particularly the Minister of Education, that school will reopen this year, providing opportunities for young people in Esquimalt to attend a school, and breathing some life into one of the most beautiful buildings that we have in the greater Victoria area. We've maintained our fundamental commitment to both health care and education.
Hon. Speaker, we made a commitment during the course of the election campaign to protect the jobs and paycheques of ordinary working British Columbians. This budget leaves virtually untouched families that have an income -- through a personal-income-earner --
[ Page 517 ]
of less than $60,000 a year. In that sense, it respects that promise.
More importantly, this administration has made a commitment to protect jobs and to encourage economic development through this budget. I need not give any other example than the one just down the road in my riding. This government has made a fundamental commitment to reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry. That commitment is in part fulfilled by the decision to proceed with the construction of the second superferry and in part by the capital announcement in this budget to proceed with another $130 million of shipyard activity. My constituents -- the average working people that go to work day in and day out at our dockyard and our shipyard at Yarrows -- are going to be pleased with this announcement, and the announcement that there will be in the neighbourhood of $500 million in capital work achieved through the auspices of B.C. Hydro, a responsibility that I have under my portfolio.
As I said, we have in furtherance of that commitment to protect the jobs and paycheques of ordinary British Columbians, implemented a fair wage policy. It says, first of all, that it is wrong for an employer to charge a government $25 an hour for a worker's wages, pay that worker $21 and pocket the differential. The $4 is excess profit. That kind of practice will now cease.
In terms of a fair wage policy, what we're saying is that young British Columbians will now have the opportunity to participate in apprenticeship programs, so they have the opportunity to be supervised on the job-site, enrol in programs of instruction and get hands-on experience. Once they've had that experience, they've got marketable skills they can take out to the workforce, and can make sure they've got continual employment for themselves and a secure future in this province.
I can't help but emphasize the importance of apprenticeship training, apprenticeship programs, areas which have been neglected in the past, areas we made a fundamental philosophical decision to breath life into and to embellish, to give our young people a chance to get the kind of skills they need in order to prosper in the future. I'm proud of what we've done in terms of fair wages and apprenticeship. I'm proud that we're now saying to British Columbians that when people are hired to build our schools and our hospitals, we're going to demand that they be qualified tradespeople with qualified trade certificates, so that we get the most qualified people building those hospitals and schools for our young people and our seniors.
Hon. Speaker, we made a fundamental commitment during the election campaign to assist the working poor and those living in poverty. The New Democrats have long spoken of the need to address the plight of the working poor and those living in poverty. In this budget, as an initial step during these tough economic times, this government has doubled the earnings exemption for those on social assistance, so they can earn more and get their foot in the door in terms of employment opportunities. We have increased by 43 percent the funds allocated for job training and skills development, so that people like the working poor and those on social assistance can get the kind of training that they need, skills that will get them into the workforce.
Thirdly, we have dealt with one of the more significant impediments to single-parent families and working families in this province by implementing a program for day care -- a commitment of $17 million in additional day care funding so as to make sure that working families, single parents and those on social assistance have access to adequate day care programs. It's a long-overdue policy that this government over the next four years will amplify and build into a strong and comprehensive day care program.
We have made a fundamental commitment to women in this province that we are going to proceed with pay equity programs. We have said that not only is this going to be dealt with in the context of collective bargaining through the kind of settlements that we've seen at institutions such as BCIT and at UBC, but that philosophically we think it's wrong that women should earn 60 to 65 cents for every dollar that a man earns. We have made fundamental commitments in this budget to increase the allotment to pay equity, and we've put in this budget an additional $60 million approximately in terms of new funding to allow us to achieve those goals of pay equity.
An Hon. Member: What about the HEU?
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me tell that hon. member that there will be a fair and just settlement with HEU workers in this province. We will deal with the issue of pay equity as we have in all other collective agreements. Shame on the Liberal opposition leader, who has spent more time in this House defending physicians on their pay cap than defending the rights of HEU people in this province. Shame on you!
For years, right-wing governments have, quite frankly, picked the pockets of working people and the working poor. Large corporations have avoided paying their fair share of taxes. This budget reverses that trend. Gone are the days that a large corporation can avoid paying its fair share of dollars. Gone are the days that a bank teller pays more than the bank does in taxes. It's long overdue.
For once, finally, we have a budget that puts people first and protects the incomes and the lifestyles of middle-income British Columbians and the working poor, and that seeks to make a commitment to redress matters of social injustice and proceed on an agenda of social reform -- be it in the areas of day care, pay equity or eradicating poverty. This is a budget that says to ordinary British Columbians that for once they have a government that is on their side. I'm proud that this budget stands tall and speaks affirmatively for the rights of the working people in this province. Finally, British Columbia has a government that is sensitive to the concerns of ordinary British Columbians, and I encourage all members opposite -- including the Liberals who voted in favour of the throne speech -- to vote in favour of this budget as well.
A. Cowie: Yesterday we had a lesson in Economics 103, and I just wanted to refer briefly to my experiences
[ Page 518 ]
with Economics 101. It's more fundamental. I can remember having that lesson in my first year at university.
[11:30]
You will recall the lesson of the two ice-cream salesmen, one at either end of the beach -- the left and the right. Neither of these salesmen was doing well. They couldn't sell enough ice cream to make a living. So they gradually moved to the centre of the beach, and both ice-cream salesmen did very well.
I would suggest that there are very few people here in this Legislature from the right, obviously. The right is gone, and our members on the other side have crept gradually, ever so slowly, to the centre -- or they're pretending to be in the centre. But the real problem with that is the product. That's the difference. The hon. member for Skeena mentioned that he didn't know where the Liberals were. I assure you that we're solidly in the middle where our foundation has always been.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: Yes, and we know our product. We have a Fraser Valley people's very good ice creamproduct. We're not Haagen-Dazs. We're not pretending to be some other kind of ice cream. But I have tried, and we have tried and searched to find out what sort of ice cream the other side is selling. We're not sure, but I am sure that over the next four years all members of this Legislature and the public will find out the difference between the kind of ice cream that we sell and the kind of ice cream that you sell. It will take us a while.
Anyway, it gives me great pleasure to be here. I have served on a variety of local government agencies. It gives me pleasure to discuss this first budget of the NDP administration. Through my experience in local government, I have been exposed to a variety of budgetary processes. Since this is my first experience with the provincial budget procedure, I am somewhat saddened by the task which I face today.
This is less a budget than it is a continuing saga of the Peat Marwick report. This report allowed them -- or the government thought it allowed them -- to blame the fact that they gutted the basics of their election policy on the unfortunate fiscal actions of the previous government.
An Hon. Member: Which is not true.
A. Cowie: Oh, they were unfortunate, they were irresponsible, and they have suffered the consequences. Their salesman of ice cream no longer exists.
For this reason I believe that the people of the province have not received the kind of change that they expected from the NDP if they were elected. The electorate wanted some comfort in the fact that they would have, after many years of lip-service, a government which they could respect. In addition, I believe that they wanted a House which they could look to for guidance over the next coming years. However, the public will never again be able to respect this government after the trickery that it exercised in respect to the implementation of this budget.
In addition, and after having shouted long and hard at the Social Credit government concerning their use of special warrants, this government did nothing less than copy their procedures. The public has received from the NDP the same heavy-handed style of government that the Vander Zalm and Johnston administrations perfected during their periods of office. The government has abandoned the better way which they promised the voters in the last election, to instead continue the badder way, which they scrutinized during their period of languishing on the opposition benches of this chamber. Surely the government has heard the old adage: those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
Judging from the tone and substance of this budget, one thing is clear: the government itself will be history in four years. There will be only one ice-cream salesman. It is evident to the members on this side of the House that the NDP has spent 16 unproductive years in opposition, waiting for the day when they would be blessed by the shortcomings of Social Credit. For on that day they would be asked to present their road map for the province -- the budget. If this budget is the road map for the next fiscal year, we may as well be on a highway with an unfinished bridge. For this is only leading to a disaster. Come to think of it, that is similar to the way this government has left the King George SkyTrain station in Surrey: lots of track and no destination.
What this government has done is dramatically change the climate of labour negotiations overnight. During the past years, labour strife has been kept to a minimum, assisted in large part by the buoyant economy in which the province found itself during the last part of the 1980s. Since the NDP took power, the province has witnessed a marked increase in days lost by labour strife, through the strikes at BCIT and UBC, the hospital employees' strike and others -- probably even the hockey players' strike. If we are to draw anything from labour over the past several months, it is from -- of all unions -- the IWA. The IWA's membership and executive realized that it was not the time to be playing hardball with the forest industry. They realized that any increase in salary paid to their membership would result in job loss. What the IWA was saying to the province was that this is not the time. What the taxpayer of this province is saying to the government is that this is not the time for such tax grabs, or for such a swipe at the corporate citizens of our province on whose jobs the vast majority of British Columbians depend.
The government has chosen to pursue the classic NDP-CCF principles of taxation. Where you see the word "capital," tax. Where you see the word "corporation," tax even harder. When you see the word "profit," tax so heavily that you cannot see the word anymore. What the government has said to business is that they don't care. Quite clearly the government is not concerned with the prospect of an increased number of British Columbia businesses either closing their doors or going across the border. Either way, jobs are being lost. However, the government is at the same time instituting policies which will enable backroom-money-
[ Page 519 ]
donating unions the opportunity to negotiate settlements which will be head and shoulders above the settlements of the workers in the private sector. The real punch line to this is that the provincial taxpayer, the only one with less money in his pocket after this budget, will be the same one asked to finance the settlements in the public sector.
To turn to my constituency for a while -- and give us all a bit of relief -- the government has made one of the most vicious assaults on the taxpayers which this province has ever seen. In Dunbar, a neighbourhood within my riding, an average taxpayer is being forced to cough up an additional $434 in locally assessed taxes. There are a lot of ordinary people in Dunbar, believe me. In Point Grey, next to me, where the hon. Minister of Tourism is the representative, the average taxpayer will pay an additional $436. A lot of average people live in both of these areas. The removal of the supplemental homeowner grant can be seen to be nothing more than a cynical tax grab at the expense of the more urban areas of this province. This change has resulted in the city of Vancouver being forced to come up with an additional $18.12 million. I cannot comprehend the reason why the government, in this critical period of slow economic recovery, has chosen to hamstring the provincial economy by the effects of these regressive methods of taxation. I can assure you that Mayor Campbell has absolutely no aspirations for this job of Premier.
Also having a negative effect on the well-being of the city of Vancouver, as well as on the majority of municipalities in this province, is the reduction in the unconditional grants that are paid out to support initiatives of local government. The reduction of this grant at a time when the municipalities are nearing the deadline of submission of their budgets to the ministry is absolutely outrageous. How can you possibly budget if you're thrown a spanner at the last minute? I know for a fact that the city has worked very hard on controlling its costs. In the last nine months in particular, all departments have been asked to reduce their budget by 5 percent. Cuts in the parks budget resulted in shortening swimming hours, reducing the number of hours for lifeguards and even removing rose gardens and teeter-totters from our parks. These cuts were done through consultation with the community groups. There was no consultation in this tax grab from the municipalities. These measures were to keep tax increases within the cost-of-living index. Then there was this provincial tax grab and a resulting property tax increase in Vancouver -- in my riding, in particular -- on an average of 22 percent with absolutely no consultation.
Finally, I would like to briefly touch on housing, which falls within my critic portfolio. We know that the federal government is downloading responsibility of social housing to the province, resulting in half the number of projected units -- theoretically anyway, unless some great solution is found -- being built in the next two years. The province must find a way of dealing imaginatively with this problem, yet I see no measures in this budget to do so. When we get to the estimates, this will be one of my main concerns.
I must say that the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs has been very kind to share a great deal of information. Whatever assistance this side of the House can give, we would be pleased to do that. It's not going to be an easy job, and I know he's not going to be able to do it all by himself.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs has illustrated an open process. He's one of the few ministers.... The other night at 5:20 in the morning, he was open. He had three of his staff here, compared with the four ministers -- especially the Minister of Forests -- who wouldn't answer any questions at all. I congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He did a great job. But believe me, much participation is going to be necessary because of the federal government taking this task. The minister will have to work with the federal government, municipalities and the home-building industry. By the way, 95 percent of the home-building industry in this province is non-union, and they are paid fairly. The minister will have to find innovative solutions if we are to begin to solve this problem. There will have to be full consultation.
Not to let the government off the hook so easily, we realize that what they are attempting to do with this taxation they are continuing to do with housing. This is a policy of devolution of responsibility to the municipalities. The municipalities can't simply be recipients of a government memorandum stating: "Surprise! Your budget is slashed." They must fully take on their responsibility of providing innovative and affordable housing. The province must take the responsibility.
In my travels across this province I have found that people are tired of taxes, prevarications and excuses. Neither politicians nor the media will pass judgment on this budget; it will be the public in the long run. My constituency assistant has had many calls complaining about the budget -- calls from senior citizens....
Hon. R. Blencoe: Send them to us.
A. Cowie: Good idea. I will send some of them to give you a call.
In Kerrisdale and Dunbar there are many pensioners living on fixed incomes who will be terribly affected by this budget.
What this government is doing to the province they must have learned from watching the Tories in action for the past eight years. If you can't raise taxes yourself anymore, force another level of government to raise them for you. If you can't provide the services required, force a lower level to provide them for you.
I close by saying that I have the pleasure of supporting this amendment.
J. Beattie: I certainly appreciated some of the comments of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. There are a few issues that I am very much in line with him on. One of them is the housing issue. I'm sure over the course of the next number of years we will work together as a Legislature to address what is really a very serious problem.
Yesterday I had the great opportunity to represent the Minister of Agriculture at a fund-raiser for the Vancouver Playhouse. It was a winetasting, which started 14 years ago, and it has now become a major
[ Page 520 ]
fund-raiser for the Vancouver Playhouse. It has my two favourite things, theatre and wine, so it was quite nice to be there representing the minister.
But there was an sombre note to the day which I found quite disturbing. There was a Mr. Quady there from the United States. He's a large wine producer, and he got up to introduce some dessert wines that his company makes. He started his speech by talking about what a horrible federal government this country has -- how they want to restrict people from smoking and stop people from drinking too much. He said that this is the worst kind of government interference he's ever been witness to and that it's a typical example of Orwellian Big Brotherism. I thought to myself that it was quite astounding that this fellow was taking such a strong tack. He went on for quite a while about this.
Of course, most of the people in the audience were from the restaurant and wine trades. They were free enterprise people, but they were getting rather uncomfortable with the approach Mr. Quady was taking. When he finished, they did applaud him, and they laughed when he talked about this Big Brother issue. I was quite concerned about his approach, and when I got up I apologized for being part of the government. I said: "I'm not Big Brother, I'm actually Little [...] a very high rate of unemployment. Part of that is because we have a cyclical agricultural economy, and also we have heavy employment in the tourism sector. The whole question of people having to
[ Page 521 ]
turn at one point during their working year towards support from the government is not unusual, and I'm sorry that such a large percentage of the increase in the Social Services budget is going to an increased number of people who are having to come on to the social welfare system. That is not only a result of the slight recession that exists, but it is also a result of the federal government cutting back on unemployment insurance by making it more and more difficult for people to get the money they've paid in. I'm glad that we've allocated that money, but I'm sorry that a lot of it is a result of the fact that there's increased dependence on it.
However, I think our Minister of Social Services has done a very positive thing in allowing working single people and working families to earn more money while they're collecting welfare. That extra $50 a month that a single man or woman can take from the workforce or the market is something that makes a hell of a difference when you're on a fixed income of less than $500. The family $100 is also very significant. I'm very pleased to see that we've acted to the tune of $16 million on that effort.
When I think about the unemployment rate in the Okanagan Valley, which is always high, always in the mid-teens or higher, I'm glad to see that this government has put funding increased by 43 percent into educational skill investment programs. That's very important; in future it's obvious that we're going to be changing our jobs many times over the course of our lives. I hope to be here for a few more years, though I am getting closer to 65 years and I'll only have to change maybe once or twice more. It's really important that education be supported, and we've done that. Also, the $1 billion in infrastructure for our schools, universities and hospitals is quite key.
In the Okanagan the prime economic driver really is the tourism industry. The two key steps within our budget, which I can say categorically have been very well received within my constituency, are that we didn't impose a provincial sales tax or a restaurant tax. I don't think we can understate how much that type of policy allows people to continue to feel that they can spend what money they have, knowing that the government has made a commitment to come down lightly on them. We haven't hit them hard. They know our philosophical view on that. We're going to try to keep them liquid. Knowing that they have liquidity in their finances is a real confidence-builder.
I recognize some of the points that the opposition has made about the trickle-down effect of the impact of corporate taxes on equity. I think that will be shown to manifest itself one way or another. But I hope that the opposition will pay credence to the fact that keeping the individual taxpayer confident in his or her own spending is a real boon to the economy. I'd like to leave that. Tourism is very important.
[12:00]
With regard to agriculture, which is also a very important aspect of the economy in my constituency, candidly, I'm not so happy. Since we were elected we've made some commitment to the fruit growers in the province. It could have been more; it could have been less. But it represented a commitment that shows where we are philosophically with it.
We've also made a very strong commitment to the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, which is a controversial body at best. There is concern within some of the growers' ranks that it's not really the type of operation that they'd like to see. Given that we have a very extensive and professional Ministry of Agriculture, many people would like to see that ministry's budget bolstered with the funds that go to the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. However, I think the argument that the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is a specific industry-directed Crown corporation does have some validity. They can specialize in the replant programs, do market research on the varieties and also help growers in terms of addressing the proper areas where certain types of crops should be planted. In terms of agricultural dollars directed, I think the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit authority is a worthwhile investment, despite the controversy that surrounds it.
I will be actively participating in the Agriculture estimates with members of the opposition. There are some Social Credit members from the Okanagan Valley, and as a group we have a vested interest in making sure that successive agriculture budgets are increased. The money has been well earmarked to this point.
With regard to transportation, and highways particularly, my constituency really was the big loser under the previous government. We did get some upgrading of the highway from Penticton to Summerland. But one cannot overstate the negative impact of the Coquihalla connector on the southern part of the Okanagan. It was a disaster. One of the reasons people of the south Okanagan felt betrayed was that.... As a mayor, the previous member stated that we must have four-laning in the Okanagan before the Coquihalla connector is completed. As a member, he stated the same thing, and successive Ministers of Transportation and Highways said exactly the same thing. But what they did was cater to the bells and whistles and the blue-ribbon construction of Coquihalla to cater to the Kelowna people, and they cut off the really logical flow of transportation up the Hope-Princeton through the southern Okanagan, which in terms of tourism and development of an infrastructure in transportation was really a terrible blow to the south Okanagan.
After the boondoggle of the Coquihalla connector, we're left with a deficit, not just caused by that but a part of that, and we don't have the capital to go into new projects.
I'm very pleased to see that the local Highways manager is so receptive to the Minister of Transportation's directive that safety concerns will be placed first in terms of highway maintenance and servicing. I'll use an example. In Peachland, where there's a need for a left-hand turning lane into a school off Highway 97, there was a very quick response from the local manager under the guidance of the Minister of Transportation, and that will be addressed. We'll also be doing the proper signage and lines and so on.
I'd also like to say that the minister has been breaking ground in terms of releasing some of the hegemony the Highways ministry has always had and
[ Page 522 ]
is talking to the Aboriginal Affairs minister and saying: "We recognize that at the Penticton Indian band there's a serious concern about access which was denied." This access is a major source of economic growth for the Penticton Indian band. It will serve the south Okanagan very well; it will serve the Penticton area extremely well. It hasn't been fully committed yet, but the minister has his staff and the federal and provincial governments working with the native band to get this project on the road. I'm happy that, in terms of capital projects in this province, one of them that has been earmarked is service to the roads in the Penticton area and the Penticton Indian band. I'd like to acknowledge that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was quick to recognize the importance of the economic imperative for aboriginal groups. If they are going to achieve their own sense of self-government and their own sense of well-being, they must have the funds and facilities to develop their economic infrastructure.
In drawing to a close, I just want to reiterate that this government has chosen a new direction. That new direction is based on the fact we're social democrats, and we're proud to be social democrats. Social democrat philosophy is not something that has just come into being in the last six or eight months. We have a philosophy which places people first. It cares for people, and that's our approach. As the hon. Minister of Labour has said, we will make the aims and ambitions of ordinary, working British Columbians our first priority. I personally believe that our approach is balanced and fair; I really do.
We've taken a very moderate approach, and we've been fair to small business. We've analyzed where they can make the best of their situation, and we've thought about the equity program. I'm standing behind my government on it, but I am very sensitive to the comments and the criticisms the Liberals and the Social Credit have made. In no way do I denigrate the remarks that you've made. I think you're drawing some clear points.
On that point, I still believe what the Liberals said before the election and what they are still saying, with a little less bravado now: that they do wish to work in a cooperative manner in this House. That is the role for the Social Credit Party, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party: to work together to make a better province. I'm committed to that, and I look forward to working with both sides of the House in the estimates to make British Columbia a better place in which to live.
H. De Jong: I'm pleased to hear from the member for Okanagan-Penticton that they're willing to work together with the opposition parties to deliver the best government to British Columbia. Normally I would begin my speech by saying that I would be pleased to speak on the budget before this House, but it's somewhat different today. I would love to be positive and in support of a budget brought down. However, I simply cannot be supportive today.
The budget is not just before this House or this assembly. The point is that is before the people of this province. The people are very much aware of government action and, in particular, budgetary actions and how they may affect their lives. There are a great number of British Columbians who will undoubtedly be affected. In fact, I believe that either directly or indirectly every British Columbian will be affected by this budget.
If the people of British Columbia did not know what a socialist government would do for them, when these budget measures are implemented they will certainly know what a socialist government will do to them. Yes, I again must say that I'm disappointed in the government's first budget. I'm sure that the British Columbians I represent will tell me in a couple of years from now that I was right in what I said in this speech, but that I perhaps should have said it much more strongly. I shall try to explain in a most positive way how British Columbians are reacting.
There are still some people in the province who will remember the '72-75 period of socialist government. They remember the staggering social costs, and the influx of people from other provinces to jump on the social bandwagon of British Columbia because of the attractive social services allowance. But these same people also remember about the tax shifts to local governments, the lack of proper river management and maintenance programs all under the umbrella of environmental concern. There is no question about it: the NDP party has always been in the clutches of the environmentalists.
The people remember the deterioration....
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm an environmentalist; he's an environmentalist; we're all environmentalists.
H. De Jong: I know the hon. members on the other side are getting a little bit excited, but the truth has to be said once in a while. The people of the province remember the deterioration of highways, bridges and other transportation means during the '72-75 period. They remember that mining was almost extinct at the end of their term.
Hon. Speaker and hon. members, the people have not forgotten, and I know that after the last election the people had many high expectations of this new government. But alas, they will only find out to their sorrow and dismay what this government will do to them. They will soon find out what the effects will be from the cuts in highway construction, which was cut in half in this budget for this year. Is it fair to say that there will be nothing in next year's budget, as it was in the '72-75 period, for highway construction? What about mining and resource development? Are they going to be chased out of the province a second time? They may not return after a second time. What about the many new schools, hospital and health units that are so urgently required in the fast-growing areas of this province?
Is this government prepared to do what they said they would do when they were in opposition? I'm sure they will remember what they said. They will remember what they said about portables on school grounds: there would not be any portables left if they were governing. I hope they are right. However, it should be noted that the fair wage policy introduced by this government -- without debate, by the way -- will have
[ Page 523 ]
a dramatic effect on how much can be constructed. There will be $200 million less value of facilities with this ridiculous decision by this government. And at whose cost?
Why was the SkyTrain station in Surrey scrapped by the government this last week? Was that perhaps because of this so-called fair wage policy? Who is it actually benefiting? It probably benefits the big union leaders, who have bargained away the reality of competition. They have bargained themselves out of what the people of British Columbia can afford to pay. It's as simple as that. And this government is now going to get them out of their dilemma at the cost of every British Columbian.
[12:15]
This budget speaks also about improved health care. How are they going to accomplish this? Simply by capping the income of the doctors, who are the centre of the health care system. What an incentive to the doctors! It's a slap in the face, particularly to doctors who are most strongly committed to serving their patients and looking after their patients' needs. The Minister of Health said this morning in a private member's statement that doctors are the gatekeepers of the health care system. I understand they've tried this in Quebec for some time too. What were the results out in Quebec? They were sad results: basically no provision of service for the last two or three months of the year.
A very honourable principle that has been cherished by all British Columbians is personal achievement through fair and honest competition. That's at stake here. It will be a sorry day for British Columbians to find out, when in need of health care services, that their doctor in whom they have built trust and confidence will have to inform them: "Dear patient, I have simply reached the cap. You will now have to look for some other doctor who has not reached the cap."
Hon. Speaker, this government has lost sight of the fact that people have built this province, not the government. This government, through its message contained in the Speech from the Throne and now more fully described in this budget, has indeed lost sight of the people's enthusiasm, initiatives and energy -- something every British Columbian has been proud of, and rightly so. For this government to implement more new taxes is one thing, but then to try and make the people believe that it is a lower-deficit budget than last year's is outright shame and deceit. If this is the advice they received from the largest and possibly most expensive accounting firm, I believe the government would have been wise to hire a consultant through the proper process so that competition was, in fact, taking place.
This government must have been very feverishly trying to find another way of taxation, and what did they do? They found a 6 percent sales tax to be applied against legal fees. Normally people would say, well, the lawyers can afford a 6 percent hike. But it's not the lawyers who are paying the fees, it's the little guy. It's every family of British Columbia that needs a change in a will or to have a will prepared. It's every little businessman who needs his documents signed and prepared by a lawyer. Those are the ones you're hitting. It's the little people.
I'm just wondering whether, in trying to find this kind of tax, they looked down the GST list. Could it perhaps be considered a first step by this government to harmonize its taxation with the GST? We'll soon find out. But the list goes on. Tax on rural properties -- which is affecting exactly the same people, whom I've heard much compassion for from the government side of the House, and rightly so. It's the people who are trying to sell their milk in a competitive market -- and their cheese, their apples, their various products that can be grown in British Columbia. The solution by this socialist government is: sock it to them. Sock it to these country folks with more taxes.
Yes, this government's philosophy appears to be that the more we can draw from the people's pocket, the stronger the economy will be. Well, not so, my friends. This government predicts a 3 percent growth in the economy by adding more taxes. The federal government certainly found out the effects of the GST on the overall economy of the country, and if the government didn't find out or doesn't want to recognize it, the people of Canada sure do and, more specifically, the people of Ontario do, with their one-term socialist government in office. Thousands of jobs in business have left their province, a province which under a strong free-enterprise government in past years was the industrial heartland of Canada.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
What is going to happen in British Columbia? The government says 3 percent growth in the economy. Our neighbours down south, though, think quite differently. I just want to read a short article that appeared in the Bellingham Herald of last weekend, which will tell us exactly what the people of Whatcom County, and Washington generally, think about Canada and British Columbia in particular. The article's headline is: "Your Next Boss Could Be Canadian."
"'Whatcom County will change dramatically in the next decade, and Canadian investment will continue to be the most significant factor,' said Bellingham immigration attorney Greg Boos.
"The resulting jobs are equal to the payrolls of some of the county's biggest employers, the officials say. The numbers could double the 850-worker force at Georgia-Pacific Corp., Bellingham's largest private employer. Boos said ten Canadian companies, employing 200 people each, have laid groundwork for a move to Whatcom County over the next decade....
"Canadian business owners already in Whatcom County, including Bill Francis, vice-president of Francis Foods (USA) Corp., support that view. Francis last month opened a crepe-making operation north of Bellingham off Bakerview Road. Like most Canadian investors, he moved south because of favourable conditions in the United States and unfavourable ones in British Columbia. A decision by the British Columbia government last week to pile $300 million more in taxes on provincial businesses this year tips the investment balance to the United States, Francis said. 'It's time to pull the plug,' he said. 'I've got my house in Langley for sale. It's disgusting.'
[ Page 524 ]
"In May, Don Piccolo, also of Langley, plans to begin making nearly 55,000 shotgun shells a day at Grandview industrial park between Blaine and Ferndale. He summed up his country's tax and regulatory policies in a word: 'Stupid'."
Well, that's the reaction of Canadians who are starting their businesses in Bellingham because of the situation currently in British Columbia.
It's indeed a sad day, hon. Speaker, when a newly elected government only six months in office has shown such lack of confidence in the people of this province that they would write off millions of dollars in student loans. It is a signal of a lack of trust in the people of British Columbia. Or is this socialist government so sure of themselves and the way they intend to govern this province that they are -- in fact by their own admission -- failing to provide a stable climate for business and commerce to flourish?
The Premier stated, during the election just past, that they would balance the budget over a five-year cycle. Moreover, the government would provide the people of British Columbia with a five-year plan of action as to how this could be achieved. Where is the five-year plan, Mr. Premier? How many more times are the Premier and the government going to mislead the people of this province? Or was it perhaps the advice of Peat Marwick not to do so? I doubt it.
In conclusion, I must say that I, along with countless British Columbians, am thoroughly disappointed in this government's new start. While British Columbians in all walks of life have expressed their disappointment in the continued build-up of federal deficits, they have so much more reason.... I know they're very disappointed with the increased taxes of all kinds, and on top of that, a large deficit created by this government. British Columbia is a province rich in resources. In reality this socialist government is a big disappointment -- a $2 billion deficit. It's not just what's in the book, it's also the $200 million currently used for community ventures through the application of lottery funding that is now going to be used by the various ministries. This socialist government has used inflated budgetary figures of the past year to justify their deficit.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to introduce a guest.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: We have in the public galleries today a guest from my constituency, the former mayor of Squamish, Mr. Phil Turner. I ask my fellow members to please welcome him to this chamber.
J. Pement: I would also ask leave of this House to bid welcome to a guest.
Leave granted.
J. Pement: I'd like to introduce today from Burns Lake my constituency assistant, Michael Riis-Christianson.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers and in accordance with standing order 45A, I now propose to call the question on the amendment to the motion.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, could I ask, for the benefit of the House, that the amendment be read?
The Speaker: Yes, that request is always in order. With agreement of the House, I will read the amendment.
"Be it resolved that the motion 'That the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply' be amended by adding the following: 'but this House regrets that the budget presented by the hon. Minister of Finance constitutes a major assault on all British Columbia taxpayers at a time when they are already suffering under the burden of taxation in a time of recession, and furthermore, that the budget fails to address the crucial need to enhance the competitiveness of British Columbia's economy or to develop a plan to reduce the provincial debt'."
[12:30]
Amendment negatived on the following division.
| YEAS -- 14 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Farrell-Collins | Reid | Wilson |
| Mitchell | Cowie | Gingell |
| Warnke | Stephens | Tanner |
| Jarvis | Chisholm | K. Jones |
| Anderson | Dalton | |
| NAYS -- 33 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Petter | Sihota | Priddy |
| Cashore | Barlee | Charbonneau |
| Jackson | Pement | Beattie |
| Schreck | Lortie | MacPhail |
| Giesbrecht | Hagen | Clark |
| Cull | Blencoe | Barnes |
| Pullinger | Copping | Lovick |
| Farnworth | Dosanjh | O'Neill |
| Hartley | Streifel | Serwa |
| De Jong | Janssen | Simpson |
| Kasper | Garden | Krog |
On the main motion.
D. Jarvis: I urge that this debate be continued on Monday, and I encourage everyone here to be here to hear me.
D. Jarvis moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:38 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada