1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 1, Number 21
[ Page 525 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. L. Boone: Today we have some very special guests in the gallery: His Excellency Michio Mizoguchi, Ambassador of Japan to Canada, and Mrs. Fumiko Mizoguchi; Mr. Yasuhide Hayashi, consul general of Japan at Vancouver, and Mrs. Mariko Hayashi; and -- I hope your English is better than my Japanese -- Mrs. Yuki Sakai, attaché at the Japanese Embassy in Ottawa. Would the House please welcome them.
Also in the gallery, I'm pleased to recognize Mr. Tony Joy, consul general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver, and Mrs. Lena Joy. Would the House please welcome them.
Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery somewhere today -- I can't see him -- is Mr. Ken Harding, for many years the manager of the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative and currently the chairman of the Prince Rupert Regional Hospital Board. I would ask the members to make him welcome today.
F. Garden: On Saturday evening I had the pleasure of accompanying the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, on behalf of the Premier, to the Sons of Scotland fiftieth anniversary at the Queen Elizabeth Ball. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson was also there. The guest of honour at that great occasion was His Grace the Duke of Atholl. As a great coincidence on this Tartan Day, he has joined us today in the gallery. Accompanying him is Dennis Emberley from Vancouver. I'd like the House to join me in making a warm Canadian welcome to His Grace the Duke of Atholl.
G. Janssen: In the gallery today is a longtime member from Alberni and a good friend, Blazeen Oreskovich, and her friend from Kelowna, Reneal Grace. Also, from the women's centre in Port Alberni is Sue Egers, a hard worker in the cause of women's rights. Please make them welcome.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my wife and my CA, who are in the gallery today. If you would please make them welcome.
C. Serwa: Hon Speaker, it is with great regret that I rise to pay tribute to Dan Campbell, the long-time member, a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Comox, who passed away yesterday. First elected in 1956, Dan served the province for 16 years under W.A.C. Bennett, principally as Minister of Municipal Affairs, and subsequently worked to rebuild the Social Credit Party and served as Premier Bill Bennett's executive assistant. Dan will be long remembered for the creation of regional districts as well as for his quick humour and tireless years of service to his constituents. Dan had suffered two strokes last year. I am sure that all members will join me in offering our deepest regrets to Dan's wife Jeanie and their four children, and extending our warmest appreciation for the contribution that Dan made to the betterment of British Columbia.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am saddened to hear of Dan's passing. As members know, Dan has been a constituent of mine for many years now. He retired from politics at the active level but was very involved in his community as well as doing the work for the previous government on municipal legislation and infrastructure. Dan was an activist in the life of Cortes Island and of my constituency. On behalf of all members on this side of the House, I too would like to extend our condolences to his family.
D. Mitchell: On behalf of the official opposition, I too would like to add a voice of condolence to the family of the late Dan Campbell, an amazing politician who served as a member of this House for many years. He was a tough-talking politician who really exemplified the rough-and-tumble nature of politics in our province, probably better than any other former member of this House. He achieved much during his many years in public life, not the least of which took place during the years subsequent to when he was a member of this House, when he, along with a few others, actually did what many thought was impossible. He helped rebuild a Social Credit Party that had gone down to defeat, surely a task that will never be repeated. I think on behalf of all members of the opposition, we would pay condolences to the squire of the Cortes Island White House, Dan Campbell. We wish his family our sincere condolences.
The Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that we send a letter to Mr. Campbell's family?
Hon. Members: Aye.
The Speaker: That will be done.
POLICE BOARD APPOINTMENTS
C. Serwa: You've got to be quick on your feet in this House.
My question is to the Attorney General. According to OIC 426 dated March 25, 1992, Mrs. Ann Frost has been appointed to the West Vancouver Police Board. Could the minister confirm that this is the same Ann Frost who sits on the NDP provincial council as vice-president, and that this is the same Ann Frost who is a director of the Commonwealth Holding Society, which has signing authority for the NDP finances?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.
C. Serwa: On May 17, 1989, the Times-Colonist quoted the member for Victoria-Hillside with respect to the appointment to the Victoria Police Board of a former Social Credit constituency vice-president. The current Minister of Municipal Affairs said it was political featherbedding of the worst kind, and he wrote a letter to the Solicitor General to express his objections. Can the Attorney General inform the House whether the member expressed similar objections to the appointment of Ann Frost; and if not, what particular qualifications she possesses that distinguish her appointment from the previous example cited?
[ Page 526 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I won't take up the suggestion made by my colleagues in respect of qualifications of this appointee as compared to the one referred to by my colleague. Let me just say that the member will know that a number of appointments have been made to police boards around British Columbia in the 12 communities that have municipal forces. I think a canvass of the list of appointees will clearly indicate that these people are well respected in their community and have the support of mayors, councils and police forces in their respective communities. In the case of Ann Frost, I think the member would be well advised to discover that she is eminently qualified for that particular position.
[2:15]
The Speaker: A final supplemental.
C. Serwa: Just a brief follow-up on the second supplementary. The member for Victoria-Hillside charged that the appointment process to police boards was unfair and intended to ensure partisan control of local government "through a backdoor process." Does the Attorney General agree with his colleague's assessment? And could he tell us what formal steps he has taken to fundamentally change the way people are appointed to local police boards?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't comment on an event some time ago that I don't have any knowledge about. What I can talk about is the process used for the appointment of police boards. First of all, there's consultation with the local council and mayor. Secondly, the B.C. Police Commission, as required by the B.C. Police Act, is also involved in the approval of the various nominees and suggestions. The process, in my view, is very fair and appropriate, and as a result we get some very fine people sitting on our police boards.
HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE
G. Wilson: In deference to the member's comments about being quick on his feet, perhaps if the official opposition was given more than five minutes' notice of ministerial statements and was provided with an accurate list of ministers present in question period, we wouldn't have to be reacting as we are to this matter.
Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Will the Premier assure this House that adequate levels of patient care are being maintained in British Columbia hospitals despite the action currently being taken by HEU?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is an important question, and the people of British Columbia need to be assured that the essential-service provisions are in place and, just as important, that the parties who are responsible for providing those essential services -- particularly the members of the Hospital Employees' Union, who make most of the hospitals in this province run properly -- are prepared to live up to the obligations under those essential-service provisions. We have to make sure that the people of British Columbia come first and that the parties involved in collective bargaining carry on that collective bargaining in a way that does not affect British Columbians who require hospital and other care.
G. Wilson: Just one of the many stories that have come to my attention over the weekend involves a man requiring emergency surgery at Vancouver General Hospital on Friday and Saturday, who was forced to lie on a stretcher in a hallway and was not provided food services for two full days. Is this what the Premier considers to be adequate patient care?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If the Leader of the Opposition could provide us with those details, I'd like to see them. He says -- if I heard him properly -- that a patient waited for two days without food in the Vancouver General Hospital. I find it difficult to believe that that could occur, but if it has we'd certainly like to check into it, and if he could supply us with the details we will.
The Speaker: A final supplementary.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and we will provide you the details of that particular incident.
Given that the Premier's government has promised that there would be improved health care, smoother labour relations and a just settlement for women in the public sector -- I would argue that his government has accomplished none of the above to date -- will the Premier agree today to recommend the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the current impasse and remove the chaos that we are finding in B.C. hospitals?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition should tread carefully in intervening in the collective bargaining process. He's probably aware that there have already been mediators involved in this. If he is suggesting binding arbitration, I think he is suggesting what usually turns out to be very expensive for the taxpayers. I can tell you, as somebody who has had to deal with binding arbitrations in other circumstances, that that is a fact. I think what we should do is let the collective bargaining process take its place with the employers -- in this instance, the hospital labour relations association -- and the Hospital Employees' Union.
DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL
A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General and is concerned with a case settled secretly out of court in December 1991, involving Victoria lawyer Peter Firestone in his defamation suit against former Attorney General Bud Smith and the department's assistant deputy minister, William Stewart. Would the Attorney General confirm, as reported in the press today, that the total amount settled was $93,000, of which more than $80,000 went to legal expenses alone? Also, since public money was involved, why did the government delay in releasing this information to the public?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the exact figures are that $80,500 went to defray the legal costs,
[ Page 527 ]
and $12,500 of public money went toward the settlement. The question was first asked of me by the Times-Colonist about two months ago, and at that time the amount we had expended was in the $70,000 range, if my memory serves me correctly. I gave that answer to the reporter, and the Times-Colonist actually printed it back in January sometime. The current numbers are as I've given them. That's the full extent of the public's contribution.
A. Warnke: Supplementary, hon. Speaker. Could the Attorney General also confirm whether, in settling this case, the decision on behalf of the government was a sole, unilateral decision taken by the Attorney General?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All of the decisions in this case were made by the Deputy Attorney General.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN
LABOUR LEGISLATION CHANGES
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. On April 9, 1987, the now Minister of Labour spoke to this House in favour of a motion delaying for a full six months the introduction of Bill 19, a controversial piece of legislation. I quote: "...the appropriate thing to do...is to take the legislation that the government has introduced...and put it in front of the public and invite response...." Can the Premier publicly restate for this House today his personal commitment and the commitment of his government to a full review of all changes to labour legislation and/or regulation?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, that is a matter for future action. I can say, though, that the panel to review new labour legislation for British Columbia is at work and is out gathering the opinions of the people of British Columbia about what would establish a new labour management climate.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think the Premier knows what the question was, and I'll make it a little clearer for him this time, if I may. I've received over 80 letters from contractors throughout the province protesting the fair wage policy of this government. Can the Premier explain why this policy was rammed through the House without any opportunity for public hearings, despite the former minister's strong statements in this House?
The Speaker: Hon. member, if you have a short question for a supplemental, would you like to continue?
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I will, and I'll give the other one in written form for the Premier so he may read it.
It is interesting to note that this Premier believes that any change to the labour code which may help low-paid individuals such as domestics and farmworkers requires review by full public policy, and it goes on and on. How is it, then, that those policies that fix wages for the already well-to-do and well-paid construction workers are rammed through this House? An interesting set of priorities, but I guess the domestics and farmworkers just didn't contribute enough to the government.
My question to the premier is: can he explain why his government has established a two-tiered process for changes to labour legislation in this province: one for the friends and insiders and election friends of this government, and one for the rest of us?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Obviously the new member and his research staff are not aware that the first action of this government was to raise the minimum wage for the lowest-paid workers in this province. The second announcement from this government was to bring in the most active pay equity program of any jurisdiction in North America, and along with that to establish a freestanding Women's Equality ministry and to appoint seven women members to our cabinet to make sure the issues that are important to all British Columbians, in terms of bringing about equality between men and women, are before the cabinet.
Lastly, hon. Speaker, I think this trend that I see from the Liberal opposition -- who are trying to divide workers from one another, who are trying to pick favourites among workers -- is very unfortunate. I'll tell you: this government is here to represent....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: This government is here to make sure we don't divide workers; that we're not divisive. We're here to make sure all workers have a fair way of life in British Columbia.
FAIR WAGE POLICY
L. Fox: I'm sure the Speaker will recall that on March 19 I asked a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to whether or not his staff had done any studies to determine the impact of the fair wage policy on municipalities. He answered in the affirmative: "A number of information and impact studies have been done." I would ask the minister at this time if he's prepared to table those studies.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Indeed, I did indicate.... The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for this policy, had discussions and communications with UBCM on this issue. I'm glad to report that the policy we've brought down has limited or no impact on local government.
L. Fox: I'm a little concerned. My question was whether he, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, had done any studies. He answered in the affirmative. He's now suggesting that he answered incorrectly. If that is the case, I would suggest that if his ministry has not done any studies, he should stand up in this House and apologize that he misled this House.
The Speaker: There is no question to that, but if the member wishes....
[ Page 528 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will just quickly answer what obviously was not a question. The member may wish to consult with the UBCM. The UBCM did give us all sorts of indications of their concerns. If they wish to release the information, they may do so. I can assure this member that, if he wishes to consult with the Minister of Labour, I'm sure he will share the various things we were prepared to look at and what the implications are. We have done our homework, and the policy is in place.
[2:30]
NORTH AMERICAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish to make a ministerial statement on the North American free trade agreement. If the allusion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition was that we didn't provide him adequate notice, I apologize. The instruction was that you should receive it half an hour before the House sat. If that didn't happen, we'll see that it happens in future.
British Columbia is a trading province. Twenty-five percent of our gross domestic product and one in four jobs are dependent on exports. In short, we need trade. British Columbia supports a multilateral trade strategy. We are interested in selling our goods to as many markets as possible. We are especially interested in securing and expanding our special trade relationship with the Pacific Rim.
While our economy is substantially trade-oriented, we will not be bullied by the United States or any other trading partner into undercutting the viability of our industries. Defects in the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States must be addressed before Canada enters into another agreement with the United States. For example, the free trade agreement has not prevented the U.S. from initiating an unfair countervail duty action against British Columbia lumber producers. This U.S. countervail action casts a sinister shadow over the proposed North American free trade agreement. The U.S. countervailing duty laws need to be reformed.
If the North American free trade agreement cannot provide an opportunity for Canada to deal with the problem of U.S. trade protectionism, then British Columbia does not want to be part of it. The public should be clear about one thing: British Columbia will not sacrifice the livelihood of its workers on the altar of the North American free trade agreement or any other international trade agreement.
After reviewing the proposals of Mexico and the United States, I am troubled by the impact a North American free trade agreement might have on processed fruit and vegetable producers, garment manufacturers, computer manufacturers, electronics producers, the telecommunications industry and energy. I am also concerned about the economic dislocations and unfair trade and investment implications that could stem from the different labour and environmental standards, and about the different wage and productivity components at work in the three NAFTA countries. It is essential that environmental and labour issues be addressed in the North American free trade agreement itself, so that problems arising from different standards can be dealt with.
The federal government must provide ongoing information to the Canadian public on the NAFTA negotiations. The North American free trade agreement should not become a closet issue. Throwing light on the negotiations would surely be a healthy addition to the Canadian negotiating position. The British Columbia government is pressing the federal government to keep British Columbians informed about the content of the negotiations towards a North American free trade agreement. I am meeting the Hon. Michael Wilson, the federal trade minister, next week in Ottawa and will be advising him of B.C.'s concerns about the North American free trade agreement.
We will not be pressured by the United States to do a deal by the end of April just to suit their own election strategy. Nor will we be stampeded into supporting an agreement that we consider to be unfair. The British Columbia government insists that it be given adequate time to review a draft agreement before the government of Canada signs it. British Columbia's position on NAFTA must be part of the Canadian decision on whether to enter into an agreement. I would be pleased to provide to the opposition critic and caucus and the third party critic and caucus full briefing on this and other trade issues, and any of the details that we have.
I would just like to say parenthetically that I was quoted on the weekend as saying that I felt uncomfortable in not providing a copy to Dave Barrett, the federal trade critic. I wish the record to be clear that he at no time ever asked me to provide him with a copy of that. We wouldn't, because we are very concerned about protecting confidentiality. If we don't have confidentiality, we don't have the documents. However, we are instructing our staff to disclose and provide ways to disclose and brief the opposition on the full details of any draft agreement that we've seen.
G. Wilson: Those in the official opposition also have serious concerns about the potential impact that NAFTA may have on the economy of British Columbia. We share with the minister our concern that these negotiations have in large measure taken place in secrecy without the involvement of Canadians from coast to coast.
It is our concern also that while we wish to have a much greater degree of opportunity to examine these documents, it will not be enough for us to simply be consulted at the end of the process. We have to be consulted during the process, and as those items which affect British Columbia are negotiated with Mexico and the United States, we as British Columbians must be an active participant in those kinds of negotiations. Otherwise we will be left in a position much as we were with the FTA with the United States, where we were simply reacting from outside.
We recognize that we are indeed a trading nation. We recognize that the wealth of British Columbia's economy very much lies with our trading partners in Washington, Oregon, California and Mexico. That is precisely why we have taken such issue with the budget that was recently tabled by the government of British
[ Page 529 ]
Columbia: because it does not recognize that importance of trade.
However, I have had an opportunity to review the text and document of FTA as it was made available to me from Ottawa. I can say that there is one other lingering concern that we in this caucus have with respect to this agreement. It is one in which there is no clear delineation of matter but to which very much reference is made, and that is with respect to bulk export of water from Canada to provide for continental North America and Mexico the needed primary resource in order to expand their economies. Hon. Speaker, I hope that as we start to look at this agreement, this government will join this official opposition in saying the bulk export of water, particularly through major diversion, is unacceptable to British Columbians, and I hope that we will make sure that all of us stand tight on that issue.
R. Neufeld: Our party supports free trade. We know how important free trade and competitive trade is to our economy. As stated in the ministerial statement, one out of every four jobs depends on free trade. I, representing a constituency that depends very heavily on trade, can agree how important this issue is to British Columbians and Canadians. Global trade, and for us in North America free trade, is the future for our country, our province and our economy.
Today I had the privilege of having lunch with Mr. Tony Joy, the British consul general, and he explained some of the difficulties faced by Europe with the free trade and common currency. Certainly if Europe can at some time agree to a common currency, we as Canadians can negotiate a fair and equitable free trade agreement in North America. We must be mindful also of the impacts of provincial budgets, fair wage policies, and anything that could hinder a fair deal for British Columbia. I thank the minister for saying he will brief us.
WINDY CRAGGY COPPER-COBALT PROJECT
Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a ministerial statement on behalf of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, on an important public matter. I'm referring to the proposed Windy Craggy copper-mine project and the related issues of land use in the Alsek-Tatshenshini area. The minister responsible cannot be here today, and she has asked me as the acting minister to make a statement to this House and to the public of British Columbia with respect to Windy Craggy. I am pleased to do so, and pleased to advise the House that the government is moving carefully to deal with this complex issue.
The Windy Craggy deposit is a large and rich copper deposit. The surrounding region is believed to have high potential for other similar deposits. The Alsek-Tatshenshini region has high wilderness values. It is surrounded in Alaska and in the Yukon by protected areas. The conjunction of competing resource opportunities has presented this government with decisions that must be made. We shall make those decisions. We will make them responsibly and only after full evaluation of the facts and of the options available, and we will make them publicly.
Even before we were elected, we were aware of the strong feelings around this issue. Since becoming government, we have carefully examined existing knowledge, and we have continued to hear from many people about this project and this area. We have heard that we should participate with the Yukon and Alaska in the creation of an international protected area, forgoing the undoubted mineral wealth of the region. We have heard of the value of the mineral resources and of the jobs and spinoff economic benefits that would flow from development. We have heard about the biological values of the area, such as grizzly bear denning sites. We have heard that the Windy Craggy project cannot be developed in an environmentally safe manner, and that if developed, it would remain a constant threat to the environment of British Columbia and might violate our international treaty obligations. We have heard that Windy Craggy has not been adequately reviewed and that it could be approved and under construction without proper consideration of wilderness values.
We have heard these things. We have listened carefully, and we are sensitive to the concerns being expressed. We are now able to advise you, hon. Speaker, of the course we are about to take.
First, before any decisions are made on the Windy Craggy project itself, this government will ensure that a full range of land and water use options for the Alsek-Tatshenshini are considered and evaluated. These will no doubt include an option for complete preservation of the area, options for carefully controlled mineral and resource development, and options for protection and preservation of key areas required for wildlife protection and tourism.
The process for evaluating the land use options will be public. It will be fair. It will consider economic, socioeconomic and environmental benefits, and implications of each option. Special attention will be given to aboriginal interests.
We will consider the benefits of international cooperation to create an international protected area, but we will also consider the role of the region's mineral resources in sustaining our mineral industry and the living standards of our people. We will not foreclose possible future opportunities for mineral and resource development solely because there may be specific concerns about the current proposals for Windy Craggy. Neither will we encourage such developments because their benefits are more tangible than other options. That is the first stage.
If, as a result of this evaluation, the government determines that mineral development is among the preferred land uses for the region, we will then be in a position to consider specific mining proposals such as Windy Craggy. In that event, rigorous review of the Windy Craggy project will resume. That review will include a formal public hearing by an independent panel. From our perspective, it should be carried out jointly with Canada and possibly with United States authorities. Before such a hearing can be held, the
[ Page 530 ]
project proponent has much more work to do. We will shortly be releasing a detailed document containing our study requirements. Before they are finalized, they will be reviewed by independent technical experts. These requirements will ensure that the project will proceed only if it is non-polluting and does not otherwise threaten the environment.
We will be announcing the details of this initiative shortly, and I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that this initiative will be conducted openly and fairly. There is no question that our government will be called upon to make difficult decisions as stewards of our globally significant mineral and wilderness resources. We know that the eyes of the world are on us now, seeking our leadership. We will make the necessary decisions responsibly, cognizant of our international obligations and the need to balance pressing economic and environmental imperatives.
D. Jarvis: There really aren't too many options, my friends. If there are any options, it is very clear. We should not foreclose our economic development in this province or our opportunities to do so. We have to consider the future of this province economically and the future of the workers in this province. There are thousands of workers now going out of work, and there are no mines to go to. We have the returns that come into this province by the way of our taxes and our royalties, and we must consider them.
However, everyone in this Legislature agrees that we must protect the Tatshenshini. Who among us cannot be considered environmentalists? We have to show the world how we can do this. We have to work together hand in hand. We cannot continue to ask the mines to put up millions of dollars with no insurance that they're going to have access to working mines.
This mine, Windy Craggy, has been under review with the mine development assessment program for well over a year now, and we are interested to find out at this stage where they have been all this time.
[2:45]
As I said before, our economic future does not or will not live on 100 percent environmental situations, so we must work together with industry. I agree with the proposed review panel. However, in view of the money that has been spent by the company that is developing Windy Craggy, I do not think it's fair for us to continually go on for months and months while they economically go down the drain and while we make another decision. The development assessment program has been going for a year. I think we should make a decision as to how long it's going to be and not just have an open-ended review panel. That is all I have to say at this point.
L. Fox: Our party in this caucus certainly supports this initiative. We are pleased that the process to evaluate this very important economic initiative for northwestern B.C. is moving forward. It is our hope that this independent panel will be made up of a cross-section of individuals representing all interests, to ensure that all values are given full consideration. It's also our hope that it will be done as quickly and as expediently as possible, so that we can allow this economic initiative to move forward. Point of Privilege
Hon. C. Gabelmann: On Friday the opposition House Leader raised a question of privilege....
Hon. G. Clark: Opposition Whip.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry. I wasn't in the House at the time.
The Speaker: Please proceed. I didn't know what point you were raising.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: My apologies to the House Leader and to the Whip. It was my understanding it was the House Leader.
The Whip raised a question of privilege relating to comments I made in the House on Thursday of last week concerning the report of the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters. I don't believe this is a matter of privilege, hon. Speaker, but I leave that to you. May I just simply and quickly say what the facts are.
The Speaker: Please proceed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: On Wednesday, the day before the release of the report -- it was released in the House at approximately 2:30 on Thursday -- I was shown a draft of the committee report, because of my role in the previous parliament as the Deputy Chair of the parliamentary committee on the constitution and because the report we produced last year indicated that our process was partway through and that it would continue if the new parliament took our recommendation to establish a new committee, which this parliament did in advance of its sitting.
The two reports, the one last year that I was party to and the one this year, were very integrally linked. The draft I was shown may or may not have been the version introduced the next day. I don't know whether or not they were exactly the same, but I was shown a draft, and I did read it. I made no comment to anyone until two hours following the public tabling of the document in the House at about 4:15 on Thursday afternoon.
In my view, hon. Speaker, it's not a question of privilege; it simply was a question of a courtesy to the previous committee. I honoured the confidence of this House in that there was no public discussion or discussion outside this chamber about the report. It was, as I say, a draft report at that stage. I don't think it was a matter of privilege, but I'll leave that to you.
The Speaker: Thank you for your submission, hon. member.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to table a summary of loan and loan guarantee portfolios, as I said I would.
Leave granted.
[ Page 531 ]
D. Jarvis: As we all know, this province entered into Confederation in 1871. Approximately a dozen or 13 years prior to that, when Queen Victoria gave the name to this province, the Fraser River gold rush started and thousands of people entered this province, went up through my riding past the original Coach House hotel that still stands, and started up the long trek of the old Lillooet Trail. Since that time the resource industry has been the backbone of this province, and today energy, mines and petroleum resources are this province's second-largest resource industry behind forestry and employs over 15,000 people. It represents 27 percent of our exports. This is what energy, mines and petroleum means to this province. It is also the second-largest revenue source for this province, and it pays over $170 million in direct federal and provincial taxes. They also pay into this province over $200 million in indirect taxes made up of mineral royalties, water taxes, management fees, etc.
These resource industries are some of the most crucial economic drivers of this province and of our provincial economy. They provide the capital through direct taxation to fund our many social services as they struggle to meet the requirements of a growing population. As I have said before, they employ people throughout this province who pay provincial and federal taxes and whose everyday spending habits stimulate the economic growth and well-being of this province.
Let no one misunderstand the critical importance of the industry or misunderstand the critical situation that this industry now finds itself in. In 1972 the NDP government of that time made a very big mistake. It misunderstood the nature and importance of the mining industry in British Columbia. It saw what it perceived to be a huge supply of private capital, which was there for the taking. The NDP government -- do you hear me? -- kept taking. They took and took until finally this industry could not withstand it any longer, so the industry just began to dry up. With it went the money which had been deemed so plentiful. I implore this current government not to allow itself the same delusion.
I also add that this program was continued after the brief flirtation of the NDP government in this province by the Socreds, who continued to tax and tax this industry. I note that after our amendment last Friday, the Socreds stood up and voted with this NDP government again.
The mining industry is a huge economic force in this province. There can be no doubt that it is also one which is having a very difficult time, and in many ways it is just fighting to remain in B.C. This government must do what it can to help the industry remain here, because the people of this province will have to depend on it.
There are fewer than 20 mineral mines that are working now in this province. Out of this pathetically small number, there are also a few mines that are ready to come onstream. But these mines are being held up -- as mentioned earlier in the minister's statement -- by the development review boards. These companies have sunk millions and millions of dollars in terms of investment and environmental impact studies. The fact that the least-disputed of these mines is not being permitted to proceed does not send a positive message to an already leery industry.
Last year the profit end of this industry overall lost in excess of $200 million, yet the province's tax base from this industry increased up to close to $400 million. This excluded the sales tax and other spinoffs from the 15,000 people who are employed in B.C. Then there are the 29,000 people across this country who are also indirectly employed by the B.C. mines, and they are all paying taxes.
This government -- this ministry -- actually had the audacity to cut this industry's budget by 41 percent. This government spends 10 cents of every dollar they take in on this industry.
The point is: when is this government going to learn that to make money, you have to spend money? But before you can spend the money, you have to earn it. It's incredible. Here is a government that wants to distribute its wealth as its agenda, and it doesn't understand that you can't keep cutting up the pie without getting a larger pie.
We live in a province whose population is projected to increase by 50 percent over the next 25 years, and if we are to maintain our standard of living, we must continually strive toward new sources of revenue and employment for the people of this province. We need to find continuous, reliable sources of energy to sustain them. We must be constantly broadening our horizons and adding to our options. This requires leadership and vision on the part of a government. What is so sorely lacking in this budget is any commitment to the exploration of new and viable energy resources.
Where is the initiative from government -- a government which claims to work with industry? Rather than leading new industry into British Columbia, they are chasing the existing industries out. Over $60 million was spent in Chile alone last year by publicly owned B.C. companies, yet this is going to be the tip of the iceberg. In fact, $1 billion dollars of Canadian money was spent in other countries to the south of us by companies based in Canada. Some of this money should have come to us. This mining industry is of such crucial importance to this province that its imminent collapse will significantly degrade this province's standard of living. You can't exist if you take $400 million out of your budget.
Increasing the corporate tax burden does not lead to a healthy economy. This corporate capital tax is perhaps the most frightening of all the government's budget initiatives. That's not an accomplishment. It demonstrates so clearly this government's total and absolute lack of understanding of the way business and industry operate.
If taxes had to go up -- as we know they did -- at least this government could have shown the common sense to have increased their take from a range of profit taxes, as industry was crying out for. In other words, this government could have said to them: "The more
[ Page 532 ]
you make, the more we'll take." This would not have been greeted with great joy and exuberance, but at least it would have been seen as even-handed, so they could play on a level field.
Instead, this government introduced an across-the-board tax, a regressive tax, which hits industries regardless of their profit margin -- if there was one. But like the accountant who is colour blind and can't see the difference between red and black ink, this government keeps demanding its taxes from everyone, whether the money is there or not. If they keep up this sort of tactic, I can promise you this: in the very near future the money, the companies and the workers won't be there. Hon. Speaker, the Tories have fractured this country, and now the Socialists are trying to cut the backbone out of this province.
This is such a high-risk industry that, unlike other industries, it never knows where its next mine will be; therefore it must continuously explore. Exploration in this high-risk industry puts it directly into the forefront of the pro-wilderness and environmental debate, as the exploration companies require access to this province as a whole. This includes the very contentious areas, such as those we were talking about earlier today. Therefore the resource industries know that we must live together and that we must work hand in hand if we are to survive in this province. They are quite aware that one hand washes the other.
The now infamous Peat Marwick review compared the taxation of this province with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario to the east of us. We of the opposition believe that this was wrong, because 86 percent of our trade is with Washington, Oregon and California and the rest of the Pacific Rim countries.
What I'm trying to communicate to you is that our resource industry is already overtaxed. It is overtaxed compared to every other jurisdiction in this world, yet this government continues to ignore the fact that the resource industry in this province is a global one. It exports. How will they compete if we continue to tax and tax? Capital is fickle, and it goes where it can get the best return for its dollar. If this agenda continues, it will not be "buy B.C."; it will be "bye, bye B.C."
[3:00]
The lack of new mines in this province is a direct result of a lack of exploration and the cost of exploration. The long process of federal and provincial regulations is being held up by the long and complicated mine development assessment board. As I mentioned earlier, this cannot continue. It costs the companies money, but they're prepared to go through it. Exploration is down over $100 million this last year in this province, plus the fact that there has been more than a 40 percent drop in mine permits issued. We just can't continue going on this basis. We must realize that the abuses by the resource industries that occurred in the past cannot be considered valid anymore. The environmental philosophy has taken precedence with our foresters and our miners. They are very acutely aware that the environment must be considered, to keep our resources for a sustainable future. B.C. miners are known to be among the most environmentally friendly miners in the world. That is a fact. Go to other countries and you will find out -- don't be so provincial.
So let me sum up what the government has done. They take away $400 million in taxes. They restrict new mines from entering this province, and for every mine that closes, there is no place for the workers to go, so we have ever mounting numbers of unemployed -- thousands of semi-skilled and skilled labourers with nowhere to go and no jobs to work at. But this government -- this tax-and-spend government -- just adds more regressive taxes, taxes that drive investors who want to come to B.C. to the south and to the east and to the west. The resource industries that are here now are already losing millions of dollars. Even when they're losing money, this government says pay your taxes, pay your taxes.
We have this regressive 1 percent corporation capital tax that will cost the existing mines in this province over $12 million extra this year, money that many of them don't even have. We have the new school taxes in this budget. It will cost the miners of this province another million dollars. We have additional water taxes that will cost the mines an additional $3 million this year. I might add that this additional $3 million water tax that's presented to them was put through by an order-in-council by this government, very quietly, two days before Christmas -- December 23. Never a notice or anything; they snuck it through -- shroud of secrecy again, shroud of secrecy.
Hon. Speaker, there is an old and wise saying that those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. A repeat of the 1972 B.C. mining massacre is imminent, and will be an absolute disaster to this province. I submit that if we fail to learn from our mistakes this time, it may be the last opportunity we get.
Now I see I still have a couple of minutes left. I'd like to say that probably the greatest concern about this budget with respect to my own riding of North Vancouver-Seymour is the underfunding aspect of it, especially the underfunding aspect of our education system. Your government has stated that they are going to do away with the portable schools throughout this province, and I commend them for it. I just hope that our District 44 in North Vancouver will be included in this initiative.
But I'm amazed and concerned that this government would continue with the Socred policy on the equalization formula for education funding. It is hard to realize that the government would penalize our district because they have been innovative over the years. In North Vancouver-Seymour, our taxes are higher per capita than any other place in the province, and the amount we receive per capita is less than the provincial average; in fact, approximately $150 less per student. That is not what I would call equalization. Madam Speaker, we believe that because we are innovative, your government's equalization formula is unfair. We pay more and we receive less and therefore we are penalized.
As I've said before, the equity that we have in this province is in our children. So we don't need a fair-wage policy; we don't need a capital corporation
[ Page 533 ]
tax. We need a fair, full equality education system. We need a strategy to encourage investment and create jobs. Health problems and job problems and our youth problems can be cured through education. As we stand now, it is hard to qualify what impact this underfunding will have on our children in the proposed cancellation of their programs.
I ask this government to consider a strategy to revise the education agenda. This opposition party realizes it will be tough, but we are prepared to help for the benefit of the citizens of this province. I thank you very much.
Hon. P. Priddy: I am both pleased and honoured to be speaking here today on behalf of the people from Surrey-Newton, and also to be speaking in support of this government's budget. When the voters elect a member of the Legislative Assembly to represent them, it's a demonstration of trust and a demonstration which asks for responsibility. I accept that responsibility, and I respect and honour that trust.
Most recently the constituency of Surrey-Newton was represented by Rita Johnston, the former Premier of British Columbia. It was indeed a significant milestone in the political history of women in Canada when Mrs. Johnston became the first woman premier in this country. Regardless of party affiliation, I believe that when people choose to become involved in the political process, they do so because they care deeply about their community. Mrs. Johnston cared about the needs, the interests and the future of Surrey-Newton, and she brought that caring to this assembly.
Surrey-Newton is a very special community. I know that each one of us stands in this House and says that our community is special, that our community is the best place to live -- and of course we're all correct. Indeed it is our passion and belief in the uniqueness of our individual ridings that makes each of us strong advocates for our communities.
When I describe Surrey-Newton to someone, I describe it as a community of diversities, a community of choices and a community of great potential. The citizens of Surrey-Newton honour its history while building its future. Our roads and many of our schools bear the names of early residents: Kennedy Trail Elementary School, M. J. Norris School, Bose Road, Johnston Road. While we honour our pioneers -- those who cleared the land and farmed and fished before there were such things as suburbs -- we must never forget that it was aboriginal people who were the first citizens of Surrey-Newton and who first knew the land that I now have the privilege to represent.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
As Surrey-Newton moves forward to shape its future, we recognize the special gifts that people from other countries bring to our community. Many new Canadians are bringing their talents and skills -- people from India, the Philippines, Korea and the countries of Central and South America. Indeed, one of the most unique and rewarding aspects of our community is the rich Indo-Canadian culture accruing to the residents of Newton. Almost 20 percent of people who live in my riding are Indo-Canadian residents. In this I believe we are blessed. And to these residents, let me say: Sat Sri Akal, Namaaste and Salaam Ekam
We're fortunate to see in our neighbourhood a blending of ages. Many young people are choosing Surrey-Newton as a place to settle and raise their families, and at the same time, our elders are choosing to retire to Surrey-Newton, providing us with their wealth of experience and special energies, and our children with precious links to their history.
During the recent election, and repeated many times by hon. members in this assembly, we've heard about the problems created in our communities by "rapid growth." Indeed the very terms "rapid growth" or "fastest growing" have almost become clichés in today's "political speak." I think it's time that we pause for a few moments to consider just exactly what growth means to a community. In one sense it's easy to define growth. We can see it; we can measure it; we can count it; it's three dimensional. In Newton, growth can be measured by counting the number of portable classrooms on school yards, or by calculating the number of hospital beds, or acute-care hospital beds, to population.
Another way to measure growth in my riding is to observe the numbers of shorebirds crowded onto our still unprotected salt marshes and tidal flats as these remarkable creatures migrate along the Pacific flyway. Ever-increasing school enrolments, rapidly expanding demands on community services and risks to the environment are difficult issues -- ones, I'm sure, that all members of this House are prepared to deal with. However, hon. Speaker, in reality the increments of growth in a community are multi-dimensional and cannot be measured easily; yet they are critical to people and to their environment. The intangible stresses of growth affect the community values that maintain our citizens. The strains of growth affect the sense of safety and security in our homes and in our communities.
We must be careful in our communities of the need to create an environment, an opportunity that encourages aboriginal, Asian and Latin-American residents to maintain their unique rich cultural heritage. While these problems of growth are difficult to quantify, their solution is essential if our communities are to attain their full potential and contribute to the future of this wonderful province.
Hon. Speaker, my commitment to address these issues in Surrey-Newton is total, and my resolve to find the solutions is firm. And I invite all members of the House to join me in that task.
I am pleased that the Education budget provided additional grants for growing districts. This will help, but it's not enough to eliminate all the problems. It is a step in the right direction, but more work is needed. I will continue my advocacy for the best education for the students of Newton. We don't want better than the rest of the province, but we do want our fair share.
In many ways communities are an extension of families, and such is the case with Surrey-Newton. As in all families there are sometimes competing interests,
[ Page 534 ]
competing needs or a difference of opinion about approach. But in the end, like a family, we work together toward common solutions. We care about each other, and we care about the future of Newton. The challenges and excitement of Surrey-Newton and the people who live there are why I am pleased to represent this community in the Legislature.
I also stand in this Legislature today as the first Minister of Women's Equality. The honour bestowed on me allows me to be a part of the next step in the history of women in BC. But I stand beside 18 other women who have been elected as Members of the Legislative Assembly, including the second woman to be elected as the Speaker of this House. But there are many more women, hon. Speaker, who stand here in spirit with us today. These are the women who have shaped the political reality for us. Some of these women are named, but many of these women go unnamed, and their names are unknown because the contributions made by women were not seen as important enough by our historians to write about in our history books. What this means is that we, our children and our grand-children learn, for the most part, of a history shaped only by men.
There were important contributions by men, but that's only a part of the building of this province. We've had to learn of women's contributions in different ways -- from farm journals, household diaries, stories and song. As women we can look to the history of this land and the history of aboriginal women for our earliest influences on decision-making. The roles of women in the aboriginal community as leaders, decision-makers and partners were valued and respected. Many of these aboriginal models have been lost; many are now being regained. We have much to learn from that experience, from the historical and current contributions of women in the aboriginal communities of British Columbia.
[3:15]
Yesterday, April 5, 1992, we celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of the date that women won the right to vote in British Columbia. Cecilia Spofford, Maria Grant, Helen MacGill: these women and thousands of others were part of the 46-year struggle for women's suffrage.
The struggle began in 1871, and for almost half a century women became public and political figures as they pursued their quest for public, political and legal status. Finally, as the result of a referendum on April 5, 1917, one year before the country of Canada, women won the right to vote. So, hon. Speaker, as I stand in this House today, if I stop and listen carefully, I can hear the sound of women marching together to protest their exclusion from their government. I can hear women's voices demanding to be heard. The voices were strong 75 years ago, and they are just as urgent today.
I can also hear the footsteps of other women legislators who have walked before us in the corridors of this Legislature. Women from my party, such as Grace MacInnis and Rosemary Brown, led the way by speaking out against injustice and for the participation of women and of people of colour. The number of women in this chamber shows us how far women have come since those days. But is it far enough? Are we troubled at all by the fact that women, who make up 52 percent of the population of this province, hold only 25 percent of the seats in this assembly? It has taken 75 years to elect women to 25 percent of the seats in this province.
Hon. Speaker, it cannot take another 75 years to elect 27 percent more. But even then, will we really be representative of the people of British Columbia? We are, for the most part, white and middle-class. There are many people in this province who do not see themselves represented in this Legislature. But what can we do about it? Isn't this assembly elected by the democratic will of the people of British Columbia? How can we enrich the representation of all of the people of the province in this assembly? We can create opportunities for people to participate. We can value the contributions of all the people of the province.
Let us open the circle and ensure that the decisions made for the people of this province are made by the people of this province. These people include women, people of colour, aboriginal people, people with disabilities, gay and lesbian people, people who live in poverty and rural residents. We are diminished by excluding the contributions of our richly diverse populations in this province.
I would like to read the following into the record. This was a resolution published in 1912 in the Champion, a journal of women's suffrage. I believe it applies to all women and to all equity groups as much today as it did then.
"That the woman's point of view should be directly represented in the control of legislation and all affairs of the nation, and deplored the injustice to women and the loss of the state involved in her present political position; and preferring that British Columbia should lead the other provinces of Canada in all matters of progressive reform, rather than follow, it calls upon the provincial government to introduce and carry, during the coming session, a bill giving the vote to women on the same terms it is or may be given to men."
One year before the country of Canada took this action, the province of British Columbia gave the right to women who had won the right to vote.
Hon. Speaker, leading Canada in progressive reform is just part of what the Ministry of Women's Equality is about -- the first stand-alone Ministry of Women's Equality in the history of this country and the first ministry responsible for employment equity.
The creation of a Ministry of Women's Equality is not an end in itself. The barriers to women in this province have been ignored for too long, and this government cannot eliminate all those barriers in its first year of office. What we do intend to do is ensure that issues of women's equality are part of every aspect of policy-making for this government. We can and will set about creating an environment for change.
Our work has begun to break down the barriers to women, has begun to address the issues which affect women's lives in their homes, in their workplaces and in their communities. Poverty is a part of many women's lives. Single mothers, elderly women and women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. Women have traditionally worked in areas which have been undervalued by employers. We earn, on average,
[ Page 535 ]
60 cents as against men's dollars. Compared to men, we are less likely to be part of a union and more likely to work part-time without benefits. Throughout the world, women do 80 percent of the world's work and own 1 percent of the world's property. We are beginning to address the economic opportunities for women, and that's why this government has committed $32 million in its first year for pay equity and $29 million for wage parity for employees in government-funded agencies, most of whom are women.
Child care is also an important issue and need affecting women's economic independence. This government is responding in this budget to those needs with support for affordable, accessible child care.
Wherever women work -- in their homes, in their communities, in all the work that women do, whatever and wherever women choose to offer their skills -- that work is valuable and that work contributes to our society. But nothing is more limiting to women's choices, nothing is more oppressive to women in their homes and in their workplaces, than the issue of violence. And nothing is more reprehensible in our communities than the threat and reality of violence against women. In this budget the government has committed ten million new dollars to the intervention and prevention of violence against women. It is part of our effort to eliminate violence -- not reduce violence; that is not an acceptable goal -- to eliminate violence once and for all. Violence against women is absolutely unacceptable, and the goal of elimination is the goal of this government. We can do no less for women in British Columbia.
These dollars will be spent well. They will be dollars spent in communities, by communities, by front-line workers and by people who are survivors of violence. These are the people who know best what the problems are; these are the people with the ideas. These are the people we must work with and unite with in order to find solutions.
I believe that as a government we have a responsibility and an opportunity to shape the future of this province, but in order to ensure that everyone's needs are considered, everyone needs to be involved. To quote John McKnight: "Voting is the way that we give away power; working together in communities is the way we create power."
The Ministry of Women's Equality and this government take their role in this process very seriously. We value consensus in community-building. We value the special contributions of women to public policy debate and to the needs within our communities. This government recognizes the importance of working together to make all our communities safe, secure and welcoming. We value the contributions of our diverse citizens and their unique perspectives. But where are we going from here? What does it mean for women and for others excluded from power in the past? What does our commitment and our resolve mean for Surrey-Newton? Indeed, what does it mean for British Columbia? What it means is that we as a government must get the priorities of this province right. We must have healthy and caring communities. We must spend wisely. We must create and share power, and by doing so empower all the province, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, ethnic and cultural background, or weekly or monthly income.
This government, in its first budget, brings us one step closer to that vision of our community and our province. As the MLA for Surrey-Newton, and as the Minister of Women's Equality, I am honoured to be part of this journey. And I look forward to working with all of the members of this assembly as we address these difficult but rewarding tasks.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my pleasure to stand and speak in favour of this budget. This is the first time that I have risen to speak in other than question period, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the people in my riding for electing me to represent them. I'd also like to congratulate you, as Deputy Speaker, for your appointment and the hon. Speaker for her appointment.
I begin my comments today by saying that this budget is straightforward and, under the conditions, realistic. It's a budget that provides a general framework for prosperity. As members of the House know, our government inherited what we are calling a fiscal mess of monumental proportions. Left unchecked, the impact on the economy would have been devastating. Fortunately for British Columbians, the budget provides the fiscal stability that was lacking under the previous government. This government has kept to its commitment and ensured that the province's deficit is well under $2 billion. This required difficult budget decisions. Some ministries, including my own, were cut back. Though I will talk about this during my ministry's estimates, I want to clarify that the reduction in my ministry's budget is not as large as it would appear on the surface. In absolute terms, my ministry's budget for the fiscal year is not 51 percent lower than the previous year. It's important to note that included in that figure from the 1991-92 budget is an $86.8 million provision for potential defaulted loans. Those loans were made by the previous government. Taking this into consideration, my ministry's budget for 1992-93 is actually only 2 percent lower than the previous year's. I would have preferred no cuts, of course. However, I realize that in order to stem the tide of red ink brought about by the policies of the previous administration, prudent fiscal management was and is necessary.
I would like to speak a little about what the budget means for the economy. As the Minister of Economic Development, I can say without hesitation that this budget will encourage economic growth and maintain our competitive position. Recently, in speaking to the Japanese Businessmen's Association of Canada, the Premier laid out the overall picture of the budget and the strategy of the government to cap and reduce the deficit in the years to come. He was applauded for that. Publicly a number of businessmen are saying that they don't like the budget. What else can they say? We know that privately they are saying thank God it didn't hit them hard.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You should talk to the real businessmen of the province. You're talking to the
[ Page 536 ]
whiners and snivelers. If you listened to the members opposite, you'd think that there was a convoy of B.C. businesses pulling up stakes and heading south. Well, that's not exactly true. While it's true some businesses are moving south of the line, these are businesses who, for the most part, are growing and expanding into new markets. So it's a measure of their success, rather than their failure in British Columbia. While it's also true that provinces are facing economic challenges, the fact remains that B.C. continues to be among one of the top performing economies in Canada. Canada as a whole is forecast to grow 2 percent, according to the Ministry of Finance, while we in British Columbia will enjoy economic growth at 3 percent. Investment will increase by 12 percent, and there will be a net gain of 30,000 jobs.
Hon. Speaker, this budget will make this growth possible, because in spite of what the naysayers are saying, this budget maintains British Columbia's competitive position -- not only in Canada, but with our neighbours south of the border. I've listened to members across the floor state otherwise. On March 27 the member from Langley claimed that this budget is driving business south of the line. Those remarks were echoed by her colleagues.
[3:30]
Hon. Speaker, they are off base. What the members opposite must realize is that in absolute terms, this budget does not negatively impact on the province's competitive position. The reason for this is simple. As members know, the federal budget reduced taxes for business. While the provincial government would have preferred not to raise taxes for business, we were forced to because the federal government lowered taxes to businesses -- the very same federal government that has cut transfer payments to British Columbia. So it's to make up for the off loading of federal programming.
On the business side, we have had to increase the general corporate income tax rate by one percentage point. We've also increased the small business rate by one percentage point. However, members need to realize that these two tax measures serve to return the rate to the pre-1987 levels. We have also reintroduced the corporation capital tax for all corporations with paid-up capital in excess of $1 million. But as an incentive, a new investment deduction is introduced as part of the corporation capital tax. This is the first of its kind in Canada. Moreover, our province's corporate taxes are still among the lowest in Canada.
In turn, hon. Speaker, I repeat what the Minister of Finance has repeated many times -- that our tax increases on business do not substantially impact on the competitive position of our province. If the members opposite would do some serious research, instead of getting their information from BCTV News, they would find that B.C. is indeed a competitive place in which to invest -- competitive with other provinces and competitive with our neighbours south of the line.
Based on the 1992 budget, my ministry, working with the Ministry of Finance, is just completing an analysis comparing the taxes on small businesses in Washington State and British Columbia. Looking at all taxes, the study concludes that a small business owner in British Columbia can pay much lower taxes than in Washington State. These results have been independently verified by Price Waterhouse. I might add that we are currently in the process of comparing the province's tax rates with those of Oregon and California. I expect the report to be printed within the next week, and I'll be pleased to share the results with the members opposite.
Small business is a key to the province's future, and this budget recognizes that fact. That's why we make a commitment to small business in the budget. For example, we strengthened our commitment to the fastest-growing sector of our small business community -- women business owners -- by the appointment of a full-time businesswomen's advocate. I look forward to providing members with details of our other initiatives for women in business during my ministry estimates.
With the establishment of the Working Opportunity Fund, there is a new source of capital available to finance the growth of the small business sector. The fund will strengthen our province's economy by providing opportunities for all British Columbians to invest in the province's future. The fund will promote diversification of the province's economy by investing in small businesses which are involved in manufacturing and processing, research and development, environmental and cultural industries, tourism and film. It will aim to increase local ownership of British Columbia businesses and provide opportunities for greater employee participation. It is anticipated that over the next five to seven years the fund will raise in the area of $100 million of equity capital for investment in B.C. businesses. The fund is expected to create and preserve between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs. To date, the fund has raised over $7.4 million -- $7.4 million that will benefit people right here in British Columbia.
In addition, we've also established the British Columbia Endowment Fund. This fund will provide $100 million in additional capital investment funding for new and expanding enterprises. Diverse and prudent investment are two of the key mandates of this new fund, and it will be managed with private sector investors. There will be no handouts; instead a market rate of return will be ensured. This government is creating a level playing field where businesses will compete for customers, as opposed to the previous government under which businesses were far too often competing against one another for government grants and subsidies -- in other words, handouts.
There are a number of other initiatives in this budget which will help our small business community and in turn maintain British Columbia's competitive position, initiatives which will also help encourage economic development in all regions of the province and thereby create new jobs, and just as importantly, preserve existing ones. For example, to ensure the economic stability of resource-dependent communities we are establishing a new natural resource community fund. This fund will provide a stable source of funding to help single-industry communities deal with severe economic problems. Because it is being funded through existing sources of revenue, it will not result in a new tax or taxes.
[ Page 537 ]
Funding for the Job Protection Commission is being increased by 20 percent. The commission is playing a key role in protecting jobs and paycheques. The commission is helping to avoid unnecessary closures of key industries due to economic downturn. For instance, thanks to the work of the job protection commissioner we were recently able to secure the jobs of 125 workers at the Fibreco pulp mill in Taylor.
As a further example of this government's commitment to job preservation, we have also put emergency funding in place to revitalize our Okanagan tree-fruit industry. The tree-fruit industry is an essential part of the economy in communities throughout the Okanagan. The provincial government is committed to seeing that this industry prospers over the short and long term.
At the same time, through this budget, our government is undertaking direct job-creation measures. Employment opportunities and job-action programs will receive a 43 percent increase of $57 million. This will help communities suffering from high unemployment and will help young people on social assistance to enter and hopefully stay in the work force. This investment in human-resource capital is critical if we are to enjoy long-term economic prosperity. We must ensure that our young people get the work experience they need so they can become gainfully employed. We are doing this by doubling the earnings exemption for those on social assistance.
While government can create a climate for economic growth, it's up to the private sector to create new opportunities. Despite the economic downturn, I'm pleased to note that there are important new private sector investments taking place throughout the province. For example, there's a $44 million harbour development in Campbell River; there's also the $33 million expansion of Orchard Park Shopping Centre in Kelowna; and there's the $135 million wood-waste thermal plant in Williams Lake in my riding of Cariboo South.
As the Minister of Finance said, creating wealth also requires public sector investment in schools, hospitals, universities and other facilities. Thanks to this budget, close to $1 billion in new social capital investment will take place in the communities around the province. When combined with infrastructure investment undertaken by Crown corporations, public sector capital projects will sustain 16,000 jobs.
While the budget provides for important infrastructure investment, it also provides funding for health, education and social services. In today's challenging times, the government must ensure that tax dollars are spent in the most effective way possible. We've done this by making tough but balanced choices by cutting operating costs, reducing waste and spending tax dollars carefully and wisely.
We have the opposition leader and many of his colleagues claiming that this budget is a tax grab, and yet the other day the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara said the budget did not do enough to meet the basic needs of people in British Columbia. Does that mean the member for Vancouver-Langara is suggesting larger tax increases to meet these needs? British Columbians do not and will not buy this yin and yang fiscal approach that the Liberals seem to have adopted.
This budget strikes a fine balance based on a prudent use of tax dollars, while at the same time providing the quality programs and services that British Columbians expect and deserve.
Hon. Speaker, some of the most significant aspects of the budget relate to initiatives that we've introduced for resolving land use and forestry resource conflicts. The $15 million being provided to the Ministries of Forests and Environment, to undertake planning and inventory work, will ensure that we have a solid framework from which we can base future decisions. The $4 million being provided for the commission on resources and the environment -- the Owen commission -- will pave the way for dealing with land-use conflicts. Resolving land-use conflicts and creating harmony between our social, economic and environmental needs are some of the biggest challenges facing our province.
Some of the budget issues which will affect people in the interior and in the north, for example, would be: the $64 million being provided for the development of innovative community-based health alternatives. The 9 percent increase in education -- that spending is up $300 million -- will help maintain a vigorous education system. The operating grants to colleges and universities have been increased, and we've made a commitment to equality for women that the hon. Minister of Women's Equality just spoke about. We're providing an additional $32 million to improve pay equity in the public sector. Another $6 million is allotted to programs aimed at preventing crimes of violence against women and children, and providing assistance to victims. These are positive initiatives, and they are important to the people of the interior, to the people of my riding and to the people of the northern part of the province.
I'm pleased to note that there is $4 million being provided to negotiate just and honourable land claims that are fair to all British Columbians. We know that the settlement of land claims -- even a serious beginning of negotiation -- will remove economic uncertainty and encourage investment and create the jobs and capital investment so badly needed in many of the regions of the province.
In conclusion, hon. Speaker, in speaking to the budget, I took careful note of what the members from the two opposition parties had to say. And as is common in our parliamentary system, they've been critical of the budget. But their criticisms, though sometimes bordering on the vitriolic, have been long on rhetoric and short on specifics. Why? Because I think deep down they know that it is a necessary budget, the best budget that could have been made under the circumstances, and one which will pay dividends in the future. We look forward to adding up those dividends and reporting to you next year. That is why I'm so pleased to support this budget.
W. Hurd: It's indeed a privilege for me today to follow the lead of the Economic Development, Small Business and Trade minister, who I hadn't realized had put on his rose-coloured glasses prior to reading his budget address.
[ Page 538 ]
Hon. Speaker, we've waited a long time for this budget -- five and a half months to be exact. I can say, after canvassing my own riding and after the people of the province had a chance to view it, that they probably wish they could have waited another five and a half months. Unfortunately they were forced to confront the enormity of their mistake line by line and clause by clause.
I'd like to compare this budget to the hangover after a good party. In the heady days of the budget address, our good friends in the media raised their glasses, and the unions in the province toasted the budget as well. But as the days unfolded, and the more sober-minded began to review the staggering array of tax increases and fees, they realized that we can all expect a hangover for many years to come. They realized that the Minister of Finance, who purported to be Robin Hood, has instead transformed himself at the midnight hour into the Sheriff of Nottingham. He even raised taxes on the fax machine in Skippy's office.
I could go on at length about these tax increases. The corporation capital tax, which basically taxes the assets of a corporation rather than the profits, is a real negative tax that doesn't reward entrepreneurship and is a disincentive for companies to locate their assets in the province of British Columbia. I could talk about the hikes in school taxes and legal fees for small business and the ICBC increases that were announced prior to the budget. Taken in unison, they represent an epic assault on the beleaguered taxpayers of this province.
But above all, on this side of the House we try to be positive. So I've been asked by the Leader of the Opposition to try to find something positive to say about this budget. Like the beleaguered taxpayer that I also am, I went back to the budget and reviewed it line by line to find something that I could advise you today was positive about it.
As I looked at it, I found the economic outlook for the province to be one of the most revealing pieces, or factual outlook, of the budget. I would like to read it to the House today, because I think it indicates that at least they got one thing right when they brought down this budget. It says that British Columbia's economy and export base have diversified since the last major recession. The province is less exposed to adverse developments in any single country or product market. British Columbia did well compared to the rest of North America in 1991. British Columbia's economy experienced a small decline of 0.05 percent, compared to a decline of 1.5 percent for Canada as a whole. Capital investment in British Columbia was down by 4 percent, but construction investment held firm. While 252,000 jobs disappeared last year in the rest of Canada, the British Columbia economy managed to add 20,000 jobs. That's all sounding pretty reasonable to me.
[3:45]
Given that kind of economic outlook, why couldn't the government realize that there was a legitimate reason this province had fared better than others in this country? We have to give the third party credit for something. They may have given us a legacy of some rather funny leaders and some creative bookkeeping, but they did understand how the economy works. Investment capital drives the economy, and the earnings from industry provide the investment to produce further jobs.
Despite having been in opposition for so long, this government still needs a lesson in what happens to corporate profits. They don't go into a sock somewhere. They get reinvested in the business and create new economic opportunities and jobs. The government really would end up collecting more taxes in the long term if they were prepared to offer some inducements to the private sector, instead of bringing forth something like the corporation capital tax, which, as I say, is a negative tax that penalizes entrepreneurship and investment.
What troubles me is that this wasn't the message we received in this province leading up to the introduction of the budget. The Premier went forth on a worldwide junket, like a latter-day Marco Polo, selling the investment community on the idea that B.C. was open for business. Did the Premier tell them anything about the corporation capital tax? Did he tell them that the first thing he intended to introduce in this budget was a tax on their assets? "Come to B.C. and invest, and we'll tax your assets when you get here" -- I don't believe that was the message he sold. It's altogether surprising that it came in the first budget handed down.
With a hot water bottle and an aspirin, I sat down to find some further positive things to say about this budget. I note that there are some rather ironic comments in the economic outlook. It says that some industries and regions in British Columbia are having a hard time -- no argument there in Port Alberni and Cassiar. "Our forest and mining industries have lost 18,000 jobs over the last two years." British Columbia exports to the U.S. were down by 6 percent, while exports to Japan and Europe fell by 14 percent. The unemployment rate in Vancouver and Victoria averaged around 8 percent last year, while in the rest of the province it averaged over 12 percent.
Given those statistics in the government's own economic outlook, it's almost impossible to understand why we've seen the array of tax hikes and fee increases which have rained down upon the backs of British Columbian small business. It isn't just corporations who've suffered: the average increase to homeowners in this province totals in the area of 10 percent. British Columbians will pay an increase of about 10 percent when all the taxes are figured into consideration. We have a record-breaking deficit in this budget of $1.7 billion, based, I might add, not on the estimates of the Finance ministry, but on an outside review by Peat Marwick Thorne, the first budget in the history of this province to be written by outside consultants. It's appalling, hon. Speaker.
Yet with all this hype we had a reason to expect better in this budget. We had a reason to expect that they would come forth with some funds for an industrial strategy for this province, that they would take into consideration our competitive taxation position, and how we compare to our major trading partners -- not to the province of Ontario, not to Manitoba and Alberta, where they've indicated in their budget addresses that 252,000 jobs were lost in those
[ Page 539 ]
areas in the past year. Is that the kind of comparison we want to make in this province? I suggest not.
We need a stronger commitment to training and development and advanced education and long-term planning. Much has been made about the suggestion by the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we need a 60-year plan, but that's the amount of time it takes to grow a harvestable tree in British Columbia. We don't see a commitment in this budget to a proper inventory and forest enhancement, either.
It's important for this government to realize that companies don't pay taxes to governments -- it's their customers that pay taxes. Those companies have got to be able to compete to be able to afford the taxation that's being ladled on them. The customers are the ones that provide the earnings, and those are customers that are not in British Columbia. They're in the Pacific Rim, they're in California, they're in Washington, they're in other parts of the United States, and that's the reason British Columbia has fared better than any other province. This government, hon. Speaker, has not learned the lesson. Despite the 15 years in opposition, they have not learned the lesson.
Let's talk about the Forests budget, which is an area of critic responsibility for me. Where have we seen reductions in the Forests budget? We've seen reductions in harvesting funds, reductions in research, reductions in inventory -- a broken promise by this government that they were going to do proper inventories of the forest resources of this province, and it's not in this budget.
An Hon. Member: What about education?
W. Hurd: You've got to pay for education with earnings and taxation, and if you're going to hamper the private sector, the money's not going to be there.
Let's review again the economic analysis in the budget. Where do they think we're going to head in the future? Let's talk about some of these pie-in-the-sky proposals.
The situation should improve in 1992. I have no idea how, given the kind of tax increases we're looking at. Has the hon. member been down to the border last weekend and seen the hour-and-a-half lineups? Is he aware that 25 percent of the gas purchases of Surrey are in Whatcom County?
They're predicting moderate economic growth, with a 3 percent net gain and a net gain of 30,000 jobs. I don't know how, because since this government took office on October 17 we've seen a loss of thousands of jobs in the resource sectors. So we've been in a negative position in the last five months.
They're suggesting that lower interest rates and personal income tax both should boost consumer spending. As I have indicated, the only thing that I've seen boosted in the last five months is cross-border shopping, and there's nothing in this budget to prevent that from happening even more in the future.
And what about ICBC rates? They're not even factored into this budget, and are a huge additional burden on the average taxpayer in British Columbia.
They suggest that investment is expected to increase 5.2 percent due to large increases in residential investment. Where? In Port Alberni, or Cassiar, or other resource-dependent communities in British Columbia? We have another economy besides the one on the lower mainland.
They suggest the Canadian dollar has fallen recently. Well, lumber and pulp prices have risen, which delayed recovery of British Columbia's export sector. Why would they not include the effect of higher taxes in that type of rosy assessment?
Looking ahead to 1993, they expect stronger growth in the U.S., Japan and Europe, which should improve British Columbia's export markets. Well, nobody's told them that the President of the United States, George Bush, is hanging onto his political life because of a major and stubborn economic recession in the United States, and that Japan is currently undergoing its worst and steepest downturn since the Second World War. Where are these markets going to come from?
It indicates -- and this is about the only thing that I can support -- that British Columbia is well positioned inside Canada for solid growth in the immediate term. It is, and the reason is that we had competitive tax rates for small businesses and corporations which encouraged investment to this province. I can tell you that that investment is not going to be here when the full effects of this budget are felt by the private sector in this province. B.C. may be well positioned now, but my question is: for how long?
I'm greatly concerned about the effect of this budget on the purchasing power of ordinary British Columbians, about the effect that it's going to have on cross-border shopping, which is a crucial consideration and of concern to small business in my riding. I'm concerned about the effect of the corporation capital tax on major industries in this province, including the mining and forestry sectors, which -- in the case of one large company, after recording losses of $70 million to $80 million -- are going to be asked in the next fiscal year to pay an additional $5 million in corporation capital tax. We have a Minister of Finance standing here in this House telling us that's fair. It may be fair, but it's jobs and investment down the road.
So I'm concerned about the budget. I hope that the rosy projections of the government turn out to be partially true in the next year. But I think we've got off to a troubling start, and I just hope that the born-again venture capitalists on the government side of the House really consider the ramifications of some of their budget policies in the long term. As it's been so eloquently stated by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour, capital knows no boundaries, it knows no loyalties and it goes where it can get the best deal; in the past three years in this province, it's come to B.C., but there's a very real danger that in the next three years it could go elsewhere.
C. Evans: I decided to speak on the subject of this budget after sitting in this House last week and listening to the quality of the criticism of this budget. I heard folks on the opposite side of the room make all sorts of criticism, and I took notes because some of it, I knew, would slip out of my mind if I didn't write it down.
[ Page 540 ]
I want to give you a list of some of the things I heard folks attacking. Inadequate social services. There was a very brilliant speech from the opposite bench on the fact that one member felt there should be a whole lot more money for social services. There was another excellent speech on support for resource towns -- towns, I guess, like the one where I live. They must be talking about Slocan City and New Denver. There was a good speech saying there should be more money for wage equity. There was a good speech -- well, actually, there was a speech -- arguing that there should be lots more money for the Island Highway. An hon. member who lives here felt that people here deserved an Island Highway right now. There were people -- we just heard them, although they appear to have walked out -- objecting to the taxation of corporations. We've heard them make speeches about the objection to withdrawing the supplemental homeowner grant. We've heard them make speeches on behalf of the various charitable groups objecting to the changes in lottery funds.
I think those are all really good ideas, hon. members opposite. But then you make speeches objecting to a bit of a deficit: $1.8 billion. They say it's too much money to owe. You can't have it all ways at once. For days in here, people were standing up objecting to the Peat Marwick study, saying -- in one of the most bizarre flights of fancy I've ever heard -- that this conservative organization, which probably hasn't got two members in it who ever voted NDP in their life, somehow wrote their criticism with this government in mind instead of the truth. Then, when we bring in a budget attempting to rectify the horrendous wastes that the Peat Marwick study identified, six, seven, eight, maybe ten of them stand up saying they want more stuff -- social services, highways, support for resource towns -- and still the budget is too high.
I want to say, in deference to the hon. folks opposite, that I kind of agree with you. There are absences, shall we say, in this budget -- things I wish were there, too. I wish there was a whole lot more money for farmers. I spent a lot of time in the last few years hanging out with farmers and, given what the national government of Canada and the GATT are about to do to farmers, I wish there was a lot more money for farmers.
I wish -- since I spent my life in the woods -- there was a lot more money for silviculture.
[4:00]
Interjections.
C. Evans: Actually, to folks on the other side, I know, given where you folks were elected, where the only woods is Stanley Park, that spending your time in the woods is considered to be sort of odd. Where I come from, it's fine work. They are the people who paid your wages all of your life.
I wish there was a lot more money in the budget for artists. I think if we in anglo-Canada were to express our culture, maybe we wouldn't be in such a battle with the people of Quebec. Maybe we'd know who we are. Maybe we'd feel better about ourselves. I look forward to budgets in future that support farmers and artists, in part because these are the people who work with their heart and who cost less money to put to work than almost any of the industrial sectors in our economy.
I look forward to a budget with more money for housing. I'm sure that the folks on the other side.... I haven't heard any of them mention it yet, but in some places in B.C. housing is in dire need -- certainly where I live.
It's true that this budget hasn't got the billion dollars in it that we need to bring the wages of women in this province up to a parity with the wages of men. But everything in this budget is heading in those directions. Everything in this budget is going in the direction of a society that we all want to live in.
Folks on the other side, you know, when you're trying to govern a society, it's kind of like trying to steer an ocean liner. Suppose we have an ocean liner out here in the gulf, and it takes three miles to turn it around. And suppose that we take office. We become government at a moment when it's really clear that the ocean liner is headed for the shoals. Do you think it would be correct for us to take over the wheel of that ocean liner and tilt it as hard as we could and run into the ferries and the other boats or the other islands, or do you think it would be correct to begin the three miles of turning that boat around, which is required to do it without damage to the society? If we did all the things that folks on that side, and even some of us on this side, would like to see done in order to turn this society into the kind of society that we'd like to see, it would be as irresponsible as steering in the dark.
I want to point out that there's a difference between an election and a coup, and in this democracy we just had an election, not a coup. It behooves the government to take control of the boat, to take the five months to figure out where the charts are and where the islands are and then to come in here and begin to steer it. It behooves the opposition to criticize with an understanding of the dangers out there in society and what we can expect. True enough, women and men opposite, it's not all in there, but it's headed in the right direction.
For an example, let's take land use. How did it used to be? Just a few months ago I went on a tour for the Minister of Forests to discuss the future of TFL 23 in the Arrow Lakes, and we heard from people who had experienced the tenure system as it existed for the 40 years prior to the election of this government. They told us that resources were allocated without inventory, analysis or public participation, in back rooms and often in illegal fashions -- at the very best quasi-legal. When we became government, we inherited blockades where citizens took it upon themselves to attempt to decide land use. We inherited ministries of this government without the inventory data to make decisions. We inherited a situation where the all-powerful Forest Service essentially ran the land base in B.C. And we inherited a situation where the good people who work for the Ministries of Environment, Highways and Agriculture, and in water protection and the Forest Service out there on the land, couldn't talk to one another, because the system had been organized such that the line ministries could only talk straight up to their own minister, and all decisions were made in the secrecy of cabinet.
[ Page 541 ]
Why is that, hon. Speaker? Because for decades it behooved the interest of the rich to get to decide inside this building or in the office buildings or the banks in Vancouver who was going to cut what or mine what or build what. We inherited a system that was dysfunctional on the land and for the working people. In this budget, which the hon. folks on the other side have criticized, some very serious differences have been built in.
Hon. Speaker, is "hon. folks" not an okay thing to say?
Deputy Speaker: Not really, hon. member. Refer to them by their constituencies.
C. Evans: I guess if you live where Stanley Park has the only trees you've ever seen, "folks" is considered not a very nice word. It's neighbourly where I'm from.
In this budget, hon. Speaker, we changed the system a little bit so the all-powerful Forest Service lost a couple of dollars and the always underfunded, underpersoned Ministry of Environment gained a couple of dollars where I live. I'm please to say we're going to build a building so that the Ministry of Environment workers can get out of an old grocery store and actually have a place to work.
A previous speaker said that we broke a promise. He said that the Ministry of Forests wasn't getting the money for inventory that had been promised. I know that the previous speaker didn't mislead the House or the people watching on TV. I know that he's only confused, hon. Speaker. I know that he'll probably come back here tomorrow and say: "Oh, I got a chance to read the budget. I now see that the budget calls for $10 million of new inventory." The reason that the critic for Forests didn't understand this is that this government has changed the structural way that we do inventory. It will not all be done by the corporations or the Forest Service, as he might have preferred. It will now be done by various ministries, including the Ministry of Environment, and it will be independent of the previous system. Hon. Speaker, $10 million is enough to do the province in a decade. That is a radical departure from how we have ever done things before.
There is another change brought in through this budget to the business of land use. It used to be that cut-blocks were designed by foresters and engineers in the citadel of the Forest Service, and in isolation. We have broken that system. This budget gives the Minister of Environment wages for 40 biologists to go thither in British Columbia and work inside the regional offices, assisting the Forest Service to lay out cut-blocks and do inventory, to essentially design work on the land. For the very first time we are telling the ministries to work together as if the land base had many values and not one. If hon. members over there don't see that as a difference, it can only be because in the steel and concrete environment from which they come, they don't understand dirt and soil and seeds and grass and trees and water -- the things those ministries are responsible for.
In order for the hon. members over there to criticize the budget, it would help if they gave a little bit of analysis on where we are in history. We're not simply in this room in Victoria; we are at a moment in time here in British Columbia and in the world. Here in British Columbia, we're at a moment in history where we've figured out that we don't have infinite mountains to log anymore. We, the woods workers, cannot support your urban environment any more. We don't have infinite ore to mine, and we don't have infinite rivers to dam. We're at a moment in time when the fisherpeople have figured out that the loggerpeople working up stream have something to do with their income, and we have to begin to make one care about the other. We're at a moment in time when a free trade agreement has broken the industrial heartland of Canada. As a result of the decrease in income, we've got $1.5 billion that the federal government is no longer going to send to British Columbia. It's a number so big that I'll admit to not understanding it. How far would that line of dollars stretch? Would it go from here to Ottawa?
At this moment we require a vision. Even the hon. members on the other side, I'm sure, can recognize that the way we did things in the past is not going to work anymore. We've come to the end of the land base, and we have to do things carefully. We can't cash in the hinterland to pay for urban expansion.
If Canada is going to be poorer as a result of theft to the United States, and even maybe to Mexico, then the moment in history matters in terms of the budget. This government has brought in a budget that states an agenda to deal with this moment in history. It says that, given the time, it is inappropriate to look backwards, as they have done year after year -- the Fraser Institute, the think-tanks, the right wing and the college thinkers who have designed politics in this province for so long -- to look to the failed policies of privatization and deregulation and the abandonment, essentially, of the people by government.
Given the difference in the future -- the information age, the age when the environment matters -- and given the moment in history, I'd say that the cusp, the moment, is as different now as it was at the time of the Industrial Revolution. We are looking at a different world.
Speaking about the Industrial Revolution brings to mind that when it happened in Europe and changed an agrarian society into an urban society, there were reactionaries at the time. There were people who responded to the upheaval and the change by wanting to look backwards. We called those people Luddites. Maybe the hon. members on the other side might find those people romantic. Maybe you even think they were right, but they couldn't change the pace of time.
As I stand here I feel that that's what I keep hearing from members opposite -- and "members opposite" is itself a fairly bizarre term. I can't really figure out how they're different. I can't figure out where the members opposite stop geographically. I just found out last week which party the member for Langley was in. I can't figure out what difference they have philosophically. I can't figure out what difference historically there is between them. We all saw pictures of Bill Vander Zalm when he was the Liberal mayor kissing Pierre Trudeau -- pictures where they were so close it was almost pornographic. We had Liberals -- and I made a wee list
[ Page 542 ]
here: Mel Couvelier, Garde Gardom, Bob McClelland, Hugh Curtis, Pat McGeer, Jim Chabot. Those were all Liberals who turned into Social Crediters. I don't think we mention names in this House, but if we did I think I could probably think up names of some hon. members opposite who used to be Social Crediters and are now Liberals -- and it matters.
It matters because the same reactionary, inarticulate lack of analysis that generated the Luddites when history was changing before has generated this amorphous group we today call "members opposite." We have the Liberals coming in and the Social Crediters going out. I think "members opposite" is a pretentious sort of phrase. I really don't want people in the Kootenays to read Corky -- or I should say, the member for Nelson-Creston -- saying "members opposite," so I think we need an all-encompassing term that sets this parliament, this Legislature and this budget in history, and sets the members opposite in history so that folks can relate to them and see them as they are.
I'm thinking, looking backwards into history and looking forward and across the room, that "Lidites" would be a good term. It's got....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, would you just take your seat for a moment please. I am absolutely enthralled with your comments -- most interesting -- but I am having some difficulty relating your remarks, interesting as they are, to the budget. So I would ask the member to at least mention the budget every now and then in his remarks. Please continue.
[4:15]
C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I really appreciate your assistance, and I would ask you, over the course of the next weeks and months, to treat those of us who are new here as apprentices, because surely this is a trade which requires the assistance of hon. members who have been here before.
Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased that you're enthralled, because I was just discussing this "Lidite" title here. If we look at the budget and the moment in history, I want all the hon. members here to try to figure out what difference, in terms of the reaction from members opposite.... Do they appear to believe that we should raise taxes to the point where we can eliminate the deficit? No. We have just heard a lecture about the fact that we've raised taxes to the point where we may experience capital flight.
Do they think that we should lower taxes -- Keynesian economics; prime the pump; give the money to society and let them all go to work, doubling the budget? No. Lidites opposite are forever telling us that we need less of a deficit.
Hon. Speaker, I just want you to know that when I go home to Nelson-Creston, I meet people interested in health care, education and the environment. I meet health workers. I meet people who care about all of the issues raised in the election, raised in the House, raised by the various critics and raised by our ministers. They all think that ten years hence we should have a society where men and women make the same amount of money, where land use is no longer devastation or preservation, where people live and work in the rural areas and in the cities and have the same chance at an education or university, and where dams pay their own way and pay taxes. All the people think that ten years hence we have to have a society where the gulf between rich and poor is narrowed -- narrowed in my heart, hon. Speaker, to zero, if we can get there.
But only an absolutely reactionary opposition would say to us, on the one hand you have to do it all in the first five months, and on the other hand you have to do it with no deficit at all. I am proud of our government and of our budget, and I challenge the Lidites to come up with constructive opposition.
G. Farrell-Collins: A point of order, hon. Speaker, with regard to some of the terms by which we were being referred to in the member's speech. Certainly "folks" is a term I'm familiar with, having grown up in the Prairies where there aren't many woods, but there's a lot of prairie and a lot of dirt. I don't feel insulted by that, but I do have some concern about being referred to as a Luddite or any other term the member chooses to use. I would prefer he uses a term that is generally understood in this chamber, and that is "members opposite" or "hon. members" or something of that sort.
Deputy Speaker: Are you asking that the member withdraw?
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston, you heard the objection to the expression "Luddite," and if that in any way offends the member, would you please withdraw.
C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I don't think people on the other side are Luddites. I don't believe I said it. I withdraw it if I ever said they were Luddites. They are not Luddites. That was another era.
J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the budget, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nelson-Creston for his political lesson. But I point out a geography lesson to him, if I may. Stanley Park is not represented by any opposition MLA. In fact, hon. Speaker, it is your riding that Stanley Park is located in. But I will confine my remarks to the budget, consistently.
This budget is about choices and priorities. What is clear from the budget is that the government has made the wrong choices and has misplaced its priorities. No more so is this the case than with the funding of education.
During the campaign last October, the NDP indicated a commitment to education, which, of course, everybody applauded. I would point out that the Liberals made the same commitment to education in the campaign, and I'm sure the Social Credit Party did likewise. However, let's look at the reality. In the budget various statements pertain to education. I quote, for example, from page 7 of the budget, under the subheading, "Safeguarding Basic Services": "This government believes that the highest priority must be given to safeguarding essential services to people." Page 9,
[ Page 543 ]
under the subheading "Education": "Education is also a high priority. We will ensure our children continue to receive a quality education" -- and a further indication that the budgetary lift for education is 9.1 percent, which is stated to be "enough to fund projected cost increases and population pressures."
Well, those are all very nice statements, hon. Speaker. I would describe them as fine statements, comfortable, nice, convenient. But I would suggest that these statements lack substance and commitment. I imagine that many such statements were made during the election campaign, as I have already indicated, just as each party, I am sure, made a general commitment to education. However, the election is over. The government must now either meet these promises or break them. I would suggest that we have a series of broken promises.
With the treatment of education in this budget, the government has failed to live up to its promise. The flowery statements do not reflect reality. They have been made but not realized. So what is the truth about the funding of education in this province? What is the reality? Where does this budget fall short? On January 31 the Minister of Education announced a lift for the 1992-93 block funding of 2.4 percent. Note that the budget states a 9.1 increase for education, but the reality is 2.4 percent. The immediate reaction to this increase from various school officials is that it would be inadequate -- and they were correct, as many districts have now indicated in their budget preparations.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Let me cite some examples of what the underfunding has done to one of the essential services designated by this government. Victoria district, on March 30, announced 263 layoff notices being given to teachers. This is to take care of a necessitated $7.5 million shortfall in the Victoria district. You can just imagine, hon. Speaker, the unsettling effect not only on the teachers who received those layoff notices but on their colleagues and, of course, on the students and the parents in the Victoria district. That's one example.
Another example is from one of the school districts within my own riding. North Vancouver School District announced recently that the elementary band and string program, of long standing in North Vancouver, will be eliminated unless some extra funding can be found. I'm not talking about some cutbacks to this program; I'm talking about total elimination. If I may be permitted to make a more personal remark on that particular example, I have three children who are currently in that elementary program, all enjoying their music lessons and the opportunity to advance those. I am obviously very unsettled by the prospect of that program being eliminated, and I can assure you, many parents in North Vancouver are also unsettled. Tomorrow evening I am going back to my riding for a meeting whereby this particular issue will be addressed, and I would imagine from the response that I'm getting, there will be hundreds of people at that meeting. They are not going to be pleased; they will be anything but pleased.
Another example I may also cite from North Vancouver, which pertains to other districts as well, is that the districts are finding that funding for community schools is going to have to be curtailed or cut out altogether. I think the community school concept is an excellent one, and I would certainly hate to see it go by the board because of a lack of funding.
May I also comment on budget shortfalls, which are well-documented in the newspapers and elsewhere. I'll give two examples. The Vancouver district, the largest in the province, is facing a shortfall of $17.8 million for the 1992-93 year. That is obviously going to result in many layoffs, program cuts, lack of proper maintenance to the facilities, etc. I needn't go on to document those, because an almost $18 million budget shortfall will certainly cause a lot of disruption to Vancouver.
The Langley School District, if I may quote from an example out in the Fraser Valley, "is facing a shortfall of almost $3.4 million, and they are having to look at the allocations in schools as to how they're going to fund each of the schools within the district." They're going to have to cut back materials and supplies. Program cuts will certainly be suffered and staffing levels will also be affected in the Langley district.
In case these examples I've noted -- and numerous others that I do not have time to address today -- have fallen on deaf ears or are otherwise being ignored by this government, tomorrow numerous delegations of teachers and parents are coming to Victoria to meet with various MLAs. I am personally meeting with two such delegations, and I know that there are many other meetings taking place. The message that I and other MLAs will be receiving tomorrow is quite clear: the budget is inadequate, to put it mildly.
Let me also address another funding problem in education, and that involves capital projects. The minister stated that for the '92-93 budget year there are $720 million in projects which have met the criteria for high priority. That is, they are ranked as being in the high-priority position. However, the minister has also gone on to state that not all such projects will be approved. The situation that is developing is that high expectations are indicated by the ministry, but obviously high disappointments will be realized for many of these projects. The rejection of many of these high-priority projects will mean more harsh realities in the underfunded school system.
Even though the government has indicated that school portables will be eliminated, and I presume over the lifetime -- if that's the way to put it -- of this government, the fact is that many portables will remain on school sites. There is no questioning that. I am not speaking of the so-called temporarily placed portables. I'm referring to portables that I'm fully aware have been in place for at least seven years -- some ten or 15 years -- on school sites. This indicates my long-held belief that very often a temporary solution such as portables has a tendency to become a permanent feature. I would certainly hate to see portables remain that have been on school sites for seven years and more. I've talked to parents and school administrators in many districts, and they are looking forward to the day when those portables will be removed. In the meantime, the
[ Page 544 ]
learning conditions in these unsuitable facilities are anything but adequate.
[4:30]
Other capital projects that will no doubt go by the board because of this budget include necessary major repairs and renovations to school buildings and to other facilities such as playing-fields. I would add that even where it can be demonstrated that there's an increased population base, new schools will have to be put by the board for the meantime, because there will not be the funding to take care of those demonstrated needs.
I have given many examples of where this budget falls short on proper education funding. So that it will be made clear that this opposition does not just criticize because of our opposition status, I would like to suggest to this House some constructive ideas that we have and that have been passed on to us by many people in the school system. The people I'm referring to are trustees, administrators, parents, teachers, students, and just citizens in general. All of them are very concerned about the underfunding and are more than prepared to share their ideas with us.
Some of the suggested solutions that have been passed on to me include ensuring that all fixed and mandated costs of school districts -- workers' compensation payments, UIC, hydro, fuel, ICBC -- be paid in full by the ministry.
Another example of a suggestion passed on to us is to improve the block funding formula. The block funding formula is very often described to me by school officials as both confusing and inadequate. There is no question there are inequities in the funding system, when you look around the province and see some districts with huge shortfalls and others not facing those same unpleasant prospects.
I would pass on another suggestion. Very often locally elected and locally appointed officials in the school districts feel that they're not listened to properly. They go through a lot of planning, preparation, budget discussions, etc. Quite frankly, they do get frustrated. I would ask the government and the Minister of Education that locally elected and appointed people be listened to more closely, because their ideas and input are valuable. They should be respected more.
I also would like to comment on another wrong choice and misplaced priority. That deals with the supplemental homeowner grant, which, as all members are aware, was eliminated by this budget. I would add, however, that the government was very generous in increasing the basic homeowner grant by the huge sum of $20. That $20 applies both to the general homeowner and the senior.
In the budget on page 58, we read: "Supplements were generally received by homeowners who are not seniors and who own homes having relatively high assessed values." The fact is that seniors are affected by the elimination of the supplemental homeowner grant. They may not have been an intended target of this government, but the fact is that they are a target. I think it's most unfortunate that the people who have long worked and paid their dues to our society are now being penalized in such a manner. Typically an NDP government moves to pick the pockets of the rich and famous, but in this case they have hit those who cannot afford to pay, and who deserve far better treatment than they are being afforded. If I may refer to page 13 of the budget: "...the revenue measures...are directed to those who can most afford to pay...." Well, seniors do not fit this description, generally speaking. Many citizens of every municipality in this province do not fit that description, but they will all have to pay. All the seniors on fixed incomes, single-parent families, they are all facing the same prospect.
Let me quote two particular examples of the impact of the loss of the supplementary grant on taxpayers. The examples are from my riding. I don't wish to seem self-serving here, but I think they're good examples, and they apply right across the province. North Vancouver, which is one of the two municipalities within my riding, faces a tax increase on average of 18.2 percent due to the loss of the supplementary budget. West Vancouver faces a similar increase, and in case some members might be tempted to remark that West Vancouver can afford it, I would like to point out to the House that many of the people in West Vancouver are the very seniors whom I have already commented on. Thirty percent of the residents of West Vancouver are in the seniors category.
I see I have just a few moments left. I'm going to move very quickly from the comments I've made about education to perhaps a more mundane topic, transportation. It is obviously a very important one to this province. The budget has significantly cut funding to highways, and I would suggest that that would be a correct priority if the essential services, of which I've already spoken, were properly attended to. However, given that, as in the case of education and health care and social services, the priorities have been misplaced, I have no hesitation in commenting very quickly on an example of a major highway project on the border of my riding. It's unfortunate that I look across the House to see that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is not in his seat today, because he might be able to win back the five dollars that he's been complaining he lost recently due to my failure to refer to the Westview interchange over the Upper Levels Highway during my maiden speech. I'm going to refer to that right now.
Westview interchange has been planned for 25 years, if not more, by buying up property and providing for the planning of that interchange. I comment on it in particular because I'm quite convinced that given the cutbacks in highways funding, Westview will not go ahead this year. It's becoming not only an inconvenience to the residents of the North Shore and everyone in this province who uses the highway, but it is also one of two examples that I'm aware of in British Columbia where there is still a traffic light on the Trans-Canada Highway. The only other example I can think of is in Cache Creek. So here my riding has the rather dubious honour of sharing a traffic light with the municipality of Cache Creek. We're hoping that that project will get the priority it deserves, but as I say, I am somewhat dismayed by the statements I'm hearing from the Highways ministry that such projects are highly unlikely to go ahead.
[ Page 545 ]
I wanted to add that particular comment on a transportation issue. As I say, I hope that it's not perceived as being self-serving. There will be many other highway projects, I am sure, that will suffer a similar fate.
Let me just reiterate my particular statements about this budget and its immediate impact on education funding. There's no question in my mind that this government has made the wrong choices in its preparation of the budget and in how the money will be spent. There are many other examples in the area of education where their priorities have been misconstrued. Those, I'm sure, will come out in the estimates debates, as we move through each ministry. I will conclude, hon. Speaker, by urging this House to vote against the approval of this budget. It is certainly inadequate in many senses.
G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise at this hour of the day to speak on the budget presented to us just a week or so ago. The hon. member on my right chose to make some observations about the choices and priorities that we have made as a government in this budget, suggesting in some fashion that they are inadequate for the tasks ahead of us. Well, I'm surprised at what he has said, because it seems to me that there can probably be no higher priorities than education, health, social services and women's issues at this time in this province.
We have had to make some very tough choices in this budget. It's very clear in the budget that these choices have been tough and that we, as a government, have made those choices. It was not easy. We know that many ministries have suffered. Many ministries have had their budgets cut in order to supply and support those priority issues and ministries that have been neglected for so long by the previous government in this province. In responding to those issues and those tough choices, we have established those priorities and determined that the response was to share the burden, to have all occupation groups -- everyone -- participate in trying to help solve the problem that we are faced with. We have also seen adjustments in the tax system. So we are producing a budget that I believe is fair, balanced and, indeed, progressive.
We have seen and understand only too well what has happened to the budget in British Columbia over the last many years. Without a change in direction.... I'm sure the speakers and the parties to my right would not have advocated this: that we needed to change direction in this province, and we needed to do it very quickly.
We need to deal with the deficit. We have heard, and we heard during the election campaign from my friends to the right, that the deficit was too large. Well, I'm not sure what my friends would have us do. It was reaching towards $3 billion. We have cut well over a billion and a half from that deficit. Hon. Speaker, that's the kind of thing we were elected to do. That's the kind of thing we are going to do to change the direction in this province. To safeguard health care and education and social services, we have had to trim operating costs and eliminate waste, and that is what this government is doing.
A couple of particular topics. Perhaps my friends to the right are not too happy with this, but one of the things we've done is freeze MLAs' salaries. I don't know if that's going to have a major effect, but it is significant, and I think it sends the right message.
We are establishing auditing practices within the government. They will be overhauled so that we can watch.... There will be a member of the opposition chairing the auditing committee, and we know that they will do their job. We will see what those issues are as we proceed to try to right the wrongs that have happened in this province.
We have closed underutilized government offices. That has already happened. Government advertising will be curtailed, for a further saving of $5 million. One government airplane is going to be sold and another is being allocated full-time to air ambulance service. These are just some of the moves that demonstrate our real commitment to cutting waste and inefficiencies in government that have been left to us -- willed to us -- by the previous government.
Let's look at some of those ways in which we have been acting on our priorities. The first one is in education. I want to offer my congratulations to the whole of government for the hard work that was done in recognizing the need to allocate extra resources to education. We have seen the overall budget increased by 9.1 percent. That is significant in times like this. We have seen that the operating funds for education across this province have increased 8.2 percent -- of the 9.1 -- despite the ministry and its particular budget being reduced in order that schools get the benefit, not ministry operations.
[4:45]
We know that funds for capital programs for the new schools.... As my hon. friend has mentioned so rightly, old schools need fixing and new schools need to be built. The unacceptable number of portables in this province has got to change. The minister has said that capital funding programs will be announced in the very near future. I congratulate her for establishing those kinds of priorities. She knows what she is doing, as does that ministry. Those will be done.
Post-secondary education is another issue in that area of education. We have seen some changes there -- much needed changes. One of the commitments we made in the election campaign was to freeze tuition fees. That was done and no one can deny it. It was an excellent thing, and the students of this province are much appreciative of that.
We have seen operating grants to universities, colleges and institutes increase by $41 million, an increase of 4.3 percent. This represents 2,800 full-time post-secondary spaces to keep pace with population growth and the increase in demand in this province. Education has benefited from the tough choices we've had to make, and the priorities that we have established in these tough times.
Health care was the second area that we understood and accepted the responsibility to deal with in the election campaign -- as we do now as government. The health care budget has been increased by $409 million, representing an increase of 7.4 percent. Of that, we have
[ Page 546 ]
provided $64 million to enhance community-based family health and preventive programs, as was enunciated by our minister just last week.
The important direction for health care services to take in this province -- indeed, in this country in the days, years and months ahead -- is community-based health care services. That's where we're headed and that's the commitment made by this province and this government, and that's what this government will do.
We have also seen $15 million provided to fund new disease prevention and public health initiatives in schools and communities. The need for that is unquestioned, and we see that as a major priority for this government. It has fulfilled that commitment. We have frozen premiums and capped the overall growth of physicians' billings. This whole area has been a tough decision. The freezing of premiums is very important for all people of this province. We look forward to the time when we'll be able to have no premiums at all, but in the meantime we have at least frozen them.
Dealing with the capping of physicians' billings was a difficult issue -- there's no question about that. We are concerned about the kind of response that we're getting to that, including that from my friends on the right. Physically they are on my right, so it fits. I'm not saying anything pejorative, I don't think, although I may be. Physicians' billings are of concern to all of us. It behooves all of us in this chamber to understand why this government took that urgent and difficult position. In the days and months ahead we had better bear in mind that the finances raised from that will help health care throughout the whole system in British Columbia.
There are some other points in the health care area that we are very concerned about, have supported and will be encouraging. The Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs -- the Seaton report, as it's more informally called -- will be setting out on its mission across the province to hear people's views on the many recommendations in that report. We look forward to discussing those, as they return to this House. Again, we will be reviewing all those issues, as will this House. Part of those issues are of fundamental concern to the people of British Columbia and, indeed, all the people of Canada.
First of all, we must maintain universal access to health care. There must be no controls, no way that people who need health care will be denied it. It is very essential. It is equally essential to keep health care costs under control. This is a very difficult one because so many people need so much in this province. But that is a goal we are striving for.
We must put more emphasis on prevention. As we mentioned earlier in the budget, there is the increase in dollars in order to work towards prevention in our health care system. We're, of course, developing innovative community-based health care directives and alternatives. Those will be coming forward as we need them.
Hon. Speaker, what we're doing here is very clear. The funds that we are raising and reallocating are for those in greatest need: low-income families, children at risk, persons with disabilities and those suffering from mental illness.
As well, we have already seen the allocation of half of the lottery funds. Again, the commitment made in the election campaign -- here it is in black and white -- is going to be acted on. Half of all lottery funds will flow to a new special Health account in order to finance these urgent health care needs that I've just mentioned. All of this is absolutely essential to maintain the integrity of our medical system in this province.
The government has had to make some very tough decisions in order to deal with and anticipate the long-term needs of our health care system. This government has made those tough decisions, and we know there will probably be more to come.
The area of social services is another major priority for this government -- neglected for far too long by previous governments in this province. We now see an allocation of an additional $231 million in order to maintain our income safety net. We can't do without that. Low-income families in this province, those having difficulty finding work and those who have had a difficult time getting a chance in this world are going to benefit from that allocation. That's what we're here to do.
The slowdown in the Canadian economy particularly -- the British Columbia one seems to have survived the Canadian situation to some extent -- has resulted in a larger number of people in this province seeking assistance. We need to respond to that. The federal government restraints that we have seen have put incredible pressure on this province, and we have over the years, of course, always argued in favour of good cost-sharing programs for all the provinces in this country.
In British Columbia we have been in large measure reduced seriously and significantly by the federal government. The Canada Assistance Plan, which was there to assist those on low incomes and requiring other social services, has been cut drastically. This is an unconscionable thing for the federal government to do, given the number of people here who need that kind of help. Why should the people of British Columbia who need this receive less care than anywhere else? I think that is unfair. We are then having to put money into our budget to try to reach them and cover those costs.
We have seen many other issues that affect the low-income families in this country and in this province. One that is dear to my heart and has created some major difficulties is in the housing field. I wish we'd been in a position to put money into this budget for housing that is desperately needed for a number of reasons -- partly because we've got the population here that requires it, but also because the federal government has yet again responded to needs by hitting at those who can least manage them.
We have seen the housing market that the federal government then slashed. In December 1991 the federal government said it would continue the federal co-op program, but within the last number of weeks it has chopped that program completely. Last year was bad enough in British Columbia; we got only 289 co-op units. This year there will be none. That is unconscionable. The impact of those federal housing cuts will mean at least 900 units to this province in terms of social
[ Page 547 ]
housing. Over the next two years we are going to see that, and we are going to feel it. Every one of us in this Legislature is going to feel that as we hear our constituents ask us why there isn't adequate and affordable housing in their community and particularly social housing for those who need it. It's not just in Victoria and Vancouver where social housing is essential; it's all over this province.
On Vancouver Island the cuts are going to mean between 76 and 126 fewer homes for families and seniors. If you add on units for special projects like group homes and transition houses, the figures are even higher. These losses are tragic. Victoria's vacancy rate, at the last official figure, was less than 1 percent. Families in particular are having enormous difficulty finding housing they can afford, and they're having to move out of the core areas to other communities where there are fewer services and transportation costs are higher.
I'm very pleased about the action that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is taking. He is insisting -- and valiantly leading the effort -- that we should be meeting with the federal people in order to try to put some of those programs back together, and that we work together in a partnership program of some kind to produce the housing that we know we need all over this province -- not just in Victoria-Beacon Hill, but all over this province.
One of the other areas that we all talked about in the election campaign -- and I say again: a tough decision made and a commitment honoured -- is the beginning of work toward women's equality and the establishment of the Women's Equality ministry, which I think was essential, long-needed and which has already produced significant solutions to some of the problems in our communities. I know it is indeed just a beginning.
Many of you will recall some of the initiatives that have already been taken. In December, Transition House received a provincial grant of $162,000 through Go B.C. grants, and will receive $318,000 in annual operating funds from Social Services. Greater Victoria's Transition House is a very essential service to women and children in very difficult situations. Transition House is new, has been working very well and is, unfortunately, too crowded even now as a brand-new building.
Last month our government provided over $1 million in core funding to 28 community women's centres. The Victoria Status of Women Action Group was one of those centres. It received $15,000 immediately and is eligible for another $37,000. Again, 27 other communities across this province also received those funds.
In March the government announced that it is directing $450,000 to multicultural transition services, and this money is going to be available not just in Victoria, not just in Vancouver, but all across this province. Multicultural services are essential to provide for all the people in our community. We know immigration services are going to be needed more and more as immigration increases in this country. We as a government in British Columbia are taking seriously our responsibility to provide the beginnings of some sensible and decent funding for those services. Canada would do well to follow suit.
In February the government opened our first children's centre, the first government facility built especially for day care services. While it's not quite in Victoria-Beacon Hill, I'm pleased it's in the Victoria area. I think that this kind of service is what this government is all about, as it responds to the real needs of ordinary people across this province.
Just last Saturday I was at the opening of an initial health care services program for immigrant women -- a mammography workshop. There will be 11 other such workshops held across the province. I want to congratulate the Health ministry and a woman named Buncy Pagely who took the initiative for this and has indeed carried through. Immigrant women are going to be receiving these kinds of services, and will have an opportunity to work together to make sure that they have the access to our health care services that they so richly deserve as part of the strength of our communities in British Columbia.
[5:00]
Again, and ongoing in terms of women's services in this province, an additional $32 million was put in the budget to improve pay equity in the public sector in 1992-93. That's not peanuts, that's not chicken feed. That's a real commitment to a real issue: pay equity in this province. This includes not just year one, but year two of that program for pay equity in the public service. This will also include pay equity to post-secondary and health care workers.
In addition, the government is allocating $29 million for a new initiative aimed at achieving wage parity between the low-paid employees in funded agencies and those in the public sector. Most of those funded agencies are in the interior of the province. They deliver for the government the services needed that the public sector provides in other parts of the province. There's $29 million for this new initiative to bring wage parity to those employees. Again, it's a much-needed program that will help increase the wages and the wage levels of people in that work -- mostly women.
Seventeen million dollars has been added to the child care budget for this province. More and more women are in the work force, and more and more children need adequate -- more than adequate -- child care services. There just are not enough in this province. The more we can do in that area, the better. Again, we're making tough choices. It's only $17 million this year, but we look forward to seeing more.
As we heard, the hon. Minister of Women's Equality mentioned earlier in her remarks the many millions of dollars allocated to dealing with the issues of violence against women and children in this province. I just want to echo, share and support her words that it is unconscionable that there should be any violence against women and children in this province, and that this is a beginning to stop that and eradicate it forever.
Hon. Speaker, we have many other issues in this budget that have been in response to commitments made during the election campaign. It is vital that we continue to work on those issues. As my colleagues previously have said, it is, of course, not enough. We
[ Page 548 ]
wish we could have done more. In some areas we see some of the other services that we have started on, but have only just begun.
I mention particularly municipal cost-sharing funding. As former mayor of the city of Victoria, I'm only too aware of the importance of the unconditional and the conditional grants that come from the province every year. I know there is some unhappiness about the reduction in the unconditional grants. But, hon. Speaker, I think it is time that the priorities of the people of this province were relayed in a different way to the municipalities.
We have accepted that there are serious environmental priorities with sewage and water in many communities. This government has said that we will provide some funding for our communities that need to make these changes in essential services. The budget has gone from something in the neighbourhood of $90 million to $128 million. Those revenues are there for the municipalities to begin to undertake that essential work. As I say, coming from the city of Victoria, I know only too well the difficulties in dealing with sewage waste, liquid waste and indeed solid waste. Presumably that's coming next year, let us hope.
It's essential for the whole province and for the health and well-being of everyone in this province that we get those priorities straight. I would like to say, speaking for myself and my community, that I welcome those dollars. While I regret that the unconditional grants have had to be cut somewhat, I applaud the idea that we are putting money aside for those sewage and waste-water issues.
I think we have begun the process of responding to the electorate of British Columbia, to the issues that we dealt with in the campaign and to the commitments that we made. We have begun that process. We're a long way from completion, and certainly I, for one, welcome the helpful suggestions from the opposition in terms of how best to allocate seriously reduced resources. As the Premier has said frequently, we will be looking to enlarge our revenues from many different sources, including trade activities. As we look forward to that, we must continue to trim waste, to make sure that the operations that we undertake as a government really are focused where they're most needed.
It's going to take a long time to do. Many images come to mind about changing things and how you turn things around. We heard an earlier one of the ocean liner. I sometimes think of trying to redirect a glacier, or a train on a track, which has been so fixed in that direction for so long that it's going to take major effort to turn it around, to make that train take a different track, and that glacier slow up in its movements. I think we have developed a very good beginning. We've put the framework in place and we can now see -- and I think the people of British Columbia can see -- the direction we want to go.
We have principles that we want to apply. We want to make sure, as much as we can, that we respond and we are open, particularly to those who have been shut out of the process for too long. There are always those in the leadership positions in a number of community areas and occupation areas who have had access. It is now time for the rest of British Columbia to be able to speak, and to be able to say how they feel about the issues of the day. We will see in ministry after ministry, as we have already, that this government is committed to talking to the communities, to being out in the communities around British Columbia to hear what people have to say. I think we see in this budget a fair budget. It is one that doesn't just hit everybody; it hits everybody. It's one of those that is difficult and as hard as we've all said and we've all sensed.
We want to provide sound fiscal management. We want to provide sensible government. We want to ensure stability and confidence. We are going to get our priorities right, and I think we are well on the road to doing that. We hoped that we didn't have to increase the sales tax, and we did not do that: it has stayed the same as it is. We were appealed to from many areas about the meal tax; there is no tax on meals in this province at this time, and we're very pleased and hope that that will continue for a long time to come. I think we have accomplished in this budget some of the goals that we established and were concerned about in the election, and I think we've done it in a fair and balanced manner. During the election we said three things over and over again: we would not promise miracles, we would set better priorities for this province, and we wouldn't spend what we didn't have.
I am very proud of our Finance minister, because he has delivered, despite the fiscal mess that was left to us. There are no miracles in this budget, but there is a fairness and we have to acknowledge that. The budget is tougher than many of us would have liked to see, but I believe the burden is shared, and we have indeed maintained our priorities.
D. Symons: It is with regret that I too must add my voice to those of others to express my disappointment in this, the first NDP government budget. While I appreciate, in particular with the previous speaker, the difficulty of the decisions this government had to make, the budget appears at best to be a stopgap document. It does not exhibit a vision for long-term planning.
Six months ago the voters of the province voted for change. The voters were promised no new taxes. This budget shows how hollow that promise was. New taxes, increased or new fees and increased charges all amount to an assault on the pocketbooks of the citizens of this province. No matter what the government cares to call it, it is in effect a substantial increase in taxes.
One of the Finance minister's briefing booklets is entitled "Budget '92: A Roadmap to Recovery." I thought about that for a while and thought it might more aptly be called "Budget '92: A Document of Little Hope." I rejected that, because I am sure that some can find hope in this budget -- hope that this government will find no new innovative ways to fleece its citizens. Perhaps it should be called "Budget '92: A Roadmap to Economic Uncertainty," because that seems to be all that this budget offers.
School boards and teachers are unhappy with it. The government promised that education was to be a priority. Is it a priority if school boards are already issuing layoff notices due to lack of adequate funding?
[ Page 549 ]
The budget claims an increase of 9.1 percent in education spending, with 2.4 percent for inflation and 3.5 percent for enrolment increases, yet the Greater Victoria School District is to receive only a 2.4 percent increase in its budget for the '92-93 school year. That won't even cover the salary increases brought about when this same government removed Bill 82, the bill that rolled back teachers' negotiated salary increases. There's no real commitment to improving the quality of education for Victoria schools; it's not even a hold-the-line budget.
Another priority was health care, and I am sure that the doctors of this province would have something to say about that. We have moved from a government that seemed to delight in teacher-bashing to a government that's more inclined to doctor-bashing. A cap on doctors' earnings is not the best approach to keeping a lid on rising health care costs. Instead of one doctor performing 200 operations, there will be two doctors each performing 100 operations. Where are the savings in that? Instead, there should be a closer scrutiny of the procedures used and the abusers of the system.
I commend the government for its commitment to continuing expansion of community-based alternatives to large institutionalized care facilities. I would caution the government, however, that there must be adequate funds available to establish these alternatives. We have all witnessed the distress caused by the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill without the accompanying funding for community facilities to provide for their needs.
I have some difficulty with the funding of health care, albeit only partially, through lotteries. To me, funding of health care should not be done at the expense of playing on some people's weakness to feel that they're going to win big, with all the glitzy advertising that plays on that weakness.
Let us now go through this budget point by point. The first heading is "Goals of a Sound Economic Policy," and it lists four goals. Open government is a worthy goal yet to be realized. One example of their following through on this promise is the commissioning of the Peat Marwick report. Although we have asked to see the working papers of this report -- the basis and the manner in which they came to their conclusions -- we have yet to receive them. No doubt we'll have access to these papers after the government has passed this budget, when it's too late to use the information to properly scrutinize the premise upon which this budget is based. So much for open government.
As an aside, I would be remiss if I didn't remind the taxpayers of this province that this exercise cost them $1 million -- $1 million for a report they could have had for free from the auditor general's department.
The second point under "Goals for a Sound Economic Policy" is fairness. I guess we could ask the doctors in this province if this government is fair. We could ask the 263 teachers in Victoria who received layoff notices last week if this government is fair. We could ask the people of Robson-Castlegar if this government is fair. We could ask the students and staff at UBC affected by the labour dispute because of adequate funding if this government is fair. We could ask the grain farmers of the north if this government is fair. We could ask the non-union construction industry if this government is fair. We could ask the taxpayers of B.C., who were promised no new taxes, if this government is fair. The response is a resounding no, no, no.
[5:15]
Next it says the government is committed to sound and prudent management of the province's finances. First they commission a $1 million study that was available for free. For over five months they delayed calling the government into session to deal with the economic woes facing the province, allowing the deficit to continue to grow. They signed special warrants amounting to $2 billion, and they tried to limit the opposition's ability to question their spending habits by leaving less than two days for debate on that spending before the end of the last fiscal year.
If the government feels that reducing the government's grants to municipalities for roads and removing a supplementary homeowner grant is prudent management, I'm sure the municipal taxpayers think otherwise. Shifting the tax burden onto another level of government is not prudent management; it is simply a political ploy to place the blame for the increase somewhere else.
The fourth economic policy of this government is to foster economic stability and confidence. Well, they blew that one too. Increasing the corporation tax rate by 1 percent doesn't sound like much when it's said that way, but 1 percent translates into a 6.7 percent increase in the taxes that that corporation will have to pay. The 1 percent increase announced for small business translates into an 11 percent increase in the business tax they will have to pay. For you see, if you pay one cent for something today and then tomorrow it costs you two cents, the price has only gone up by one cent but you're paying twice as much. This is the type of sugarcoating the government has put on these increases by the way they have presented the figures.
What does the business community say? Last Thursday the Minister of Finance met with the Vancouver Board of Trade. Here is the message he was given as it appeared in the Province
"'The NDP government's inaugural budget, which will grab more than $250 million in extra taxes annually from the corporate sector, will break some companies and drive others to the United States,' Finance minister Glen Clark was told yesterday. 'For some B.C. companies this budget is the last straw that will break the camel's back, and it will drive others across the border into the U.S.,' said board chairman Bob Stewart. 'Good jobs and solid taxes do not come from a weak business sector,' he said."
The one thing that the investment community does not like is uncertainty: uncertainty over taxation, uncertainty over resource management and uncertainty over labour laws. The Premier may travel to Japan, Hong Kong and Europe seeking investment money and promise them no new taxes, but after this budget will they have faith in his word? It is clear this government is not fostering economic stability and confidence. There is no comprehensive long-term economic strat-
[ Page 550 ]
egy in it. There is no long-term job creation strategy in it -- no plans to make B.C. competitive.
The next two sections in this budget talk about the economic and fiscal outlooks. Basically it places the blame for our woes on the previous administration and on the federal government. This may be partially true, but the real question is: when is this government going to stop blaming others and start to take some action and responsibility of their own? We need a vision for the future, not rehashing of the past.
The next section deals with safeguarding basic services. Certainly nobody has any quarrel with that, but in health care, bashing doctors, the threat of a nurse's strike and hospital waiting-lists do not speak too strongly of that commitment. Certainly we must contain costs, but it is with the user and the abuser that we must concentrate our attention, not those who deliver the service. Education is another basic service, and I mentioned earlier the difficulties that school boards are facing and the situation at UBC. Some commitment! Social services is another basic service. This is one area the government had better play close attention to, since their economic policies will only add to those needing help.
We come now to controlling costs and improving efficiency -- again, worthwhile goals. They are going to save millions of dollars in the Transportation and Highways ministry by reducing overtime and contracting. Were these unnecessary expenses before, or will the safety of our highways be jeopardized because crews will not be called out when conditions deteriorate?
They're going to sell the government's Challenger jet, a white elephant for which the previous government could not find a buyer. Good luck. While we're on jets, it appears that this government still hasn't got a handle on the rather expensive use of government jets by cabinet ministers. There should be stricter controls on such use. Meetings should be scheduled when cheaper commercial flights can be used. Ministries should, wherever possible, coordinate their activities so that if the jets are used there will be a paying load aboard.
Another austerity measure brought in was the freezing of MLAs' and cabinet ministers' salaries and allowances. I have no quarrel with that. However, it doesn't go far enough. It didn't freeze at the 1991 level the various ministers' office allowances. It didn't freeze the allowance of the Premier's office, the travel allowances, the constituency office allowances and the salaries of the deputy ministers and the many bureaucrats.
The government reneged on the commitment to doctors' pensions. How about doing the same for that boondoggle, the MLAs' severance pay? While they're at it, make it retroactive.
There also appears to be some sleight of hand in this section. The Hazardous Waste Management Corporation is eliminated, but a hazardous waste component is added to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- which is where it should be, and it is therefore a good move. But it appears to be more of a lateral shift than a cost saving. Similarly with the Forest Resources Commission -- it's gone, but reappears under the Commission on Resources and Environment.
The next section on revenue measures has been fairly well covered by my previous statements. However, I should mention two more items. The corporation capital tax, as I read it, must be paid whether the corporation is profitable or losing money. This hardly seems conducive to helping the latter group over a business slump. This tax applies to Crown corporations like B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro. I wonder where they're going to get the money to pay this tax? Would it be from the users -- the taxpayers of B.C.?
Also, taxes on fax messages and legal fees lead us to wonder what they will tax next. I do seem to remember that a few years back, after the federal government introduced tax increases, there was a rash of bumper stickers that said: "Tax this, Brian." Are we in for a similar provincial protest over this budget?
Equality for women. They claim this to be one of their highest priorities. Indeed, they're moving very slowly in this direction for the five-to ten-year achievement target. For the construction industry, which is primarily men, they moved much faster. The fair wage policy will move already reasonably paid non-union workers to within 90 percent of their union counterparts immediately, with wages starting at $23.90. Tell that to the many women of this province who are earning a quarter of that figure. Where is the fair wage for the working poor? Where is a fair wage policy for nurses? Why are highways workers left out of this fair wage policy? We need a fair fair wage policy for all, not for a select few. Women, who are traditionally at the bottom of our economic ladder, do not seem to be helped by this budget.
On job creation, there seem to be three initiatives taken by this government. They're going to undertake a building program of needed social projects -- schools, hospitals and the like. I approve of that. These are indeed needed. While this creates needed jobs in the construction sector, these jobs are temporary in nature, lasting only as long as it takes to build the structure. What is needed are programs which will assist in the development of private business and which will provide permanent employment. I hope that the Working Opportunities Fund, WOF, will have some effect in that direction. The British Columbia endowment fund, which is funded from the former privatization benefits fund of the previous government, also seeks to assist business. I wish these two ventures well, but I fear the business tax imposed will negate any positive effect these initiatives might have.
Hon. Speaker, I have touched on only some of the concerns I have with this budget, but time is growing short. I have not mentioned the effect that removing the supplementary homeowner grant will have on increasing the property tax for many in this province, nor will I. I have not mentioned that the Vancouver School Board is planning to chop their health services budget to the students in that city due to budget shortfall, nor will I. And I won't mention that, while the government tells us they are reducing the deficit, they don't mention that the provincial debt is increasing by $1.8 billion. The interest on that, and the principal, every British Columbian will have to pay off in decades to come. No, I won't mention that.
[ Page 551 ]
In concluding, hon. Speaker, I find this to be a regressive budget. It does little to encourage and promote the development of business and jobs needed to pay for the social services that this budget claims to espouse. In fact, it does the reverse: it will discourage such investment. I regret that this budget does not present a more balanced and realistic approach to the economic realities facing this province.
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this budget. I find it regressive and shortsighted in the short term as well as the long term. Any businessman will tell you that you invest in areas that will give you a return, and that you keep your fixed costs down. This budget does just the opposite: we've increased our fixed costs in our liability, and at the same time we have substantially cut areas of the budget that would give this province a good return and build a good climate for economic growth.
If this province is going to turn around in terms of job creation and in terms of being able to afford good health care services and good educational programs, we're going to have to do it through continuing to stimulate opportunity through small business and diversification of our industrial resources. The most recent figures I have to show where this province has grown are 1988-89. They show that 78,300 jobs were created in this province by small business. Some 48 percent of those were created by businesses with less than 20 employees; 31 percent were created by businesses with less than five employees. I submit to you, hon. Speaker, that this budget has just capped -- in fact, decreased -- the opportunities to see more of those jobs created. This budget has substantially increased the fixed costs of small businesses.
Let me first turn to agriculture. This budget tells me that this government puts very little emphasis on agriculture. Not only has it decreased the budget but it has also substantially fixed the farmers' costs. A 12 percent increase on farmland to begin with and the removal of the supplementary homeowner's grants on their homes will add to that cost. The other issues with respect to that are the recent water rate hikes. I have a letter sent to the hon. John Cashore, Minister of Environment, where the B.C. Cattlemen's Association is pointing out that these water rate increases of 35 to 55 percent will substantially cripple the industry.
Earlier today we heard the Premier stand up and talk about the fact that his government had increased the minimum wage. While I find that commendable, the Premier and his government are on the one hand putting money in one pocket and taking it out with the other hand with the increases in taxation. In fact, I submit to you, hon. Speaker, that in real terms the minimum wage earner is worse off today, after this budget, than they were before. The water increases to B.C. Hydro alone will substantially increase those individuals' costs in terms of providing power for their homes. The increase on small business through the capital tax will directly transfer to higher costs for those consumers. I submit to you that they are worse off today than they were three weeks ago.
[5:30]
Let's talk just a little bit about the Highways budget. Let me try to make my point about the need to invest in something that's going to give us a return. Ten years ago I recall watching a program where the mayor of New York stood up and told his constituency that within ten years tourism was going to become the number one industry in his area. I have heard members on both sides of this House stress the importance of tourism over the last ten years in this province. I submit to you that a decrease in capital spending and improvements to highways will have an extremely negative impact on tourism and will limit the opportunities before us.
Not only that, it does something more direct. We will lose 3,000 jobs in that area this year. In turn, we get 1,545 new government jobs, due to the increases in FTEs. I submit to you, hon. Speaker, that that is directly creating additional impact on our business sector and our opportunity to grow. If we are going to revive the economy of British Columbia, it is not going to be by increasing the size of government. It has to be by decreasing the size of government and allowing taxes to drop, thereby allowing a positive climate for the investor and the entrepreneur to make his dreams come into reality.
An Hon. Member: What about her dreams?
L. Fox: His or her dreams. Sorry about that. I stand corrected.
We have once again, in terms of putting up roadblocks.... The Municipal Affairs budget is of extreme concern to me. Earlier I heard the previous mayor of Victoria stand up and speak about the impacts on the municipalities. I'm of the opinion that one of three things must have happened during the formulation of this budget. Either the Municipal Affairs minister had no input, or else he did not understand the situation and the impacts that were being created, or else he just didn't care. Why would he have allowed municipalities to take such a hit, in terms of the reduction of the supplementary homeowner's grant as well as of the revenue-sharing grant? All over the province we see the dramatic impacts that that's having.
The previous mayor of Victoria talked about the need to improve the environmental aspects through the rebuilding of infrastructure. Well, I submit to you, hon. Speaker, that this budget negates that opportunity. The hardships placed on the municipalities through this budget will make it virtually impossible for them to meet the 75 percent portion that they have to meet in order to see those infrastructures improved. I suggest that this is not going to improve the environmental standards of those communities. It's going to do the reverse.
I'm extremely concerned as well about health care, but before I go into that, I'd just like to read into the record a couple of quotes that I found rather ironic, given the situation of today. The one came out of Hansard from the now Minister of Labour when he was sitting in opposition: "Families who own property in British Columbia are now paying too much or a disproportionate share of the school taxes." Another quote out of Hansard, May 22, 1991, by the now Minister of Finance: "This budget contains a $208 million tax
[ Page 552 ]
increase at a time when British Columbians need tax relief." I submit to you, hon. Speaker, that today is a whole lot worse than it was a year ago, and that British Columbians did not need a tax increase today any more than they needed it a year ago.
With respect to Municipal Affairs once again, this government, through its actions the day before the budget was brought down.... For your information, hon. Speaker and members in the House, I had the privilege of sitting on the UBCM executive when it formulated what was known as a rainy-day fund providing for the years in which revenues to the province had decreased. In a joint effort, the government of the day and the municipalities joined together in formulating this fund. I will read two quotes to you from a UBCM executive statement dated April 2, 1992: "Consultation, a hallmark of open government, was absent from any of the provincial government's plans affecting local government. The changes to the unconditional revenue-sharing stabilization regulation, a carefully crafted product of joint consultation, was changed the day before the budget by cabinet without notice or discussion with us." I find that appalling. An additional statement: "Trust or partnership that was embodied in our agreement to set aside a portion of our revenue-sharing funds in a rainy-day fund has been seriously eroded by the unconditional grant regulation changes." Once again, I have to point out that the minister was either unaware until this point in time, or he didn't care.
I have to get back to my initial statement: if we're going to encourage economic development, if we're going to create jobs within this province, if we're ever going to take people off the dole and give them an opportunity to do what they want to do most -- that is, go to work -- then we're going to have to do it with less government, not more government. I have to say that I'm absolutely and emphatically opposed to this budget because it does just the opposite.
Let me talk just a little about lotteries. Much has been said about patronizing within the lotteries. You know, I come from a small community, and there have been many small communities over the past several years that have had opportunities to build complexes and upgrade their recreational and cultural facilities and other opportunities through these grants. I want to bring to the this House's attention one particular case that happened in 1989. At that time it was an NDP-held riding. The community of Atlin requested $490,000 from the GO B.C. grant on a total initiative of $550,000 to improve and bring up to date a curling facility which was literally falling down. Had we gone to today's regulations, that community -- a very small community of less than 500 people -- would have had to raise well in excess of $300,000. I submit to you, hon. Speaker, that the community would not have had their curling club. The government of the day saw the need and was able to address it by diversifying the formula and meeting the need. There are many other small communities throughout this province that need similar respect from this government, or they're never going to achieve the recreational or cultural amenities.
The other issue I want to talk to you about very briefly -- and I'm really concerned because it has been literally taken out of this budget -- is the breakaway lottery. If there was ever a lottery that was designed to help the local communities that the dollars come out of, it was that lottery. Not only that, hon. Speaker, but it would have helped reduce the liability of those communities on this level of government as well as on the municipal level of government. Unfortunately, this government did not recognize that of the dollars that were spent within those communities, a good share of them went right back into very good services within those communities. It really disappoints me that this government saw fit to scrub it.
In short and in final, I have to say that this budget with one hand puts money in one pocket and with the other hand takes it out of the other pocket. In the long term, we're going to find the people of British Columbia are going to be far worse off tomorrow than they were yesterday.
K. Jones: It is an honour for me to take my place and debate once again on behalf of the citizens of Surrey-Cloverdale. This time I'll address these remarks in reply to the budget address that the Minister of Finance introduced just a few days ago. I have a few remarks on the budget itself in my capacity as a member, then a few remarks as well in my capacity as official opposition critic of the portfolio of Government Services.
First, on the budget in general, I think the majority of adult citizens in Surrey-Cloverdale are not impressed with this budget for at least three major reasons.
Firstly, your removal of at least $72 million from the account for the reduction of property taxation and the resulting placement of this burden of school operations on the property owner in Surrey-Cloverdale is very much a step backwards and against every word uttered by a New Democrat on this subject over the last 20 years.
I'm getting the $72 million figure from page 129 in the '92-93 estimates under the heading "Grants to Reduce Property Taxes" -- otherwise known as "son of homeowner grant and the former supplemental homeowner grant." Last year there was $472 million in this vote. This year, with all your changes, only $400 million was included. We have done some checking and find that wherever you go in my constituency, this will have a major impact on the over 10,000 households in my area.
The second thing the voters of Surrey-Cloverdale have against this budget is the total disregard for the problems of cross-border shopping. As my colleague from Langley, our critic for Economic Development, has said many times in press releases and in letters to the minister, this problem needs to be addressed in some form of an inquiry. We need to get at the causes of cross-border shopping, look at the price of gas, milk and agricultural products, listen to the consumers and then take some action -- or we might as well move these buildings south of the border as well. That is where everyone else is going, thanks to this govern-
[ Page 553 ]
ment's actions on taxes and inactions on other things I've just mentioned.
The third reason the people of Surrey-Cloverdale are disappointed in this budget is the lack of action on job creation and in positive steps towards creating a proper environment for economic growth. I might thank the member for Delta South, our opposition Finance critic, for his words on this subject on the day following the introduction of the budget. He said:
"The budget should form the basis of an economic plan for this province -- a central pillar in our reconstruction and prosperity. This budget isn't that. There is no recognition that there needs to be prosperity to fund social programs, and that without economic prosperity we won't be able to afford social programs. The budget should help create that prosperity. There are virtually no measures designed to stimulate the economy and increase our economic base. To the NDP the economy is simply a cow; they milk it, but they don't know that it has to be fed."
I might also thank the leader of the official opposition for his words on this subject last Wednesday. He said: "We have to look at the whole approach taken by this government with respect to the maintenance of investment potential in British Columbia."
If we put in the corporate capital tax, if we remove the homeowner grant and therefore increase the demand on the property owners of British Columbia by 16.5 percent, and if we are not going to look at the income tax implications of this budget -- with every individual having to pay increased tax either directly on income or with respect to the service taxes that have been imposed against them -- we in the official opposition find it very difficult to understand how this government thinks there's going to be enough liquidity in terms of the dollars that people still have in disposable income for the kind of investment that will fuel the 3 percent increase they are projecting.
In general, the government has had too much to say in the budget about holding down the growth of the deficit and not enough about keeping expenditures down. The Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia has been one of many organizations to comment publicly on their similar concern. In a press release circulated to all MLAs on budget day, CGA president, Mrs. Maureen Holloway, said:
"It concerns us when government expenditures will increase by 6.8 percent while the B.C. economy is forecast to grow by only 3 percent. The philosophy of cutting waste and spending smarter on such things as value-for-money auditing are important principles for the new government to adopt. Our major concern, however, is that business has been targeted to carry more of the tax burden. At a time when the government's figures show that all sectors of the economy are suffering, it seems risky, at best, to add to the costs of doing business. At worst, it sends a message that B.C. may not be the best place to do business. As an example, the capital tax is not based on profitability; it simply tells potential investors that they will pay tax in B.C. whether or not they can make money."
President Holloway also pointed out:
"Despite corporate tax increases of up to 11 percent, budget documents project revenue from business will only increase 4.9 percent. How can the government justify increasing the burden on business at a time when their own budget documents clearly show that business profits are declining? B.C.'s CGAs were also disappointed that the business tax increases were based only on comparisons with other provinces. While there is much discussion in the budget about the global economic environment, the justification for tax increases totally ignores the fact that our real competition is south of the border."
There is another reason why the public of British Columbia should be against this budget, and that is the legacy of debt being left to the next generation of taxpayers. I say it is the next generation of taxpayers, because obviously this government has made no plan to reduce the total accumulated debt that, come March 31, 1993, will amount to $22,811,000,000, according to the government's own budget documents. Even if you only deal with the current public debt, this budget raises the total public debt, as of March 31, 1993, to $7,528,000,000. This legacy of debt being left to the future generation of taxpayers is the worst kind of legacy any government can ever leave behind.
If you take the total debt to March 31, 1993, including Crown corporation debt, of $22,811,000,000 and divide it by the number of children between the ages of five and 17 years of age today in British Columbia, the legacy of debt per future taxpayer amounts to $42,320 per person. And even if you just stick to the current public debt, not including the Crown corporations, it comes to $14,000 for every future taxpayer. Talk about legacies. Talk about a better way!
Another item in general provincial terms on this budget is the lack of provisions on behalf of 35,000 members represented by the Hospital Employees' Union. This includes the membership of 28,000 women workers in the health care industry in this province. A letter dated March 21, 1992 from an LPN in my constituency of Surrey-Cloverdale says:
"The New Democratic Party told us that they supported the aims and objectives of my union, so we worked very hard to ensure their election. At long last, workers had hope. After the election, I expected that our new government would make a difference when we went to the bargaining table with the HLRA. I am disheartened that nothing has improved. The HLRA is continuing to behave as if the Socreds are still in power. How is it that the NDP supports pay equity, and yet the HLRA offers us far less than half of what the Socreds gave the B.C. Government Employees' Union? We want real action and real money to end wage discrimination."
Do you see how this government has raised expectations? Do you see how this government is seen to be leaving another legacy of an all-time record of broken promises, of lack of trust in what politicians say?
I guess my final comment, before I go onto the Ministry of Government Services, is one more pitch on behalf of the citizens of Surrey-Cloverdale, who want to see this government make some effort to maintain the location and operation of the Transportation Museum in Cloverdale. If I could read into the record a couple of letters from residents of the area.... The first is from Wayne Maure of 184th Street in Surrey.
The Speaker: Hon. member, are they short letters?
K. Jones: Yes, they are. I'm just reading.
[ Page 554 ]
"Sir:" -- a rather sexist salutation, I know, but at least it shows that some respect for his elected representative is still there.
"Please vigorously oppose the NDP plan to shut down or move the Transportation Museum. There can be no benefit gained by moving this collection away from the easy access afforded both the residents of the lower mainland and the American tourists using the border only six miles away. Cloverdale, with its antique stores, location and heritage themes, is the ideal place for the historic Transportation Museum."
The second letter I have selected to quote from is from a Rosemary Weed in Cloverdale. Her fax reads:
"As a business person in Cloverdale, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism for their thoughtful removal of the Transportation Museum from Cloverdale. With the stroke of a pen, we have been effectively eliminated as a tourist centre. It was hoped that we could bring life to our community by conjoining the Transportation Museum, the Museum of Flight, the Surrey Museum and possibly one or two others, to draw tourists to the area and help bolster our faltering economic business core. For two years many of us have worked tirelessly to keep the spirit alive in Cloverdale, a town which is already well-rooted in history. Apparently we have worked for nothing. Say it isn't so. Surely the great, open-minded NDP would not sink to such petty behaviour just because we voted Liberal! The loss of the Transportation Museum is an effective slap in the face to a small community endeavouring to stay alive. Thanks again for nothing."
Hon. Speaker, I'd like to add just one further letter to better illustrate this. It was received recently from a grade 4 student from Cloverdale Elementary, who wrote:
"The Cloverdale Transportation Museum means a lot to me because it was the last place my grandfather took me before he died a couple of months ago. It helps me to remember what a great man he was and also it helps me to relive our past and see all the good cars they had a long time ago. I also learn a lot too. It is too bad it is closing, because I always had a really good time when I was there. I will miss looking across the street and seeing the museum."
Their school is across the street.
That is how angry my residents are with respect to this decision. There has been no apparent attempt to come up with a formula for a local society to either take over the assets, or at least operate the museum on a non-profit volunteer basis. I have stacks of letters in support of this museum staying in Cloverdale.
I acknowledge that there has been some assistance from the Minister for Government Services.
K. Jones moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada