Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1992

Volume 1, Number 22

[ Page 555 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to introduce a delegation that's visiting today from my constituency of Saanich South. I have the pleasure of introducing the grade 5 class from St. Joseph's School and their teacher, Ms. Buckler. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure to introduce two people from my constituency of Peace River North; the president of the BCTF in Fort Nelson, Stew Savard, and the president of the BCTF in Fort St. John, Ellen Ellis. Would the House make them truly welcome.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

K. Jones: I'd like to continue the debate on the budget. First of all, I'd like to address some words to the issue of education and the impact of this budget on the Surrey area. I hope I have the support of the other members from Surrey on this issue -- members from the government side -- recognizing the lack of funding to the Surrey School District and its very rapid growth.

I'd like to quote an article from the Surrey-North Delta Now of March 14 that describes the frustration of the school district and, in particular, a member of that school district, school trustee Jack Finnbogason. He is a member of the NDP-aligned Surrey Civic Electors. They hold five of the seven school district board seats.

"Finnbogason...said Thursday he was astounded that after years of lobbying Social Credit, and now NDP, governments, Surrey is actually further behind in school funding. The irony, he pointed out, is that while some of Surrey's complaints with Victoria's funding system have been addressed, the district has still fallen further below the provincial average. Surrey's basic operating budget for 1992-93 will be $231.4 million, or $5,036 per pupil, the lowest rate of B.C.'s 75 school districts and $622 less than the provincial average. It's pretty disappointing to go from 89.7 percent of the provincial average to 89.2."

I would like to go on to the area of my critic ministry, the Ministry of Government Services. In this ministry, we have a grab-bag of everything from the B.C. Lottery Corporation to the B.C. Buildings Corporation to the B.C. Systems Corporation to the Purchasing Commission to Service Quality B.C. to postal services to air services -- i.e. jets -- to protocol, to Queen's Printer, to processing and custody of official documents and the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. There are many others beyond that. Those are the areas that will come under scrutiny from the official opposition, including the lack of a formal provincial secretary.

In general today we will be giving the minister formal advance notice of some early concerns of what I see and what I don't see in this budget and accompanying documents. It won't be everything, but it is a start on some of the major points. Firstly, with the B.C. Lottery Corporation we need a more up-to-date annual report. Certainly there could be money in this budget to allow this corporation to keep a more timely accounting. The most recent one available for us is the 1989-90 fiscal year. This is really not good enough. The new government should see that this is corrected as soon as possible. We should really have a '90-91 report tabled in this House prior to approval of this budget; the minister should light a fire under her staff and tell them that she wants the 1991-92 report tabled by the time this session adjourns as well. Don't let them hide behind the rules; just do it in the name of open and timely government.

Secondly, let's save some money from the projected deficit on annual reports and just forget the coloured photographs, graphics and glossy paper, and stick to the basics. You could save about $30,000 on this one decision and get that deficit down.

Thirdly, let's have an all-party committee examine where we are going with the hidden lottery-tax game. The 1988-89 annual report notes that, as a percentage of provincial personal income, sales reached 0.916 percent in '89. That's only three years ago. Is it really beneficial to our society to have that amount of money -- $555 million in 1989 -- coming out of personal disposable income, after tax? This Parliament should really address that question.

Fourthly, while we do have existing lottery programs, I have stated in a private member's statement that we need a better way for charities, under the breakopen program. Plans announced to date by this government are not good enough and will result in an overall drop in income from this program because of the loss of hard-working volunteers from the many charitable organizations that you are throwing out in the cold. I will not read all the letters into the record today that I have received on the subject of breakopen lotteries, but I may well have to do so when we get to estimates if there has been no improvement in how the charities are being dealt with.

[10:15]

Fifthly, what is not in this budget, under Government Services, is a plan to release quarterly statements about the organizations which have applied for lottery funding and have been turned down. It is something the former critic asked for during the 1990 estimates debate 

[ Page 556 ]

and something which I will also ask this minister to consider.

Hon. Speaker, I'll go on to the B.C. Systems Corporation. This group has found a better way. Their most recent annual report is for the 1990-91 fiscal year. That's not perfect, but at least they're closer to the mark than the Lottery Corporation. This Crown corporation should also be asked to table their 1991-92 annual report with the Legislature before this session adjourns. Under the law they may have a year after their year end to table, but that law must have been written when we were still using quill pens. They can do a better job on public information, and we must demand that.

By the way, the first thing that strikes a new critic in looking at this annual report is the $29 million white elephant that they still claim as an asset as of March 31, 1991, on their balance sheet. During estimates we will want to know just exactly what the government intends to do with that item, and whether or not rents from other ministries that take up most of the space in that building are covering the annual interest and maintenance charges on 4000 Seymour Place in Victoria. In the name of open and honest government, don't you think it's time the press be allowed inside that beautiful structure to see who is really paying the rent?

Separately, on the B.C. Systems Corporation, we will be looking for answers in the estimates and in this budget to charges being made in the private sector that fiscal strength backed by legislation gives B.C. Systems Corporation an invincible status, which dictates the practices of private sector business in many ways and negatively affects their strength and growth in the high-tech industry.

That economic growth in B.C. must come from the private sector. The high-tech industry is one of B.C.'s growth industries which has the potential to take on national and international competition. Without strength on the home turf, B.C. will not be able to compete in the national and international marketplace.

Because of the framework of the System Act, it is charged that B.C. Systems Corporation is not in a position to take on this competition. While their accumulated expertise and financial strength are perhaps helping the B.C. government's fiscal situation, it is argued that the Systems Corporation can not be utilized to build and contribute to a stronger long-term economic outlook in B.C. We see no money in the budget to examine those charges.

It is also stated that the B.C. economy consists largely of two types of businesses: branch operations of eastern-based or international companies and collections of small consumer businesses. Neither of these business structures stimulates the development of high-tech innovation or makes much use of consultancy practices within the high-tech industry. In fact, the only major utilizer of these types of services and activities is the B.C. government.

However, it is being argued that, at present, supply of these services and activities is dominated and dictated by B.C. Systems Corporation, which may well be having a detrimental effect on the B.C. economy as a whole.

I'd like to go on to B.C. Buildings Corporation. Here again, at least they have managed to get out their 1990-91 annual report, although it too is on glossy paper, except for the cover. They have refrained from too many full-coloured photographs. I guess they just don't rake in the money that the Lottery Corporation does. It would be nice if they cut the cost of producing the annual report and just gave this Legislature some up-to-date financial statements to March 31, 1992, by the adjournment of this session. If these three annual reports alone, plus the B.C. Purchasing Commission's report, were to come out on normal paper -- no fancy designer, no fancy writer, no fancy printing; just a financial statement and message from the administration -- I predict this government could take another $100,000 off the present 1992-93 deficit.

As a new critic, something strikes me right away as I examine the 1990-91 annual report that is available. When looking under income-producing properties, net book value of properties that supposedly in total cost $855 million, depreciation with accumulated depreciation down to $597 million, one is forced to ask, with the budgeting of this government and the accuracy of total debt, including such Crown corporations as B.C. Buildings Corporation: "Just what is going on here?" Or at least, could the public, through this critic, have an explanation of the accounting procedure in play here and how this all impacts on the true fiscal position of this corporation and the true value in today's market of these properties?

We also need to know during estimates the total value of income-producing properties under construction for 1991-92 and what is being projected for 1992-93. This all has relevance to the budget document presented, for if this corporation is overbuilding, it will be the taxpayer and the bottom line of this budget that is affected. We also need to know the total amount of square footage available today, which ministries it is assigned to, at what rents and terms it has been assigned, and the present vacancy rate.

I argue that these are not the types of questions appropriate for the order paper, but they are very much the sort of thing we will need answers to during the estimates before we can pass this minister's budget. I have further questions for the minister which I will bring up in estimates. Thank you.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's indeed a pleasure to enter this debate on the budget, because it's truly a remarkable document that we are debating here today, a budget that is both responsible and fair. It is responsible to future generations of British Columbians, and it's fair to British Columbians today. That was the greatest challenge that this government had when we developed the budget in challenging circumstances over the last few months, and when we developed the road map to recovery that we are now following. We had to be fair, and yet we had to be responsible.

This challenge was made all the more difficult by the state of the provinces finances when we took office this winter. We saw the $1.7 billion deficit that we had been left -- and it was rising. To lay before the members of 

[ Page 557 ]

the Legislature and the people of British Columbia the true facts of our finances, we immediately appointed an independent financial review to open this province's books for the first time ever. That review found that we were in worse shape than any of us had imagined. The real deficit for last year wasn't $1.7 billion; it was $2.46 billion -- not the $395 million that had been projected by the Social Credit government. Without any government action this deficit was projected to reach $2.8 billion for 1992-93 and $3.2 billion for the year after. We also saw that provincial expenditures were growing by an average of 12 percent over the last three years -- far in excess of inflation, revenue or growth. Clearly that disturbing trend had to stop. On March 26, when the budget was introduced, it did.

At the same time as tackling the challenge of rebuilding British Columbia's economic health for the future, this government recognized that it was time to get our priorities right in this province. It was time to find a balance between responsible economic management and caring for people. This budget does that. It gets our priorities right. We've maintained essential services for people. For example, health care spending is up $409 million, or 7.4 percent. Medical service premiums have been frozen. An additional $64 million is provided to develop innovative community-based alternatives.

Education spending will rise by $300 million, or 9.1 percent, and tuition fees have been frozen as we review the issue of post-secondary financing. In Social Services, funding is up by $231 million, or 19 percent, to meet the increasing statutorily driven need that's caused by the federal fiscal policies of a too-high dollar, a too-high interest rate and the terrible off-loading of federal deficit and responsibilities on to British Columbia's taxpayers. The impact of the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan on British Columbia's taxpayers is to the tune of $420 million.

Hon. Speaker, in getting our priorities right we have made a major commitment to equality for women in British Columbia. We've established a Ministry of Women's Equality. For pay equity in the direct public service we've allocated an additional $32 million. Another $29 million is being set aside for a new initiative aimed at wage parity for the lowest-paid in the public service. Child care support is up by $17 million, and services to deal with violence against women and children has received another $6 million. By getting the priorities right for this province, this government has made it clear that people will not be forgotten. People are a priority.

Hon. Speaker, better government is also a priority. In serving people better, we have to make government more responsible and more responsive. That means cutting waste and mismanagement. In this budget, that's what we've done. We've cut the growth of spending in half with the lowest growth rate in government spending in five years: from 12 to 13 percent increases -- the highest in the country -- to 6.8 percent this year and more next year. We will save more than $40 million a year by taking some commonsense measures, starting with MLAs' salaries being frozen for the second year. We've revised bidding procedures by the Purchasing Commission for a $5 million savings. We've eliminated underutilized government corporations' facilities and positions, like the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

We've cut government advertising by $5 million. We've reduced health care costs by more than $1.7 million by adding another air ambulance and using our air ambulances more efficiently. As well as cutting waste, we are providing better management of the tax dollars, using our resources to meet real needs in our communities. For example, we're directing half of lottery proceeds into the new special Health account, which will assist in dealing with the long waiting-lists for important surgery and cancer treatment, and in bringing about innovative community-based health care measures.

As we saw previously, we've shifted funding from medals and certificates into funding services for women and children with the core funding for women's centres throughout British Columbia. We're also redirecting superficial multicultural funding of the past into $1.5 million for real programs to aid new British Columbians.

In this government we are looking, across the board, at more efficient and effective ways of delivering services to our people in communities. It's called spending smarter, and on March 26 we launched that process.

On March 26 this budget also brought another new factor to government in this province. It's called fairness. I've already explained the mess that we found in the province's books when we took office. I've outlined some of the measures we've taken to make sure that the needs of working people and families are being met. This government recognizes that rebuilding the economic vitality of this province must be done in a fair and balanced way.

The burden of paying our way out of the financial mess that we've been left with cannot be shouldered exclusively by ordinary people or working people throughout this province. It is the responsibility of everyone to pay their fair share. That's why a key ingredient of this budget was fair and balanced taxes. We've held the line on taxes for ordinary people; 92 percent of all taxpayers will not pay any more income tax this year than they did last year. As I said prior to the election, the wealthiest 8 percent would be asked to pay their fair share through a high-income surcharge, to pay down the deficit and to provide the basic services that our citizens want.

[10:30]

To make it possible for all sectors to contribute fully to our economic recovery, we've brought corporate taxes back to 1987 levels, and we resisted raising the sales tax and restaurant tax. That has left hundreds of millions of dollars at work on Main Street in communities across our province. Keeping these taxes low means jobs and economic activity for the small business sector throughout our province.

This budget shows that this government means business. It's a businesslike budget from a businesslike government. But it's not an end in itself to clean up the financial mess, to spend smarter, to cut out waste, to get 

[ Page 558 ]

our spending priorities right, to have a fair share of the tax burden paid on our deficit, and to maintain the essential health and education services. That's not an end in itself, as some politicians would see it in this country. It's a means to an end, and that end is a better future for our children. To that end, it's no longer acceptable for governments simply to redistribute wealth and keep cutting more pieces from a smaller pie. That's why we've taken steps to encourage the creation of wealth throughout this province, because it's by wealth creation -- capturing the skills and the innovation of our hard-working entrepreneurial citizens -- that we'll be able to expand the economic pie in an ecologically sustainable way. To that end we've worked the Working Opportunities Fund that will assist businesses across the province. We've kept corporate taxes competitive. We've offered incentives for future investment.

One of the government's priorities in following our road map to recovery, and one that I have made clear in the various financial centres of the world and here in British Columbia, is that we want to create a stable investment climate. This budget contributes a great deal to that stability. For years the business community and others have been urging governments to get their deficits under control. This is very wise advice, which unfortunately has been largely ignored in British Columbia until now. This government takes fighting the deficit seriously. There's good reason for this resolve. To this government, the debt represents the worst kind of waste and mismanagement. Interest charges on the debt that has accumulated in this province through years of financial mismanagement will soon reach $800 million per year, with much of that money leaving British Columbia. That's more than $90,000 per hour just to pay the interest. This government knows that's wrong. In building for a secure future for British Columbians, we must and will eliminate that debt.

On March 26, this government launched a recovery program that is the cornerstone for a future sound and stable development program in this province. This budget recognizes the important role that we can all play in building and rebuilding, with the business community, the entrepreneur, the individual investor and the worker all contributing to a new security for B.C.'s people. This budget is quite an accomplishment for our province. It's creative. It provides for stability. It's fair, and it's balanced. In conclusion, it is a successful first step on our roap map to recovery.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm proud to stand here as the representative of Kamloops in this House. I would like to first offer my congratulations and add my voice to the many who have congratulated you, hon. Speaker, on your position. I'd like to extend congratulations to all MLAs on this side and the other who stood, fought for election and are serving here today.

Kamloops is, relatively speaking, a small geographical riding. It doesn't cover a huge fraction of the province, as some of the members' ridings do. It mainly encompasses Kamloops and extends to the communities of Cherry Creek and Savona, and to the Skeetchestn Indian band.

"Kamloops" comes from a Shuswap word meaning a meeting of the waters. It's been a trading centre for a long period of time, and a transportation centre -- and remains that. It's a transportation centre not only for the rivers but for the roads and rail lines of B.C. With the arrival of European immigrants it became a ranching centre, and it continues to be. But those are only some of the economic activities in my riding. We also have mining and the forest industry, and both of those sectors are under substantial stress right now. We must take care in the policies that we formulate that we lend assistance as necessary to create vibrant conditions in those two areas.

Kamloops counts on the tourism dollar to a substantial degree, as we are on transportation corridors. I invite you all to come to Kamloops in the summer of 1993 to join us in the Canada Games, which will be held there. We will be recognizing the 100th anniversary of Kamloops at the same time. By all means come, all of you. We'll have a party.

An Hon. Member: Does it rain there?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We never have rain. It's always ideal summer weather -- and winter weather, for that matter.

Fundamentally, Kamloops is a city of workers, and we will prosper on the basis of the work that all of us produce. We must also keep foremost in mind that Kamloops was an aboriginal centre long before it was a non-aboriginal centre. The Kamloops Indian band has turned a residential school into a vibrant cultural centre for the aboriginal people. It's a task that they should take great pride in. The All Nations Trust is active in assembling a pool of capital that native corporations can use for their own endeavours. Near the other end of the riding the Skeetchestn band has a salmon hatchery that they have invested in and are operating.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

You can't mention Kamloops, of course, without giving some recognition to people who have represented that riding in the past. I guess we would have to start with a small, fast gentleman -- Flying Phil Gaglardi -- who left behind him not only some roads, but some contrails from planes and a few speeding tickets. He served as mayor of Kamloops for a term a few years back and is still active in community affairs. Mr. Gaglardi's political career, however, was put to an end by Gerry Anderson of this party. Gerry is still active in politics in Kamloops, and I'm proud to say he serves on my executive committee today and has served on a number of other executive committees. Most recently, Claude Richmond was our representative, and he worked hard at that. Not only did he acquit himself well in this House, but through the Kamloops Rube Band he also plays a mean horn, and drives a mean cycle at times.

On the federal side, I also want to pay tribute to the first elected native member in the federal parliament, Len Marchand, who is now in the Senate and also continues to be active in political life in Kamloops. 

[ Page 559 ]

Nelson Riis has represented us very ably for the last decade. A member of a good political party, he continues to fight hard for British Columbian and Kamloops interests.

The list, however, wouldn't be complete without mentioning Kenna Cartwright. She served on a variety of boards in Kamloops and on city council. She ran for this party in the 1986 campaign even though she was suffering. She subsequently went into retirement for a few years, came back, ran against six or seven men in the last municipal election, ended up with a total that surpassed all of them combined and served as our mayor. She lost her long battle with cancer and passed away within a year of taking office, but it was a measure of the woman that she took the suffering and hardships and still served the people of Kamloops.

I'd also like to thank other folks who helped me personally, such as the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson, Fred Jackson; Nelson Riis, who lent a hand through the campaign; and my campaign managers, Pat McNamara and Keith Simmonds, who devoted long hours of service to that. As well, I must remember my own family -- my wife Alice and daughters Lynne and Jennifer -- because those of us here all know the burden that politics places on our families. Without recognizing them, I think we are not recognizing anything, so I take care to do so.

I was personally converted to the New Democrats with a handshake and a few brief words with Tommy Douglas at a meeting in Edmonton almost 20 years ago. I had always admired the man, but having had a chance to spend a few minutes with him after a major public meeting, I was so impressed that I couldn't have voted or stood otherwise from those few moments on. I am proud to belong to the party that gave Canada old-age pensions, unemployment insurance and the best health care system in the world. I'm proud to belong to the B.C. party that gave British Columbia Crown-controlled auto insurance; the B.C. Ambulance Service, which is world renowned for its quality; and the agricultural land reserve. All of these were such popular pieces of legislation that the Social Credit Party didn't dare disassemble any of them.

I'm proud to belong to Mike Harcourt's government. In a few short months, we have started to clean up the mess that we inherited. Look at some of the ideas that we have put forward.

In Aboriginal Affairs we have tackled the difficult problem of taking the first steps to move out of the courts and on to the negotiating table, where it belongs.

From the viewpoint of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, we have already settled several outstanding trespass issues. I've been honoured to attend a feast in my honour by the Gitsegukla band near Hazelton. We settled a problem with them in a matter of a few weeks, or a month or two at the most, that had been outstanding for 15 years. We will continue until we have settled all trespass issues.

In Agriculture we've cleaned up the golf course mess that we inherited, and we've taken the first steps towards the re-establishment of the integrity of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission.

We've got our priorities right in health care. In a tough budget year we have increased spending in health care, we've made major commitments towards implementing the recommendations of the Seaton report, we're shifting to community care, and we will ensure that women everywhere in this province have the right to choose.

[10:45]

In Women's Equality we've established a dedicated voice at the table to make sure that women's issues are always foremost in the minds of cabinet when addressing issues. We've established core funding for women's centres around the province. Our appointments to boards and commissions represent the commitment that we have toward gender equality. As well, we've taken important first steps along the path of wage equity.

In Environment, Lands and Parks, we've commenced the process of doubling the area dedicated to parks. We've taken some dramatic first steps in curtailing pulp mill pollution as well, but we've done so in a responsible manner, giving adequate lead time to the industry so they can put the new processes in place at an acceptable cost. They will have to do that to meet the new demands of the consumers of that area.

In Forests we've cooled the battle between environmentalists and loggers. We have set up an excellent procedure under Stephen Owen in the Commission on Resources and Environment that will show the way out of the thicket that we have been in not only with respect to forestry but also with respect to the mining industry. That initiative is welcomed in both the forestry and mining sectors. We've reduced the allowable annual cut, which is an important step. We have implemented log-around strategies in some vital areas.

In Education we're also showing our priorities through an increase in funding, not only by covering the full anticipated increase in operating costs and usage but also by going ahead in areas of major capital programs. We'll be able to help out with some of the seismic upgrading in the lower mainland as well. Those are both vital issues.

From my own background in the consulting engineering business, I know that it's necessary to be fiscally responsible. I know that there are times when tough decisions have to be made, and we had some tough decisions to make to get the deficit under control. Through this budget that the Finance minister has introduced, we are on the way toward getting the deficit under control.

We have controlled the increases in spending and we have brought the deficit down a full billion dollars from what it had been anticipated to be. It's a tough budget, but it's a fair budget, and at the same time it will have very little impact on the average citizen of British Columbia who lives in an average home. We are asking the people who can afford it to pay a little more. That's the progressive thing to do; that's the NDP thing to do, and we've done it.

No doubt some of the more enlightened members opposite would like to support this budget, and when the time comes they'll have the opportunity to show their support.

[ Page 560 ]

If we are going to maintain our economic position in the world and if we are going to maintain our social programs, we're going to have to put an end to the incessant fighting between labour, industry and government. We're all in this together, and either we're going to succeed together or we will fail miserably together. It is only through cooperation, not exploitation, that this can be accomplished.

The key to prosperity is productivity, but the key to productivity is a well-trained, well-paid and well-respected workforce. That's the road not only to higher productivity but to higher profits, and hence we see companies with enlightened management all over the continent moving in that direction toward sharing the wealth with their workers and not exploiting them. We will not permit exploitation of workers to carry on in British Columbia.

All of that, I guess, brings me to our fundamental job, the job of all of us who sit in this chamber, and that's good government. Good government means good initiatives from this side of the House and, yes, it means good criticism from the members opposite. Let's have a good go at each other in this debate, but let's also strive to listen to each other and, at the end of the day, to have a degree of respect for each other as well.

If the hon. Liberal members really listen, in the end they will probably adopt most of our programs. That has been the history of the Liberal Party: we float the ideas, they steal them, legislate them. But that's okay because, of course, most Liberals are just NDPers stuck in first gear. Let's raise the level of debate in this House a bit, and let's take the first step toward restoring the reputation of this House in the eyes of the public.

We're all here to give public service. The ones from the previous House who were here for their own gain are all gone. They took a few good members with them, but a few good members were returned as well. Some even substantially improved on Andy Warhol's prediction of 15 minutes of fame for everybody, and on the basis of eight seconds of fame have risen to high positions.

I'm looking forward to contributing to the debate in this House, and I'm looking forward to working with my opposition critic, with the critic from the third party and even with the would-be critic, the buddy MLA from the Liberal side of the House. I'm looking forward to working with all of them. I'm looking forward to what I know will be four years of good government, and then we'll thrash the members opposite and do it all again.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

U. Dosanjh: You see in the gallery 58 students from grade 11 of Tupper Secondary School, which is in my constituency of Vancouver-Kensington. As you see, it's a multicultural school typical of Vancouver-Kensington. There are three teachers with them today: Mr. Pajala, Mr. Pearce and Mr. Smith. This is a grade 11 social studies class, so they are studying government. Mind you, members, they're obviously studying you while they're in the gallery. So behave, but make them feel welcome, please.

C. Tanner: I rise this morning to address the House with concerns to the budget speech. I would first like to express my appreciation that the last speaker has a business background. It's reassuring to hear some of the remarks that he made, because it sounds to me like he's conceded the next election to the Liberals, who might be good enough to implement some of the better policies that this government has failed to implement today with their budget. It's also reassuring to hear the Premier say that he has, through his Finance minister, introduced a businesslike budget from a businesslike government. That is reassuring, and in some respects this side of the House agrees with the Premier. They are more businesslike than we expected, but unfortunately they've made some bad business decisions. It isn't as bad as we expected, but it's still bad.

The principles of good budgeting must include consideration for the public's dollar, which means frugal allocation of resources and manpower to adequately serve the politicians' understanding of what the public's needs are. With the capable aid of an experienced civil service and the conscientious application of common sense, the Finance minister of the province had the opportunity to begin his tenure in office with foresight, prudence and a very needed change. For reasons best known to himself and perhaps to members of cabinet and the process planning committee, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has chosen the path of least resistance. He has chosen the easy way out. He has chosen the cop-out formula of financing. He says he is safeguarding essential services. He says he is cutting waste. He says he is improving efficiency. I say that what he is really doing is pandering to the superficial and painting a thin veneer of sincerity over what will prove to be a disastrous decision to spend public money before it's been earned. He says he is taking from the rich to give to the poor. I say he is misleading the poor, and he'll bankrupt the rich. He is not Robin Hood; he is the Artful Dodger.

Madam Speaker, I think everybody expected something special from this minister. Without a doubt he is a star performer within his party. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway was rewarded by his leader with a senior position in the cabinet, that of Finance minister. He was given the added responsibility of government House Leader -- proof that much was expected of him by his leader, his party and his caucus.

What has he done with that faith and trust? He squandered the trust with an ill-considered, irresponsible budget and cynically frittered away the faith by a performance in this House that a slapstick comedian would be proud of. It is appreciated that the problems faced by this government are not easily solved. The Premier remarked this morning that it was remarkable and fair and a road map to recovery. But the NDP cannot claim surprise or that they did not know what they were getting into when they inherited the government on October 17. That claim is spurious and unfounded, Mr. Speaker. Nor did it need a million-dol-

[ Page 561 ]

lar explanation from an untendered financial consultant.

We on this side of the House were able to identify the problems, and in fact we told the world about them at a news conference two days before the October 17 election in the Hyatt Regency hotel in Vancouver. At that time we identified the real deficit from all sources as $2.6 billion. Here we were, a small party with no resources, legislative backup or research staff, yet we knew the real provincial debt. We knew what it stood at. We were able to read the balance sheet.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the NDP knew too. Why did they need the ploy with their Peat Marwick charade? Why did they need to stand up and create a charade as to what the situation was, when in fact they actually knew? This government claims to run elections representing ordinary people. Well, Mr. Minister, your ordinary people are paying more in hidden taxes, licences and fares through B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit, through more taxes on gasoline, through a 6 percent tax every time they use a lawyer, through higher taxes on their homes and through higher prices due to the flowthrough tax on company assets.

[11:00]

As for the small businessmen that these people are so proud to speak of, this government is taxing them more highly too. The small business person is paying more tax on an increased business tax rate through higher costs of services required to run their businesses, through a previously discarded and retrograde tax on accumulated assets, which those businesses will pay irrespective of whether they make a profit, and through increased tax rates on insurance premiums, legal costs and other necessary elements to practise business in this province.

Mr. Speaker, this method of budgeting is backwards. Instead of raising taxes and increasing the spending, the party's simplistic attitude and we'll-please-everybody mentality style of government is making it more difficult to do business in this province. This cabinet should have made a decision to hold the line on spending and increase the investment infrastructure, to hold the line on taxes and cut government costs, and to hold the line on staff and stimulate confidence.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

In our opinion, the economy is showing signs of mending; it is on the mend. Both large and small companies are beginning to show small signs of recovery from the recent recession. This economy will slowly improve over the next two years and increase revenue to this government of its own volition. The people of B.C. need less interference from that side of the House and more encouragement. The businesses of B.C. need less interference by government and more stimulation by way of reduced taxes, lower fees and decreased costs.

Mr. Speaker, business has three basic requirements of government: (1) the understanding and appreciation of the necessity of making a profit -- not at any price, not at the cost of labour or at the expense of quality but as a yardstick to success and to reinvest in the future; (2) as little interference as possible, but not without controls or guidelines and not without the recognition of obligations to society; (3) an even playing-field -- a government that creates the climate and sets the standards by which every person has an equal opportunity to succeed, working within fair and even boundaries.

I am very much afraid that this new government has neither the experience within their caucus nor the experience in government to be able to make it work. They are too imbued with that old saw: "Sock it to the rich!" For "rich" read "business." This government thinks rich is another word for business and that profit is a dirty word. This government thinks it wants to be everybody's big brother. This government doesn't appear to know the meaning of free enterprise, initiative and individual community responsibility. They do understand socialist buzzwords like collective intervention, overregulation and government manipulation of the economy.

The other day the Minister of Finance addressed the Vancouver Board of Trade. I give the minister his due: he did face up to a hostile audience. Vancouver business leaders are hostile because they know the NDP want it both ways. On the one hand, they expect business to generate the income necessary for the running of government. On the other hand, the NDP imposes restrictions and taxations to implement its social philosophy. That philosophy might be characterized as: "We will do everything for everybody, with no consideration of cost."

Finally, this government and this minister, with the overpriced help of their consultants Peat Marwick Thorne, have made a basic error in their calculations -- repeated, incidentally, by the minister in Vancouver. They have looked east instead of south. British Columbia's competition comes from Washington, Oregon and California, not Alberta. The miscalculation is so much in error that not only are we assisting our competitors to become more successful, we are driving our own small business people and our customers south. The minister says that Washington is having its own financial troubles, and they will have to raise taxes. But the minister apparently does not understand that Washington taxes raised on imported British Columbia enterprises and consumer spending are not paying for B.C. programs, the very programs that this government is expanding.

The best illustration I can offer the House of the innocence and naivety of this government as to how the real world operates is one within my own Tourism critic area. The government's perception of savings is to cut the allocation to the tourist promotion offices around the province by 40 or 50 percent. This government made the inane decision to reduce investment in the very areas of endeavour that increase tourism. This government has not cut the staff at headquarters, reduced overhead within its own department or made tough business decisions within its own head office bureaucracy. Instead it has reduced funds to the very people who so effectively expand tourism. It could be likened to a defending army deciding to withdraw troops from the front lines to beef up the headquarters staff, or a 

[ Page 562 ]

retailer whose business is slow saying: "We will close the store for five hours every day while we meet in the back room and talk about the problem." The Tourism department should be investing money in the industry and its employees, not reducing dollars where they're most effective.

The NDP platform specifically said they would support regional funding, another broken promise from this government. Forestry and mining, our two large generators of revenue, are experiencing a difficult business climate. They are only now slowly recovering from the impact of the recent recession, and this government's response is to reduce investment in those departments.

The other large generator of cash revenue, to the tune of $5 billion, is tourism. We should be expanding investment, not reducing it. This government continually talks about the business cycle. If there is such a vehicle -- and I doubt it -- we are at the investment period, not the spending period.

I suspect the Minister of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture is not in agreement with this cabinet policy. She has probably been overruled by the Minister of Finance. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway should listen to the Tourism minister. She, at least, has had some practical business experience.

Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Finance is green, and it shows. This NDP government is new, and it's obvious. This cabinet is inept, and it is the province that is going to suffer.

Madam Speaker, the people of British Columbia need a government that understands and has an appreciation for business -- particularly small business, which is 90 percent of what we enjoy in B.C. The people of British Columbia do not need this holier-than-thou, inexperienced type of budget. We must be sure -- I suppose they intended to get rich -- that next time they don't blow it.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, I would just like to remind the member who took his seat that the hon. Speaker is no longer in the chair, and that I am not a "Madam."

B. Simpson: Hon. Deputy Speaker, this is the second time that I've addressed this House. I must admit, after listening to and watching the more experienced members, that it has been a most humbling experience for me.

Hon. Deputy Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate you. When I first appeared before this House, I described you as a man of great dignity and stature, who we have known for many years, and who is loved and respected by all of us and by your constituents. You have proven the wisdom of this House by having been unanimously elected as Deputy Speaker.

Of course, I want to congratulate the Speaker, who has also kept things under control and brought great dignity to her position and again has shown the wisdom of this House in electing her as Speaker of the House.

Before and during the election, I had the opportunity of meeting dozens of business leaders. I met business leaders in the Business Council of British Columbia, the Vancouver Board of Trade, which I'm proud to be a member of, the Asia Pacific Foundation, the Jewish community, the Chinese community and the Isma'ili community. I asked them: "What is it that you look for in a government? What is that you expect from our government, if we're fortunate enough to be elected?" Inevitably they emphasized, without exception, financial responsibility and leadership.

Like all of you in this House, I knocked on thousands of doors during the election, and I asked the average British Columbian: "What are you looking for in a New Democratic Party government?" And without exception, they said time and time again: "Financial responsibility and leadership." When the Finance minister set out to develop his budget, what was he determined to show the people of the province of British Columbia? He was determined to show financial responsibility and leadership. So if somebody asked me how to describe this budget in three words, I would say: "Financial responsibility and leadership."

I want to cite some examples to prove my contention that this budget is showing financial responsibility and leadership.

Deficit control. In January 1990, two and a half years ago, the Vancouver Board of Trade presented a position paper to the former administration. At that time they warned of dire consequences unless they got their finances under control, unless they got their house in order. But as with so much of the advice given by the business community, the former administration did not listen, with dire consequences; in fact, it exceeded the worst-case scenario presented by the Vancouver Board of Trade. The deficit was in excess of $2 billion, because the government did not listen to the business community.

The former administration was not receptive to the warnings of the business community, but this government listens to the business community. They listen to the average British Columbian; they listen to the aboriginal people; they listen to the poor and the disabled. This is a responsive government, as is evident in this budget prepared by the Finance minister.

For four years before we formed the government, the former administration incurred increases in spending in excess of 12 percent, without any corresponding increase in revenues. The financial independent review board predicted a budget deficit of $2.8 billion. Our Finance minister -- this government -- has brought that deficit down to $1.8 billion and has brought spending down to 6.5 percent. That is leadership.

I want to discuss now some of the social programs, but before I get into the social programs which have been enhanced by this government I want to talk about waste control and how this government has exhibited waste control through this budget.

First of all, there will be a freeze on our salaries and expenses -- and I'm sure nobody in the public out there would object to that -- and there will be an independent review board. Advertising, which was so shamelessly embarked upon by the former administration, will be cut, for a saving of $5 million. Two deputy ministers and their support staff will be done away 

[ Page 563 ]

with, at a saving of $3.9 million. The Challenger jet will be sold -- $320,000. We will second one of the government airplanes into the care for the injured -- a saving of $1 million.

We will aggressively pursue the outstanding loans that have been written off -- and I'm particularly concerned about the student loans. When I went to university I was fortunate enough to get financial help through the student loans, and I was proud of the fact that after I graduated I was able to pay it off within a reasonable period of time. I would expect all students to do that also. But because of the lax administration of the former administration we have 10,000 delinquent loans, at a cost to the taxpayers of $38 million. This government is aggressively pursuing that now, and I've been informed by Finance ministry officials that for every person they hire to collect these loans, at a cost of approximately $50,000, the return is $750,000 -- good return on your money. This government is determined to cut waste.

[11:15]

I want to talk now about the social policies and about health. As a result of a deliberate attempt by the federal government to dismantle the medicare system as we know it today, we have a crisis in our medical care system in British Columbia. Medicare was conceived by our predecessor the CCF and implemented by that great Canadian Tommy Douglas in the province of Saskatchewan. But the Conservative government in Ottawa is determined to dismantle the medicare system, as is evident by the drastic cut in transfer payments.

Medicare, the health part of the budget, makes up 34 percent of our budget: $5.9 billion. We have put another $400 million into our health care system. Decisive steps will be taken to protect our health care system and to save medicare. I'm particularly pleased to see that important aspects of the Seaton report will be implemented. I'm talking about that part of the Seaton report that encourages care in the home of the sick and the elderly. Not only will this save hundreds of millions of dollars, but it will enhance the quality of life of those people who have to be in the hospitals often sharing a room with two, four or six people.

I'm particularly pleased to see that $67 million of the health care budget will be redirected to prevention in the community and community health services. When I first spoke before this august assembly, I talked about the On Lok Society down in California, which is a day care program for the elderly designed to keep them in the home and enhance their quality of life. I envision the day under this enlightened administration that we'll have hundreds of these On Lok day cares for our elderly throughout the province.

I'm particularly pleased to see that there will be an aggressive attack on the cigarette companies for plying their trade among our youth. You know, each year 30,000 people in Canada die smoking-related deaths -- over 3,000 in the province of British Columbia -- at a cost of $700 million to the economy of this province and a cost of $300 million to the health care system. By going after the cigarette companies we'll be saving hundreds of millions of dollars and saving thousands of our youth.

With regard to education, again, as a result of the drastic cutbacks by the federal government.... Incidentally, those cutbacks and transfer payments are costing this treasury approximately $1.8 billion. As a result of the cutbacks there's an attack now on our educational system. We have found the funds because we gave education the priority to put another $300 million into our educational system. Operating grants to universities will be increased by $41 million, and there will be a freeze on university and college fees for the coming year. We will provide 2,800 more positions for post-secondary education. We recognize the importance of having a highly educated youth, because it is only through a highly educated youth that we will be able to compete in a global economy.

I now want to talk about equality for women. Far too often have women in our society been relegated to second-class status. This government recognizes that and has begun, in a modest way.... I emphasize "modest way" because we simply don't have the funds to be more aggressive in this regard. We'll be putting $32 million into the public sector to help achieve equality for women in the workplace.

I'm particularly pleased to see that unlike the federal government -- who, with much fanfare in the last general election, announced a national day care program, and just last month quietly announced that they were abandoning it -- this government has shown leadership by putting in $17 million to develop a day care program for working mothers so that when they have to work they don't have to worry about the health and safety of their children. I'm pleased to see that there will be an additional $10 million put into the system to help fight violence against women and their children.

With regard to social services, again we're being attacked by the federal government with their cutbacks in transfer payments. But we have found it necessary -- indeed, imperative -- that we find an additional $230 million to put into the income maintenance system, just to maintain the existing standards. We will also increase the deductible from $50 to $100 for single people and from $100 to $200 for married people on income assistance. We will be putting in a large amount of funds for job creation, so that all the people on social assistance will have the opportunity of developing their potential and becoming productive members of society.

Hon. Speaker, I want to talk about environment. This is of particular concern to me, because my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, as the name implies, looks over the Fraser River. I envision the day when my constituents will be able to walk down and swim in the Fraser River, as they did at the turn of the century, without fear of pollution. I'm pleased to see that sufficient funds will be put in for pollution control, and that aggressive measures will be made to clean up the environment and clean up the pulp mills that have been polluting our province.

I want to talk about the creation of wealth. This is a term that you've heard time and time again from members on this side. It's a term that we are proud to use and that we're comfortable to use, because when we 

[ Page 564 ]

talk about creation of wealth, we talk about the creation of wealth for all British Columbians -- not just the select few, as in the former administration.

We export approximately $15 billion a year. We must take decisive measures to increase that number, and we must attract new business. One of the vehicles that is going to help us accomplish that objective is the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, under the dynamic leadership and chairmanship of Wilson Parasiuk, a well-known entrepreneur, the former head of the real estate division of VanCity Credit Union -- the largest credit union in North America -- a former Rhodes scholar and the former Minister of Health and of Energy in the province of Manitoba. He has recently appointed Oksana Exell, who is the former vice-president of B.C. Trade and the former director of provincial affairs for the B.C. and Yukon branch of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. She's not exactly a left-winger, I might say, hon. Speaker. That combination, together with the devoted staff of B.C. Trade, will be a formidable force in the generation of wealth in this province. They, together with our dynamic member for Cariboo South, the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, will stimulate the economy and create wealth in this province. In fact, they're already doing so with decisive steps, which I now want to describe.

First of all, B.C. Trade is making sure that our representatives in the various trade offices throughout the world -- in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Europe -- see themselves as super salesmen selling British Columbia. The ministry and B.C. Trade will be hosting an economic summit together with the Premier this July. B.C. Trade has organized trade delegations, and a very successful one took place last year in Vietnam. The new frontier -- trading with Vietnam. Already there are significant results. We are getting into Vietnam before the Americans. There's fantastic opportunity for us in Vietnam, and already firms like Stothert Engineering and Crippen Consultants are actively doing business in Vietnam.

I reiterate what I said the last time I spoke before this House: I see the day when we will be trading with South Africa, in view of the historic vote that took place two or three weeks ago, and we will be trading with North Korea. We will be opening up new frontiers of trade. The ministry, together with B.C. Trade, will make sure that all levels of government -- the federal government through the western diversification fund, the municipal governments and all departments in provincial government -- are working on the same course and that they're focusing on getting business. We won't have the bizarre situation that we had a few months ago, where the Premier of this province is in Japan having dinner with the 12 leading businessmen while the manager of one of those businessmen, whose company spent $25 million buying land in one of our municipalities and wanted to develop a pantyhose factory that would employ 400 workers, is announcing the pulling out from this municipality because of bureaucracy and red tape. We must get everybody on board, and the ministry and B.C. Trade will ensure that this happens.

Government can only do so much, and they are doing a significant amount now, as is evident by the Endowment Fund, which will make $100 million available for venture capital and encourage trade. That will be at a fair rate of interest, a return to the people of British Columbia. There will not be grants or giveaways as with the former administration.

Another example of what the government is doing is through CORE, with able chairperson Stephen Owen, to resolve land use conflicts. Another example is encouraging the Working Opportunity Fund, where the workers recognize their responsibility in creating wealth and generating business for the province. Finally, under the dynamic leadership of our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, there will be a speedy resolution of the aboriginal claims, thus freeing up land that can be developed not only for the benefit of our aboriginal people but for all of the citizens of this province.

There is a limit to what our government can do. We must work in partnership with the business community and private enterprise. I'm particularly pleased to see that again the Vancouver Board of Trade has taken the initiative, chaired by Dale Parker, a well-known financier who heads the economic and environment committee. They have developed an economic strategy for investment in British Columbia after a countless number of meetings. I look forward to the day when that document will be made public. What it says is that we must have a combination of business, academia, labour and government working together to create wealth, and that we must focus on the creation of wealth in this province.

[11:30]

British Columbia has much to offer to investors. We have cheap power, an educated workforce, the International Arbitration Centre, the Asia Pacific Foundation and the international maritime centre. We have an outstanding port and an outstanding airport, which is soon to have a third runway. We are the gateway to Asia Pacific, and we have an outstanding quality of life. There's much more that can be done to attract capital and investment.

I look forward to the day when we can resolve the constitutional crisis which has been a hindrance to investment in British Columbia and in all of Canada. I look forward to the day when we bring back loan guarantees for small business that are free from political interference, and incentives for municipalities to attract business. I look forward to the day when we'll get our fair share from the federal government. We have 12 percent of the population, and we only get 3 percent of the contracts.

I am concerned not by what this government is doing -- because I know we're on the right track -- but by the lack of aggressiveness in the business community in hustling business. In Canada we do approximately $7 billion of trade a year with Japan. I would say that approximately $2 billion is a result of our companies going out and hustling the business, and the other $5 billion is the Japanese coming here as they did in the fifties to develop our coalfields. Business must be more aggressive. For far too long have they been complacent, because they've been dealing primarily with the United 

[ Page 565 ]

States, and it hasn't taken much to sell to the United States, our biggest trading partner.

Where business has been aggressive there have been some outstanding successes. I refer you to Primex Forest Products. Ten years ago this company went to Japan, established the contacts, found out their specifications for building material and are now doing a booming business despite the fact that there's a terrible recession in the forest industry in this province. Other examples are MacMillan Bloedel, PBK Engineering, Stothert Engineering, Crippen Consultants and Essa Environmental. All of these companies know what it's like to hustle business, and they know the returns that can come.

Hon. Speaker, with government and the private sector working together, we can transform the B.C. economy, which I would describe as a slow combustion engine, into a high-powered combustion engine, which will successfully create wealth for the good of all British Columbians.

Hon. A. Petter: As I begin my remarks, I just want to note the presence in the gallery of a member of Saanich council and the Capital Regional District, a former candidate in Saanich and a former member of the legislative press gallery -- but we won't hold that against him, I hope -- John Mika. I'd ask the House to welcome him here to this debate today.

I'm very pleased, hon. Deputy Speaker, to be able to take my place in this debate and very proud to be able to voice my strong support for this budget. I think it's relatively easy for a government to bring in a satisfactory budget when times are good, when jobs are plentiful and when revenues are high. The real test of a government's budgetary mettle, however, comes when times are tough, when jobs are scarce and when revenues are low. And that is the situation that faced this government when it assumed office last fall at a time of economic recession.

Our situation was worsened by the financial mess left to us by a previous administration that had abdicated its responsibilities by putting short-term political expediency ahead of long-term economic gain; an administration that failed to conserve resources when times were good by allowing government spending to grow by an average of 12 percent over the last three years; an administration that refused to pare expenditures when revenues started to diminish, preferring to hoodwink the public with BS funds and mythical accounting rather than showing the leadership necessary to grapple with the economic crisis brought on by both the recession and serious cutbacks in federal transfer payments. As a result, the government that came to power in the fall of last year faced a budgetary deficit almost $2 billion higher than we had been led to believe by the previous government, at a time when the government saw the province in a period of decline in real economic growth, at a time when the federal government continued to try to load their own deficit problems onto the backs of provincial taxpayers by passing on costs to the province.

Viewed against that backdrop, I think this budget can only be seen as an extraordinary achievement. It's a tough budget, as it must be, but it is a fair budget. It has succeeded in reducing the deficit by a billion dollars from the projected $2.8 billion to $1.78 billion, a lower deficit figure than that which was realized last year. That has been achieved through a combination of spending cuts, cuts that have halved the rate of growth in government expenditures to the lowest rate in five years, and at the same time some fair and balanced tax measures -- measures that are visited upon corporations and individuals on an equal basis -- and a tax burden that falls for the most part on those who can afford to pay: large corporations and high-income earners. At the same time, however, incentives for corporate investment have been maintained and money has been left in the hands of ordinary British Columbians to encourage consumer spending.

It's a budget that gets spending priorities right. It cuts the boondoggle Hazardous Waste Management Corporation -- and I may say that the only wastes that that corporation dealt with were the hazardous wastes of its own expenditures, wasting taxpayers' dollars in a vain effort to come to grips with problems that the corporation was incapable of dealing with. As the previous member mentioned, there is a cut in government advertising of $5 million. The budget eliminates redundant policy units in various ministries and freezes the salaries of MLAs and cabinet ministers.

At the same time it is a budget that maintains essential services for people. Health care spending is up $409 million, an increase in excess of 7 percent, with half of lottery proceeds going toward health care programs, as we promised in the last election. Education spending is up $300 million, an increase in excess of 9 percent, with a commitment to capital spending in high-growth areas such as Saanich South, the constituency I represent.

A commitment to freeze tuition fees is realized in this budget in order to give the government a chance, in combination with universities and students, to review questions of access to post-secondary education.

Social service spending is up $369 million to cover the increased costs that have been incurred by migration into the province and by federal off-loading. As well, there's a program to assist GAIN recipients to more easily make the transition from social assistance to gainful employment.

In addition, the budget takes some important new initiatives in areas of women's equality, pay equity, child care, violence against women and, an area which is near and dear to my heart, aboriginal affairs. The budget allocates a sufficient sum of money so that we can get on and start negotiating fairly with aboriginal peoples for a settlement of their historic grievances, a settlement that not only will be of benefit to aboriginal peoples but will produce stability and investment for the province as a whole.

I'm pleased to see the school lunch program as a priority in this budget, a clear signal that even in hard economic times this government will not stand idly by and allow those who are least fortunate in society to be not cared for or looked after.

Overall it is a budget that does establish a positive vision for the future, a road map for recovery, as has 

[ Page 566 ]

been said, that will foster a stable investment climate and will help lead this province out of recession.

Not everyone is happy. It's a tough budget. No one in this province likes to pay more. Homeowners in my constituency are not pleased with the prospect that they may pay $10 or $20 per month more as a result of the elimination of the supplementary homeowner grant. Few people appreciate some of the cuts that are taking place in order to get our fiscal house in order. Many of my constituents are upset by some of the highways cuts that have been visited upon them.

While they are not happy with those things, they see that we are acting fairly and responsibly and that this is a a fair and honest budget. Yes, there is bad news that they don't like, but they realize that the bad news is being given to them as straight goods. They're prepared to accept that, and they're prepared to make those sacrifices to get British Columbia's financial house back in order. That's a responsible approach. That shows leadership.

I have listened in vain over the past number of weeks to members opposite to see what their vision is. I have looked in vain for some coherent and constructive alternative to the positive vision that I have spoken about and that is seen in this budget. My constituents ask me what the members of the party opposite advocate, and I say: "Well, first of all, they seem very upset with the fact that we're cutting spending. They oppose all sorts of the spending cuts, and they have gotten up and objected on behalf of their constituents." They say: "Oh, really? Well, what tax increases are they advocating then in order to make up for the spending cuts they object to?" And I say: "Well, strangely enough, they oppose every single tax increase too." And they say: "Oh my goodness, are they giving eloquent speeches in favour of a larger deficit in that event?" And I say: "Well, strange as it may seem, they aren't; they're also decrying the level of deficit."

I want to say to members opposite that it's very dangerous to underestimate the intelligence of the voter. Voters aren't dumb. If you're promising them that you're going to eliminate spending cuts, that you're not going to increase taxes, and that you're not going to increase the deficit, they know that you're not being straight with them. When they ask me what the opposition is offering in terms of constructive alternatives and I describe what the opposition has been saying in this House, they know that what the opposition is offering is nothing at all.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

At the same time, I've been surprised that the opposition -- and here I speak of the official opposition, the Liberal opposition -- have been more preoccupied with defending the dismal record of the previous government and denying the mess that government left behind than with getting on with the job of cleaning up that mess. Shame on them! Why are they so defensive about their friends in opposition? Why aren't they helping us to clean up that mess and acknowledge that mess?

The people of British Columbia are starting to wonder what the official opposition would do, were they in government. Would they raise sales taxes, as the Liberal party in Quebec has done in terms of harmonizing with the GST and expanding the base of sales taxes? Is that what they would do? We didn't increase sales taxes in this budget. Would they introduce a flat tax that would radically shift the tax burden onto the ordinary and those who are less fortunate in society, as their leader has suggested? Is that their program for the future? Would they raise medical insurance premiums or introduce user fees, as Liberal governments in New Brunswick and Newfoundland are suggesting be done? Would they raise tuition fees for post-secondary students, as we've refused to do? Is that what they would do?

[11:45]

If they wouldn't do that, then we have to ask ourselves what they would cut. Would they cut education? Would they cut health care? Would they cut social services? Would they put equality initiatives for women on the back burner? Would they freeze expenditures for getting on and dealing with aboriginal issues? Would they scrap the school lunch program? What's their program? They're very free to criticize, but they have no alternatives, unless their alternative is the same alternative as the last Liberal government in Ontario, which is to simply run up the deficit and let the future generations pay. That's an alternative that we're not prepared to take. That's an alternative we've said no to in this House.

You know, the only economic strategy that I have heard from the Leader of the Opposition comes in the palliative suggestion that we should be competitive with the United States and competitive with Pacific Rim countries. That's what he says. In principle I don't disagree with him. Of course we must be competitive. But competitiveness cannot be measured, as the Leader of the Opposition would seem to believe, by simple-minded comparisons of tax rates and government spending. Nor does it mean that we should simple descend to the lowest common denominator of other jurisdictions.

Let me give you an example. It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, that the tax rates in many U.S. states are lower than those in many Canadian provinces, but that in itself proves nothing. You have to ask yourself why those tax rates are higher, and the answer is obvious: the largest portion of provincial budgets in this country goes toward supporting a publicly funded universal system of quality health care. Sure, we could bring our tax rates closer in line with those of U.S. states by duplicating their health care system and abandoning our support for a publicly funded universal health care system, but would we be better off by doing that? Absolutely not. Would we be any more competitive because our dollars, instead of going into tax revenues to fund the best health care system in the world, would be going into private fees for doctors and into private insurance premiums in order to pay for a substandard system that doesn't look after the universal health needs of society? Absolutely not. Yet that's the approach the Leader of the Opposi-

[ Page 567 ]

tion has urged on this House: competitiveness by the bottom line.

When you're talking about competitiveness, members opposite, you've got to look beyond those simple comparisons. You've got to look beyond the lowest common denominator. When it comes to evaluating tax dollars, you've got to consider what the government is doing with those dollars and why it is doing it and where those dollars would go if government was not providing the kind of universal health care program that this government is committed to continuing.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite don't like to hear about their failure to provide any constructive alternatives. But if the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition on competitiveness were taken seriously -- that it's simply a matter of comparing bottom-line figures -- the conclusion would be that British Columbians should have their wage rates slashed to the same rates provided workers in Pacific Rim countries such as Thailand and Indonesia, where workers earn $485 to $845 per year on average. Sure, we can get competitive. Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is advocating? Because if it is, it's not what British Columbians expect of their government. We could be competitive by slashing social services and gutting them to match social-service levels provided in countries like Taiwan, where less than 2 percent of total government expenditures are devoted to health care, or Korea, where less than 8 percent of government revenues are allocated to social security and income assistance. That isn't what competitiveness means to British Columbians. British Columbians know that it's absurd to engage in those kinds of bottom-line, race-for-the-bottom comparisons that the Leader of the Opposition seems to suggests in this House are meaningful. British Columbians know that competitiveness cannot be measured by simple-minded comparisons of tax rates, wage rates or social-service levels. Rather, competitiveness can only be measured with a much more complex understanding of what produces and sustains our quality of life and how we can best maintain that quality of life in a global economy.

British Columbians know that we will build a better B.C. not by descending to the lowest common denominator of our trading partners but by building upon our strengths, setting tough priorities and establishing a road map to recovery. This budget does that by maintaining health, education and social services, while reducing the deficit and cutting growth in government spending; by balancing spending cuts with fair and equitable revenue measures -- fair in that they distribute the load evenly between business and individuals, and equitable in that they place the burden upon those who can best afford to bear it; and by showing that a government can be responsible yet compassionate, tough but fair, idealistic without being unrealistic. That's the kind of government that New Democrats believe in, that's the kind of government that British Columbians voted for, and that's the kind of government that this budget delivers.

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m. 

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada