1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 1, Number 23
[ Page 569 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Members of the Legislature and visitors, I have the honour of introducing a previous Premier of this great province of ours, the first New Democrat Premier of British Columbia, who was known for his modesty and his quiet, unassuming ways. He is, of course, now the Member of Parliament for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and very actively involved in the issue of trade. As all of us have got to know Dave, we know him as the quickest wit in the west. I can only say, Dave, this time when you leave the Legislature, please leave your chair with you. Friends, would you please give a very warm welcome to the Hon. Dave Barrett.
G. Wilson: I too would like to welcome the former Premier here today. Indeed it is delightful to see the éminence grise of the NDP here to consult and to provide some guidance to the government in their early days. It clearly gives us hope that perhaps we might get some answers to some of our questions now.
I would also like to welcome two members from my constituency here today: Pat and Bert Webster, who have travelled here from Sechelt. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. T. Perry: Of course, I would also like to welcome His Eminence to the House, but I'm not sure what his mother would think if she heard that.
I also have the pleasure of welcoming some of the certified general accountants who hosted so many members of the Legislature to an excellent lunch and a very thought-provoking speech by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, a few moments ago. On behalf of the House, I'd like to welcome Maureen Holloway, the president of the CGA Association of B.C., J. Norton, the second vice-president, and Bill Caulfield, the executive director.
If members will allow a small partisan excursion on behalf of my former riding, I welcome Mike Andruff and Al Dexter of the old riding of Point Grey. The geography is too complex to be sure which ridings they are in right now.
B. Copping: I'm really pleased to introduce Mr. Jamie Ross, who is a resident of my riding. He is an alderman in Belcarra, a friend and president of the Coquitlam Teachers' Association.
Hon. A. Hagen: It is with great pleasure that I introduce another former member of this Legislature, Eileen Dailly, who in her term of government was Minister of Education and Deputy Premier and who sat in this Legislature until 1986. Will all members please join me in welcoming Ms. Dailly to our House.
Hon. Speaker, I am seeing a little dimly. I want to add greetings to Karen Sanford, from the riding of Comox Valley, also a member of this House from '72-86. We are indeed honoured by the presence of former colleagues in this House.
On behalf of all members I would like to welcome members of teachers' associations from across British Columbia, very often accompanied by parents and other groups that are interested in the education of our children. They have been visiting people on all sides of the House today, and I'm sure we have all benefited from that consultation. All of you, I know, will join me in welcoming them to our House today.
J. Dalton: I would reinforce the previous statement of the Minister of Education in welcoming all the B.C. teachers' associations. In particular I am pleased to say that in the gallery today, from my home community of North Vancouver, are 28 students from Handsworth Secondary School, accompanied by two of their teachers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Adams. Would the House please make them welcome.
M. Lord: It does give me a great deal of pleasure today to welcome two constituents to the House from the beautiful Comox Valley. These are also people who are not strangers to this place. One has already been introduced, the former MLA from Comox Valley, the woman in whose shoes I am very proud to stand, Karen Sanford. Accompanying Karen is her husband, Peter Sanford. Would the House please help me make them welcome.
D. Streifel: Visiting in the gallery today is a former colleague of mine, and coincidentally a former colleague of my father's. My father knew him as "The Rebel." I know him as the number one resource for questions regarding and concerning workers' compensation, a tireless advocate for injured workers. Larry Stoffman is here visiting with his son Eli. Would the House help me make him welcome.
Hon. T. Perry: I have one further pleasure today, which is to introduce to the House Mrs. Bobbi Bower of Langley and Mr. George Clark of the Canadian Liver Foundation branch in Victoria. Mrs. Bower has been a national advocate for improved immunization against hepatitis B, and has single-handedly had probably more effect on progress towards national immunization against hepatitis B than any other Canadian, which is quite an accomplishment for a layperson. Would the House please make her welcome.
L. Fox: It isn't often that we get an opportunity to introduce people into this House from the northern part of the province. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to this House the mayor of the geographical centre of British Columbia, the district of Vanderhoof, His Worship Frank Read. Would the members please make him welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: Just before I introduce this bill, I'd like to advise the House that members will be sitting on Wednesday, tomorrow.
[2:15]
[ Page 570 ]
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, this Bill 19 is less controversial than other Bill 19s that have come before the House. In fact, I might characterize it as housekeeping legislation, but I know that....
The Speaker: To the purpose of the bill only, hon. member.
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 19 amends three distinct provisions under the Financial Administration Act. The bill allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to delegate existing authority to forgive a debt or obligation owed to the government and to impose limitations on that delegated power; allows the Minister of Finance to reduce the amount credited to the provincial treasury operations special account, thereby reducing spending authority; and allows the Minister of Finance, where it is in the public interest, to provide investment, banking and financial services to organizations which are substantially publicly funded.
I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS,
RECREATION AND HOUSING
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill includes a number of amendments. One relates to section 945 of the Municipal Act and another to section 561 of the Vancouver Charter. These amendments require that municipalities, regional districts and the city of Vancouver include, in their official community plans, policies on affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing. This government wants municipalities to recognize and accept a role in helping to provide affordable housing and special-needs housing.
Bill 20 also contains measures enabling the Cariboo and Thompson-Nicola Regional Districts to undertake long-term capital borrowing of $3.3 million for library facilities. The borrowing was approved by voters in November 1988.
The bill also validates the tax-sharing agreement entered into by the district of Taylor and the city of Fort St. John. It validates the payment made by Taylor to Fort St. John in 1991.
The bill also contains provisions allowing the city of Fernie and the districts of Elkford and Sparwood to borrow money against the unpaid property taxes of Westar Mining Limited. Westar owns two coal mines in the Elk Valley, and because of financial difficulties, it has not paid its 1990 or 1991 property taxes. Bill 20 also waives the requirement on Elkford and Sparwood to place the property of Westar up for tax sale on September 30th.
I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
LEVEL OF PATIENT CARE
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health, and it has to do with this government getting its priorities right.
Hon. Speaker, yesterday I brought to the attention of the government a gentleman who is being treated in Vancouver General Hospital and required to lie for two days without adequate food service. Today, my question to the minister concerns an incident that took place in St. Mary's Hospital, of which I informed the minister last week. The minister will recall it has to do with a woman who attempted to hang herself from her balcony. Due to a lack of security facilities and personnel trained in patient restraint, when she was taken to and held at the hospital, she was removed by the RCMP and had to spend the night in a local lockup, instead of remaining in the hospital. When she was returned the next day, she was discharged without treatment because there are no facilities for security and there are no personnel trained in restraint.
My question to the minister is: are these adequate priorities for this government? And when can the small community hospitals of British Columbia expect to receive the necessary funds to put in place the kind of facilities that will provide that kind of treatment for people who require it?
Hon. E. Cull: Besides getting our priorities right on this side of the floor, it is also important to get our facts right. We contacted Vancouver General Hospital yesterday about the information that you raised in question period, and have been advised that there is no patient who has spent two days in a corridor on a stretcher without food, and there was no evidence at all that any patient has not been receiving appropriate care in the hospitals. Our priority is to ensure that essential services are there. That's why we have essential services legislation, and that's what we're doing on behalf of British Columbians in the hospitals right now.
[ Page 571 ]
G. Wilson: My supplementary is to the Premier. The Premier has been advised in writing of the incidents that took place, and I'd be happy for him to look into it further and find that the facts presented are indeed correct. My supplementary to the Premier, given the minister's response with respect to the essential services provided in health care, is: will you abandon this ludicrous fixed wage policy for construction workers and dedicate the hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for construction workers already earning over $20 an hour to the health care service in British Columbia, so we can resolve this dispute and get down to adequate health care in the province of B.C.?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, there's a very disturbing trend from the Leader of the Opposition of raising an incident for which he did not supply facts. We had to, on our own, phone the hospital to find that there was no such incident as the Leader of the Opposition alleged. He now brings forward another incident.
If he has the facts, he should contact the minister immediately, instead of waiting until today in question period to bring it up. I don't want to see British Columbians endangered if there is.... I think that the Leader of the Opposition should not be fearmongering with the people of British Columbia's health and making reckless statements that he can't back up. If he has the information, give it to us.
G. Wilson: A final supplementary. The Premier suggested that I provide him details. I've done so. I've given him a letter today that he will receive. With respect to the information to the minister, the minister was informed last week.
My question to the Premier is: rather than ducking this issue, will you commit today, immediately, the money that has been earmarked in this budget for fair wage compensation to construction workers to the necessary provision of health care services, so that we can resolve this crisis and get rid of the chaos that is fast becoming a reality in B.C. hospitals?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition is creating the equivalent of the previous government -- this fictional BS fund. There's supposed to be money that the opposition has created to stabilize some fictional amount of money extra that's supposed to be coming out of fair wages. The Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance and I have all said very clearly that there is no extra money in the budget for the fair wage policy. What we are seeing, though, is fairness for working people in British Columbia, and we're committed to that.
PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL FEES
C. Serwa: My question is to the Premier. Hon. Premier, you have confirmed that the NDP caucus paid over $36,000 of taxpayers' money for the personal legal bills of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. We also know that the Board of Internal Economy turned down a similar request for legal assistance from the former member for Omineca in connection with his case.
Will the Premier explain why assistance was granted in one case and not the other, given that both Inspector MacAulay of the RCMP commercial crime unit and Alberta Deputy Attorney-General Neil McCrank had recommended that criminal charges be laid against the member from Esquimalt?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The first question was the $36,000 over two and a half years that was provided for the legal services of the previous opposition caucus's Attorney General critic, who, in carrying out those duties, had litigation take place. It was the decision of our caucus at the time -- and it was good public policy -- that if a public official who is acting within their public responsibilities has to engage in a lawsuit, costs for the lawyer are covered. That was covered from the existing global budget of the caucus at that time. That lawsuit, as I understand it, just came to a conclusion last week. It is a lawsuit to which the government is not a party, but $36,000 was provided from the global budget of the previous caucus.
On the second part of the question, the hon. member for Okanagan West is going to have to ask the Board of Internal Economy about that incident. I'm not aware of that decision. Was it in regard to the criminal charges that have recently been completed? I'm not aware of the details of that decision.
C. Serwa: Again to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us whether he sought the advice of the legislative comptroller as to the propriety of using caucus global budget funds to pay for the member's personal legal costs in this case? If so, what advice was received?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll take that question on notice.
The Speaker: Do you have a new question?
C. Serwa: My question is a supplementary, but this time I'll direct it to the Attorney General, if I may, Madam Speaker.
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Premier has taken a question on notice. If it's a new question, I will permit that.
C. Serwa: It's a supplementary to the overall question. The Premier answered the first question, took the second part on notice and I have a supplementary that I would to address to the Attorney General.
The Speaker: Proceed, hon. member.
C. Serwa: To the Attorney General. In view of the questionable use of taxpayers' money in this case and the possible breach of section 25(a) of the Constitution Act, I have written to both the auditor general and the Deputy Attorney General asking them to investigate this matter. Can the Attorney General assure this House that he will personally commit to having this matter
[ Page 572 ]
investigated, as was done in the case of the former Member for Omenica, and will he assure that the investigation will be supervised by a special prosecutor, as recommended by the Owen inquiry, to protect any suspicion of political interference?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't speak for the comptroller general. But in terms of the responsibilities I have as Attorney General, I can assure you that the Deputy Attorney General will respond properly and appropriately to the member's letter.
DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL
A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General concerning a reply he made to my question in the House yesterday. When I asked about "settling this case" -- my words -- of lawyer Peter Firestone's defamation suit, he said, "All of the decisions...were made by the Deputy Attorney General," thereby creating the impression we are left with that the deputy minister was extensively involved in the case, including the initiation of a settlement and the approval of the amount of legal expenses; and thereby creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. Upon reflection, I doubt this is the case regarding a fine public servant, and I suspect that the Attorney General would agree. Therefore, in the settlement of the case involving Mr. Firestone, would the Attorney General clarify who took the initiative to pursue this settlement?
[2:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The settlement was reached between the parties, and the parties conducted those discussions among themselves. That is something that neither I nor, for that matter, the previous Attorney General had any involvement in. I cannot answer the question beyond that.
A. Warnke: Was the Attorney General, the cabinet or the Treasury Board consulted in any fashion about this settlement?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not to my knowledge.
The Speaker: A final supplementary.
A. Warnke: Given some of the remarks by the Premier outside the House yesterday, can the Attorney General assure this House that no public funds were used to defray the legal expenses or any settlement of his colleague, the Minister of Labour?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yesterday, in answer to another question, I answered that no public funds beyond the $93,000, which I indicated, had been expended. It then comes to a question of whether or not caucus global budgets for whichever party are, in fact, public moneys. There's a nuance there that obviously you could suggest in the same way that if the government pays me a paycheque, and I use my paycheque to go out and hire a lawyer, am I using public money? I would argue I'm not.
There's a grey area in respect of global budgets for caucuses and how those moneys are expended. But if it helps to clarify the issue, clearly the money that caucuses are provided with are public moneys. Clearly some moneys from the global budget from the NDP caucus were expended in the resolution of this particular issue. Therefore the answer to the question is that public moneys were expended, both out of the Attorney General's budget and in another way out of the NDP caucus global budget.
PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL FEES
D. Mitchell: My question is to the Premier, regarding the serious matter that's being raised right now about the out-of-court settlement paid by the government to Victoria lawyer Peter Firestone in the matter of his suit against the former Attorney General and his assistant deputy minister, William Stewart.
Mr. Premier, did your government or your office, at any time prior to the decision to make the payments to Mr. Firestone, check the Constitution Act of British Columbia -- in particular section 25 of that act -- the Members' Conflict of Interest Act or any other of the present guidelines of cabinet or Treasury Board in order to determine the legality of such payments?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, as the opposition House Leader should know, this matter was handled through the Deputy Attorney General. I'm quite sure he would agree that the Deputy Attorney General understands all of the issues that he has just raised.
You've heard from the Attorney General that this matter was dealt with by the Deputy Attorney General, and quite properly the question should be addressed to the Attorney General. I'm sure he can get the same full information back to you that he promised the previous member.
D. Mitchell: My supplementary question then is to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier indicated that NDP caucus funds were used to defray at least some of the costs and legal expenses for the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Can the Premier guarantee to this House today that the remainder of the legal expenses for his Minister of Labour were not paid by any sources of funding that would constitute any further conflict of interest?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I'll repeat what I said yesterday. In regard to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Stewart, $80,000 of legal expenses to Russell and DuMoulin was paid, authorized by the Deputy Attorney General. A further $12,500 towards the cost of the settlement of that law suit was authorized by the Deputy Attorney General. I hope that's clear.
An Hon. Member: Is this normal?
[ Page 573 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is the normal public policy of, certainly, the city that I was the mayor and alderman of and, I'm sure, school boards and provincial and federal governments across this country. I don't think there's any disagreement on that public policy.
Now on the matter of the previous Attorney General critic, who is now the Minister of Labour, you've heard very clearly that $36,000 of the global budget of the NDP caucus over a two-and-a-half-year period was expended to cover the legal bills for the previous Attorney General critic. For any other information that you were seeking about other costs, you would have to talk to the member. But I can assure you that those are the funds that came out of our previous opposition caucus budget: $36,000.
The Speaker: Hon. members, on Tuesday last the hon. leader of the third party rose on a matter of privilege, appropriate notice of which was given, and tendered a motion in accordance with the practice of this assembly. Representations on the matter were made to the Chair by the hon. government House Leader and the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
The essence of the hon. leader's complaint is that the hon. Premier had deliberately misled the House. If established, that offence constitutes a grave contempt of Parliament, according to Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, page 110 and 225.
In support of his submission, the hon. leader of the third party relies upon the following facts: 1. That a fair wage policy was announced in the Speech from the Throne on March 17 last. 2. On March 17 last, two questions were directed to the hon. Premier. First: "What's a fair wage policy, Premier? What's your definition?" Answer: "Well, that is legislation to be brought forward by the Minister of Labour in this session of the Legislature." Second: "But there's a general perception it's unfair, or you wouldn't use these terms such as 'fair wage.' Is that correct?" Answer: "Well, I don't want to belabour this, because I don't want to get into future legislation that right now is being formulated after substantial consultation, but yes, we want to be fair employers. What that means we are going to put before the Legislature in the new future." These questions and answers are taken from a transcript of a news conference on March 17. 3. On March 26 the hon. Premier, during oral questions, was asked: "Can the Premier tell us now, yes or no, whether he will bring the fair wage policy to this House in the form of legislation prior to its implementation?" To which the response was: "I will give the same answer I gave the last time. The answer is yes." With respect to this question and answer, the hon. government House Leader submitted that the question sought clarification on the issue of legislation, while the answer was directed to the issue of debate.
The hon. government House Leader further submitted that the true essence of the entire exchange of questions and answers was whether or not there would be debate on the policy, rather than on the method by which the issue would be debated. In support, the hon. government House Leader quotes the hon. Premier on March 18 as saying: "I can assure the House that there is going to be a lot of time for debate in this sitting of the Legislature, and I'm sure the hon. member, with his interest in seeing working people in this province treated fairly, will be debating that issue during this sitting of the Legislature." The hon. government House Leader also quotes the hon. Minister of Labour on March 23 on the same subject, page 88 of Hansard, as saying: "If the member is anxious for a debate, he can raise it during members' statements. Otherwise, this government will have a debate in this House about fair wages; that's our commitment."
The Chair has carefully considered the statements to which reference has been made, the submissions made by hon. members and the law of parliament relevant to the issues. In applying that law, the Chair must always apply the same rules, whether the subject matter at issue be a highly contentious one or a matter on which the degree of contention may be minimal.
An examination of the authorities on matters of privilege and contempt indicates that contempt is usually founded upon an admission by a member of deliberately intending to mislead the House -- for example, the Profumo case, the U.K. House of Commons debates, 1963, page 246 -- or the protracted giving of false evidence before a committee of the House.
Statements of intention of future action are traditionally set forward in a Speech from the Throne and are also frequently made both in the House and outside the House. It seems to the Chair that the functioning of the House would be very seriously impeded if such statements, which may not be implemented, were taken as constituting the foundation of an allegation of the grave offence of contempt.
The Chair notes that on page 4 of his submission the hon. leader of the third party says: "A common theme among the answers given was cautious assurance that the policy in question would be brought before this assembly for full debate." The hon. leader of the third party may feel aggrieved by any references to the bringing forward of legislation. However, for the Chair to find prima facie that thereby a grave contempt of the House has been committed would not be in accordance with the law of parliament to which the Chair has made reference, and accordingly the matter must fail.
Hon. D. Miller tabled the five-year forest and range resource program report for the years 1992 to 1997; and the annual report of the Ministry of Forests, 1990-91.
J. Beattie: I have some petitions to present. Is this the appropriate time?
The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.
J. Beattie: I would like to present hundreds of signed letters from people all across the province, citizens calling for an end to legislated poverty. Each
[ Page 574 ]
letter has a personal comment, and I'd like to give the House a flavour of the direction of this petition.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I would only caution you that the comments should be restricted to the "therefore be it resolved" aspect of the petition.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I would just like to say that these petitions are towards the establishment of fair living standards for all people in the province.
(continued)
G. Farrell-Collins: It is indeed a pleasure to rise once again in this House. After the speech we heard from the hon. minister, it's also a pleasure to rise in rebuttal to some of his interesting comments. The member for Nelson-Creston, who spoke yesterday, was very eloquent in his defence of this government's budget, and I would also like to take issue with some of the remarks that were made by him.
[2:45]
It was very intriguing this morning to listen to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs give such an eloquent speech, not in defence of his own government's budget but in opposition to some sort of budget that the Liberal caucus was supposed to have brought forward for this province. He should know that as a member of the executive council, he is a member of the government, and this is his budget that we're speaking to, not some budget that is supposedly put forth by the Liberal caucus. We'll wait our turn. We understand that in the election of October 17 the general public voted 60 percent against the current government. We assume that in the next election a good majority of that vote will fall to the Liberal Party, and we will have the opportunity to present a budget to this House, one that shows some vision and leadership for this province, as opposed to the one that this 40 percent minority government...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
An Hon. Member: It was 41.6 percent.
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, 41.6 percent. I believe that's two points lower than the Bob Skelly election -- the previous one, was it?
H. Lali: Where the Liberals were wiped out?
G. Farrell-Collins: We were wiped out, but we're sure back in strength now, aren't we?
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's wonderful to hear the comments from the other side of the House, because most of the time there's nobody there, and when they are there, they don't really say anything unless they're directed to by the House Leader. It's great to see some real independence and vigour from the government benches as opposed to the usual snoring we occasionally hear. I always enjoy getting them up to it.
I have some grave concerns with the budget that this government has brought forward. I'll restrict my comments to their budget, seeing that it is their budget. This government talked so much during the last election about a better way. In fact, it was their whole campaign slogan. It was on the front cover of that little booklet that was distributed around the province, the little bible that their campaign workers carried in their pockets and quoted to people on their doorsteps. Their candidates stood up, waved to the people and said: "This is what this government is going to do." They were full of wonderful promises and platitudes to show that this province was really heading in another direction.
I must say that it has been very upsetting to see the direction this government has taken since the House came into session and this government took control of the province. I use that world "control" on purpose. It's not a better way; what we've seen is the same old way. We had five years of probably the worst government this province has ever seen, from 1986 to 1991. We waited with excitement to see what this government would do. Believe me, as a member of the opposition, we did and still do want to be constructive. We intend to offer alternatives to this government. We intend to comment and commend them when they do good things. In fact, we have done so when they bring forth good policies. There are a number that we've commented on. In fact, we've given support to a number of members of this House as they have spoken in defence of elements of this budget.
We've joined in congratulating them on some of the movements they've made on women's equality. We certainly congratulate the Minister of Women's Equality for being the first Minister of Women's Equality. Believe me, the members on this side of the House value women's equality just as much as the members on the other side. There are a number of issues that this government has brought forward which we support and which we've given constructive criticism on.
However, we would be remiss in our duties if we didn't speak to the fallacies of this government, and if we didn't speak to the run-amok ideology that is starting to appear in some of the documents we're getting from this government. We had the member from Nelson-Creston talking yesterday about this ship -- the SS British Columbia -- that was heading toward the shoals, and the NDP were rushing to the bridge of the ship to take control and keep it off the rocks. He talked about grabbing hold of the tiller and steering us gradually away from the rocks.
When I hear that type of speech from a government that got 40 percent in the polls, I start to wonder if they really have a legitimate reason for heading this ship, this SS British Columbia, in the direction they've chosen. I think not.
They have decided, instead of taking a bold new vision for British Columbia and heading in a direction, to come down with a budget that nitpicks. There's a
[ Page 575 ]
little tax there, another little tax here, a whole big one there, and stick it to business here. They come back with this and say that it is another way -- a bold new way. This is no better way. It's exactly the same thing the last government did. It's just being done slightly differently, with little numbers, little increases here and little increases there.
Where's the fundamental tax reform that was promised? We've yet to see it. Where's the really strong commitment to education that we were waiting to see? I've just been lobbied, as have many members -- probably almost every member in this House today -- by, in my case, members of the Langley Teachers' Association. I've seen members having delegations from all the other teachers' associations around this province.
The teachers' association, mind you, is in part the same people who sit in the BCTF, which gave such adamant support to this government in the last election. Here it is six months later, and they're over in the Liberal caucus complaining about what the NDP government's doing to education. It's an amazing turn of events. I wonder why. Why are these people coming? Why do they have to take time off from their busy schedules and their classrooms to come to Victoria and lobby us on behalf of the students of this province? I thought they had direct access, a direct link, to this government, and in fact that this government was going to do all the wonderful things it had promised them. It hasn't happened.
This government has had five months, as the member opposite said yesterday, to grab hold of the tiller and change the direction of this province. I have seen absolutely no change. There is no change in the budget speech or in the throne speech. There was no change at all mentioned to the fundamental formula that funds education in this province. They've tinkered with it a little bit. They've given a one-time shot in the arm to those growing districts that need the extra funds so desperately, but there's been no looking again, no rehashing, no complete and total evaluation of the education funding formula that determines which students get how much money.
Last evening, in my constituency of Fort Langley-Aldergrove, the Langley School Board had a crisis meeting, where they were dealing with the issue of their budget. They're going to have a $3.6 million deficit that's in part funded by all sorts of things, such as growth -- Langley is a growing district.
This government promised during the campaign that they would make fundamental changes to the way education was funded in this province, and they've not done that. They've had five months. I wonder what the Minister of Education has been doing for five months, if not analyzing and evaluating the funding formula.
An Hon. Member: Cleaning up the messes that were left.
G. Farrell-Collins: We hear lots of interesting comments from the government: "Gee, things were so bad when we got here. It was a mess." I agree it was a mess. Everybody in the province knows it was a mess, and the way we know is that the people of this province did their job on October 17 -- did half the job, anyway -- and got rid of the Social Credit government. The people of this province knew it was a mess. They knew it was a mess when the NDP members announced it in this House; and when they were out walking around the province, banging on doors and talking to people during the campaign, stating all these wonderful things they were going to be able to do if only they were elected. So they trusted them. They assumed that the NDP -- sitting in opposition for 18 years or 20 years or whatever it was -- would also know that things were a mess, as the people did in their homes -- standing there talking to the candidate on the doorstep. They didn't think they had to elect the government first, so the government could go in and pay a million dollars to an accounting firm to figure out it was a mess so they could come back and tell them. The people already knew that. I knew that. The people in my constituency knew that.
Why is it that none of the NDP members who now sit in this House, none of the NDP cabinet, knew that it was a mess? Were they not paying attention? I wonder. So we've gone for five months blaming all of the problems of this province on the last government. They've been in control -- and control is a good word -- for five and a half months now, and we still haven't seen any action at all on the education funding formula. Why not? Is that going to come next year or the year after? Or were you going to wait four years and then say: "Well, gee, we didn't have time to do it. It's been such a mess. The Social Credit mess was so bad it's taken us four years to try and sort it out. We're just now going to be able to deliver on some of the promises that we talked about."
When we look at this budget and look for better ways and rummage through it and flip from page to page and go through the estimates.... I'm very curious. What happened to all of these promises? We know it was a mess. Everybody knew it was a mess. But why have very few of these promises been followed up on? And if I had my little brown booklet -- and believe me, I've got a copy; I should have got it autographed by the candidate in my constituency -- that landed on my doorstep during the campaign on a better way.... I believe it was 48 promises that were in this little book, but we're down to, I don't know, 23 and counting. It's very interesting to wonder where they all went. Where did the commitment go to these promises?
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: One of the members from the third party says he's still trying to figure out the promises. It's true they were relatively vague. I guess that way you don't have to quite adhere to them if you don't want to. It's much like when the Premier answers questions in this House; he's very vague so nobody knows exactly what it is that he's saying.
I have a real question for this government, and it's something that's been really bothering me for the last five months, particularly in the last month or so.
[ Page 576 ]
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will. I'm glad you're listening. It's great to finally see members of the executive council in this chamber actually listening to some of the presentations that are being made by the opposition. It's wonderful -- as opposed to the Minister of Forests who was asleep and snoring here last week.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Does that say something about your speaking?
G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, I believe it was a member from the third party who was speaking at that time, but that's fine. It's very interesting, though, to finally have some feedback.
The issue that I really want to address is this idea of fair wages that's come before this House so many times in questions, and we have yet to get a straight answer to. It really depends on who does the calculations, because if the Minister of Labour does them and there's media around, he'll tell you that it's not going to cost anything. If it's a different situation or somebody else does the calculation, it can range anywhere from $50 million to $150 million to $250 million, and believe it or not, I even read in the paper last week or two weeks ago that it was going to cost up to $500 million to implement fair wages. This is probably an extreme figure, but I think that the numbers for fair wages are somewhere. It's really difficult to tell because I certainly don't have the resources to do a study. I'd hoped that the government would have taken the last five months to do some sort of study on fair wages that would allow us to really understand if the cost is going to be zero or if it is going to be $200 million.
As they haven't taken the time to do that, you can only speculate and try and do the math yourself. The number that I keep coming up with is about $200 million. I ask myself: where in the budget is that money going to come from? Either the government knows that it's going to cost $200 million, and the money is hidden somewhere in the budget, or they really believe that it's not going to cost anything additional. If that's the case and it's not going to cost anything additional, I'm asking which projects are not going to go ahead.
Could it be that the Prince George university has been pushed back a year or so because of the fair wage policy? Maybe that's a possibility. Could it be that the fundamental reform to the education funding formula that I talked about has been put off? Could it perhaps be that the reason that funding formula hasn't been changed to come up with something more realistic or effective is that they've got to put some money on the side for the additional costs that are going to come along as a result of the fair wage policy? Could it be that the reason we're not intending to continue with some of the capital projects that this government promised, such as the Robson ferry, for example.... The list goes on and on. You just have to go into any constituency in this province and take note of the highway projects that are not going ahead, like the Island Highway. I wonder if the reason they're not going ahead is that there's not enough money in the budget because somewhere in that budget money has been set aside for the fair wage policy.
These are things that are bothering me and things that the people in British Columbia are starting to become aware of. They're starting to wonder where the money is going to come from to pay for this fair wage policy. I have to ask that myself.
According to the budget speech, we have a $1 billion capital allotment for construction. I wonder how much of that is going to go for fair wages. I wonder what part the fair wage policy had in delaying the letting of contracts for the Commonwealth Games that are going to be here in 1994. These questions are starting to appear in people's minds around this province.
Budgets aren't easy things to read. I don't profess to be an accountant, and I don't ever want to be one. But when you look at this budget and start to add up the numbers and flip through it, it's not something that just anybody off the street would, first of all, want to analyze or, secondly, would have the time to analyze in any depth.
[3:00]
I wonder where the money is. There are only three ways we can do it. Either the money is there and it's hidden, or the money is not there. The reason it's not there is that they don't need it, and they don't need it because they're going to cut back on capital construction in the province. Or they're not aware that the money is going to be needed. Somewhere down the road -- next year or the year after -- we're going to incur a large deficit due to the fair wage policy of this government.
Despite the objections of members of this NDP caucus and cabinet, if those are the concerns of the public, why is it that when the Minister of Labour and the Premier are asked repeatedly in this House to table any documents, reports or anything that would justify, first of all, the need for wages and, secondly, the expense of fair wages, they fail to do so.
F. Garden: You refused to debate it.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member talks about the debate, and I think this is a wonderful one, because this party....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: We did want a debate on fair wages. The problem was that this government decided to bring it in a day and a half before the end of the fiscal year. The reason they brought it in then is that they knew the priorities of the opposition were to account for the five months that this party has been in government and has been spending on special warrants. That's what the people want accounted for. I tabled a motion in this House on that day -- on the Monday -- asking for a debate and public hearings on fair wages, giving the proper notice under the rules of this House, contrary to the fact that the member opposite denied the rules of this House. That motion has remained on the order paper for a week and a half, and this
[ Page 577 ]
government has failed to come up with a debate on fair wages, and I say shame.
That's one issue -- fair wages. The people of this province are starting to ask where the money is going to come from, and they want to know what the justification was for it. And this government has absolutely no way to justify it. Where's the money in the budget? If it's not in the budget, where is it going to come from? They want to know.
There are other issues that we have to deal with in this budget, and the biggest one.... Again, I have to refer to the member yesterday who spoke so -- I guess you could call it eloquently -- about this SS British Columbia. It really intrigued me, because the thing that the NDP doesn't understand is that we're past these bygone days where the government can just tax and go on and on and tax and tax and tax, and hopefully everything falls into some utopia as the ship veers back into the centre and everybody goes happily along their way. What they don't understand is that before the ship goes anywhere, before you can steer the ship, before you can put people on the ship and try and get anywhere, you need some fuel to go into the ship.
This government does not realize that you have to invest first, and then you earn money. Once you've earned money, then you spend it. You don't spend it first and hope that it's going to come from somewhere, and if you run out you go back to the taxpayers for more. The Premier, when he was.... I should call him the Premier, I guess. I like to think of him more as the mayor of British Columbia. But when he was the mayor of Vancouver, he raised taxes in Vancouver -- commercial and corporate taxes -- by 52 percent. He loves to stand up in this House and say, "When I was the mayor of Vancouver I did this, this and this, and this was the policy," and he did it during the election campaign. What people don't understand is that he raised taxes 52 percent. I wonder in what state the SS British Columbia will be in four years when taxes have gone up 52 percent. Not very good shape.
R. Neufeld: Done by law.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, he had to by law because he had to balance the books by law, and the way he balanced the books was by raising taxes. Very, very interesting.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. Maybe the NDP will implement a bill one of these days that says we have to balance the budget in B.C. They won't tell us that they're going to do it by raising the taxes until we can balance the budget.
It was interesting with this budget to see that there is no plan -- no plan for four or five years down the road. This is the first time a budget has been tabled in British Columbia that doesn't give projections for three or four years down the road. Even the Social Credit government at the height of its floundering last May....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Sorry, Rick. I apologize to the minister of Peace. He's having a hard time with this speech. I know it hurts, but that's the truth.
At the height of their floundering last May they were able -- in whatever way they did it -- to make projections four years down the road.
H. Lali: It was a lie.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, it was not true -- very good point -- and they paid the price. But now it's the turn of this government to pay the price, because during the campaign they made public a document that showed how this NDP government was going to balance the budget in a four-year, five-year business plan, I believe it was. Their starting figure for the first year was a $1.4 billion deficit.
They tabled in this House a $1.7 billion deficit, so I assume that if this government took the $200 million, maybe $250 million, from fair wages, had they not implemented it, we might actually have had a $1.4 billion deficit -- exactly the numbers they campaigned on, which would mean that in fact every additional year through that plan they would also have an additional $200 million or $250 million from this so-called fair wage fund that they're developing. It's too bad it doesn't start with a B and an S, we could just refer it back to the old government, but it's the fair wage fund, wherever that happens to be. If they could add that $250 million each year to their budget, they would have absolutely no problem whatsoever adhering to the budget projections they made prior to the election.
So I wonder why it is that in this budget there is no mention at all of how the government intends to balance the budget. What happened to it? The Premier stood in front of the television cameras in that infamous debate and said: "When I was the mayor of Vancouver I balanced the budget, and when I'm the Premier of this province I'm going to balance the budget. It will take me five years." But what happened to that commitment? Which promise was that in the election platform of the NDP -- "A Better Way"? I can't remember. As I say, I've lost track of the number that have been broken in the last six months. Where is the money that's going to balance the budget as they promised us? Or were those more wonderful airy statements made by the Premier?
This budget sets no clear direction for the SS British Columbia, as the member mentioned yesterday. Where are we going in five years? Where are we going to be in five years? The people in B.C. want to know the answer to that. They want to see where this province is going to go in five years. They entrusted this government.... I know they had a hangover the next day when it was all over, thinking: "Oh, my goodness, we elected 51 NDP members. Now what are we going to do?" But because of the process we have in this province, they elected this governnment, and they want to know where this province is going to be in four or five years. We have yet to see that in this budget. Where is the vision? Where is the better way? This is the same old way. This is exactly how the Social Credit did it.
[ Page 578 ]
H. Lali: Let's hear your way.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the member wants to hear my way. I can tell the member that if he would like to resign his seat along with some members from the government, we can have enough by-elections so that enough Liberals can get elected, and then we'd be glad to take over. We'll do it tomorrow, if you like. We'll table a budget that has some vision and some plan for this province.
We had the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs speaking up here today, and it was fun to listen to him. Boy, he must be great on the campaign trail. It was full of rhetoric. It was great. It's the type of thing that chills people's blood. They get up, and they hoot and holler, and they say: "Wow, what a great speech!" Then they get home, and they realize that they haven't heard anything. It's sort of like going for Chinese food. You eat it, and when you get home, you realize that you haven't eaten anything.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I love Chinese food. I eat it all the time.
Hon. Speaker, it's very intriguing to hear what the member had to say today. He essentially attacked the opposition for their lack of a budget. It's not our job to make the budget. If you want us to be in government and you want to have a budget from us, as I said, resign your seats. We'll have about a dozen by-elections; that ought to do it. We'll win every one, and we'll come back and form the government. Then we'll give you a budget.
The minister spoke at great length about the lack of vision that he says the official opposition has shown. I invite the members of this House -- and certainly the people of British Columbia -- to read the speeches given by the Leader of the Opposition on the throne speech and the budget and compare them with the speeches given by the Premier on the throne speech and the budget. Just make that simple comparison, and they will know where the vision lies in this province. They will know where the future of British Columbia lies. It lies in the Liberal Party, and not in the NDP. They will see that very clearly.
Hon. Speaker, a number of things have come up as we have been perusing and analyzing this budget. To be honest, there's really not a lot of great things in the budget. It was nice to see the $32 million commitment to women's equality, and we support that wholeheartedly. I would like to have seen it perhaps be a little larger. I don't think we need to give $200 million to the construction workers of this province, but those were the government's priorities.
The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said to us that we want, first of all, for the government to spend more money; we also want it to reduce taxes, and we want it to reduce the deficit. The answer to the first one -- that we want it to spend more money -- is not necessarily more money. We want it to spend its money more wisely. Yes, we want it to reduce taxes, and yes, we want it to reduce the deficit. Somehow, in the minds of the minister, the NDP caucus and cabinet, that's a real problem. The reason is that this government doesn't understand that the people of this province are asking for a different way of doing government. They want to see increased efficiency. They want to see new priorities. They want to see a new way of running government. They want to see a fixed budget day, among other things, so you can't fiddle with all these things that are going on and so the school boards don't have to wait until the last minute to find out what their budgets are. They want to have a new way of doing the business of this province, and the government and the NDP caucus sit there amazed when members on this side talk about new spending priorities -- in some cases that means spending more money and at the same time reducing taxes. They don't understand that if you're more efficient, then you can do these projects that you'd like to do. You can actually set a new direction for the province. You can take SS British Columbia and head it into the mainstream and on a good course without having to spend all sorts of money.
We need some vision in this province. We need it badly. We didn't see it in the throne speech; we don't see it in the budget. We're waiting with anticipation. I hope the people of this province do not have to wait another four years before they finally get a vision in this province, the vision that will be given by the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal caucus.
H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove for the fact that I'm not speaking to a full House this afternoon. He seems to have taken care of that quite well.
In response to some of the comments, I think it would seem pointless to ask the opposition to propose a budget. They would probably withdraw it in time, just like they withdrew their platform last October. So we could probably spare you some of that work.
The other comment had to do with the analogy of the boat. I have another analogy that I wish to propose, and that is that we're all in a lifeboat together. We have 50 members on this side of the House rowing, with one pair of hands firmly on the tiller, and the opposition is dragging the oars. We will still get where we're going in spite of them, and we will lead B.C. on the road to recovery and of course down the road to a better way.
Hon. Speaker, the budget process is based on some relatively simple principles. In the first place, you have to look at previous years and the financial picture of previous years: how much money is left; what's the state of the province's finances? Then you determine the priorities: who should pay more; where should the funds go? Of course, if there's lots of money left over or if there's lots of money to work with, then it's easy to set priorities; if there isn't, then it's quite a tough job.
One of the unpleasant surprises in this job, at least for me, was to find how bare the cupboard was. Even with the limited resources, this government has managed to keep its priorities right -- and by that I mean correct.
[3:15]
L. Fox: You mean left.
[ Page 579 ]
H. Giesbrecht: I said "correct," hon. member.
The opposition's tactic is to deny the past. Their world started in October '91. They discredit the Peat Marwick report. The previous years of mismanagement just didn't happen, to them. They deny the waste that existed, the BS fund and the $2.34 billion deficit last year. Those are the realities that this government had to face.
Both opposition parties, of course, have different motives. The opposition party doesn't want to understand the need for some tough decisions. They don't want the public to understand the need for some tough decisions. As far as they are concerned, their universe started in October.
The member for North Vancouver-Seymour said that we need to spend money to make money. The problem is that if you're making less than you're spending, at some point that has to stop.
The member for Surrey-Cloverdale is distressed because the Transportation Museum, a financial clunker, has closed down. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that we have a number of communities in Skeena that would more than love to have an operation like that subsidized by the government. How much money do you spend to lose money? That would seem to be something that the opposition has difficulty understanding.
The member for Delta South talked about selling ice cream in the middle of the beach -- a preoccupation with being in the middle, I think. My suggestion to the member is that you sometimes have to deal with getting out of the middle and make a decision. That's what this government has been doing.
To avoid looking at past financial experiences reminds me of another analogy, that of a teenager walking down a railroad track with a Walkman on at full volume, and a train is bearing down on him from behind at 60 miles an hour. The past is going to catch up to you unless you deal with it.
As for the third party, they can't admit that they messed up. Sure, they're sorry they lost the voters' confidence. But ask them about financial matters and all they can do is question the accuracy of the Peat Marwick report. It reminds me of the latest apology from a former member of what is now only a remnant in this House, and it goes like this: "If I've done something wrong, then I apologize."
The reality is that the cupboard was bare, and this government was forced to make some difficult decisions. I've had some municipal government experience. I was actually the chair of finance for four years, albeit on a much smaller scale in terms of budgets. There are three situations that we used to dread when working on budgets.
The first one doesn't really qualify in this particular arena. The case of a large surplus carried forward into the next year to cover operating costs presented some problems, because it reduced taxes artificially for a year, and when the surpluses were gone, someone would have to make the difficult decision to levy extra taxation to recover those surpluses -- and maybe the inflationary operating costs as well. It would be nice if we had that problem, but clearly we don't. That isn't what this government had to deal with.
The second troublesome situation usually occurred if a previous government, for whatever political reasons, decided not to keep taxes in line with operating costs and inflation. The following year would be a difficult one for a new administration. Tough decisions in terms of setting taxation rates would have to be made. That is really part of what this government had to deal with. It dealt with not only an imbalance in taxation but an imbalance in who pays.
The most dreaded part of setting a budget was if there was a high accumulated deficit left. In B.C.'s case it comes coupled with previous questionable accounting practices. That's what this government faced, and that's why there is the need for some tough decisions.
The opposition's response has been that if you can't stand the message, kill the messenger; try to discredit the accountants. It doesn't work. The public is a lot smarter than that. The opposition fooled the public once in a six-second clip. I doubt that they'll get a second chance.
A week ago during the all-night debate -- it was one of my first experiences with something like that -- I kept seeing a vision that I was going to see the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say, as he did in the six-second clip: "This is why nothing ever gets done in the Legislature." It didn't happen, so we nonetheless carried on with hours and hours of questions read from cue cards. The opposition is still knocking down straw persons, still talking about the socialist hordes at the gates. They are beginning to sound like the previous government.
The third-party response has been to avoid focusing on their record, again trying to discredit the Peat Marwick report. The B.C. Financial and Economic Review, thirty-sixth edition -- this is the 1975 fiscal year -- reported an excess of expenditure over revenue of $405 million -- small by today's standards. In the previous year there was a surplus of $143.7 million. That was 17 years ago. The point is that B.C. was relatively debt-free 17 years ago, and today the accumulated direct government debt stands close to $5 billion. How did we get to this? Good fiscal management? Any pain arising from the tough decisions this government had to make has to be part of the legacy of the third party. To deny that is to deny reality.
This budget is tough. It deals with the issues honestly. It is fair and responsible, and it gets B.C.'s priorities right. In tough times you have to control spending. Every ministry has had to deal with this issue. We heard somebody talk today about the Ministry of Tourism, and they've had some cuts as well. When a business falls on hard times, the first thing it looks at controlling is marketing costs. At some point, whether you like it or not, you have to make those kinds of decisions. It's unfortunate, but it needs to happen. What was the alternative? We could have had a sales tax; nobody wanted that in the restaurant business or in the tourism industry. We could have had a sales tax; there would have been a greater hue and cry from the opposition on that.
[ Page 580 ]
Instead, we made some tough decisions. Spending growth is cut in half; it's the lowest rate in five years. We've certainly cut waste. We've maintained provincial services and assets, and we've also maintained services to people. And on the latter, which is really the key focus for this government, health care spending is up $409 million, but there are no increases in MSP payments. Education is up $300 million, but tuition fees are frozen. Social Services is up $369 million to assist the disadvantaged. We have for the first time some substantial resources to address women's equality: pay equity for direct public service -- $32 million; wage parity for lowest-paid public servants -- $29 million; child care -- $17 million; and $6 million for intervention and prevention of violence against women.
The opposition should be ashamed to speak against a budget that is progressive and deals with some of the issues that have been neglected for so long. We're doing it with fair and balanced taxation. Who would argue with the idea that in tough times you don't hammer the poor and the low income groups? The opposition would. Ninety-two percent of all taxpayers will not pay any more in total income tax. These are our friends and insiders -- 92 percent of British Columbians.
The federal government cut $1.4 billion from payments to B.C. They could afford to reduce the income tax rate. The public, however, still demands the services. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, Kim Campbell -- the former member of what is now a remnant in this House and probably an honorary Liberal -- would have loved to see this government and the social safety net in B.C. fall apart. They could have had a field day watching, just like they did in Ontario. Cut some of the lifeblood from the provinces and stand back and watch the fun. Kim Campbell supported the $1.4 billion cut to B.C., and she rants and rails against our actions by increasing income tax by 1 percent. But we're not playing their game, and that must be very frustrating for them.
Municipal governments also rely on grants from the province, and if the province is strapped for cash, it's only right and fair that everyone down the line also does their share of belt-tightening. All governments are financially linked. There is only one taxpayer.
You can't carry on as though nothing happened in this province over the past 16 years. The finances have to be cleaned up. At least we on this side of the House support fair wages for working men and women so they can pay their fair share of taxes. The opposition would be more credible if they directed some of their outrage at the federal government and past federal governments. I mention past federal governments specifically, who created the massive $400 billion federal debt that we are having to deal with indirectly in this House and through our budget.
How could the opposition argue against the high-income surcharge? Think of the average and low-income women and men. What's wrong with some tax fairness nowadays? In 1986, 18 percent of tax revenue in B.C. came from corporations; in 1990 that figure is 9 percent. Who's responsible for the shift in taxation? Who took the load off corporations and put it onto the individual taxpayers? It's time for some tax fairness. We've advocated a 1 percentage point increase in general corporation income tax; 1 percent small business tax rate; capital tax for large corporations. It's unfortunate that we have to do this sort of thing, and we would love not to have to, but it's part of the reality.
I want to read you a portion of a newspaper article that appeared last June; just the first couple of paragraphs. It's called: "Debt Blamed on Tax Breaks". It was in the Province of June 20, 1991:
"The federal government is $400 billion in debt because of too many tax breaks over the last 16 years, says a new study by Statistics Canada. The culprit isn't overspending on social programs, the federal agency said in its June Economic Observer released yesterday. Since 1975, it said, government tax revenues, especially from corporations, haven't kept pace with the growth in the economy."
It's also interesting that in a 1989 government publication -- we all know which government publication I'm referring to -- there was a quote: "Provincial tax cuts worth more than $500 million annually to businesses in B.C. have been made since 1985. B.C. now offers one of Canada's lowest rates of corporate taxation." Solution from the opposition: they're against wage fairness, and they're against fair taxation, which is really strange because they advocate more spending by less taxation and even propose a flat tax. There are some real conflicting messages here, which tells me in general that this is a pretty fair budget given the financial situation we found ourselves in. Increasing the volume from the other side doesn't improve the logic, nor does the repetition make them any more convincing. The opposition has been long on rhetoric, short on substance. What we could do with is a little explanation of what they would do, never mind proposing a budget.
This budget has a focus which goes beyond megaprojects and blacktops; it focuses on people. It focuses on putting them to work, on giving them fair wages. It focuses on letting them have the opportunity to pay taxes. Fair wages, hon. Speaker -- if you provide people with an income in the community, it swirls around the economy and the community, and there are spinoff benefits which I don't think the opposition really realizes.
[3:30]
In 1981, '82 and '83, when we were in the middle of a recession -- the severity increased by the former Premier Bill Bennett -- you could walk through the malls in Terrace and see very few people. They had no disposable incomes to spend. Working men and women spend the overwhelming portion of their paycheques on basic necessities. If you deny them that, the economy suffers.
In Skeena, we have a constituency that's rich in resources -- forestry, mining, tourism -- and it's about time that we had better management, better inventory and planning, better pollution monitoring and control; this budget includes $4.5 million for that purpose. In total for those three, $15 million is added. There's a $15 million natural resources community fund to deal with problems faced by resource-dependent communities -- $5 million per year, which is one half the natural resource revenues for job creation options. Many of the communities in the north need a hedge against the
[ Page 581 ]
instability of the kind of hewers-of-wood and drawers-of-water jobs that we have had for far too long.
I support the budget because it is progressive and provides opportunities to deal with health care issues in a very creative way. I want to speak very briefly about health care issues as they relate to Skeena.
In Kitimat, for example, we have a proposal to build a comprehensive new health care facility which is to be made up of a community health care facility, an acute-care facility and an extended-care facility, all joined in some way. It's a creative solution. We were looking at the budget to provide some solution or some funds, and I think it falls in line with the Seaton commission report that makes it incumbent on locals to find creative ways to deal with health care costs.
We have another. In Terrace, there's a supporting housing facility that's being proposed. Patients who presently live in extended care would like to live on their own with some support from the extended-care facility staff, which would be right next door. What we see in this is that there would be some room created in the extended-care facility by those patients who move out, and that would provide some room in the acute-care facility from those patients who would transfer from acute care to extended care. Over the long term this would save health care dollars.
This budget provides the means and opportunities to address those kinds of issues. What we have to do -- and we have to start with this budget -- is preserve our health care system as we know it. My only regret, of course, is that we are unable to do more in terms of commitment to services for the people in B.C. The financial mess that was left us doesn't allow it, but if we don't get a hold of the finances we won't be able to introduce some of those programs even in the future.
Let me speak to the issue of what needs to be done in health care that I really regret we have to put off, in terms of this budget. I have a constituent in my town who's progressively going blind. He has a young family and can't work. He needs to come to Vancouver for special treatment, and he is steadily exhausting his life savings. He has to travel back and forth at tremendous cost to himself. What he really needs is travel costs provided by MSP. We'd like to be able to do more in situations like this, but it's unfortunate that we are left with a bare cupboard. I'm hopeful that in the future, when we get the priorities and the finances right, we will be able to do some of those things.
Let me close by saying that this budget is realistic. I believe it's responsible and fair, and I'm confident that it will provide the way to B.C.'s recovery.
E. Barnes: It is indeed a very special pleasure for me to be taking my place for the first time in the thirty-fifth parliament, one that I'm sure all members on both sides of the House are honoured and very glad to be part of. It may take me a little while to get warmed up, because being here is really a big deal. I first stood in my place in February 1973 -- the first time I made a speech. It was almost 20 years ago. Believe me, this is a big deal. I think the thirty-fifth parliament -- you historians take note -- will be the one that turns things around in this province. I don't mean just because of all the great policies that this government has, which are quite apparent -- everybody knows that -- but it will be with an assertive, aggressive, committed and sincerely dedicated opposition which is going to help us to shake this thing down for the benefit of the taxpayers and voters. That's really what it's all about, and we all know that. We've got a good system. Let's make it work.
I want to say, though, that it is indeed an honour to have been chosen as Deputy Speaker, a position, I can assure you, which was the very last place I ever thought I would be. You know, I used to be a football player before I got into politics, and the last thing I wanted to do was look like a referee trying to keep order. It was disorder that was my business for years.
I would like to say that it is also a special honour for me to be able to serve under the Speaker, who is a very good friend of mine. I've known her for many years. I can remember, hon. Speaker, when you first ran for politics in the Burnaby council, and I was in your campaign out there beating the bushes for you. I'm pleased to see you now in the Chair, and I know that you have demonstrated the skill and adaptability that all of us can follow, having been given such a challenge with no previous experience in the Legislature. I think you've done a remarkable job, and I am very pleased to see you in the position you're in. Not to mention the fact that you're a woman, and we all know it's about time we began to recognize the role of women in society.
This government, this party, has fought the hard fights throughout its history. But I don't think there's any question on either side of the House that we all aspire to a better and more equitable society. The question has always been: who is willing to bite the bullet first? It's not a question of disagreeing on fundamental justice, rights, equality and fairness -- all those virtues. I don't think anybody disagrees. The question usually is: "Well, I agree, but not now. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe later. You try it, and if it works then I'll get on board." That type of thing.
This government has come out front and begun to do the things that we had all wanted to see for a long time. Women's equality. We will have a ministry finally addressing the concerns of females. Hon. members, let me say to you that I have always had nothing but the highest respect for women, because the only way I am here today is because of my mother -- not only my mother, my sister. When I think back about what my mother went through in order to ensure that I had food on the table, it really makes me realize how hard it has been for women. My father took off before I was born. He showed up once to say something to my mother. She got pregnant again and then had another one. And that was the last time I saw him. It was mother who kept things together.
I know we will be addressing those kinds of issues in this session and dealing with errant spouses who don't keep their responsibilities for maintenance and support of the children they bring into the world. We have a complex of problems to address, and we are going to address them.
I will be watching you from the chair as you debate and deliberate these issues. This is probably one of the rare times that I will have an opportunity to make a
[ Page 582 ]
non-partisan speech. You will note very carefully that I'm not talking about how poor the Socreds were when we were in opposition. I'm refraining from that, hon. members. Tempting though it may be, that is not the issue right now.
We're talking about a new view, a new approach and a new way of doing things. I notice that that is a very real possibility in this House. I notice it because I see members showing courtesy and respect and consulting on matters as they learn how to participate as Members of the Legislative Assembly. It really is quite a remarkable thing, because two-thirds of the members sitting here have never sat in the Legislature before. I would like to commend each and every one of them for committing themselves, even though I'm sure some of you were surprised that your commitment would actually materialize and that you would find yourselves here. You are here, and you have adapted and adjusted very quickly, and it's obvious that we're going to have a very vibrant, energetic exchange of ideas and debate around concerns -- of which there are many.
So congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition, to the opposition House Leader, to the third-party leader, to all of the caucuses, to my caucus and to my good friend the Premier, whom I have known for many years. By the way, he was my campaign manager the first time I got elected, which may surprise some of you. But that goes back a long way. And of course I was in many of his campaigns when he was running for mayor.
But I want to congratulate all of my colleagues and the cabinet -- excellent people all. This is why I say it's so exciting. This is a very big deal we have, and it's not something that any of us can take credit for singularly. It involves the efforts of people who rarely ever get mentioned and hardly ever come to the fore.
I certainly can give credit to my campaign manager, who has been with me for years and years and years. What was his name? Ray Whitehead. I don't think any of you guys know him, but Ray has been with me campaign after campaign after campaign. I don't think he's ever had his name in the headlines for anything, but I want to thank him and all the people who were involved. My community assistant, Sharon Costello, is excellent. It's like getting two MLAs for one. I'm sure that each and every one of you could say the same thing. This is what the public has to understand. When you invest in an MLA, you invest in a team of individuals from all walks of life.
We just raised the minimum wage by 50 cents, which is a very good deal for people who work within the limits of 40-hour weeks. But how nice it would be if we could get $5 an hour for 40 hours and double time for the time we put in after that. It's seven days a week, full time. You're totally preoccupied with the job all the time and never get away from it. You get hooked. No one has ever had an issue about people and political abuse? We talk about substance abuse and about all kinds of problems, but we never talk about those who are hooked on politics. My friends, we're very fortunate that there are those of us around who will aspire to the challenge of coming into the cooker.
[3:45]
I heard the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Ted Hughes, speak today to the Certified General Accountants' reception. He talked about the challenges that politicians must endure. We are supposed to be exemplary. We are supposed to stand for all the aspirations of all our people out there who are hoping for a better world, for better times. That's pretty heavy for people who grew up like some of us did, out there beating the bushes like everybody else trying to make a living.
We get into this place and realize that we're the last hope. If we don't succeed, what's going to happen to the system? What's going to happen if we don't address the tough issues -- the issues that deal with separating the state from the church and the issues that deal with the fine line between what is a moral responsibility, an ethical responsibility and a legal responsibility, etc? We're expected to have a position, and we can have a position if we go to the people. That's what democracy really means. I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston fully agrees with me on this point, and so would many other members.
I want to cool down a bit and go back, because I have not finished thanking everybody. There are a lot of people involved in this guy's political life. In fact, I'm amazed at how many people have been involved in helping me to hang in there, because I have wanted to give it up many times.
First, I want to say thank you to my wife. I don't know if she's listening now. My wife, Janet, has been tougher on me than any of you guys could ever be -- on everything. Do you know what she's got me doing now? She's got me feeding the dog. I hate to admit it, hon. members, through you, Madam.... Pardon me, that's a bad one -- hon. Speaker. We've all got to learn this. I'm digressing a bit, but I must say that I was in the Chair earlier and a member referred to me as Madam Speaker. We're all adjusting.
My wife is incredibly honest and committed to basic themes. She's the kind of person who goes around and lets the flies outside, instead of smacking them like I used to do. If she sees them on the window, she'll put them out. Or all these little insects.... She wants everything to live.
Back to the dog. I was in China not too long ago with former Premier Dave Barrett -- I wish he were here. What they did for dowries when the Chinese people would get married.... This was just a few years into the cultural revolution. They would receive an animal as a gift -- coupled, and you'd have a pair. You could raise animals and, of course, you would be able to consume them. Dogs, in some cultures, are consumed. Janet would go crazy if she had to see them eating dogs. But this beautiful little dog we have.... I've never really been affectionate towards animals, but she's taught me that animals have a place in society. They have a right in society, and she says: "Buster, you'd better learn to accept it." And you know, she succeeded. I actually love my dog. Do you know what kind of dog I have? An Australian blue heeler. And you know what we call him? Gadget. And Gadget, if you're there anywhere watching the television, I love you.
[ Page 583 ]
Hon. Speaker, we're talking about the budget. I had to mention that because, after all, I'd be out of order. I will say this about the budget: it is a budget that attempts to bring equity to all taxpayers and fairness to everyone. It's difficult when you start asking corporations to pay their fair share. I know that the corporations, being tough negotiators and understanding the bottom line, will resist and fight. But when they go home to their children and sit down around dinner, they'll say: "You know, there are no free lunches. We all know that, but we have a job to do. We have to fight it anyway." It's tough. We're going to make it through that.
What I wanted to say about taxation with respect to Gadget, my family pet, is that it ain't cheap having Gadget. You know what Gadget consumes? About $2 worth of food a day. Someone on social assistance -- with all due respect, hon. member of social assistance -- probably couldn't afford to keep Gadget, because Gadget, at $2 a day for 365 days a year, costs a substantial amount of dollars. I'm not suggesting that Gadget has to go. I'm saying that when we start looking at fair taxation, let's give those people out there who are caring about their pets, whatever the pet may be -- a canary, a kitten or even a couple of cougars....
If you're looking after other inhabitants on this earth, you care about them. You're trying to teach us to become more sensitive to and more respectful for all life forms, so let's expand our view of the economic equator. Let's expand our understanding of what we mean when we talk about economic determinators. We're all participants. We all pay a price, and we all consume. But I have yet to see anybody stand in this Legislature and ask for -- which I'm sure some people will say is ridiculous -- a tax break for people who are buying food for their animals. There was a time when people would say: "Get rid of the animals, if you can't afford them." But that's wrong. That's not the way we're going. That's not the direction. No, the animals have a place. Coming from me, that's something.
I'm not going to tell you some of the stories about what I was like as a child, because if I did, I would be telling about how people become brutalized. There's another problem with violence: why people become violent, vicious and tenacious. That's the story we've got to get in this Legislature. That's what we've got to talk about, because people out there are asking us to do the impossible. They're asking us to forget about the causes of their problem and only deal with some kind of superficial solution. We can't do that. We're going to have to start looking eyeball-to-eyeball with people and telling them to talk straight. Let's find out how people really function.
This is a big order for a group of legislators who come from all walks of life. How many of us have studied human behaviour and psychology or have an understanding about the sociological dynamics of growth and development? What are we talking about? But it's important. We've got to have a closer relationship with the academics. Many people feel that the academics should be in here and we should be out, because they think we don't know anything about the subjects we're talking about most of the time. But no one knows everything about all of the subjects. What we have to do is begin to have a better dialogue with the people who can guide us and help us, and we're going to have to let the people know that there are no more trick politics. Let's put it on the table. That's why open government is so important. We're going to have to bring that in boldly and courageously and expose ourselves to scrutiny and to questions, and let the public in on the options. Once they know the options, maybe they can help us make the difficult decisions, because we're not really here to unilaterally run things anymore. Those days should be gone -- long gone. We can't afford it. Time is running out.
We've got a very difficult challenge, my colleagues, and I would just like to say that I put things in that context, because if I were to try to go through issue by issue, I would be here all day. We'd have a book full, as we have with the estimates -- all these different ministries and the breakdown and all the votes, thousands and thousands of pages and sections of stuff that we have to go through -- when all we're talking about are human beings living on one planet trying to coexist and cutting the crap. Now we're going to have to face it; we haven't got time to fool around. None of us have it and we all know it, but we can do it. We can do anything we please, once we make up our minds and once we know the facts.
Most people, once informed, do pretty well. It's only when they don't know who they can trust, and that's what commissioner Ted Hughes was talking about today. Politicians have to win the trust, they have to be willing to take their lumps, and they'll find out that the lumps are not so difficult after a while. It's quite normal in a democracy for people to have debate and put the facts on the table. There's no need to be afraid, if you've got nothing to hide. There's nothing to fear -- and that's what we've got to get. And we will get there, I'm sure.
Hon. Speaker, the things that I have gone through in these 19 years are really worth reviewing -- at least a few of them. I want to say to you that I remember in 1969 the very first time I ran with Bill Deverell in Vancouver Centre. I haven't talked to you at all about my constituency. Everybody has been talking about their constituencies. Some people are probably saying, well, what about your riding? What's it like? What's it made of? Well, it's downtown: downtown British Columbia. It's where everybody seems to want to go. Everybody seems to want to have a good time. Something happens to you when you get downtown. The only thing is, it's not really a pastoral community, as some people might think. There are residents there. There are people who have been there 30 and 40 years, people who consider downtown their home. That's another dimension to what I want to talk about.
What I want to say, really, is that 20 years ago, when Bill Deverell and I were campaigning in '69 -- actually that's almost 22 years, I guess -- we were having a public meeting, and a group of people in the crowd said: "What are you going to do for the gays and lesbians of the community?" I looked at Deverell and he looked at me. It wasn't something that had been discussed in our party policy. It was an idea that hadn't been addressed. And you know, that was one of the few
[ Page 584 ]
times that I slipped off the stage and slid out the back door, because I didn't know what to do. I knew that this was something that a lot of the people I knew turned thumbs down on. No one would even address the issue of gay and lesbian people -- people with a sexual orientation different from heterosexual.
How far have we come? You know, that was 20 years ago. There are two stories that happened to me, almost the same.
The issues with respect to this community of people are on the table. The throne speech addressed it. It's going to be addressed in changes in the human rights legislation. Sexual orientation will be a prohibited cause for discrimination, as will family status. Presumably that is not only single parents who are being denied an opportunity to rent certain facilities, but perhaps even same-sex couples. That's not specified, but it may well be that that's what we're doing. That's certainly what should be happening.
But now tell me that isn't growth, when we are still in a society of gay-bashing, of brutality, mostly because of ignorance. Some people try to pretend that it's because of religion or their beliefs, or that it's not normal, it's not right. Well, it depends on where you're standing and what you know and how willing you are to open your mind. I can tell you that if we try to stand pat on what we think we know, we won't be able to address the future. The future is exploding. You know, it's computing too fast for any one individual. We're going to have to see ourselves collectively as one organism, collectively beginning to address this, and that's a lot of growth, a lot of mental understanding and a lot of concentration. But that's the kind of thing that I think we're going to be addressing in the future.
Another thing -- and that's why I say I wish Barrett were here, because some of you may remember around '73 or so....
C. Serwa: While you're on the topic of the budget.
E. Barnes: While I'm on the topic of the budget, the hon. member reminds me. But this is apropos, my friend, to what budgets are all about, because budgets have to relate not only to the economic engines but also to the social requirements in society. They have to deal with the quality of life. Budgets have to encompass a sense of humanity. They have to make sense. Otherwise you can spend money, tax, do everything you want, but unless you are relating it to the total ball of wax....
[4:00]
This is what I want to suggest to you: I stood up in this House almost 20 years ago and opposed the stocking of South African products in British Columbian liquor distribution centres and stores. Some of you may recall those debates, when the South African Action Coalition was protesting apartheid in South Africa. I had just joined one of the best organizations I ever joined. At this time I would like to acknowledge at least one of the early leaders, Zayed Gamiet. Some of you may know him. He was of East Indian extraction, a man who left South Africa because of fear, because of his colour, because of the oppression in that system, but who hopefully one day may be able to return home. What I wanted to say is that I stood in this House passionately demanding that we stop stocking South African products in the liquor stores of British Columbia, and some members felt that I was going a little too far, but I say politics is politics. You're dealing with the economy -- it's sort of like you're going too far.
Barrett was the Premier at the time. He had asked me to go to the PNE grounds there for an opening of a tennis tournament -- Rothmans was sponsoring a tennis tournament. I didn't even know that Rothmans was connected with South Africa, but I did know that some of the players.... Drysdale was one of them, as I remember; Arthur Ashe was a black player who was playing in this professional tennis tournament. I just happened to read it in the paper on my way.
So I thought, I can't go down there and represent the provincial government with all these racists. You know, I didn't waste any time -- they're racists. But I thought: I'm being a gentleman, I'm not going to embarrass anybody. I'll just go down quietly and tell them that I don't think it would be appropriate for me to be here because I don't really approve of apartheid in South Africa. So I did. I went down and talked to the organizers, and they thanked me profusely for my consideration in not making an issue. I said, "Thank you. Good-bye. I'm sorry. I hope I haven't embarrassed anybody," and I went home. But you know, the word got out. I don't know who broke the story, but somebody heard that little exchange, and the radio hotline and everybody else had the news. When I got home, I was on the news. Then it was a challenge for the Premier of the day. "Your representative has gone down and embarrassed the government. How dare he go and mix politics with sports? Who is this guy? What's going on?" I did that honestly. I didn't intend to embarrass anybody. My friends, what it told me was that I was led by my feelings, and I didn't consider all of the political considerations. It was a matter of principle, of my own humanity and self-respect. That's what I did, and it turned out to have been one of the most important decisions I've ever made in my life.
Twenty years later they finally had a vote in South Africa, as we all know. Sanctions have expanded all over the world, and Canada, I'm proud to say, still imposes sanctions. Despite what's going on in the U.K., the United States and Japan, we are still standing fast. It's one of the few things that Barbara McDougall has gotten right. She's standing there saying, "No, until we can see the whites of their eyes we will not fire," or something along those lines.
I want to say that in finding myself a member of this thirty-fifth parliament, I have never been happier.
Fate is a funny thing. I came here as a sort of expatriate, really -- an American here to play football. I say expatriate, because I didn't want to come to Canada; I wanted to stay in America, but I didn't want to go all the way back to the south, where I grew up with apartheid. When I got out of the army, I went to the National Football League's Green Bay Packers. We played a game against the Washington Redskins down in Greensboro, North Carolina, and I got the shock of my life. That's why I'm in Canada today. I've told this story a few times, but it bears telling over and over
[ Page 585 ]
again, because you've got to remember those traumas in your life, and you've got to act on them. When I went into the dining-room with 99 percent white players and two or three blacks to have our pre-game lunch, I was told that I couldn't sit down with my team members; I would have to sit down in the kitchen. This was in 1956. I practically went crazy. A couple of the black players said: "Hey, cool it. This is the way it is down here. If you're going to survive, you're going to have to get used to it." It had been going on like that as a way of doing business. To make a long story short, I called Annis Stukus, who at the time was still connected with the B.C. Lions, and I told him: "I'm going to take that option you offered me to come to Canada." It was one of the best decisions I've made.
I don't know if my time is drawing near, but I want to say that as a Canadian, I feel very honoured to be in this Legislature -- the last place I ever thought I would be.
I want to talk to all those people out there -- no offence -- who consider themselves to be visible minorities. I say that cautiously, because I'm sure many white people themselves feel that they are also of colour. We know this. We're going to learn. We'll get it all together eventually.
We had to start someplace. Black power was all about politics, like white power. We're talking politics. We're all human. We all have these things in common: we stand on the same ground, breath the same air, drink the same water and depend on each other to behave ourselves so we can get a good night's sleep.
The Speaker: Hon. member....
E. Barnes: Thank you hon. Speaker, and thank you again, my friends. If you don't mind, hon. Speaker, I would just like to say good luck to everybody. You won't be hearing from me much more. This will be one of the quietest Deputy Speakers you've ever seen.
R. Kasper: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Kasper: Hon. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House 17 young women who are currently working on their citizenship badge for the 1st Shawnigan Lake Guides. Accompanying the young women are Mrs. Marion Davies, Karen Pealo, Laura Ridley, Cheryl Johnson and Angela Bailey. Will the House please make them welcome.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak in response to the budget. In deference to the opposition House Leader and to protocol in this House, I've deferred my position in order for him to speak just prior to the Minister of Finance. That's why I'm speaking at this particular time.
I would like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment as Speaker. I was one, in the early stages of your appointment, who was somewhat of a skeptic. It's a major and challenging role for someone like yourself to become apolitical and to recognize your obligations to the House. I think you've done it exceedingly well, and I congratulate you for that. I suggested earlier that your position often can be considered cruel and unusual punishment, but again I congratulate you on staying in the chair and listening to a lot of debate. It will continue, but I think the House is well served by that type of commitment.
I would also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who just finished responding to the budget speech. My sincerest congratulations to that member. In the five years that I've been a Member of the Legislative Assembly I've gotten to know that gentleman, and he is a noble gentleman. I know him as a friend and as a very competent individual in the Legislature as well as on the basketball court. There are some challenges even with a man whose heart is as big as his; on the basketball court he has exceedingly sharp elbows. Because of his height, his elbows hit at about my face. He uses them well, but he uses the same technique and has used it well in this House. I congratulate him.
I also congratulate all of the new and returning members in this Legislative Assembly. Each one has picked up a responsibility to their constituents, and I congratulate those who have returned and have become ministers of the Crown, members of the executive branch of government. Theirs is a very special responsibility and obligation, not only to constituents as an MLA, not only to their ministries as a minister of that respective ministry, but also as members of the executive branch they are responsible to all of the people of British Columbia. It is an awesome task. I don't envy them that task, because I had the brief opportunity as Minister of the Environment, so I'm well aware of the work demand and the load and the responsibility that they must carry. Frankly, I'm pleased to see that they carry it, and I can see on their faces that they have accepted that responsibility well.
I would like to take this opportunity too to utilize some of the latitude that the previous speaker utilized to thank the electors of Okanagan West for supporting me in the last election, for giving me their faith, trust and confidence. I hope to continue to earn and deserve that faith, trust and confidence, because truly none of us here can do our jobs effectively if we do not have the faith, trust and confidence of those who have elected us.
It's a new role, Madam Speaker, for me to stand in this House as a member of the minority opposition. It is particularly challenging because all of my life I have taken objective information, accepted challenges and sought solutions to those challenges. In this particular role, one has to get one's mind bent around a different perspective, trying to influence the present government to move in what we perceive to be the right direction, and also holding this government accountable in the best interests of all the people of the province.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I notice the change. Madam Speaker has left the Legislature, and Mr. Speaker is now in the chair. I congratulate you again, Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 586 ]
It's safe to say that our party will strive to speak for the best interests of all British Columbians, and I'm very sincere when I say all British Columbians. I heard the previous speaker, the Deputy Speaker of the Legislature, talk about recognition of that common responsibility. It has been the responsibility of our former government and the Social Credit Party to strive to speak for all British Columbians -- no group in isolation and no special interest group, no single interest group, but conscientiously with the overall welfare of all British Columbians.
We will strive to do that as members of the opposition, of the third party in the House, and not simply for the short-term political gain, either. I believe that we must all take a tack, that we have to sense that direction and focus on the direction that will lead to the best possible long-term solutions -- solutions designed to provide prosperity, jobs and the best possible standards of health and welfare for all the citizens of British Columbia.
When the socialists were in opposition, the common, everyday comments were "doom and gloom," "too little too late," "things are bad and getting worse," or "the sky is falling." In my assessment of the budget, I will try to offer positive criticism, point out hazards clearly and suggest options. I believe that that is our role, and that's what we will strive to do. It's no secret -- and everyone in this Legislature, as well as the people of British Columbia, is aware -- that approximately 38.5 percent of those who voted, voted for the NDP. You have formed a strong government based on about 26 to 27 percent of the people who could have voted in the last election.
I'm saying this because I want you to recognize two things. The province of British Columbia has a strong and healthy free enterprise group and, regardless of the strength of the government, I think you have to be cognizant and remember to speak for all the best interests of all British Columbians.
[4:15]
I think it's incumbent for me to say again, in view of that, that responsible to all.... They must temper the single interest and special interest positions with the debts, and incorporate initiatives designed to build a provincial economy, so that we can all prosper in that economy. In prospering, we'll mitigate a lot of the social concerns that are relevant in this community today -- some of the social concerns, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you spoke about a few minutes ago.
While much is made of the Peat Marwick report, I would state clearly -- and I think it's been recognized by the people and certainly by the media -- that it was politically designed to discredit the former Social Credit government of British Columbia. It's not so much that the intention of that prestigious group of accountants was to design it that way, but it has most certainly been used that way. The $1 million which was expended to fund that was again done without contracting or tendering.
Mr. Speaker, Social Credit has a very proud history in the province of British Columbia. Over the past 37 years a great deal has happened to this province. I happen to have lived here for some 47 years, so I remember a little of what it was like before all of the changes took place. The reality is that the vision of W.A.C. Bennett, for the first time ever, incorporated and recognized the importance of the interior of the province for the total economic well-being of the entire province. Before that, truthfully we were well beyond Hope, as the saying goes, and there were not the opportunities.
The vision that W.A.C. Bennett had -- and it was a good vision for the province -- was built on utilizing effective transportation systems: highways, railways and ferries. Improving the transportation system gave the people of the interior a more equal opportunity in participating in the dynamic potential economy of the province of British Columbia. So massive projects were undertaken in the interior. The two-river policy was in fact designed and implemented by former governments. We're all beneficiaries of that.
The standard of living that each and every one of us enjoys today is because of the efforts made by previous Social Credit governments. We have to recognize that whether we are directly involved in resource extraction industries, indirectly involved or apparently not involved at all, the strength of the economy in British Columbia at the present time depends mostly on the resource extraction industries. We all benefit, whether we live in downtown Vancouver, Fort Nelson, Kelowna or in any other area of the province.
All this has happened under the bright shining star of the spirit of Social Credit governments. The election loss hit us fairly hard, as you might well imagine. We're bowed but not broken, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the wishes of some of the members opposite. I'm very proud of the Social Credit accomplishments in British Columbia over the past 37 years. I'm very pleased with the strong partnership with the dynamic hardworking people of the province, because it was a joint venture that has built a very strong economy. We're very happy and pleased with that.
I had related earlier to the Peat Marwick report. I just want to say a few more words about that report for the benefit of those who haven't had the opportunity to read through the 16 volumes that the $1 million expenditure accumulated. While there were a lot of relevant points and certainly a lot of criticisms, there was also a lot of very positive statements with respect to the former government.
Questions that British Columbians have to ask themselves: was it really worth the price to learn that the former government had already instituted a legal and policy framework for establishing sound fiscal control? Did they need to blow $1 million of your tax dollars to learn that the procedure implemented to prepare British Columbia's budget and control is generally thorough and effective, or that the ability to forecast revenue within a small band of error and to control expenditures relative to budgeted estimates is an indication that the process of forecasting revenue and expenditure control is working relatively effectively?
The review also makes many recommendations, but they are often disturbing in their bias for greater centralization of power and for higher taxes. That is
[ Page 587 ]
significant, because the government right at the moment has always been in favour of big and bigger governments. The centralization of power is something that we're very concerned about, and we have expended a great deal of effort to move government more into the regions -- more accessible and more responsive to the people. I think we have done a good job there, and I would encourage Premier Harcourt and his cabinet to be cognizant of the importance of regionalization of as many activities of government as possible.
One of the disturbing things that the Peat Marwick report concludes is their statement that there is some tax room available to the British Columbia government to increase taxes, and I guess that was the red flag in front of the proverbial bull. If there was tax room, then through the taxes which have been introduced into the system quietly and those being introduced through the Minister of Finance's budget, they are certainly removing all of that tax room and removing a great deal of opportunity from the people of the province. Many hazards are involved in that, and I think that the Minister of Finance, if left to his own abilities and his own conscience, would have designed a budget that would have been fairer to British Columbians. I'm confident that that man has the capacity to do so, and I think that he has the will, although I suggest that his instructions didn't allow him to do so.
There is no question that the recognition of the Peat Marwick report is positive in many instances, and in reference to rating firms, the rating given to a province by a major bond-rating firm is perhaps the most reliable indication of its fiscal position. The ability to effectively budget and monitor spending has culminated in British Columbia's achieving the highest credit rating of all Canadian provinces. That's quite a compliment. It's something that we haven't heard an awful lot of in the past two or three weeks, but many aspects of that report are indeed very positive and reflect well not only on the former government but also on the senior echelons and the bureaucracies. I think that they have served this province very well and very competently for many years.
So how did the former government -- our government -- rate in fiscal management? Well, we had the lowest debt-servicing cost of any government in Canada. We had the lowest debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, at 7 percent for British Columbia. The next closest was 14.7 percent in Alberta, and the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is 67.8 percent.
In British Columbia we pay 3.8 cents out of every revenue dollar to repay interest on debt. The federal government, in comparison, pays 34 cents out of every revenue dollar to pay interest on debt, which really means that in the federal case, it's 34 cents of every dollar that does not go to provide services to the people of Canada. We're very pleased with our figure.
We have one of the highest health expenditures of any province in Canada, at 33 percent of the total budget. Education expenditures are the highest in Canada, with advanced education and public education taking 27.4 percent of the budget -- the highest in Canada. We had the best economic performance and the best bond rating of any provincial jurisdiction in Canada. The public has also assessed the performance of the previous government, and that's indicated....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Minister of Finance, and I think that their assessment is perhaps even more valid than yours, which may have a tinge of political bias in it.
Migration has been really enormous. Last year we grew at about 40,000 to 50,000 people moving into the province from other provinces in Canada. Many were from Ontario and other provinces farther east.
The investment has doubled since 1987, when it was $9.6 billion. In 1991, it was $16 billion. I express these not so much as something that I'm very proud and pleased about. I want them read into the record as sort of a benchmark for this current government to strive to equal. If they can equal that, then we will be well served by this government.
I have a number of suggestions here for the Minister of Finance and for the government in the form of principles that they should look at and respond to in drafting the budget. I believe that the Premier and the Minister of Finance would be well served if they considered these principles and perhaps considered adopting them. They would make a very sound foundation for any budget, including this one and future ones.
Open and fair government must be responsive to the rights and requirements of the individuals in our society, and must not be subject to domination by special interest groups. This particular budget is not in compliance with that. What we're seeing is a budget designed to serve special interest groups -- the public and private sector unions of the province of British Columbia, which represent a relatively small percentage of the working population of British Columbia.
The government role is to create a healthy climate for growth and development, leaving business decisions to the private sector. That's something that should be said without question. The reality is that this government has, through its fair wage policy, introduced government interference into the private sector. It's being neither reasonable nor fair nor responsible. Government must be responsive to the long-term needs of British Columbians. Government must look not simply at the short-term picture but at the overall good and the benefits for the long term. Taxpayers' money should be used carefully and responsibly. Government should be affordable. Deficit and debt should be eliminated so that today's bills are not left for tomorrow's generations. Services to society must relate to our ability to afford them, and users must bear a degree of responsibility in using and paying for the services provided.
So how has the average taxpayer in British Columbia reacted to the new budget? From phone calls, letters and news clippings, the judgment is severe and in strong opposition to most of the elements.
Mr. Speaker, when I listened to you in your talk, you were being admirably apolitical, and I congratulate you for that. But I must say to the members of the House
[ Page 588 ]
who are here that one of your responsibilities as Deputy Speaker is to do precisely what you did there. You must do that so that your role in the chair is not to be compromised. One has to recognize that.
[4:30]
One can say on the taxation aspect that there are many initiatives which no one in the province escapes. That brings to mind the saying: "This government has what it takes to take what you've got." That wasn't really meant to be a compliment, but that's precisely what is happening in this particular budget. The Minister of Finance, or Mandrake the Magician, says one thing and does another. He, like a magician, gets the focus of attention on one area; then I'm afraid, with trickery and manipulation, he accomplishes what his mentor Bob Williams, the B.C. NDP council or the union cronies demand. That's the area I'm really concerned with, Mr. Speaker, because that does not serve the best interests of all the people. It serves the best interests of only some of the people, and government has a greater obligation than that. This budget will go down in history as a theft from a defenceless society to pay off campaign debts to the private and public sector unions, presided over and orchestrated by a prince of thieves.
Mr. Speaker, this budget is a betrayal of the trust....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, with all due respect, I must.... Would you please take your seat. Thank you.
No one has objected, but the Chair is obligated to intervene if there is any question with respect to anyone's integrity. I do believe you made reference to thieves. Could you refrain from any implications that would negatively impugn someone's character. I'm not sure if that's what you intended, but it sounded that way. Just be careful.
C. Serwa: Mr. Speaker, the meaning was similar to, but not identifying with the Minister of Finance. But if you like, I would be pleased to withdraw that particular remark. I respect the Chair on that.
But Mr. Speaker, I still feel that this budget is a betrayal of the trust of the people of British Columbia and fails on every principle of openness and fairness. It exhibits very little in the way of sound fiscal management and does not inspire stability and confidence.
One of the reasons for that is that when the NDP were in opposition, they all voted in favour of the Taxpayer Protection Act. It was a unanimous vote of support for the Taxpayer Protection Act. The interesting thing in the Taxpayer Protection Act is that there was a tax rate freeze and a tax formula freeze, no new taxes were to be imposed during the three-year period and the tax rate freeze could be extended to other acts by regulation. Part 2 of that bill -- Bill 92, 1991 -- was the balanced budget plan to be prepared and presented to the Legislative Assembly. Expenditures were not to exceed revenues over a period of five years; forecast expenditures were not to exceed growth in British Columbia's economy; a debt reduction plan was to be prepared and presented to the Legislative Assembly and cumulative balanced budget progress reports were to be filed with the Legislature. All pretty good stuff and all agreed to by the members of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker.
I'm really concerned when, at that time and prior to the election, the government, the Minister of Finance and the Premier spoke long and loud about the necessity for responsible fiscal management. They now have introduced an act into the Legislature to repeal the Taxpayer Protection Act.
I'm really one who recognizes that politics is a popularity contest, but I also feel -- as you felt, Mr. Speaker -- that it's very necessary to improve the activities of this Legislature through reform and perhaps through legislation, so there is a sincere obligation by members on all sides of the House, from all parties, to act in a responsible manner, not to play simple politics where we're doomed to circle and circle. But it seemed to me that the Taxpayer Protection Act had elements in it that were very sound, and that the obligation should not have only gone as far as our government or the current government but extended to future governments. Surely there must be that capacity to understand a responsibility not to sell the inheritance rights of our children or to make our children and their children pay for our excessive demands in society today.
The Minister of Finance is also unaware of the tremendous and very negative impact that the supplementary grant cancellation to homeowners will have on the homeowners in British Columbia. Over half a million homeowners are going to be affected. The minister was of the opinion that only those in the higher income bracket would be affected. This is not the case, and numerous clippings from newspapers support that. There was the high-profile situation of the 82-year old woman who was not able to continue living in her own home. There are many people today living in homes that they'd bought many years ago for $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 that are now assessed at well over $100,000. They're older people on fixed incomes, and they're caught on the horns of a dilemma. I know that there is a program where, in lieu of paying taxes, you can utilize the equity. That's not a very popular program, and the reality is that this act hits the poor and the middle classes of British Columbia very heavily. I think that was a poor initiative on the part of this government.
Mr. Speaker, am I nearly out of time?
Deputy Speaker: Yes, hon. member, but not quite. Probably a minute or so.
C. Serwa: There were a few other topics that I wanted to talk about briefly. Since I'm concerned with the Ministry of Environment and environmental matters, one of my concerns was the cutting out of the Environment Youth Corps from the Ministry of Environment funding. This was funded from the special account, the sustainable environment fund, and it was one of those beautiful situations where it was a win-win-win. Communities won because they were the beneficiaries of the activities of the Environment Youth Corps. They constructed concrete facilities in my constituency, cleaned up water courses, ponds, constructed spawning channels -- a number of very positive initia-
[ Page 589 ]
tives. The community won in that way. The environment came out a big winner from the efforts of these young people and their enhanced awareness of the importance of that. Finally, the youths themselves were tremendous....
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, your time has expired.
C. Serwa: I'll just finish my sentence, hon. Speaker. The youths themselves were tremendous winners, because they entered the workforce for the first time and had the opportunity to get experience, and that was important as well.
U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, when you were speaking as member for Vancouver-Burrard, I sat here mesmerized, because I remember those days of the early seventies when you raised the issue of problems in South Africa, and I remember the concern and the reaction of the press. We've come a long way, and Africa is turning towards democracy. Concomitantly in British Columbia we've made advances in the area of human rights legislation, but unfortunately the strength of that legislation was gutted by the previous governments in the last few years. But I'm delighted to say that it was during your tenure as a member of this Legislature that the first NDP government brought in perhaps the strongest piece of human rights legislation in North America. I was proud to have been able to work with that legislation in the summers while I was going to law school. You have carried that commitment on some of those issues through to today.
You also were talking about dogs. It's not an important budgetary subject, but I might add that you have one, and I have two. The names of my dogs, which are German shepherds, are Gola -- that's a jack of cards in Punjabi -- and Bagee, which is queen of cards in Punjabi. They have Punjabi names, and they love East Indian food, by the way.
I come to the question of the budget. This is a tough, fair and responsible budget -- a budget which has shown leadership. It is a budget that has an eye on the real needs of people in the inner cities, children in the schools, workers in the jobs, people who have needed government assistance, people who have wanted integrity and honesty in government, people who have wanted openness in government and people who have wanted the honest balancing of books -- which hasn't happened in this province for the last 15 years. This budget accomplishes all of those objectives and more.
I have had the opportunity in the last few months to work on the inner city issues in the downtown east side Strathcona area of the city of Vancouver. The problems in that area impact on the life of the entire city of Vancouver. I can tell you that people there needed help with drug and alcohol counselling. People have needed help with the needle exchange program. People have needed help with the child care facilities in the Crabtree child care centre, which looks after the aboriginal children.
There are issues that have been crying out for help over the last many years, but this past government, with closed eyes and ears, has gone on in its merry way, ignoring the real needs of people. Those needs are being addressed in this budget today.
Some of the members to my right here always....
An Hon. Member: You got that right.
U. Dosanjh: They're certainly wrong. They're not right, but they're to my right.
They've been saying that people in the government don't have any business experience. I think they are still living in the Middle Ages of 20 years ago. There are people in our caucus who have had business experience in their personal lives, who have created jobs, had employees -- many employees; five, six, ten, 20 employees -- and supported them over the years. There are people who have had gross budgets of a quarter of a million or half a million dollars in their own personal lives, every year, year after year, and have dealt with that successfully. That lie, which comes from the right, I want to put to rest once and for all, so that they can't say there is no business experience on our side of the House.
As my friend from Vancouver-Fraserview said so eloquently this morning.... I know that in his personal business life he has many accomplishments, and there are other people in this House who have too, so I do not wish to hear that remark ever again. This caucus belongs to the twenty-first century. We're going to be government, based on the strength and the direction of this budget and the budgets to come. We're going to be government for the next 20 years. Some of us are true capitalists with a conscience.
[4:45]
One of the things that I fail to see with the criticism coming from the opposition is that they don't realize that politics is not a compromise, as they say. Politics is not an art of compromise, as they have traditionally said. Politics is an art. Like the artist creates out of the pain and passion within, the politician must create from the pain, the passion and the experience of life around him or her. I can tell you that members on the government side are doing exactly that, because they have tons of experience in all the various aspects of life. These members to my right have been saying for the last many days during the debate that this is a budget which has a deficit and doesn't create jobs. Perhaps they need to go back to school to learn the alphabet so that they can read the budget -- a budget which says we would have at least $1 billion of new social capital to go to support the infrastructure, and create jobs in this province.
An Hon. Member: That's leadership.
U. Dosanjh: That's right. We have $57 million for employment opportunities and job action programs, which is a 43 percent increase on the previous government's budget. The earning exemption for those who receive GAIN has been increased as an incentive to go out and work and be creative. I'm sure that in many years to come the Crown corporations that we are now
[ Page 590 ]
putting in order, and cleaning up under the leadership of Bob Williams, will create and make investments.
The previous speaker was talking about us trying to discredit them with the Peat Marwick report. Well, my friends, you need to discredit only where there exists any credit, and the last I knew none existed. We did everything to dislodge them from the seat of government, but we didn't do anything to discredit them. They discredited themselves.
Members to my right have been saying that this is a budget which perhaps creates unnecessary expenditures, and therefore is a budget with a deficit. Let me tell them that it's tough to impose corporate capital tax, but it's certainly fair to give $231 million to social services so that the increased needs due to more recipients and more people needing assistance is met. If they can deny that, and if they can say that if they were the government they wouldn't put that $231 million into social services, let them stand up and say it. It's tough to impose 6 percent tax on legal services, but it's fair to give money to women's equality, to wage parity in the public sector.
It's tough to increase the basic personal income tax, but it's fair to give $29 million to achieve that wage parity and $32 million to provide pay equity in the public sector. That's a beginning that our government can be proud of.
It's tough to impose new taxes, but it's appropriate and only fair to give $17 million for child care so single mothers of this province can go out and work and make a living with dignity.
It's not so tough to take away doctors' pensions. It's correct to take the $25 million away from them, and it's fair to give $409 million to health care. Is there anyone who would say it isn't fair to give that money to health care? It's appropriate to give $64 million to community-based health prevention programs. It's fair to give $15 million for new disease prevention and public health initiatives in schools and communities in the inner cities, in places like Surrey and the downtown east side of Vancouver, where those initiatives are needed.
It may be tough to cap the overall billings by the doctors. But can you say that it's not fair to give $41 million more in grants to universities and colleges, so that we can provide 2,800 additional full-time spaces for students who need to go to school to become the future leaders of this province?
It is not an easy decision to increase the personal income surtax, but it's fair because it would not adversely affect 92 percent of the people. It would affect the 8 percent who can afford to pay, and provide assistance to those who need assistance from the government.
It's also fair to give money to education, because it's fair to freeze tuition fees for students in post-secondary institutions.
It's fair to give money for ESL. When new immigrants come into this country and make a contribution to the economic and social development of this province, it's only fair that their needs and their children's needs are looked at and dealt with honestly and appropriately. I'm proud to be part of a caucus and a government that has for the first time given money for ESL in the schools.
I know it is tough to increase the small business tax by 1 percent. It is not an easy or pleasant task. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy of this province. But it's also important and fair that we give $15 million to provide an inventory of natural resources, so that they are protected, preserved and utilized for future generations of British Columbians.
It is tough to axe the supplementary grant to homeowners, but it's also fair to increase the basic grant so that it helps those who need it the most.
All of those taxes and all of those needs are justified when you look at them together.
You can't say that we ought to be meeting needs but shouldn't be imposing taxes. Where do our friends to the right propose that we get the money -- unless they are willing to foot the bill for the entire budget? They haven't done it so far in the last many days of the debate. I challenge them to this: can they point to anything in this budget where they wouldn't have given the money? Education, health care, ESL, forest inventory? Where would they not have given the money? Let them stand up and be counted.
They've been saying for the last many days of this debate that this budget is not fair and creates a deficit. The deficit is the creation of the federal government, generally speaking, and the mismanagement of the previous Socred government.
I want to say that the government benches are not a place for the faint of heart, like my friends to the right. The government benches aren't the place for the mean of spirit who were here many months ago, and luckily the provincial voters turfed many of them out. Some of them are still hanging around. The government benches are a place for those with the vision and the courage to face the problems of today so that future generations of British Columbians can be problem-free and enjoy the fullest possible citizenship in every way. Neither are the government benches a place for those who can't see next year or the following year but can only see the end of 60 years. We are going into a new planning era where we have 60-year plans, not five-year plans.
Listening to the whining that has gone on, saying no to everything -- the budget, tax increases, funding for education and health care -- I'm reminded of Machiavelli. The leader of the official opposition had his six seconds of verbose glory on television, and since then we're continually reminded of his complaints about his budget and about this budget. "The end must justify the means." If the means is whining, the end is 60 years away, my friends. I was thinking about planning and Sir Thomas More's Utopia. I thought: "Who is a man for all seasons in this Legislature?" I couldn't think of any, but for some I could think of the words "whine for all seasons, and whine for all reasons."
As I said before, this budget is progressive. It takes some away from those who can afford it and uses it on some of the most fundamental educational, health and other services that are needed most in this province if we are to protect the infrastructure that we've built over the years, so that our future generations can enjoy a prosperous life with dignity.
[ Page 591 ]
This budget is farsighted. It doesn't go 60 years, but it sets a trend for years to come. Where we have, on our side of the House, experience in business, experience in academia, experience in the professions, experience in social services, experience in government, we have the multifaceted caucus that we need to take this province into the twenty-first century, and those friends to my right are going to be relegated to the official opposition for a long, long time.
I just want to end on this note. When I came to this country I was a youngster of 21, and I've been here over 23 years. This province has been good to me. It's good to my children. It's good to my extended family. And I want to make sure that all the things that I ever learned up the hill at Simon Fraser in the political science department studying political science, sociology, history, geography, and all the things that I learned at UBC law school, and all the things that you learned over the years -- all the members -- we can utilize to get on with the constructive debate over where we're going in the next many years. This budget raises those questions and answers them in a positive, progressive and constructive way.
[5:00]
D. Mitchell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as this budget debate draws to a close this evening, I would like to congratulate all the members who have participated. I think there have been some fine speeches by members on all sides of the House. I would like to particularly commend you for your contribution in this debate this afternoon. I think it was a fine speech that you made. It was a speech worthy of a Deputy Speaker who is allowed to have a voice in this assembly -- and you know, you have an advantage over the Speaker in that regard, because the Speaker doesn't have a voice and can't contribute to the debate. Perhaps you, in your comments today, spoke not only for all members of this assembly but for the Speaker as well, and I commend you for that.
It's with some really mixed emotions that I rise today to join in this debate and contribute to this debate. Mixed emotions, because while I'm proud and pleased to contribute to this my first budget debate in this assembly, I have some serious concerns about this budget. I have some serious concerns about the direction -- or perhaps lack of direction -- that this budget really represents for our province. I want to raise some of those concerns and put them on the record as this debate draws to a close.
We have to ask the question: what does this budget really do for the taxpayers of our province? The already-burdened citizens of British Columbia are placed under an increased burden with this budget that pleases no one. The budget tries, however; in fact, it tries too hard. For a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you've got.
British Columbians have had enough big government. They've had enough big government that's trying to grow bigger still. We simply cannot afford it any longer, and British Columbians are angry. There's a sense of a tax revolt brewing in this province right now. We wonder about a tax revolt. Some might ask if there is actually a tax revolt taking place in their province today. I point to the evidence: cross-border shopping. Any members who have tried to go across the border recently and have noticed the lineups have noticed the tax revolt that is really brewing in this province. We've noticed in the last few days that some of the residents of Fort St. John have actually talked about seceding from British Columbia. Again, this is evidence of a tax revolt, because what they're reacting to is this budget and the increased burden that it is placing upon British Columbians.
We've seen increased evidence of a brain drain to south of the border. Some of the specialists in our medical community and some of the other most talented British Columbians are now talking about leaving this province and this country because the tax rates are too high. They're going to go south, where they can practice in their professions without that increased burden. That's a tragedy. I can tell you that in my own constituency I've had several people contact me since the budget to indicate that they simply can't take it anymore.
We also have many businesses in British Columbia -- I'm not talking about large corporations necessarily, but medium-size British Columbia businesses -- who, as a result of this budget, are also seriously contemplating, and now talking openly about, relocating in the United States. These are the signs and this is the evidence of the tax revolt that is really brewing in our province right now. It's a direct consequence of this budget, which has simply gone too far.
How did it come to this? How did it come to the point in our history where a government brings in a record budget of $18 billion with a record deficit of $1.8 billion and tells us that we're supposed to feel good about it? We know this government has offered a lot of excuses. We know the Minister of Finance in particular has offered a lot of excuses. He's blamed the previous administration, and he and this government even went so far as to commission, without tender, a $1 million review -- not an audit, but a review. It was funded by the taxpayers of this province with the specific mandate and terms of reference to discredit the former Social Credit government. This so-called independent financial review has got to be seen for what it is. It's not an independent review; it's a political hatchet job on the previous government. I guess that's fair. It's certainly come to be expected from this government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask you this question, and I think it's an important one that begs to be asked: why would the government waste a million taxpayers' dollars, untendered, to further discredit the previous government, when the voters of British Columbia have already sent the signal that needed to be sent, and have already decided for the province where that previous government should be? That job has already been done. It didn't take $1 million to do it.
Maybe the NDP is seeking some kind of special revenge. Maybe they have some kind of historic grievance against the previous administration. Maybe it goes back to the early 1970s, to the mid-seventies in particular, when the previous governing party
[ Page 592 ]
discredited them for the period when they were in government. If that's the game they're playing, then we need to recognize it for what it is. We need to recognize how shameful it is that they would spend a million tax dollars to do that, for a political exercise -- to hire Peat Marwick.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
We should ask ourselves: is there another reason perhaps why Peat Marwick was hired for $1 million, untendered? Was it to write the first NDP budget? Is that why they were hired? You know, hon. Speaker, there's strong evidence of that, and this budget will go down in history as the Peat Marwick budget. There's no question about that. This is the Peat Marwick budget -- the budget for 1992-93 for the province of British Columbia.
But it's shameful that here we are: the first time in the history of this province that a Minister of Finance did not write his own budget. The Ministry of Finance and the officials in the Ministry of Finance did not write the budget, but an outside accounting firm was hired with one million tax dollars -- untendered -- to write the budget for a government that was unprepared to bring in a budget on its own. I say that's shameful.
Why weren't they ready? Why weren't they better prepared to bring in a budget of their own? Why did they have to go and rent a budget from Peat Marwick? Could it be the fact that while the NDP were in opposition, they were so busy trying to dig up scandals and discredit personalities associated with the former administration that they were totally unprepared to govern?
We've talked in this House -- and I've talked in this House previously -- about the fact that good opposition makes good government. That's the principle in the parliamentary system. A good opposition holds a government accountable, keeps it honest and makes for good government. So we have to ask the question: what was the NDP doing back in all those years when they were in opposition? Were they holding the previous government accountable? Were they keeping the previous government honest? Were they watching public finances in this province? No.
What were they doing? What was the Minister of Finance doing all those years that he was Finance critic? Was he watching? Was he watching the finances of the province? Was he serving as a constructive, useful watchdog on the state of the finances of this province? Or was he engaged in dirty tricks? In an attempt to discredit the previous administration, he was using up 24 hours a day, so he had no time to serve as Finance critic in an effective fashion. I say that's shameful, hon. Speaker.
Now maybe -- just maybe -- that's why the Minister of Finance was so surprised when he became minister and he saw the cupboards were bare. Why was he surprised? The public knew and everyone knew that the last budget brought down by the previous Social Credit administration lacked credibility. There were a lot of questions about that within the general community of British Columbia, yet this Minister of Finance feigned surprise. He came up with some magical revelation after becoming Minister of Finance by saying: "Wait a second, we don't think these numbers are right." Now why would he have been surprised, if he had been doing his job as Finance critic all those years?
Maybe that's why Peat Marwick had to be called in after all. At a cost of $1 million, untendered, they had to be called in to write this budget. It was a beautiful public relations exercise, and if we are to give this government a mark for public relations on the basis of the Peat Marwick study, then they deserve a nine out of ten for public relations. But if we are to give them a mark for the budget and if we are to look at the policy that emanates from this budget and the impact it's going to have on British Columbians, we have to fail them. We have to give them a failure, because this budget is a failure.
We should take a look at the budget and what it does for British Columbians. The NDP came in, and they spent the first five months in office running up the deficit of the previous budget that was brought in, with no attempt to curtail cost whatsoever. They have now brought in a budget which boasts a record provincial deficit, and they have the gall to tell us that times are tough. Well, why are they tough? It's because for the last five months they've made them tougher than they need to be by running up that deficit.
So what did they do? Did they show restraint in spending in this budget? No, hon. Speaker. Let me just give you a few numbers to give you an indication of what they've done, and you tell me, hon. members, if there's any restraint in these numbers.
They told us in this budget that last year British Columbia had negative growth in terms of our gross domestic product -- 0.5 percent negative. This year in their budget they're forecasting an increase of 3 percent in the gross domestic produce in our province. That seems a little bullish to me. It exceeds private sector forecasts, which are in the range of 2 percent.
But let's give them that they're correct, that the economy of British Columbia will grow by 3 percent in the fiscal year that's ahead of us. Is government growth tied to that? Is government growth tied to the growth that they are forecasting in this budget, in terms of the economy of British Columbia? Certainly that would be prudent, given the tough times that they and this budget tell us we're in. But no. Government spending, according to this budget, is increasing at more than twice the rate of gross domestic product growth -- 7 percent.
The number of public servants in British Columbia is increasing at 5.5 percent. Public sector wage settlements since this government has come to power are running at about twice the rate in the private sector. The government is spending 10 percent more than it forecasts it is going to bring in during this fiscal year. In total, this budget is taking out of the economy of British Columbia and out of the pockets of British Columbians some 750 million extra tax dollars at a time when we can least afford to pay them. It's shameful.
Let me tell you a good example of how shameful this document is. Under the guise of restraint in this budget, under the guise of saving taxpayers' dollars, they've
[ Page 593 ]
indicated they're going to chop the Board of Internal Economy. How many tax dollars is it going to save British Columbians to have a board made up of members of this assembly? Is that going to save anybody a cent, let alone a dollar? It's an absolute sham for them to suggest that scrapping the Board of Internal Economy is going to save money for the taxpayers of British Columbia.
The real reason they're scrapping the board is that they're ashamed of some of the decisions they made on that board in the last parliament, when they sat down together with members of the previous government to cut deals that would benefit themselves as members. That's why they want to abolish the board. It's not to save money. Let's call it for what it is.
I'm fully expecting that we are going to have brought into this House at some point soon a bill to abolish the Board of Internal Economy, and at that time we will have much more to say about this matter.
Let's move on and talk about what this budget does to increase the competitiveness of the British Columbia economy, because that's a key. This government talks about increasing competitiveness -- and that's a bit of a buzzword today. But what does this government's budget do? We've heard a lot about competitiveness and the need to be competitive in an increasingly aggressive world marketplace. Why do we want to be competitive? It's not an end in itself. We want to be competitive so that we can have a healthy economy in British Columbia, so that we can sustain the social programs that provide benefits to those who are truly needy in our province. That's why we want to have a competitive economy in British Columbia.
How does this budget fare in increasing the competitiveness of our province? It doesn't. I've looked for evidence. I've scoured the document. What this budget actually represents is a major assault on British Columbia taxpayers. Taxes have been increased by about 12 percent, when they're forecasting an inflation rate of 2 percent. That's a 10 percent real increase in taxes.
[5:15]
The corporate capital tax has been introduced, which is fundamentally unfair. It's not based upon profitability, and it's going to affect businesses in British Columbia whether they're profitable or not. It's an increased tax at a time when businesses can least afford it. It's not only going to affect the large corporations, it's going to affect middle-size British Columbia companies whether they're profitable or not. It's going to raise costs for business and consumers. This budget lowers profits and sends a signal that there are going to be lower dividends for businesses and for shareholders.
I think my colleague the member for Langley put it best last week when this budget came down: this budget is really going to drive British Columbians in two directions only -- into the ground and south of the border.
The Premier in his jaunts across the seas, both east and west, has told foreign investors that British Columbia is open for business. He has been quoted in the foreign press, as well as the press here at home. If British Columbia really is open for business, then we need to understand this competitiveness issue, because it's crucial.
The Peat Marwick study is flawed, and that's part of the problem here. The Peat Marwick study said that there is tax room in British Columbia. What were they talking about when they talked about tax room? They were really saying that we should increase our tax rates in British Columbia, because they're not high enough. They're certainly not as high as in Ontario, Quebec and other jurisdictions in the rest of the country. The fundamental flaw with the Peat Marwick analysis is that it fails to appreciate that we in British Columbia do not compete with Ontario, Quebec or other jurisdictions in the east; we compete with jurisdictions in the Pacific Northwest -- Washington State and Oregon State -- and with economies in the Pacific Rim. If you want to take a look at the tax regimes in those jurisdictions, one could easily conclude that we do have tax room in British Columbia. We have room to lower taxes, not to increase taxes. The goal over the long term has to be a lower tax burden for all British Columbians.
Hon. Speaker, I want to address what I see as perhaps the most serious problem with this budget: the lack of a plan. One of the really shameful aspects of this budget is the fact that there are no multi-year projections. Typically a budget will have a five-year projection to look at forecasted revenues and expenditures over a multi-year period. Certainly in the private sector, corporations do the same kind of exercise. They try to forecast revenues over a multi-year period to get a sense of where the company is going. Typically, provincial budgets have done the same thing as well, but that's conspicuously absent from this budget. There is no plan, and there are no multi-year projections.
The only plan in this budget can be summed up in two words: tax and spend. This budget proposes to tax and spend, and that's all it does. Do you know what? This budget is spending $18 billion from our economy, and that's $50 million a day. This budget proposes to tax at $50 million a day and spend at $50 million a day. It's shameful. There's no plan or vision for where our economy is going to go. There is no fulfilment of the commitment this government made when it was in opposition that they were going to balance the budget over a five-year budgetary cycle and that they would give us a plan. Absolutely a broken promise -- no projection, no plan. Tax and spend $50 million a day. That's what they're spending.
Hon. Speaker, one might well ask: is there anything good in this budget? Do you know what I say? Sure there is. Peat Marwick wasn't totally incompetent. They have ideas in this budget for community-based health care, which is something that I think we can all support. But we have questions about how it's going to be paid for. That is not addressed in the budget.
On the environmental front there's talk about the polluter-pay principle. While we agree with that principle, there's no indication in this budget that the fines which are going to be levied against polluters are going to go anywhere except into the general revenue fund. We think that's wrong. Those fines should go into a special fund, so that we can pay for research and
[ Page 594 ]
development to ensure that our environment can be cleaned up not only now but well into the future.
There's talk in my critic portfolio about advanced education. There's talk about increasing the full-time-equivalent student spaces in our post-secondary institutions by 2,800. But I have serious concerns as to whether or not this budget is going to be able to meet that goal, because post-secondary institutions are going to be funded at an additional rate of 2 percent. Two percent isn't enough to even maintain existing programs, let alone increase spaces for students. If this government doesn't have a commitment to post-secondary education, then it should come right out and say that, rather than try to pretend that a 2 percent increase in funding to our colleges and universities is going to allow them to increase spaces for students. Because I'll tell you, we have a severe financial crisis in our colleges and universities today in British Columbia as a consequence of this budget. We'll be talking a lot more about that during the estimates for that ministry when they come up in this House.
On the other side of this House, the government has talked and boasted a lot about experience. They've tried to chide us in the official opposition about our inexperience. Do you know what I say? I say this in the context of a debate on the interim supply bill, which interrupted this budget debate. We went all night, and many British Columbians will wonder why we had this marathon session of the Legislative Assembly. We did that because there's an important principle that has to be upheld, and that is grievance before supply. Grievance must be expressed in the Legislature before supply is granted to the Crown. We lived up to that. But during that exercise we saw a sign of arrogance that demonstrated to me, as a member of this House, why this parliament was so poisoned previously, why the feelings were so bad in the last House. We saw arrogance on the other side that was absolutely shocking to us, and of course, some of it happened late at night so not many British Columbians would have seen it. But I can tell you that if British Columbians are given the choice between inexperience and arrogance, they will choose inexperience every time.
When I look at my own constituency of West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I have a hard time finding anything good to say about this budget. It taxes the residents of West Vancouver. It taxes the residents of Bowen Island. It taxes the residents of Lions Bay, Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton, Mount Currie, D'Arcy. It increases the tax burden on all the residents of my constituency.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
This budget offers very little for my constituents aside from increased taxation with no vision for where the province is going to go in the future. I have difficulty supporting the budget for that reason. The challenge in the future -- and this is a difficult one to meet -- is that over the long term as British Columbia grows, as the population grows, government must grow smaller in relationship to the total population. That's a difficult challenge. In terms of public administration that's the number one challenge in our province today, and it has to be. This budget fails. With this budget we have a vision of big government that's going to try to solve all of our problems. When you have a big government that's trying to solve all your problems, you have a big government that's going to tax you beyond your ability to pay. If the challenge is to truly have smaller government in the future, then we have to do more with less.
While some of the initiatives are good initiatives that can be applauded -- some of them are -- we have concerns about how they're going to be paid for. We have concerns about whether or not the right priorities have been chosen, whether or not we are truly doing more with less in this budget. We see very few signs of that.
The taxpayers of British Columbia need a champion today. Do they find a champion in this government that has brought in a record budget with a record deficit that is a major assault on all of them? No, of course they don't. The budget shows us that we certainly can't count on the government to come to the aid of taxpayers in this province. We in the official opposition are prepared and ready to serve as the champion of the taxpayers, and we do that with relish.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, could I have some order, please.
The members opposite complain. I'll make a deal with them. I'm willing to strike a bargain with them: if they stop telling untruths about the official opposition, we'll stop telling the truth about them. I'm willing to strike that bargain, but only on those terms.
I've said that we in the official opposition must take up the challenge of serving as the champion of the taxpayers of British Columbia, and we must do that because this government's plan of taxing and spending is simply too much. We have a tax revolt that's brewing in this province today, and it simply can't be tolerated. The role of serving as that champion is one that we are going to pursue with a passion. It's one we relish. In that role, as we take that role up seriously, there is no way we can seriously, with all good conscience, support this budget. We can't. I can tell you why. We could list time and time again the increased tax burden; the record deficit, that we are told to feel good about; the Peat Marwick review -- the Peat Marwick budget that has been brought in is not the right budget for British Columbia. This is not the right budget for British Columbia at a time when we need to be increasing the purchasing power of British Columbians, when we need to be freeing up the purchasing power of British Columbians, so that we can stimulate the economy, so that the economy can really get moving. What are we doing, hon. Speaker? We're taking purchasing power away from British Columbians. We're picking their pockets to the tune of some $750 million of additional
[ Page 595 ]
taxes. It's shameful. We have to ask if this is the right budget at this time.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: Members opposite ask what we would do. We've had a good debate in this House. There have been many good contributions during the budget debate, and there have been many good ideas from all members in the House. We've heard a number of good ideas. But the government is elected to govern. When are they going to learn that they are no longer opposition, that they've been elected to govern? You can't simply go and hire a public relations firm or an accounting firm to draft a budget for you and bring it in; you've got to take up that challenge yourself. You are no longer the opposition. The government has to take up the challenge. It must govern.
You know, hon. Speaker, to govern is to choose. They have to make the choices. They've made choices in this budget, and we have to ask: are they the right choices for British Columbia? Has this budget brought in policies that are going to serve the best interests of British Columbians today? I think not. The tax burden has increased to the point where the benefits, the good ideas, the good intentions brought in with this budget.... Really, how are we going to pay for them?
We have no plan in this budget, no vision, no mission for British Columbia, no vision of where we're going to be going into the twenty-first century. There is no idea in this budget. The one underlying principle in this budget is that we're going to increase the debt of the province. We're going to increase the debt of every British Columbian by something like $1,000. We're going to increase the long-term provincial debt of the province. And that's another one of the fallacies in this budget: there is not one mention of decreasing the provincial debt, not one reference in this budget -- shameful as it might seem -- to reducing the provincial debt, the accumulated direct and indirect debt of this province.
The lack of a plan, the lack of any indication of a willingness to even think about reducing the provincial debt, the increasing of the taxpayers' burden for all taxpayers, are shameful. Where is the champion of the taxpayers of British Columbia today, hon. Speaker? We have to ask that question. We in the official opposition must take up that challenge. We in the official opposition must hold this government accountable in a way that they never did in the past when they were in opposition. They didn't do their job. That's why we're in the mess we're in today. They're in government now, and they're pretending that they're still in opposition.
There is no way that we, in all good conscience, can support this budget. It's the wrong budget for British Columbia. It has been brought in at the wrong time, a time when our economy is extremely sensitive and can't take the pressure of any more taxation. I would encourage all hon. members, who have made good contributions to this debate, to think seriously about not voting party lines when we take the vote on this budget today. Vote your conscience. Can you honestly argue that this budget is in our best interests?
With those few words I will gladly take my seat, but I urge members not to support this budget.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I should advise that the government House Leader closes debate.
[5:30]
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to speak after the champion of the taxpayers, who we just heard -- the champion of those poor, downtrodden Lions Bay residents and those poor taxpayers in the British Properties. Hon. members, that's who this member represents, and I know he's bleeding for them. I know he stands and represents them here in this House.
Let's not be fooled. What we've seen repeatedly is not the champion of the taxpayers but the champion of hypocrisy, time and time again. "The government's too big, taxes are too high, but increase spending in all these areas." The member himself said to increase spending in Advanced Education and every area of government -- but make sure the deficit is lower.
You can't have it all ways, as the members opposite try to do. Any budget requires trade-offs between revenues, spending and the rate of deficit reduction. This year the fiscal mess we inherited from the previous administration made those tradeoffs particularly difficult. I believe we've successfully met the challenge. This is a fair and responsible budget, and we've begun to clean up the financial mess left by the previous government. We have protected essential services while getting the deficit under control, and we've avoided major tax increases for most British Columbians. This budget, hon. Speaker, provides the foundation for sustained economic recovery.
No budget is immune from criticism. As the Leader of the Opposition stated at the beginning of the budget debate: "...there is nothing inherently right or wrong with any budget; there are simply choices that have to be made." And I agree with that. It can always be argued that spending in any area is too low or too high. It can always be argued that revenue increases are too high or should be raised another way, or that progress toward a balanced budget is too fast or too slow. These questions are the subject of legitimate political debate, and it was a debate that I was looking forward to, particularly when the official opposition campaigned on the basis that they would be creative and constructive and have a new level of debate in the House. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in the opposition. I know all members on this side are disappointed. I know British Columbians are disappointed, because they've failed to be constructive, they've failed to point out alternatives. They have failed to put before the people of British Columbia or the House anything remotely resembling a constructive alternative to what we have put forward.
Instead of informed debate and constructive criticism, the official opposition has given us empty rhetoric and irresponsible posturing. Let's look first at their position on the deficit left by the previous administration. The member for Delta South, the official opposition Finance critic, expressed his concern about the size of the deficit right at the outset of the debate. He said that deficit was, in fact, "deferred taxes." He opposed
[ Page 596 ]
the size of the deficit. He made that very clear. The member for Richmond East stated: "This government was not elected to be popular and all things to all people. It must confine itself to the same balance sheet as do the people who pay for it." It was pointed out by that member, of course, that the deficit is too large. The member for Okanagan East stated: "We should concentrate especially on the level of the deficit, which I find frighteningly high." And the member for Chilliwack stated: "I'm against a huge deficit, and my constituents are against a huge deficit. We want to reduce the deficit, not increase it." All the members stood up and said the deficit's too large; it should be smaller. And the last speaker said the same thing: "The deficit is too large. It should be smaller."
And, of course, on this side of the House, we agree. We agree that the deficit is a pressing problem. Unlike them, we've taken concrete action to control it. This increase in spending is the lowest increase in five years. It is half the rate of growth in spending of the previous administration's last three budgets. We've taken action. We've said no to $850 million of spending requests, and brought in the lowest spending in five years. It's allowed us to reduce the deficit from the status quo forecast of $2.8 billion to less than $1.8 billion. We've taken $1 billion off the deficit; it's $1 billion less than it would have been had no action been taken. We're determined to reduce it and eliminate it as quickly as possible.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: We know that the Liberal opposition and the Social Credit opposition have said that they're opposed to the deficit. But members of the official opposition have also been unanimous in condemning the tax increases that we brought in to maintain basic services and to get our deficit under control. That's not surprising. Nobody likes to pay more taxes. Nobody's happy when taxes are increased.
The leader of the official opposition was particularly critical of the tax increases that affect business. He stated adamantly that the government had no room to move on the corporate side, and the taxes in the budget are punitive. He takes great pains to condemn the independent financial review for supposedly advocating business tax increases. We don't need the leader of the official opposition to tell us that our tax rates must be set to ensure our competitiveness with other jurisdictions. Taxes on business are $300 million lower today annually than those of the previous Social Credit administration of the mid-1980s, and nobody -- I remind members -- accused the Bill Bennett administration of being anti-business. So the tax burden on business is less today than it was under Bill Bennett in 1984.
Personal taxes remain the second-lowest in Canada. When all taxes and levies are taken into account, British Columbia firms are competitive with their counterparts in the western United States. However, our tax rates are not as low as every country that we trade with in the Pacific Rim. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that they should be. The problem is, if you want Taiwanese levels of taxes, then you have to accept Taiwanese levels of social programs. That's something neither we on this side of the House nor British Columbians are prepared to accept.
The member for Richmond East has said that we singled out small business. She claims the budget savages small business. That statement's incorrect, hon. Speaker. We raised the small business tax one point. It is 1 percent lower than it was under the Vander Zalm administration. And the capital tax has a $1 million exemption, so that 80 percent of businesses will not pay the capital tax. And by avoiding major tax increases like the sales tax and a tax on restaurant meals, we have given British Columbians the consumer confidence to invest in British Columbia, so that small businesses can continue to grow.
The Leader of the Opposition says that we need comprehensive tax reform. He didn't say today in this House what direction it would take; no member has. But we know from their platform what that means. It means a tax holiday for business for three years. It means a flat tax, which would shift the tax burden dramatically onto low-and middle-income British Columbians -- exactly the opposite of the balanced and progressive approach taken in this budget.
So in summary, so far the opposition has stated that the budget should have had a lower deficit but should have had no tax increases. So what does that mean? The inescapable result is that we should have lower spending on basic services. The opposition Finance critic recognized that. He criticized us for increasing spending by 4.7 percent. The member for Chilliwack said that we increased spending by 4.7 percent and that he was opposed to that. The member for Richmond East criticized it as well, because we didn't take the "tough decisions," as I read it here. The leader of the official opposition then stated that the Finance minister had a choice and that this choice should have been to start to seriously downsize government. So the position to lower the deficit, cut taxes and slash spending is a consistent one. However, while adopting it, the official opposition should have been prepared to tell British Columbians what cuts they were proposing to make. Their platform today -- and repeated every day in the House -- is to cut taxes. During the budget debate, however, the official opposition has not put forward a single new proposal to reduce government spending.
In fact, speaker after speaker on the other side has risen to congratulate the government on its spending plans or, more often, to criticize the government for not spending more. The Leader of the Opposition warmly endorsed our largest single spending increase, which was health. However, the member for Richmond East said it was lip-service and nothing more. And that member and her colleague from Okanagan East also said that we shouldn't be capping doctors' billings. She said that it was nonsense and that we shouldn't be doing that. The member from Langara said that the money we gave to mental illness was good but not enough; it was not a satisfactory response. The member for Richmond Centre said it was not enough; it was not
[ Page 597 ]
adequate for institutionalized care facilities. In education, member after member stood up in the House and said $340 million, a 9.1 percent increase in education, the largest increase in Canada -- probably three times as large as any other government in Canada in terms of our commitment to education -- was not enough. Member after member said it wasn't enough. The member for Langara said it's not enough. He also said that we weren't spending enough in Advanced Education, and so did the critic opposite. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour said we were underfunding education. The member for Richmond East said they would be raising underfunding of education in the estimates. Indeed, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano devoted his entire speech to so-called underfunding.
We could go on and on about what they said on the budget. What we have heard from the opposition is: reduce the deficit, don't raise any taxes and cut spending. Then they get up and time and time again suggest that we should be increasing spending in every area of social programs. But they didn't stop there, because the member for Richmond East said that we shouldn't have cut spending on Transportation and Highways. The member for Okanagan East said the Transportation budget should not have been cut. The Leader of the Opposition said that we should not have cut the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. We should not have cut Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. We should not have cut the Ministry of Tourism. The member for Surrey-White Rock said that we should not have cut the Forests budget. The member for Chilliwack said that we should not have cut natural resources, economic development or transportation. The member for Chilliwack said that we should not cut the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. The member for Okanagan East said there's not enough money for environmental programs. The member for Richmond East said we shouldn't have cut sustainable environment funds. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale condemned the closure of the Transportation Museum in his riding. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena said that the unconditional grants to municipalities were absolutely outrageous. And I could go on and on and on.
In looking at the speeches of the official opposition members, it is clear that, despite the empty posturing about spending restraint, they want to spend more money than this budget did. About everything and every ministry, they said: "It's not enough, it's not enough. Spend more." And at the same time they said: "Get that deficit down and don't raise taxes." Well, that's an example of the gross hypocrisy that the public rejected in the last election and will reject again.
The only concrete proposal the Leader of the Opposition put forward was, again, a call for a chancellor of the exchequer. That is the only concrete proposal they put forward, as if somehow that would solve our problems.
This budget is fair and responsible. It begins to clean up the financial mess left behind by the previous administration. We brought the deficit down by tough expenditure decisions. We said no to $850 million in spending requests, and we brought in the lowest increase in spending in the last five years. We've given the first priority to protecting essential programs and services for British Columbians, while getting the deficit under control. To avoid cutting essential health and education services, it was necessary to raise additional revenue, and we have done that in a fair and balanced manner. One-half of the revenue comes from individuals; one-half from corporations. Of those individuals, it's based on ability to pay. We have avoided major tax increases for the vast majority of British Columbians: no sales tax increase; no sales tax extended to restaurant meals. This is a budget that provides the foundation for sustained economic recovery. I'm proud of it. We have done a good job. It is fair and responsible. It begins to get us out from under the mess left behind by the previous administration. It's only a beginning. We look forward to the next four years so we can move on with a concrete positive program for British Columbians in spite of the irresponsible obstructionist criticism of the opposition.
[5:45]
Hon. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Women's Equality, that the hon. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Motion approved on the following division:
| Yeas -- 46 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Petter | Marzari | Boone |
| Cashore | Barlee | Charbonneau |
| Jackson | Pement | Beattie |
| Schreck | Lortie | MacPhail |
| Lali | Giesbrecht | Conroy |
| Miller | Smallwood | Hagen |
| Harcourt | Gabelmann | Clark |
| Cull | Zirnhelt | Blencoe |
| Perry | Barnes | Pullinger |
| B. Jones | Copping | Ramsey |
| Hammell | Farnworth | Evans |
| Dosanjh | O'Neill | Doyle |
| Hartley | Streifel | Lord |
| Krog | Randall | Garden |
| Kasper | Simpson | Brewin |
| Janssen | ||
| NAYS -- 22 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Farrell-Collins | Tyabji | Reid |
| Wilson | Mitchell | Cowie |
| Gingell | Warnke | Stephens |
| Hanson | Serwa | De Jong |
| Neufeld | Fox | Dalton |
| Anderson | Symons | K. Jones |
| Chisholm | Jarvis | Hurd |
| Tanner | ||
Hon. G. Clark: Committee of Supply, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 598 ]
The House in committee of supply; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
On vote 24: minister's office, $398,558.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada