1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament 
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. 
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 13

[ Page 4951 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to introduce a few constituents from the riding of Matsqui. I have the pleasure because, while the member for Matsqui may be on their ballots from time to time, I'm in their hearts. I'm proud to introduce my mother and father, Mary and Henry Giesbrecht, who are accompanied by my brother Henry Giesbrecht Jr. and his wife, Marty. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a couple of constituents and supporters of mine, Donna and Doug Steinson, who are in the gallery right now. They're from Chilliwack. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce to the House members of the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. In the gallery are Mr. Bruce McConnachie, president; Mr. Bill Caulfield, executive director; and Mr. Jay Norton, chairman of the government relations committee. On behalf of all members, I want to thank the CGAs for a delightful lunch and a very interesting presentation by the ombudsperson today. Will all members please make them welcome.

J. Macphail: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome some of my constituents who are not yet the same age as us but are growing there. They are grade 11 students from Templeton Secondary School, and they are hosting 25 students from Japan. May the House make them feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of all the members of the Legislature, I would like to pass on congratulations to you, the Clerks and a number of members of the Legislature from all our political families, who have been hosting the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association over the last few days. I want you to know, hon. Speaker and members of your staff, that these representatives of 10,000 parliamentarians from 50 countries in the Commonwealth are working hard, but they're also having a chance to see the beauty of British Columbia. At lunch today they wanted me to pass on to you, your staff and the other members of the Legislature who have helped host our friends from around the world that they are having a marvellous time. Thank you.

U. Dosanjh: Present in the precincts are about 80 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington, a great constituency in Vancouver East. I would ask the House to make them welcome, please.

D. Lovick: I suspect that all of us who sit in this chamber rely to some degree on volunteers to make our constituency offices operate well. I want to acknowledge today the presence of a woman who is an almost full-time assistant to my constituency assistant. Ms. Jacqueline Coates is in the precincts along with her friend Ms. Irene Kopec. I would ask members to please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CROWN CORPORATIONS REPORTING ACT

C. Serwa presented a bill intituled Crown Corporations Reporting Act.

C. Serwa: This bill supplements the provisions of the Financial Information Act and the Financial Administration Act. It permits the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services to establish minimum uniform annual reporting requirements for all provincial Crown corporations both as to their finances and as to their operations. The report would be made through the House or the Clerk's office to the public and would also provide for the committee to add more detailed reporting requirements where members felt that specific Crown corporation situations would make such public reporting beneficial.

The public would receive each year a standard baseline on the operations of all Crown corporations. This would enable comparisons over time between the operations and finances of each Crown corporation, as well as specific items from the committee that the committee thought important to evaluating the performance of particular Crown corporations.

Bill M209 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.

Oral Questions

INCREASE IN PUBLIC SERVICE WAGES AND BENEFITS

F. Gingell: Public service wage costs are going to increase by 15 percent over last year's, representing an increase in excess of $200 million. My question is to the Premier. Can you name one private sector company, other than one that is just starting up, that is increasing salaries and benefits at the same rate as your NDP government?

Hon. G. Clark: The rate of the total overall government spending has come down again. It's the lowest rate of spending in five years, since 1987, at 5.7 percent. When you take out the rate of population growth and inflation, this is a very challenging budget on the spending side. But the Liberals would have us slash spending on health care and education. We reject the radical restraint approach of the Bennett government in the early 1980s.

F. Gingell: This being question period -- and I hate to use up a supplemental by asking the same question -- will the Premier, preferably, please deal 

[ Page 4952 ]

with the question of a 15 percent increase, or $200 million, in public service wages and benefits?

Hon. G. Clark: If the member opposite has read the independent financial review, he will know that the most significant factors the government should deal with are budgets and spending. That is where I think members of the public look. A 5.7 percent increase in spending is the lowest rate of spending growth in British Columbia since 1987.

The Liberal opposition has stood in this House and complained about the closing of Shaughnessy Hospital. Then they stand in here day after day and say we should slash spending on health care. We're determined not to repeat the mistakes of the early 1980s.

F. Gingell: I was shocked to discover that the Minister of Finance, when he was in opposition, didn't listen to what was happening and didn't even know that there were caps on CAP. It was a big surprise to him when he came into government. And now he doesn't listen in question period to what the question is. The question deals with salaries, dealt with in the Peat Marwick report as the single most important item. We in the Legislature on the Liberal side strongly agree with the decision to cut back the budget of this Legislature, but the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has a 5.6 percent increase for staff; Minister of Health, 7.8 percent; Minister of Labour, 12.1 percent to pay for the political hacks in his office. When will you and the Premier stop these obscene increases?

Hon. G. Clark: The Liberals and others have been calling for increased health care services at the community level. That's what the wage bill increase is, hon. Speaker. The fact is, as we downsize the acute care sector, we're increasing the number of people in the community care sector. In the total health care sector there'll be fewer people working but more people on the books of British Columbia under this government in the community health care sector. If the member opposite would read the Peat Marwick report, he'd know that there were thousands of shadow FTEs who are now contractor conversions and have moved into the salary component of the government's estimates. The consulting budget, where they were hidden before, is down significantly, hon. Speaker. The Social Credit government hid the number of people working in the public sector. We won't do that. We're very proud of honest and open bookkeeping in British Columbia.

[2:15]

WELFARE FRAUD

V. Anderson: My question is to the hon. Minister of Social Services. Recently, criminal rings have been accused of welfare fraud. Will the minister tell us what she is doing to ensure that the majority of recipients who deservedly and properly are assisted by her ministry are not the real victims of these crimes?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for his question and emphasize to him how outraged I am by the abuse of the system by criminal rings. I'd also like to add that the disclosure and the filing of charges against those criminal elements have been brought about by the fraud-proofing of our system. Our investigators have done the research and have laid the charges. Now those people are behind bars.

PUBLIC SECTOR SALARIES

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The government of Manitoba has decided to fight its deficit, in part, by asking public sector workers to take ten days off without pay. Does the Premier know how much his government spends each day on wages and salaries?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think it takes a great deal of gall for a member of the previous government, which was spending at a rate of increase of 12 to 13 percent per year, to stand up here and give lectures about saving money when they squandered hundreds of millions of dollars during their term in office.

J. Weisgerber: For the Premier's information, the estimates indicate the government will spend $1.4 billion this year. That represents $5.3 million a day in direct salaries for government. When you add in teachers, health care workers and Crown corporation employees, the amount grows to $39 million a day. Ten days off work without pay would eliminate the need for the increase in the sales tax. Will the Premier go half way and ask public sector workers to take five days off without pay?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll tell you a couple of things that we are doing. We're bringing down the 7 percent pay increases the previous Social Credit government introduced in the public sector to 2 percent less. So we're not bringing in increases that are outside the competitive marketplace in the public and private sectors.

Secondly, we're not squandering $316 million on bad business loans in giveaways to friends -- as the previous government did -- without any interest payments, without any business plans, or without any collateral. That's how we're tightening up the mess that we inherited from that previous government.

J. Weisgerber: Even your caucus doesn't believe that. But given the amount of money that could be saved, will the Premier at least agree to develop a mechanism that would allow public sector workers to volunteer to take time off without pay to help pay down the deficit?

WELFARE FRAUD

V. Anderson: Again to the Minister of Social Services. Regardless of the charges that are laid against those people who have been perpetuating welfare fraud, it is incumbent that the innocent parties not be accused, and that the guilty be appropriately convicted. How is this minister ensuring that the guilty are 

[ Page 4953 ]

punished without harming the innocent majority -- even in the public press?

Hon. J. Smallwood: It gives me another opportunity to talk about our administrative accountability. We have the most sophisticated system in this province. It is supported not only by policy, by our well-trained staff on the front benches, but also by a central computer system that allows us to be accountable, to ensure that the money that taxpayers entrust to us go to those most in need. That system is possibly the most sophisticated system across Canada, and it's something we're proud of. In addition to that, we continue to work not only with the RCMP and the city police but also with the auditor general to ensure that we can, to the best of our ability and with the resources that we have, not only be accountable but also be able to meet the needs of those people who are relying on this system.

PROMPT DISTRIBUTION OF SAFER PAYMENTS

V. Anderson: Again to the Minister of Social Services. Since the Minister of Municipal Affairs did not understand the question put to him the other day, perhaps this minister who has a concern for seniors can assure this House that from now on SAFER payments to seniors will arrive at least four banking days before the end of the month. Will the minister give this assurance on behalf of seniors?

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN B.C.

H. Giesbrecht: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. This morning the University of Northern B.C. announced that it was re-tendering a significant portion of this important project because of projected cost overruns. As a member representing people in northern B.C. who are looking forward to the opportunities created by this new university, can the minister assure this House that UNBC will be completed on schedule and within the allocated budget?

Hon. T. Perry: My surprise at being asked a question is exceeded only by my delight that our brethren from the Commonwealth parliaments have succeeded in making all members feel welcome to ask questions on behalf of their constituents.

As members know, the University of Northern British Columbia will serve people from Kitimat to Fort Nelson, from Atlin to T�te Jaune Cache. The university will open in the fall of 1994 on time, on budget, and I have full confidence in the administration of the university. I met with the chairman of the interim governing council and am assured that steps are being taken, as we speak, to ensure that that project will come in on budget, on time.

FEE INCREASE FOR RANCHERS

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Premier. A commitment was made in the budget to control the deficit in a fair and balanced way. I have a confidential document from the Ministry of Agriculture confirming that this year this government will gouge ranchers for an unbelievable 23 percent increase in fees and licences. Will the Premier explain the fairness and balance of this secret tax grab?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll take the question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture.

LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS

J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister has a letter in today's Vancouver Sun, which I think it is quite timely on April 1. In the letter the minister states that in 68 districts negotiations are underway, and in only seven have there been strikes or lockouts. Does the minister express the same optimism, given that two more districts -- Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows -- have gone down today and have now been added to that strike-lockout list?

Hon. A. Hagen: The closing of schools for a strike or lockout is something that no member of this Legislature wants to see. On that I know we have total unanimity. Indeed, the majority of boards and their teacher organizations have reached agreement or are in negotiation. The topic of the letter? The approach that we need to take is that where boards and teachers are in difficulty, the good offices of the Minister of Labour are available to them. The message that I have given to the communities affected is: the kids need to be in school; you have your budgets; you have a responsibility to those children; you need to sit down to negotiate those agreements; and you need to seek assistance if you're not able to do so. And again, that is something on which every person in this Legislature agrees.

Orders of the Day

HON. M. SIHOTA: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 2.

JOB PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 (continued)

K. Jones: It's indeed a pleasure to rise and speak during second reading of Bill 2. Bill 2 represents two different facets: the recognition of the fine work of Mr. Kerley, and the definite need that we've already recognized to continue the work that he's been doing. This we accept, but we find a great deal of difficulty with the fact that clause 4, which adds a change to the Forest Act, is totally unacceptable.

We'd like to point out that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and MLA for Elk Valley, who spoke earlier this morning, should do some talking with one of the local mayors in her riding -- the mayor of Sparwood -- and members of his council. We had the opportunity two nights ago to speak with them. Contrary to her suggestion that lots of business people in Sparwood and the Elk Valley were taking up the loan guarantee offer by the province, they told us that, in fact, few businesses were taking up the loan guarantee offer, because as prudent operators of their businesses, they needed to know how they were going to pay back 

[ Page 4954 ]

those loans. They have no assurance that they will have customers six months from now.

This government has not provided a stable climate in the Elk Valley. The mine workers do not know where their next dollar is coming from. This is really tragic. Their unemployment insurance is running out, and they cannot meet their payments on a welfare cheque. The minister expected the businesses to go into further debt based on this kind of economy. Or is it really an uneconomic situation?

[2:30]

The NDP has shown no economic plan for this province. They want to continue this patchwork, piecemeal, temporary process. The NDP has no mission for this province. The times are changing, and this government has to get its head out of the sand. Now is the time for action. They cannot continue to do what they've been doing in many different areas. They should be an action government, but all they've been doing is stall, stall, stall. Failing to recognize the need to resolve these issues and to create jobs, they have another commission, another hearing or another study.

I would like to address the comments made this morning by the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. She said that she felt, on behalf of herself and the New Democratic Party, that people shouldn't have the opportunity for differences in ability to earn income, and that they should all have the same type of income. This to me is shades of old-time communism; that's what this government is representing. It's trying to promote the idea that everybody is going to get the same low income.

I'd like to address the changes to the Forest Act. They address a very fundamental factor that we found when we toured the province with the Forests committee to look at the problems the remanners are having. One of the things that was brought to us often, both by the operators of primary mills and the people who want to establish new plants in the remanufacturing end of things where the real jobs are located, was the question of forest tenure. They all said they needed a clear understanding of how much wood supply they were going to have in the future. Without that, they have no ability to obtain the funds they need for capital expenditures and operating costs in order to create new jobs, to expand and even to maintain present jobs. That can be created only by having a clear understanding of how much wood supply is available to them. If the government is going to interfere with the general cyclical operations of the marketplace by forcing them to continue to operate when it's uneconomical for them to do so and by forcing them to spend money they don't have or they will lose their licence, their ability to cut -- especially when it is being proposed at the present time that the allowable cut be reduced -- that is an almost untenable situation for the entire forest industry. It's the people's jobs that are on the line. These are directly affected by the changes being proposed in this bill. We are going to force businesses to become uneconomical at times because of this type of legislation, with Big Brother determining the economic basis of the industry.

I strongly feel that this piece of legislation has to be eliminated from this bill. It doesn't belong in this bill. It's a matter of trying to piggyback an unsatisfactory item through on a very valuable item. I think it is really an improper practice on the part of this government to try to tie the two things together: one that is very palatable and one that is totally unacceptable. As a result, we find it very difficult to find justification for supporting this bill. I will find it very difficult to support unless the government is prepared to make major changes, such as splitting up this bill.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to Bill 2, the Job Protection Amendment Act, to elaborate a bit more on what my colleagues have already talked about, and that is the fact that the Job Protection Act was an excellent piece of legislation brought forward by the Social Credit government, the past administration. I can see that the present government feels that way, because they're bringing it forward and extending it for another two years.

Some of the members opposite have stood up and talked about us not supporting any part of the bill, saying that we're against it and that we don't believe in it. That's entirely incorrect. The original intent of having a job protection commissioner was to look after jobs in single-resource towns or towns that are heavily dependent on the resource industry. I come from a part of British Columbia where that is very evident. I have seen the good work done in those communities by the job protection commissioner, and I commend him for it. I think it was an excellent way of looking at jobs. Jobs are what people in British Columbia are most concerned about, and they have been for a long time. I've stood in the House many times and talked about jobs. The greatest concerns of people in British Columbia are jobs, overtaxation and overregulation.

I fully agree with the job protection commissioner part of the bill. I think it has a useful purpose in that it will help preserve jobs. In fact, since it was commissioned, some 470 inquiries have been received to date. It involves over 12,000 jobs. That's what is on people's minds. The Job Protection Commission has worked on several special projects such as Pemberton and Port Alberni. It has worked on projects in the north and all over the province. We fully agree with that, and we think it is needed. What we don't agree with in Bill 2 are the amendments to the Forest Act. That's the part we in our caucus find unpalatable. That should not be hard even for the people across the way to understand, but they try to make out that we're against all of it. We're not. We're as concerned as the government -- probably more concerned -- about jobs in B.C., but we do have a lot of problems with bringing in adjustments that should really be applied to the Forest Act.

The powers that the Minister of Forests will have in this act are astronomical. Why? Having spent a year and a half or two years in the House, I've become a little more suspicious of legislation, especially after some of the legislation that was passed last year and the little things that were slid in here and there which were hard to catch. But I guess it's to the point where this government is getting blatant. They're not even worried about slipping in little things in different places. They're coming right out in Bill 2 with some drastic 

[ Page 4955 ]

measures. It's no wonder that the opposition and the Social Credit Party are upset.

The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith got up and asked how we could oppose a bill like this when we brought it in. She went on and on about it and talked about the 5 percent takeback. That 5 percent takeback was never in the Job Protection Act; it was part of the Forest Act. Obviously she's a little crossed up. But maybe she isn't. Maybe what she's talking about is that this type of thing should be in the Forest Act and we should be amending the Forest Act. Maybe she's confirming what the Social Credit caucus and the Liberal caucus are saying, which is that yes, this is the wrong place to do it. We should have forest-related items in a Forest Act amendment.

The powers that are given to the Minister of Forests are drastic. He can reallocate timber if a mill.... At the present time when prices are high, I would assume that all the mills are going full rate. If those mills shut down a couple of shifts when the price goes down and production goes down for 90 days, the Minister of Forests has the authority to remove all or part of the annual allowable cut from that firm. Why? We're talking about job protection. We're not talking, I don't think, about reallocating the AAC. If that's what the government wants to do, then why don't they just do it? Why doesn't Forests get it done? Why do they have to slide it into Bill 2 to do it?

I think it's a sneaky way, for lack of a better word, for the government to attack this problem. I wonder why Bill 2 has so much to do with forestry. We talk about a job protection commissioner for resource-based communities. There are more resources in B.C. than just forestry. There's mining, oil and gas, all kinds of natural resources, but they aren't even mentioned in Bill 2. Could it be because in Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, for instance, the mining industry and the petroleum industry do not cover a large part of B.C.'s land base, and so they feel that they won't have to worry about those so much? Do they feel that because the annual allowable cut covers a tremendous part of B.C., so when it comes to reducing annual allowable cuts, to negotiating land claims and to removing annual allowable cuts with no compensation to companies that have them, this is a great way to go in and do it?

I thought that the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Economic Development would have had more on their mind about jobs; they both should, especially the Minister of Economic Development. He should have been standing up, fighting against this and saying this act should be brought forward to protect jobs in B.C. That's what we need and that's what that minister should be responsible for. If the Minister of Forests wants to have a back door in to do things the Schwindt commission talked about, to take annual allowable cut away without compensation and to do all those things that this government has planned to do, and is planning to do and probably will do, why doesn't he bring that forward as an amendment to the Forest Act?

[2:45]

I approve of the job commissioners act because it has helped in my area. In fact, the job commissioner is talking about money that has been loaned to small firms to keep going: $2.7 million worth of loan guarantees provided by B.C. Trade through the job protection commissioner, and $23.5 million in loans and guarantees for economic plans. All of the loans were provided at market interest rates, i.e. no subsidies, and two, totalling $10.3 million, were provided on standby basis only. Some of those loans took place pretty close to my home. It just reminds me of the Premier standing up during question period and talking about that terrible Social Credit government that let out $316 million worth of bad loans.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The members opposite on the back benches obviously haven't read it very carefully, or maybe they don't know too much about it; it's quite obvious that they don't. This NDP government gave another $10 million loan to a company that had one of those bad loans that was included in the $316 million. What are the Premier and those members talking about?

The Job Protection Commission act is necessary. We have no problem with it. We are proud of it because we initiated it; our government had the foresight to bring it forward. This government wants to ruin it, or I guess in their own way to provide a way of meeting their goals and desires for the province, the annual allowable cuts and all of those things that take place with forestry.

I support part of the job commissioner act, but not the part, hon. Speaker, that deals with forest-related items, with the powers that are given to the Ministry of Forests and the minister specifically that have no sunset clause at all. Why doesn't he bring that forward in the Forest Act? For that reason, I will be voting against this bill.

J. Tyabji: The previous speaker asked a number of times: "Why is section 56 in Bill 2?" I'd like to address that, because my guess would be that the reason that section 56.01 is in Bill 2 is to put those of us on the opposition benches in a catch-22, where we find ourselves on the one hand wanting to vote against section 56. But if we do end up voting against the bill because of section 56, we will be accused of being against the job protection commissioner. Yet if we vote in favour of this bill, we will be accused of being complicit with the provisions of section 56. This bill is typical of the kind of cynical politics we've repeatedly seen from this government in the last year and a half. That is the reason why section 56 is included in Bill 2 when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of Bill 2 -- which has to do with the job protection commissioner.

The point that's being missed in this entire debate, and the point that I want to....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I will tell you. I appreciate them asking, because I'd like to tell them very clearly.

[ Page 4956 ]

The point that's being completely overlooked is that the very fact that one year after the NDP renewed the mandate of Mr. Kerley -- who's doing a good job against incredible odds -- we are no closer to eliminating the need for a job protection commissioner. The point that's being missed is that this government has the same kind of tired, old, outdated thinking with regard to economic strategy as what we saw in the previous government -- who are standing up bragging about the fact that they had to bring about a job protection commissioner in the first place.

I think it's amazing that in 1993 in British Columbia, when we are no closer to an economic development strategy that would move us from a primary resource-based industry into something -- what we call the twenty-first century -- which has technology, research and development, environmental tech, alternate methods of transportation, different methods of infrastructure, different ways of dealing with waste management; when we are no closer to an economic development strategy that recognizes the realities of the next century, we're standing here all applauding the idea that we still need a job protection commissioner. And we see the other opposition members bragging about the fact that they had to bring about a job protection commissioner in the first place.

Unfortunately, we are obviously in a situation where we are going to need to extend Mr. Kerley's mandate. I would guess that he would be the first person to applaud the day when he is no longer needed in British Columbia, when we don't have small-town shutdowns. The worst part is that this government -- which doesn't have an economic strategy -- is sneaking in a section of the bill with regard to mill closures. This indicates that they continually have this mind-set that the forest industry is a sunset industry, so they recognize that their strategy -- which is not an economic development strategy, but is a parks plan strategy; which is an aboriginal land claims strategy that has nothing to do with the benefits to the general public but has more to do with catering to special interests -- is going to result in thousands of more job losses. They sneak in section 56.01 in a job protection bill because they recognize that that section is going to result in thousands more job losses, and they put us in a catch-22 position.

How do we vote on this bill? On the one hand, unfortunately, we obviously favour the extension of Mr. Kerley's mandate. So we would want to vote in favour of that, because we don't want the poor workers who are being forced out of their jobs by this government to think that the Liberal opposition doesn't recognize the grave tragedy that's being visited on those families by this government's decisions. We don't want the public to think that we're not sensitive to that and that we don't know that they need help. We want them to recognize that we support the mandate of the job protection commissioner, although we would be working to eliminate his workload by developing a real economic strategy, something that will move us forward into the next century. On the one hand, we want to vote in favour of the bill. On the other hand, if we do, it makes it look like we're in favour of this section of the bill that's going to result in thousands of job losses. This is typical of the kind of cynical politics that we see.

Hon. Speaker, a couple of days ago we had a group who came to visit us from Williams Lake, the Save Our Jobs Committee. The members of the government should recognize these people by now, because they've written to them, they've spoken to them and they've visited with them a number of times. I had a very nice young man, Terry Tate, come to me and say: "You know, the unfortunate thing is that ten months after we delivered our message to the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Economic Development, who are here today, we are in a worse situation than we were when we first opened up the dialogue with these ministers. We are no closer to a solution." Unfortunately those are the people we have to have a job protection commissioner for, because they are the very people who are coming forward with solutions and who are being ignored by this government.

Hon. Speaker, we know the level of frustration of the people of the province with this government. This government won't listen. Not only will it not listen; it's got an agenda that is pushing through things like Build B.C., and on the other hand we've got things like the job protection commissioner, who is overworked, because their lack of economic strategy is forcing people out of their jobs.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I hear questions: What is the plan of the Liberal opposition? I would like nothing further than to outline our plans, but I know I'd be called out of order by the very people who are heckling me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

J. Tyabji: Let me venture, hon. Speaker, a little bit of advice for the government members, who obviously are in need of this kind of advice and are definitely in dire need of the kind of direction that their very back bench is pleading for from the Liberal opposition. The Liberal opposition is only too happy to give it, because in the last general election we outlined a 60-year plan.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, we can hear the hoots and the jeers from those who don't even have a strategy at the idea of a 60-year plan, which not only builds in the basics of the primary resource industries, but develops secondary industry, research and development. It recognized that in a province where extraction of your forestry resources is one of the fundamental parts of your economy, you'd better work on a 60-year cycle, because that is how long it takes to regenerate the very resource you're extracting. That's why we had the common sense to put that forward in the last general election; that's a platform we're very proud of, which 

[ Page 4957 ]

we will be very happy to bring to this House when we're in government in a couple of years.

In the meantime, hon. Speaker, I want to talk about the implications of this bill before the House. In addition to the cynicism that we see, the kind of bad politics, we have the same sort of tired administrative approach of the previous government being carried forward by this government and the same catering to special interests. But the pendulum has swung the other way now. So we still have catering to special interests and nobody representing the public.

We need to have in this province -- it is long overdue -- a comprehensive land-use strategy. It should not be shuffled off to an expensive talk shop that takes over a year just to decide what kind of stationery it's going to have, or whether or not the people who represent insects in the ecosystem should be sitting at the table. We need to take the data that we have in terms of our resource inventory and put it into a comprehensive land-use strategy with the people accountable to the public, the members of cabinet. That's something that this government promised in the last general election. A year and a half later we are no closer to a comprehensive land-use strategy than we were in the last general election.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, for those saying it's not true, let me assure you of this: in the next general election we will have the blueprint for government that the B.C. Liberal Party will put forward, and that blueprint will be implemented the day after the next general election. We won't be setting up committees and travelling road shows at the taxpayers' expense to canvass their opinions when we have a mandate from the people to go forward.

Hon. Speaker, I want to talk about the socioeconomic collapse that this government is driving us into with things like Bill 2. Anybody who has been following the trends, not only in B.C., not only across the country, but in terms of the globalization of our economies, knows that you cannot separate the environment, the economy and society and treat them in a vacuum. Anyone who understands that there is overlapping jurisdiction for all of these things will recognize that with the budget that was tabled the other day and with the legislation that's currently on the books, this government is driving us to the brink of socioeconomic collapse. Through Build B.C. and the Crown corporations they're bringing forward, this government thinks that the taxpayers have an unlimited ability to pay. In this bill we have an indication that thousands and thousands of jobs are going to be lost. This government thinks that small towns are expendable, and that we can cut them off as far as highway networks are concerned or tax them to death to pay for it. Thousands and thousands of jobs can be lost, and we will simply have a job protection commissioner scramble to take care of all the small towns of the province when they shut down.

[3:00]

This bill, unfortunately, is another drip in the Chinese water torture of the NDP government. It's another indication that they don't have a clue as to how to manage the economy of the province.

Is that a point of order?

H. Lali: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: When members wish to rise on a point of order, it's helpful to the Chair if you would mention the point of order. Otherwise the Chair has no understanding of why a member is rising. I recognize the point of order by the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I'm a member of the Sikh community, and I don't think the member opposite should be using terms like "Chinese water torture." I don't think she meant any harm by it, but I think she should watch such language in the future.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the member for Okanagan East will take your comments under advisement.

Please continue with the debate on second reading of the bill.

J. Tyabji: I certainly had no intention of offending anyone. I was actually referring to a method of torture. Let's see what kind of torture I can come up with. Which form of torture would they like me to refer to? There was certainly no ethnic connotation. Being a member of the Indo-Canadian community, I'm hardly going to be casting ethnic aspersions.

Hon. Speaker, I'm trying to say that this government, in whatever form they choose, is systematically torturing the people of this province with bad legislation and very bad fiscal spending priorities. A note of hope has been passed to me for the people of the province who may be tuned in: there are only 943 days left of this excruciating torture, if this government insists on going....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I seem to hear them saying that then they will be gone for all time. That's another note of hope.

In closing, the point is that not only do we see cynical politics in this bill; they put all of us who oppose what they're trying to do, in terms of the lack of economic strategy and the job losses across the province, into a catch-22 situation. We have another example of the lack of direction. It's not just the lack of direction in where they're going, but the fact that in this formless, bleating mass that we see in government -- this void -- we find that in actual fact they are playing to the forces around the world that are taking us to the brink of losing all the important things we find so valuable as a society. We won't have the money to pay for it. We will have squandered it in the patronage appointments, the benefits they've given out, the fact that the payrolls are going through the roof and things like this. A year later, not only are we no closer to eliminating the need for a job protection commissioner, but the need for the job protection commissioner has never been greater. That's unfortunate.

[ Page 4958 ]

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, a year ago we would have referred to the problems in this bill as apples and oranges. Now we can refer to it as a greengrocer bill, because it is full of lettuce and cabbage. The Minister of Agriculture may not recognize that, but I hope that the Minister of Economic Development will realize the difference.

As my very good friend from Okanagan East stated, we are in a quandary. We support the continuation of the role of the job protection commissioner. We recognize the need for his services to continue. It is a disappointment, after a year and a half of this present government, that this role is required, but as she so ably stated, we support that.

However, we cannot support the changes to the Forest Act. For them to be put into the same bill is unbelievable. And what's the bill called? It's called the Job Protection Amendment Act. There is one major change to the sunset provision, and then there are some very important and critical changes to the Forest Act, which go on to three pages, for goodness' sake. They call it the Job Protection Amendment Act, but it really is a change to the Forest Act. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet; and the front half of this smells sweet, but we're concerned about the stink that's in the second half of the bill.

We have real concerns about 56.01. I believe it's been poorly worded. It gives the minister all kinds of power and authority without restrictions. There are strange calculations in 56.01(d)(i) and (ii) that need to be changed. There are all kinds of amendments that are needed, I believe, to accomplish the changes intended in the Forest Act in a sensible and thoughtful manner that will give the people of this province, the business operators and the people in the lumber business some sense of certainty. They're suffering under a sense of uncertainty all the time, and this government does nothing to quell those feelings of discomfort.

We therefore are put into the embarrassing position of having to vote against second reading of this bill. If you'd let us vote for the continuation of the office of the job protection commissioner, you would have our unanimous support. But when you mix it in with this other bill in the cynical manner that you have, we are forced to vote against it in second reading. I hope you will listen with care to the amendments we will propose to the portions dealing with the amendments to the Forest Act, and we'll present a bill in the end which all sides of this House can vote for and support, because we know it's the right thing for British Columbians.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've been listening very carefully to both of the parties on the opposite benches, and listening in particular to the member for Okanagan East. When she was meeting with the workers from the forest industry in Williams Lake, I wonder if she reminded them that she has asked that the Minister of Environment and Forests stop all logging in the watersheds. In fact, those loggers log in the watersheds of this province.

The principle of this bill is about job stability and job protection. The job protection commissioner himself has asked for clarification of this section of the act. This section of the act was put in by the Social Credit government. We supported this section. It was unworkable as it was worded; it needed clarification and extension, and that's precisely what we've done. So the members from the third party will find it difficult not to support the principle and the clarified letter of this law, which puts into practice precisely what the original bill was intended to do.

It's absolutely essential that the members of the opposition listen a bit when they roll off their tongue the need for an economic strategy. This government inherited an economic strategy that was working in a feeble way towards value-added manufacturing in the province. We, as a government, are extending the work towards creating more jobs out of a diminishing resource base. One of the parts of the economic strategy that we put into place immediately was the development of a land use strategy. We can't have an economic development strategy for the province without first of all dealing with some of the land use issues and certainty about the land use. We have done that; that is action. They aren't in place yet, but they will be.

An Hon. Member: When?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: By the end of the year a number of them will be in place. Two years is not very long to plan when you bring together dozens of people who have never been around the table before in the history of British Columbia. To say otherwise is to show extreme naivete on the part of those people.

To say that we have no vision is absolutely wrong. The economic summit that the Premier put together said that if we want a high-wage economy, a high quality of living, we have to remain competitive by investing in people to be well trained and able to enter into the new phases of economic development -- the new economy and value-added. We are maintaining spending to put those skills in the hands of the people who need them.

Just to remind people, in case they think it's easy to drop a plan on communities, that same summit said that the economic strategies of the province will be developed from the grass roots up, and it will be done sector by sector. We took action. At the invitation of the forest industry, who couldn't get along with the previous government in terms of collaborating on a strategy, we put a four-sector strategy committee in place to work together: the private sector, the public sector, the communities of the coast and the communities of the interior. We're working on a mineral strategy and a coal strategy. In the Elk Valley you need a coal strategy. It's oversupply in coal and world price that has created the instability in the Elk Valley.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For those of you who think the Elk Valley doesn't appreciate what's being done, I have a letter here dated March 4 from the clerk administrator of the district of Sparwood saying: "The council extends sincere thanks to you and your colleague, Hon. A. Edwards, for providing the small business initiative 

[ Page 4959 ]

program for the business community of the Elk Valley." They appreciate it. If the mayor of Sparwood was here today, he would admit it. They thanked us for that. We did what we could with the Job Protection Commission, but the solutions aren't instant. For the member from Okanagan East to say that a solution can just be dropped on people the day after the next election is a view of economic development that we reject.

This government puts its emphasis on the regions. If you listen to Build B.C., we're saying that because government spending represents 20 percent of the gross product of the province, you have to invest those dollars wisely in the regions. We have said that. It is an essential part of our economic development strategy to work with the regions to develop suitable economic plans. A provincial economic strategy is one that looks to a high wage, high quality of living; that's the vision. The strategy is to work sector by sector: the mineral sector, the forest sector, the high-tech sectors. We're up and running in all of those. The second essential piece to the overall provincial strategy is jobs and skill development. Pull together the leaders from government, education and the private sector to mold it so that you're not dropping something on them. To suggest that you drop a strategy on a problem....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, you did. Do you remember? You'd better quell the thoughts of your member for Okanagan East.

As a government, we have responded to the Elk Valley by creating a tailor-made program for those people. We have responded by assigning a regional economic development officer to work in there on the continued diversification of the economy, which is extremely difficult. I see no magic solutions coming from the opposition benches on how to diversify the economies of these towns. They have to work on doing it. There are no magic solutions. We work with them as a partner.

It's about job protection; it's about community stability. What the former leader of the opposition should remember is that community stability is what this act is all about. It's the very reason why we want some powers for the Minister of Forests to be able to adjust the cutting rights of mills when they shut down, when they put people out of work. Those communities are asking for the powers. In fact, communities that the job protection commissioner has worked in.... Creston asked that we strengthen 56.01. What are we doing? We're strengthening 56.01 so that the government has the power to participate in economic plans. We have had 31 economic plans. They say that the government has no economic plans. We have 31 economic plans that the job protection commissioner has put in to stabilize jobs, protect jobs and protect communities. In my view, that's leadership and that's showing vision.

You know perfectly well that industry, in order to maintain high-paying jobs, will want to substitute labour for capital. That's going to happen -- rationalization. But when they want to shut down plants and send the logs out of the communities, there has to be some ability to balance a freer market for the logs to get the required price so that they go to the right place in the free market system. We have to remember that we don't have a free market right now; we have a tenure system. That tenure system is there to guarantee that the industry invests in jobs in those communities. So if they aren't creating jobs with tenure, then the people of B.C. are saying that that tenure should be returned to those people who will have the jobs.

If you look behind the arguments of either of the opposition parties, I don't think that they really have a leg to stand on. I don't think they can really feel good about opposing this bill. So I would argue that they should think again about the purpose of the Job Protection Act and understand that this is an extension and a recognition that in the forest-based communities you have to be able to deal with moving logs to those facilities that will start the jobs.

The communities are asking for that kind of power. They want the Minister of Forests to deal with the community stability aspects of the plans in their communities. The job protection commissioner understands that he needs to have those powers. And what are we saying? We're taking action; we're giving those powers under the Job Protection Act. And it's an appropriate place for it to be. The opposition needs to remember that this act also allows the Minister of Forests to exempt the licensee from the 5 percent takeback if transfer is part of an economic plan. So it cuts both ways. There has to be some ability, some flexibility, on the part of the Minister of Forests. To do what? To maintain jobs and to maintain some stability in those communities.

G. Wilson: And to control the industry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The former leader of the opposition would say that this is to control. It's not to control the industry. It's to put the wood in the hands of those people operating in the free market and to create the jobs. The resource does not belong to the industry. It is leased to them for the purposes of setting up mills and sawmills and creating jobs. So that's part of our industrial strategy -- to put the wood in the hands of the people who create the jobs and maintain the communities.

[3:15]

As for the criticism that we're taking an adversarial attitude, I think the opposition should think about the fact that the forest industry came to this government and said: "The previous government would not collaborate with us. Will you collaborate with us?" They said that at the Premier's economic summit, and we responded. They said it again at the forests summit, and we responded. You'll hear more about that in the next day.

I heard the former leader of the opposition talk about a regional economic strategy when he was promising people in the interior that we would have plans and see the Liberals.... I've invited the Liberals to contribute in a collaborative way to the development of economic strategy. I haven't seen anything. In the meantime this government works on refining a strategy 

[ Page 4960 ]

for the mineral sector, the forest sector, the electronics sector and areas of software development. I could go on, and I will when we talk about that in my estimates.

The opposition doesn't understand economics, either. They don't understand that what were thought to be cyclical problems that would end at the end of a recession, or a recession that would end soon -- therefore a two-year sunset -- have in fact become what we call structural. They are here to stay. There's continued structural change in the industry, which means tens of thousands of people will be put out of work if we do nothing. What we are saying is that we're going to give the Minister of Forests some power to come in and be part of an economic plan for a community to generate some stability.

This act is very carefully designed to achieve precisely what it was brought in to achieve, and we supported it. I'd just like to close by reminding people, if they want to check the debates in Hansard, that I suggested the act should go further, that it really should incorporate some land use plans and deal with economic plans in surrounding communities. I'm proud to say that we're bringing in part of that, and I'm also proud to say that we are working in those communities hardest hit by dislocation in the forest sector to bring about some stability so we can get more jobs out of less wood and deal with the overcommitment and the continued rationalization of the industry. I know that these people in our government who want the job protection commissioner to work in their constituency will be very glad of this. If you don't want the job protection commissioner to work in your communities, then I'm sure he won't.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 2, Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Budget Debate 
(continued)

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and speak before this chamber on a budget that I believe is probably one of the most important budgets that has ever been tabled in this province. I believe that it's a great budget for this province, and it's a great budget for the people of British Columbia, because once more this province leads the way for the rest of the country. With this budget the province will continue to maintain the fastest rate of growth in the country, will continue to be able to provide a level of services that people not only expect but demand and, at the same time, will continue with the reduction of the provincial deficit, which we started when we took over from the third party some 18 months ago.

This budget can be typified, for me personally, by a phone call I made last night. I had to phone a woman I've spoken to on many occasions. At times, on other issues, she has been among my severest critics. So when I phoned her last night, I thought I was going to get my ear chewed off. Instead she said: "I just want to tell you I think it's a great budget." I asked her why she thought it was a great budget. She said: "Because it's fair, and because some 430,000 people in this province will no longer have to pay MSP premiums." Some 430,000 hard-working British Columbians will not have to pay MSP premiums. They won't have to worry. I think that's extremely important.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

What impressed me most about this woman was the fact that she won't be one of the beneficiaries. What she was concerned about were her fellow British Columbians, the people she runs into two or three nights a week at the seniors centre who are concerned about making their MSP premiums. That, to me, is what's so great about this budget: it's a budget for people. It protects services, and it protects education and health -- things that the people in our province view as a foundation upon which our society is built. We've managed to do that while containing spending. That involved making tough choices, fair choices and challenging choices, which had to be made to ensure that the long-term financial stability of this province is not placed in jeopardy.

Under this budget we will see a reduction in the deficit from $2.8 billion to $1.9 billion, and in this coming fiscal year it will be reduced to $1.5 billion. I hope that next year we'll be going substantially below that as well. We're doing it in a way which, as I said, protects services. We do not take the gut-and-slash approach that the third party or the opposition would take. That approach would throw thousands of people out of work and place them on unemployment insurance programs, which have been shortened, and it 

[ Page 4961 ]

would force them onto provincial welfare rolls and plunge the economy of this province into a tailspin. Instead, we have chosen to take a balanced and fair approach that shows leadership to the rest of the country on how to tackle economic problems. We do not intend to balance the finances in this province on the backs of the poor.

[3:30]

This is a budget that came about, in large part, through a great degree of consultation with a wide variety of groups: municipalities, leaders of large and small businesses, the labour community and the public at large. Through a series of informative exchange meetings throughout the province, the Ministry of Finance has talked to people frankly and honestly about the financial situation in this province, about the competing demands for scarce resources and some of the tough choices that have to be made. We heard from municipalities about the effects that downloading can have on them and how they're trying to protect the services that they provide. As a result, in this budget we have not cut the unconditional grants to municipalities. We're providing them with funding that they require to provide the services they need to provide to the people of this province.

We talked to small business about their concerns, and we listened. They are concerned about increasing rates of taxation. So the small business tax rate has not been increased; it stays the same. We listened to those who were concerned about the tourism industry in this province, a growth industry that is taking up many people that some of our other industries used to take -- people who are uneducated or lack skills -- and gives them training. They were concerned about the impact that an extension of the provincial sales tax would have on restaurants, tourism and opportunities for those people. We listened and we didn't implement that.

We listened to large business and their concerns about the corporation capital tax. While we weren't able to eliminate it, we did raise the threshold, with the net result that 2,000 British Columbia businesses will be exempt from the corporation capital tax.

That is a progressive budget. It's a budget that comes about through consultation and having listened. We listened to the public and we listened to labour.

We're concerned about unemployment, because in British Columbia we have a rapidly growing lower mainland economy, an economy that in my own area is booming and creating strains; but there's another British Columbia -- the interior and the north, the Kootenays and the Peace River -- that hasn't yet had all the benefits it might receive from the growth we've seen in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. We've addressed this budget so that we can start to focus some of that growth and development on those regions. We're doing that through B.C. 21, and I believe that this will be one of the most significant initiatives this government undertakes.

So we've listened. And we've had to go back and look at special interest groups and those who said, "We want dramatic increases in spending because we feel that our sector deserves this," or "Our particular interest deserves that." We've had to make tough choices and say: "No, we are sorry. The province does not have the resources to accommodate your wishes or your demands." So we have increased spending modestly -- by 5.7 percent. That is a reduction from the 12 percent that the third party had in their last budget -- the runaway spending of the Socreds. We brought it down to 7 percent last year and we brought it down to 5.7 percent this year. There are those who say that that's too high. Well, I say to those people that it is lower; when you have 4 percent inflation and 3 percent growth, that's 7 percent. And 5.7 percent maintains the level and maintains those services that British Columbians value so much.

I say to the opposition who are criticizing this that they have a responsibility to come clean, to say what they would do. I listened to the leader of the Social Credit Party the other day on the radio, who said that we should not be building roads, that we should not be building schools, that we should not be building hospitals. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena is quite right: they're not listening. That's why they are the third party: they never did listen in the first place. Their approach would be to slash, to gut and to cripple British Columbia's economy; to put it in an economic straitjacket that would deny opportunities for our young people and for our future. The Liberals can't decide what approach they wish to take. On the one hand they call for increased spending, and on the other hand they call for significant cuts.

A. Cowie: That's flexibility.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member calls it flexibility. I call it being dishonest to the people of the province, who want to know what we can afford to do. They accept that tough choices have to be made. They don't want to be promised the moon or the sky. They want us to protect their basic services. They want us to show leadership. They want to know that when they look at the way British Columbia's being run, our province is one of the top provinces in Canada; it's a great place to live. Thousands of people from across this country are still moving to British Columbia, despite the charges of the opposition. Thousands of people from offshore view British Columbia as one of the most desirable places in the world to live. Yet if you were to listen to the Liberal opposition, they would say that the sky is falling and that British Columbia is rapidly on its way to becoming a Third World tinpot dictatorship. I reject that; I reject what the Liberals are trying to do. Instead, I say that our budget is a blueprint for prosperity.

An Hon. Member: They're fomenting fear.

M. Farnworth: They are fomenting fear. The politics of fear has always been the last resort of the coward -- and of the Liberal Party.

I'd like to talk for a few minutes about my own riding, about what this budget means in my own riding -- because we have, as I've stated, some significant problems in terms of growth -- and about how I'm looking to the B.C. 21 fund to start to address some of 

[ Page 4962 ]

those problems. We have a huge influx of people, mostly young families, partly because we have affordable housing and partly because there are opportunities, but also because it is a great place to live. The houses are going up faster than we are building the schools, so we have a problem: some 140 portables in my riding -- in the school district of Coquitlam. In the budget, the B.C. 21 fund is designed and earmarked to start to address those problems. We're showing leadership. We're saying that we need those things now. They have to be built now, not three years or five years from now. We have to start to tackle those problems today.

I have a letter from the Eagle Ridge Residents' Association. I'll read part of it, because it is very interesting:

"I'm writing to you on behalf of the Eagle Ridge Residents' Association...to seek the ministry's support, commitment and provision of funds in the 1993-94 budget for the following projects: fast-tracking the planning and construction of the town-centre Eagle Ridge middle school...construction of a town-centre secondary school...."

D. Lovick: It means spending money.

M. Farnworth: Spending money, hon. member -- investing in our children and creating jobs.

It goes on to say that in light of the tremendous growth in the northwest Coquitlam area, in excess of 1,132 children are housed in 30 portables. At the present time there is enough capacity for another junior secondary school. We must start to build these schools. The letter is signed by the president of the Eagle Ridge Residents' Association, who is calling for the construction of more schools and the elimination of portables in School District 43 -- of which there are over 140, as I've just said. I think it's important to realize that the president of the Eagle Ridge Residents' Association is the vice-president of the Port Coquitlam Liberal Association. The Liberal Party, in opposing this budget and in opposing B.C. 21, does not represent British Columbians. They don't even represent their own members.

Another aspect of B.C. 21 is that we're looking at the social infrastructure to serve the needs of this province, and one of those areas is courthouses. Port Coquitlam has been designated as a site for a courthouse. I don't know yet whether we're going to get a courthouse, but I can tell you that I'm going to be pushing hard for one. I have a letter from the mayor of Port Coquitlam:

"Dear Mr. Farnworth:

"I was delighted to hear that the provincial government is making the development of courthouses a priority through its B.C. 21 initiative. As Port Coquitlam has been chosen as a courthouse site, I cannot stress to you enough the enormous economic impact..." -- that the construction of this building would have in the downtown of Port Coquitlam.

Downtown Port Coquitlam has suffered for years because it has sought to identify and attract the types of resources that can reinvigorate it -- the way it used to be before the emergence of the townsite at Coquitlam Centre, which took away most of the major retail trade. So they focused on the idea of attracting administrative and legal centres. That's the type of construction and development that will be of benefit to downtown Port Coquitlam, because it's not going to be the retail centre anymore.

A courthouse was seen as an integral component of that development. Earlier in our term we designated that site in downtown Port Coquitlam. When I look at this budget, I see the B.C. 21 fund and its focus on courthouses. I'm going to be pushing to make sure that they build a courthouse in Port Coquitlam, and so is the city council of Port Coquitlam as well as the businesses in downtown Port Coquitlam. When I say, "You know, we haven't passed the budget yet," they say: "Who could be opposed to such a thing? Who could be opposed to the construction of a courthouse in downtown Port Coquitlam?"

[3:45]

An Hon. Member: The Liberals.

M. Farnworth: The Liberal Party, in opposing this budget, is opposing economic development in my riding. They are opposing jobs for my constituents, and they are opposing the replacement of a 14-year-old courthouse which is now housed in three ramshackle portables. Shame on the Liberal Party!

Finally, I'd like to come back to schools and education, because I feel that's an extremely important part of this budget and our protection. There are people in school who, in five years or ten years, will be taking their places in this Legislature and in the workforce of this province. They will be expected to be aware of the latest technological developments and to be computer-literate. They will be expected to have the best education that this province can provide.

I know a person whose name is Katy Sewell, and she's seven years old. She goes to school, and she's a good student. In fact, she may be home from school right now -- it's a quarter to four. And if she is, I doubt that she's watching us on TV, because she's probably doing her homework or maybe even tidying her bedroom. But when she says to me, "Why can't I have a new classroom? Why do I have to be crammed tighter than a sardine into a temporary portable?" I don't want to have to say to her: "It's because the Liberal opposition doesn't want you to have a new classroom. It's because the Liberal opposition doesn't want this budget to pass." I want to be able to say that this government passed a budget that was forward-looking enough to ensure that she has a proper classroom.

As I've said before, this budget is the most significant budget in British Columbia in a long time, because in this country and in this province we have faced severe financial problems. I don't think we should underestimate the efforts made by our government to bring spending down and to bring the deficit down by over 40 percent in just 18 months. At the same time, we have met the challenge of ensuring that people will continue to receive quality health care and quality education; that we as a province are positioning ourselves so that as we come into a recovery we will be able to take full advantage of that recovery to ensure, through our decisions, that all of British Columbia is able to participate; that we build the schools we need -- 

[ Page 4963 ]

not only in Port Coquitlam or Maple Ridge, but in Kelowna, Prince George, Merritt and the Kootenays -- because as more people come into this province and discover its beauty and discover some of the other regions of this province, they'll be moving there; and that the public and the province benefit by our decisions. This budget lays the foundations and that groundwork.

That is why I am so pleased and proud to support a budget that shows leadership, that ensures that those in our society who are least able to protect themselves are not the ones who are savaged with trying to control the deficit, that while the vast majority of this province -- the great middle class -- may have to pay a little more to keep the services that they so value and that are such an integral part...those who can pay more, pay their fair share.

As I said before, this is a budget for British Columbia. It's a budget for the people of British Columbia, and it's a budget for the future of British Columbia.

If I did not mention it at the beginning of my speech, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that the member for Vancouver-Burrard reserves the right to speak later on, as he is unavailable to speak at the present time due to an illness.

L. Krog: Given the state of love for politicians in this country, it's not often that one can stand up in a place like this and speak with an enormous sense of pride, the kind of pride that I feel today in speaking in favour of the very creative and stimulating budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. This province has addressed fiscal problems that other provinces have not had the courage to address, and they have been addressed in a fair and balanced way. The Minister of Finance has set out very clearly to the people of B.C. that when times are tough, we are not going to make the poor pay for those tough times. We're going to ask those who have more to share with others in the province until we see some better days. This province is uniquely positioned to ride out the recession, to move forward, and this budget is going to provide further stimulation to create jobs in this province.

Based on the predictions of the Minister of Finance, we will see 35,000 new jobs -- real jobs -- created in B.C. in the coming fiscal year. At a time when provinces are wallowing in debt and deficits are rising, B.C. is able to reduce the deficit from last year, which was reduced from the previous year. When this government took office, the province was looking at a deficit of well over $2 billion in a budget that was nothing more than a sham, brought in by the previous government to hide its own incompetence, to hide year after year of increased spending that was not warranted by growth in the economy or in the revenues available to the province to meet it. This government has had the courage to go to the people in a straightforward way, best exemplified by the Premier himself going to the people and saying: "We have some challenges to meet, but we, as the government, have the courage to meet them. We want your participation in the solutions." This budget, even more than the government's first budget, represents that commitment to meet those challenges and to face those changes, but to do it in a fair way.

The opposition party raises the question of taxes. The opposition party is anxious to say to the people of B.C. that we're taxed to death. Hyperbole is all very well, but I haven't seen anyone die of overtaxation in this province. What I have seen, though, is people die ultimately from the results of poverty, from lack of care. If that's what the Liberal opposition says we have to support, I can assure them that this government will not support its continuation. This government is committing money and resources and people to creating a better British Columbia, and it's doing it through this creative budget. Taxes are, very simply, a civilized society's way of redistributing wealth. There is nothing wrong with fair taxation. There is nothing wrong with asking those who have the most to give to those who have the least through the instrument of government. There is nothing dishonourable in it, and there is nothing to criticize about it.

The fundamental principle that binds us together as a country is the realization that some, by virtue of birth or disability or good fortune or misfortune, grow up in different circumstances than others. The government's job is to address those inequities, not to create an equal society but to create a society where there is some equality of opportunity. I don't know how the Liberal opposition can say to the people living in the streets of Vancouver that raping the rich, as they call it, is wrong, that asking the wealthiest among us to share is wrong. I find it incredible. Yet this is the same opposition that in 17 months hasn't learned to do anything properly. Look back over the quotes of their members in this Legislature in the papers of this province, and what they've talked about is spending more, spending more, spending more. We need this, we need that. What does the hon. Leader of the Opposition say about farmers? Nothing wrong with it. The farmers need support. In the "North Delta Optimist" weekender, May 30, 1992, he said: "The problems incurred by farmers because of urbanization are not their fault, so they should be compensated." The problems of the poor and the starving in the streets often aren't their fault either; the problems of children who grow up in abusive homes aren't their fault. If the farmers deserve help, then the children of this province deserve help. They deserve schools to go to and hospitals to go to when they're sick; they deserve a decent system of education. They deserve that equality of opportunity which I know the Liberal Party supports.

I hear the Liberal Party's lone member supporting me in my statements, and it fills me with great pride to know that we're all on the same wavelength in this Legislature.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The Leader of the Opposition talked about bloodsucking. He talked about the hon. Minister of Finance as if he were Count Dracula. A single employable person on assistance in this province gets somewhere in the neighbourhood of $7,000 or $8,000. The 

[ Page 4964 ]

leader of the opposition drives a car that I can assure you is worth a great deal more than $8,000. Is he suggesting that those among us who are in need should be denied some benefits in a society or in an economy that need stimulus? Is he suggesting we shouldn't spend to build roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and courthouses?

The nattering nabobs of negativism are alive and well in this Legislature. They are down there in the opposition benches refusing to face the challenges of the twenty-first century as it approaches us. They are saying that no, we'll just keep the poor poor and the rich rich, and we'll just hope that those at the bottom can survive while those at the top will continue to enjoy the benefits of this bountiful province."

An Hon. Member: Trickle down.

L. Krog: "Trickle down," one member says. Exactly. We're saying that in tough times we're asking you to show a little compassion. What's wrong with a little Christian compassion in this Legislature? I don't have any discomfort whatsoever in saying that when the Vancouver Sun and the Province tell us we're doing the wrong thing, I know in my heart this government is doing exactly the right thing. This government is fairly distributing the burden of our economy. It's telling people who spend more on holidays than many folks have to live on in a year to take just a little less for a little while and pay a little more. Is it so much to ask a person earning $100,000 a year to contribute another $1,000 to society? Have we become so mean spirited, so pitiful and so pathetic that when we pass somebody weaker than us in the streets, we can't offer them a helping hand?

[4:00]

The opposition continually hacks about taxation. There's not one of us in this Legislature today who wouldn't consider helping some elderly person across a crosswalk; if a panhandler needed a dollar, we'd give them a dollar. Yet when we put it in the civilized form of taxation, suddenly it becomes the wrong thing, a terrible burden and a bloodsucking exercise. It's anything but; it's the best quality that we can ask of any citizen in British Columbia. They tell us we tax too much; they tell us we should cut, cut, cut. There are lots of places to cut. Hon. Speaker, I will give you some examples of where we can cut, where we could balance the budget this year by cutting. We could close half the hospitals in B.C.; that's a jolly good idea. I'm sure the opposition parties would support closing half the hospitals. We could close every college and university in B.C. After all, in a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, there's nothing wrong with dog eat dog and whining in the street. Sure, we'll close half the universities and colleges. We could close half the schools, or better yet, we could really downsize government. We could eliminate the following ministries: the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry Responsible for Culture; the Ministry of Labour; the Ministry of Environment; the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; the Ministry of Economic Development; the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Forests. We could have chaos in this province if we cut the way the Liberal opposition wants us to cut. We're not prepared to do that. We have our hands on the throttle of the economic engine of this province, and we're controlling it properly.

What we are saying is that we've inherited a deficit, from eight out of ten years of deficit financing, and unlike the federal government -- supported, no doubt, by the Social Credit Party -- we are not going to let the deficit run up to the point where it will never be paid off. Very simply, we are going to gear it down. A deficit that was $2.4 billion became $1.9 billion. This year it will be $1.5 billion. Next year, with good management, who knows exactly what it will be? But I can assure the opposition of one thing: we are on the right track. That track leads us to a balanced budget, so that we can start to pay down the deficit and accomplish a number of the promises and commitments made to the people of British Columbia.

If we are going to create an equitable and fair society, we're going to have to do a lot more. The opposition wants us to do something vindictive and mean-spirited: they want us to cut programs. They talk about social services. What do they suggest we do? Do we simply throw people off social services into the streets? Should we not build schools for children? I can tell you that folks in my constituency look forward to some real infrastructure being built. They look forward to the creation of the Island Highway. They look forward to getting out of the same portables that the member for Port Coquitlam talked so eloquently about. They look forward to seeing their children go to decent schools. They look forward to community health care centres. They look forward to courthouses that show the majesty of the fair legal system in this province. They look forward to all those things, and as a government, we're to make the necessary commitments to build them and to create jobs in this economy, unlike the Liberal opposition that said quite bluntly through their leader that they would not...

An Hon. Member: Which one?

L. Krog: Exactly.

...that they would not borrow to build roads, schools or courthouses. Well, they repeatedly ask for those things. I'd like to know where we're going to get the money to do those good things for the province if we don't borrow it. Are we going to cut some of the things I've suggested to them? No.

G. Farrell-Collins: What about government wage settlements?

L. Krog: There's the opposition. It's always nice to hear a little heckling from the opposition, small as it may be today.

Their view is that if we don't pay people decent wages, somehow society is going to get better. I can tell you that there's nothing wrong with paying decent wages to people who provide services to the people of British Columbia. Those folks on the front lines work very hard for the people of British Columbia. I think the 

[ Page 4965 ]

people of British Columbia are getting just a little bit tired of looking for scapegoats.

I was astonished today that the member for Vancouver-Langara, a man for whom I have enormous respect, would be questioning the Minister of Social Services about welfare fraud. I thought he had moved over to the Social Credit Party. The favourite old whipping-boy and -girl of the right wing of this province: let's go after those poor folks who are ripping off the system. But let's not talk about the corporations that got $316 million of taxpayers' money and lost it in the great casino of life out there. We haven't collected any of that. That $316 million would do an awful lot of good in this province. You won't see this government making those kinds of mistakes, and you're not going to see this government trying to balance its budgets on the backs of working people and the poor.

Twenty-eight percent of taxpayers in this province are going to see a reduction in the taxes they pay to the government of British Columbia as a result of this budget. When I met with a group of constituents last night, do you know what they did? They unanimously passed a resolution to congratulate the Minister of Finance. There may be the wealthy in this province who aren't prepared to share, but frankly I think this government speaks for the wealthy as well. I don't believe for one minute that we have become a society so lacking in values and charity that even the wealthiest among us aren't prepared to provide some more to the government this year to look after the people of British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance deserves our compliments. What he's done is provide a framework for the twenty-first century. What he has done is said to the folks in B.C.: "It's time to share and time to care a little." Is that such a wrong thing to do? I can tell the Liberal opposition and the Social Credit opposition it may sell in the front pages of the Vancouver Sun and the columns of the major columnists of this province. In Coombs, Hilliers, Parksville, Qualicum Beach, Nanaimo, Nakusp, Prince George and Nelson it's going to sell like hotcakes because people out there are looking to this government to provide some economic leadership. That's what this budget is going to do. I say with great pride to the naysayers on the other side of this House and to the opposition: "Go on saying it as much as you like, but the people of this province know that what this government is doing is right." They will reward us and return us to power in the next election, I can assure you, as a result of this budget alone. Thank you.

A. Cowie: It gives me pleasure to stand and comment on this budget. The headline of the Province on March 31 said: "What's so funny, Glen?" What the heading was referring to was the tax increases in this budget. They had a list of tax increases. The sales taxes were up, medicare premiums were up, homeowner grants were hit, there is an income tax surcharge and a gas tax. They missed, however, the property tax in that list. The property tax affected my riding a great deal. It's a wealthy riding, as are the whole west side of Vancouver and other areas of the province. But it's not a fair tax. I want to just read one letter on the issue. It is addressed to the Premier. It says: "Yesterday afternoon, you and your government commenced confiscation of my house -- my family's only real asset." I will just take part of the rest of the letter that says: "Twenty years ago I bought my house for $137,000. I have used my discretionary income to improve upon the house and the property. You and your government assessment authority have established an unrealistically high value. It's an inflated value. Now you and your government use this value as an excuse to commence confiscation. Certainly I cannot afford this new level of property tax. I must take measures to protect my family." This person estimates that the property value will go down $100,000 to $200,000. He also goes on to say that he will do everything possible to defeat this government because of this.

I estimate that if his house was worth $137,000 twenty years ago, it is probably worth around $1.2 million today because of the unrealistic inflation on the west side. But his house is probably worth very little. If that house were in Surrey or in Langley or even Port Coquitlam, the house itself would be worth $250,000 to $300,000. His tax this year will be $7,500 more than it was last year. It will be a total of $17,000. That's totally unrealistic.

That last letter was from my riding, and the person happens to live -- I don't want to embarrass him -- very close to the Premier. I also want to refer to someone in the adjoining riding of Point Grey. He says that at one time he was a lifelong NDP supporter. He lives in Point Grey, and there are quite a few supporters of the NDP in Point Grey.

An Hon. Member: Not anymore.

A. Cowie: Well, this gentleman certainly isn't a supporter anymore. He said his taxes will go up from $5,700 to $10,000 this year. That's 29 percent of his income, and he's a college instructor. Many of the people on the government side come from the education field, and they would know that this man cannot afford $10,000 in taxes. He goes on to say: "I have worked actively in the last two elections to help the NDP get elected, but I am going to do everything in my power to see that they are defeated in the next election."

That's the kind of support this government has among NDP members because of this taxation on property, which is totally unrealistic.

H. Giesbrecht: How many more letters have you got?

A. Cowie: I've got lots of letters. We had over 60 phonecalls to my riding office yesterday.

I also want to say that this is not peculiar to the west side of Vancouver. There's a gentleman in West Vancouver who is 83 years old. His property taxes are up by $6,000. He's on a fixed income, and he's lived there for 60 years. This gentleman is going to have to move; he simply can't afford it.

His house alone is appraised at $11,000, so I can tell you that it's not the house. He lives in a very humble house. The property is worth $1.1 million because he 

[ Page 4966 ]

happens to live on the waterfront. He has to leave because of irresponsible budgets set out by this government.

It's not confined to urban areas. I have here a property assessment from North Saanich. The total assessment is $588,000; the house is $130,000. So you can see it's the property evaluation that's the real problem. Most of this unrealistic approach has to do with the added $15 per thousand as you move up.

There are a few houses in my riding worth $4 million or $5 million. I don't even hope to have a house like that. But I'll tell you that the new tax on those is going to be $50,000 or $60,000 more than what it was last year. That's totally irresponsible.

[4:15]

Our Premier travels to the Orient regularly. A lot of people who have these expensive houses come from the Orient, because they have been invited by the Premier to come here and invest in this province. They get here, and they put their business and their money into this province. They've been taxed on corporations when they didn't expect it. There's the corporate capital tax, which they didn't expect. The Premier didn't say that. And now what's he going to do? He's going to hit them with $50,000 or $60,000 more per year in taxes because they happen to be wealthy.

Well, I can assure you that the next time the Premier goes to the Orient -- I believe he's going next week -- he had better be honest with these people. I'm sure he will; he's an honest person. But he'd better be honest with them when he tells them what will happen if they relocate here. If we keep hitting them with those kinds of taxes, I assure you they're not going to relocate here.

The average home in Quilchena is worth about $600,000. A lot of those are humble homes; it's the unrealistic land price. To the average home in Quilchena, that means the owners will be paying an additional $1,500 next year, and then it goes up dramatically. The effect of this -- because people won't be able to afford these taxes -- is that the total taxes on that particular home of $600,000 would be around $7,000 to $8,000. They cannot afford it, so what you're going to see is more and more people trying to move out. And they will move to the suburbs where they can get the same quality of house for $250,000 or $300,000 if they should relocate in Tsawwassen or South Delta.

But what's that going to do? This government hasn't related the tax policy with the regional land use policy or the transportation policy. They haven't thought about the repercussion this is going to have on the region. What's going to happen is those people are going to move to South Surrey; they're going to drive their cars to Vancouver; we're then going to have to widen the roads; we're going to have to build more bridges, because we haven't supported the regional district in its policy to have people live close to where they work. We haven't supported that at all, because we've gone out on this wealth tax. That's what it is -- it's a wealth tax.

Many people like David Tha, who I mentioned earlier, are simply going to move out and live in these outer areas. There simply isn't an overall planning policy. People deserve to live as close to their jobs as possible. That was part of the whole False Creek redevelopment, you'll remember, where they tore down industrial buildings back in the middle seventies and built houses. In some cases those houses are quite modest. A 1,500-square-foot condominium in False Creek is valued at about $600,000. That is what it costs to live there.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: That is what it is worth. I'm not questioning that. I'm just saying that by increasing the taxes on these people so they can't afford to live there, they're going to have to move out to the suburbs. That's all I'm really saying. They haven't looked at it in a rational way.

This budget alone will be the reason -- and I predict it will be this one issue -- and that's why I'm devoting my entire comments to this. I want you to remember this. This one item is going to be the reason this government will be defeated in the next election. There are many more reasons, but that's the one prime reason.

There are many hard-working people in this province and in the urban areas of Vancouver that have taken their investments -- their hard-earned dollars -- and they have invested those in a rental home, for example, where you might have two or three suites. I know my own son-in-law has done that -- he's worked very hard to do that. What's going to happen is those taxes are going to go up, they're going to be passed on and those rents are going to go up. So what's going to happen is you're then going to attempt to bring in some kind of rent control, which never works. But because of these irresponsible taxes, there are all kinds of repercussions that will result from that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The way to solve housing, and we know it, is to let private enterprise individuals build suites and fix up houses and old apartments. Let private individual money deal with that so that we as government will not have to go build a lot of hostels, a lot of co-ops and a lot of housing.

We have to look after the very poor. In this budget the government has taken that responsibility, and I do agree with that. But there's the whole lower-middle and middle groups that we have to provide housing for, and this is going to make it more and more difficult for people to live close to their jobs and in the urban areas where we want them to live.

Last night I talked to my son-in-law, and he said this is absolutely disgraceful. Here's an ordinary guy -- a helicopter mechanic who keeps you up when you travel back and forth from Victoria to Vancouver.

Interjections.

A. Cowie: You should trust him, believe me. He tells me that he's absolutely disgusted by these increased taxes. He's worked very hard, and now he's going to have to pay these taxes. He himself is considering moving out and saying to hell with it. As a 

[ Page 4967 ]

young person, he's also disgusted by the government's answer to the question of higher taxes. They say that people can defer their taxes until they sell their houses, so therefore it's not a hardship. They also say that they can defer their taxes until they die. I say that's an insult. The proof of it is that hardly anybody -- in Vancouver anyway -- is deferring their taxes, because they don't trust the government to defer their taxes. They like to pay their taxes.

Anyway, he was totally disgusted, as I'm sure a lot of young people are. And although he's not political, I assure you that he probably will get political in the next election so that he can deal with that issue if nothing else.

There are lots of things I could mention in this budget, but I've confined it to this particular issue. One final point that I want to make is that we have to learn to live within our means. I listened to Premier McKenna from New Brunswick, where I used to live, and I think they've taken a very responsible approach there. They happen to be a Liberal government. They've cut staff and building programs to what they can afford; they've capped salaries. When are we going to learn that we have to do that as well? This is a tough province and tough people. We're going to survive in spite of this government, but it's going to be very tough if we keep up these measures. We'll recover -- it's possible -- but it won't be until we get a new government.

C. Evans: Thank you to the members of the official opposition who have been expressing their criticism. Please, don't leave. It's our turn. Hang on. Sit down here.

I know that I'm not allowed to read into the record the fact that the hon. member just walked out, so I won't say that.

The Speaker: That's correct, hon. member.

C. Evans: This is sort of an anniversary for me. My first speech here was March 25, 1992, just about a year ago. It was one of the most memorable moments of my life. People didn't heckle. It was really different then. We kind of all got along, and I tried to describe to people in my party and the other parties what it's like where I live.

I'm very honoured to stand here a year later -- it's just about a year and a week, actually -- and say that it's maybe one of the most gratifying days of my life, because in the intervening year I think we actually have taken the situation that I stood here and described a year ago and have begun to deal with it in a structural and considerate way. We have begun to turn around some of the greatest obstacles to people in my constituency achieving their dreams.

I want to remind people of the things that I described here a year ago. I tried to describe a resource-rich area in the Rocky Mountains, one of those areas with the timber and the ore and the water that pay for the more comfortable neighbourhoods that hon. members have been describing today.

I tried to describe a situation of pillaged communities, in my opinion. Pillaged is a word I think I repeated three or four times last year. To me it basically means that somebody reached in and tore the guts out. I tried to describe stagnant communities on the lower mainland with 6, 7 and 9 percent growth, and I tried to describe communities with no growth -- rapid change and tremendous dislocation, but no growth; and flooded valleys -- lots of water where people used to live.

We have been hearing this afternoon -- and I think it's worth listening to; it's terrifically important -- about people being concerned about losing their homes. It is true that government policy can threaten people in their homes. I stood here a year ago and tried to talk about people in community after community who had been forcibly removed and had their homes burned in order to build the British Columbia we are used to today. I guess I was basically trying to describe a situation of economic, structural and political attack on people who live in one of the most beautiful ecosystems on the face of the earth.

Then after that day of no heckling and people allowing me to describe the things I care about, each of us, in our way, climbed down into the trenches and began the political work of being a government or an opposition, attempting to bring about some of the changes we believe in. After 40 years of sloppy, wasteful megaproject economics in this province, we stood in this room last year and introduced a budget that made the people who live where I live shake their heads and say: "Holy moly, Harcourt means it. He isn't going to spend it if he doesn't have it."

After decades of politicians saying one thing and doing another, when we introduced our budget last year, it became very clear to the teachers, nurses, doctors, construction workers, day care workers and farmers who I meet in my day-to-day life that the government wasn't going to spend it if they didn't have it. We sort of brought the province to its senses. We literally couldn't go on forever borrowing billions to build northeast coal, the Coquihalla and the Columbia River dams; someday we actually had to bring fiscal reasoning to the province.

After that budget, which was brought in in a hurry by the first new government in 20 years, over the course of the next year we met as MLAs, as a caucus and as a political party. Our ministers came and consulted with the communities six, seven or eight times. Eight ministers went to Nelson-Creston, to Creston and to Kaslo, and talked to the people.

[4:30]

Then an amazing thing happened just last month. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs actually came to Nelson and said to the people: "Here are the realities of the province's fiscal situation, here are the aspirations of the various sectors of the economy and here are our choices for dealing with it." While they were in Nelson, they met with the Nelson City Council, the economic development corporation and the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities. People came all the way from Golden to that meeting. That may be meaningless to some of you who think a crosstown bus is a trip, but it took them four hours to come and meet with the Minister of Finance. 

[ Page 4968 ]

They met with the hotel and restaurant owners, because restaurant owners needed a chance to tell him what they thought of a restaurant tax, and tourism operators needed a chance to tell him what they needed in terms of investment in their industry.

They met with trade unions that look after people -- not just those trade unions experiencing a boom out building a pulp mill. Those trade unions represent the CUPE workers looking after people in halfway houses, the hospital workers and the firefighters. All are representatives of working people in the Kootenays. And then the Minister of Finance did a really neat thing. I want you -- anybody here or watching us -- to imagine Mel Couvelier doing this. Glen Clark called a public meeting three weeks in advance, rented the largest theatre available and said to the people: "Come down here, because before I walk into the Legislature this spring, I'm going to tell you what our choices are, and I want to hear what you have to say."

There weren't any big-time Vancouver media there. There weren't any television cameras there. It wasn't reported in The Province. There weren't any of the people in this room there. It was three hours of ordinary people, and some of them were angry. Almost all of them were scared. Some of them were grateful. There were people there with a cause, an axe to grind. There were people there from the left and the right and then there were some people who just came to listen and were somewhat in awe because they were listening to the Minister of Finance in the Capital Theatre actually talking to them.

The restaurant owners said in the public meeting: "We cannot absorb a restaurant tax." The people said: "We cannot afford to lose our homeowner grant." Municipal leaders in Nelson said: "We cannot support the police force if you change the nature of the grants to municipalities for policing." All of the municipal people said: "If you download expenses, if you eliminate our grant structure, we will not be able to afford to deliver services."

Some of the folks stood up and they expressed those thoughts about government that people everywhere have. They said: "The administrators make too much money and there are too many of them." They said: "You MLAs make too much money, cabinet ministers make too much money, and deputy ministers make too much money and we don't make it, so we're mad." The Minister of Finance sat there and took it. He got out of this room and out of the banks and the halls of power and went out there and took it where the people who make $8 could get at him.

They said something else, because they might have different jobs out there, but they have one thing in common, and that is that they are out there. They said: "We want you to stop the hemorrhage of the work we do and the wealth that we make to the cities." In the past few weeks I, at least, have to admit to pretty severe concern about what we would hear on budget day in this building. I didn't want to hear that we decided to do the restaurant tax; to take back the municipal grants; to toast those police forces in the municipalities that people require. I think all of the people in the province held their breath too, because this was not a singular event. It happened all over the province, and everybody knew what was coming.

I want to refer to what did happen here on the day we got the budget. I want to say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board essentially, "Thank you for listening," because in the last week, some of my faith has been restored in representational democracy. For the first time in my life -- and I'm 45 years old -- I would say that we reversed the trend of: "Them that got shall get and the poor shall lose." We found out that it is possible to live in the modern world -- the post-free-trade world that we're all experiencing -- and reduce the deficit. We do not necessarily have to accept indentured servitude as a cost of living in the modern society. We found out that we can reverse the flood of wealth that caused me to stand here a year ago and say on behalf of rural people: "You've got to give some of it back." We can reverse the flood and end the theft by the cities from the rural areas and by the money classes from the working people.

We found we could make a budget that cuts 40 percent of the deficit in one year and leaves 92 percent of the people in the province either better off or in the same place they were yesterday. The extent to which I did not believe this to be possible is beyond intellectual belief; it's at the level of mythology. When I was a little kid, my father told me that politicians would all claim to reform taxes and to help out the working people, but once they got elected they couldn't do it. Since the thirties and the population shift to the cities, they would all run for office and say they would support the rural people and the farmers, but once they got elected they couldn't do it. They couldn't do those two fundamental things for two reasons: (1) we couldn't have tax reform because the rich people control the newspapers, the television stations, the corporations and the banks -- all of the systems that government interacts with on a day-to-day basis, so once they got here, they couldn't keep the promises they made out there; and (2) they couldn't reverse the flow of funds from the rural area to the city, because of course all the votes are in the city, their first job is to get re-elected and once they got here they'd forget the people at home and go for the votes where all the people live.

I believed my dad, and I saw in his old man's eyes the cynicism of a person who has a dream and knows that even his own children aren't ever going to bring it to pass. I got up here last year and I thought: "I am so honoured to be able to stand here that I guess it's okay if they just let me say these things. Maybe it would be okay if we didn't actually do it, but at least I got to stand here and say it on film and the people at home could see it." It didn't occur to me that when Glen Clark got out there to the Capitol Theatre and he found out it wasn't Corky grandstanding, it's what every little kid, every small business person, every artisan and every logger out there believes, that in one year we'd start to turn this boat around and break the two rules my dad said were forever. We would start to have tax reform and take from the 8 percent, the elite, who have been collecting for generations and generations and give to the other 92 percent, and we would turn around the 

[ Page 4969 ]

flow of wealth from the hinterland to the city. I guess it's obvious that....

Interjections.

C. Evans: This budget isn't perfect, hon. Speaker. Let me be the first one to stand here and agree with the people hollering from over there. The budget is not perfect. Let me say to the people at home that this is not the budget that's going to make CPR either run the railroads or forfeit the land; we've still got to work on that one. It is not going to put the salmon back in the Columbia River system; we're going to have to raise some different money for that one. It's not the budget that is automatically going to say that all the poor get a job and a warm place to sleep. There's lots of stuff left to be done.

The rest of this mandate and the mandate after it will be filled to the brim with important deeds, but this budget is a start so the people outside, looking past the elite who work here, can say: "Maybe it can work; maybe I should keep pushing, because maybe the dreams can come true; maybe there is a government that might actually try this stuff." That's exactly why there is going to be a storm of noise from those who can afford to buy time, ads and politicians. There will be a storm against this budget, because if you can get away with it, if you can prove in British Columbia that by making the 8 percent at the top pay their fair share you could eliminate 40 percent of the deficit in one year and if that catches on, the way things have been for decades is going to change in this country and on this continent.

Let's talk a bit about substance. What's actually in the budget? For those people at home who might not get a copy of the thing, it says that school taxation in the Arrow Lakes district and the Creston-Kaslo district is capped. I know it's hard and I think it's unfortunate that it's hard, but people with half-million dollar homes are going to lose their homeowner's grant. Let's not laugh at or demean the travail. It is just as hard to be rich and be having a hard time as it is to be poor and be having a hard time. It is not fun to tax the rich; it is only fair.

We raised the sales tax one point and that's unfortunate, but people out in the province should understand that for the first time sales tax is a regressive tax. Sales tax means if you go into the store and you buy some shoes, whether you're rich or you're poor you're going to pay sales tax; it's regressive. And we raised a regressive tax one percent. But for the first time in this country, as far as I know, poor people are going to get a rebate on the sales tax. So what does that mean? That means if you go and buy a three-foot television for your half-million dollar home, brother, you're going to pay more than the person going to buy shoes for their kids.

We made some changes to the corporate capital tax, and I'd like to talk about that. A corporate capital tax is a dangerous tax. It is not automatic that if you make more money you pay more money. Unfortunately, it taxes capital. That is difficult for the mining industry, the logging industry, the construction industry, almost every industry, and it turned out to be difficult for farmers and small businesses. And did this government sit over the last year? No. We talked to the people; we listened to the people. And what changes did we make? We raised the ceiling on the corporate capital tax so that 2,000 small businesses had it eliminated altogether and 1,500 more had it reduced. And if you're a farmer and your barn is worth $1,100,000, it is now not taxed. Unfortunately, we had to leave that nasty little tax on people who have smelters and sawmills and stuff that was worth more than $1.2 million. And that's difficult, but it helps to pay for civilization in British Columbia.

A lot of the money that runs the province is income tax, and my father believed that income tax was a good idea because you could tax the rich more than the poor. What he thought was unfortunate was that once people got elected, they didn't have the guts to do it. I believe that everybody should get to keep the wages that they earn. If it's $100 an hour or $10 an hour they should get to keep it because they earned it, except for the tax that it costs to run society, educate people and give them homes. I know that it doesn't go down well in this room, but let me tell you that at home it's going to fly. I'm happy to say that the people who make $60,000 or more a year are going to pay 1 percent more, and those that make $80,000 or more a year are going to pay 3 percent more. Where I come from, the people think they can afford it, and I'm proud that we've managed to pull it off.

I make $49,000 a year, which is $20,000 a year more than I ever made in my life. One of the things I'm pleased to say is that my wages in this job are frozen. I work really hard -- like all of us do; like you guys on the other side do -- and much longer hours than I ever worked as a labourer or a logger. But $49,000 a year is enough. In my mind we should be paid well for our creativity and even more for our hard work, but once we've got all the food that can fill us up, the shelter that houses our family, the car that takes us to work, the medical system that makes us well and the schools that educate us, why should we get any more?

[4:45]

When the people said, "That's enough," I'm pleased to say we listened. And it is enough. We are not getting any more, and the Premier is getting less. This is important for my son's peer group: 22 years old and they think people come here to be fat cats. The Premier is getting less, everybody sitting down at that end of the room is getting less, and that's as it should be. And let me tell you, folks, all the deputy ministers' wages are going to be frozen and we're going to lose 5 percent of those people.

Interjection.

C. Evans: I'm not saying the Premier, the MLAs or the deputy ministers aren't wonderful people. Let me say on tape and for the record: I think they are. I just think enough is enough, and we, in one year, managed to say so.

Hon. Speaker, one of the things that we have to do...

Interjections.

C. Evans: Easy, you guys, easy.

[ Page 4970 ]

...as New Democrats is learn how to make wealth. As one of the people on this side of the House who's been trying to make the pile bigger at the end of every working day all my working life, let me say a little bit about making wealth. I am really pleased that this party listened to small business, and we said: "We're going to change the nature of your corporate capital tax."

I am really pleased -- and where I live this really matters -- that we listened to miners -- not Cominco, but miners. There's a real difference, you know, between the British Petroleum corporation and Cominco and miners. Miners do work; that is, they get up and they dig a hole, and they take stuff out of the hole and they make a pile -- if they can they sell what's in the pile.

We did a really unfortunate thing a year ago when we created a fee called an application-to-work fee. Frankly, even if it was a good tax, it's a stupid name. Nobody should have to pay a tax to go to work. This is for the Strebchuks in Hills; this is for all those guys in the bar in New Denver. I am really happy that we had the great wisdom to eliminate the application-to-work fee so you can go and dig a hole, and if there's something in it you can sell it.

Hon. Speaker, you know, it's too bad that we had to charge a fee for gasoline. It's 1 cent a litre. All my life I have thought that a tax on gasoline was a tax on rural people, because you can get on a bus outside this building, but you can't get on a bus in Slocan City. However, we had the sense to do two things which the previous government never thought of. We said you can't put that cent in general revenue and spend it here; it's got to be spent on transportation where the people live who have to get transported. We dedicated that cent to blacktop, bridges, barges, ferries and the transportation systems that we need to live. The second thing is that we had the sense -- and I wish you guys had had that sense when you were government; gee, it would have been a lot better -- not to raise taxes on marked diesel and marked gas.

Hon. Speaker, because the third party and the second party don't know what that stuff is, it's coloured gas that people use to go to work. And we said they wouldn't pay any more taxes. It's true. The hon. member from Peace River knows more about that than I do; he poured it while I consumed it. He will agree with me that this government was sane and rational and progressive when we did not raise the tax.

What are we going to do with all this money? Well, we're going to pay down the deficit by half a billion bucks.

An Hon. Member: Come on, your nose is growing.

C. Evans: You guys, if you're going to heckle, bring some analysis or some humour to the thing. Okay? Just noise isn't valuable.

Interjections.

C. Evans: And people, this used to be your government.

Hon. Speaker, we're now engaged in a thing called the Columbia Basin Initiative. We're taking a new look at all those dams in the Columbia River system, thanks to the vision of the people in the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities and of the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Energy and the minister responsible for Hydro. For the first time, we're going to have a symposium to try and figure out how to share the wealth and share the river. That's going to cost money. We're going to transfer money from this taxation system to the region of the Columbia River basin over the next few years.

We have CORE for the first time. For the first time, we're actually having a conversation between those people who love to shout at each other over land use. We have made as much of a mess over land use, because of the environmentalists' and industrialists' battle, as we made out of the world because of the Cold War. We have created, in the last year, a difficult but rational conversation. And it's going to cost money. We need to raise taxation to transfer wealth to solving land use problems.

We've got the post-secondary review running from Golden and Castlegar through the East Kootenay down to the United States. I stood here a year ago and described the plunder of our university. I'm thrilled to say that, without jumping in and imposing a solution in a box with a ribbon around it, we asked the people to have a dialogue about what solution would work, and we funded it. We are now creating a progressive tax structure and raising wealth to bring a solution to those people in the years to come. I guess my point is that not only have we figured out -- or begun to figure out, because we're not anywhere near finished yet -- a progressive form of raising the money, but we have begun to figure out a more sensible and equitable way of distributing the money. It is beginning to go to those communities that I represent.

In closing, I want to say to the people of the province that the elite in this country are going to pay the elite in this room to oppose progressive taxation. There is going to be a storm of noise and red print across the tops of the newspapers saying that it's not okay. But the 92 percent of you out there who have been waiting for this day all your lives, please back us up. Whether you disagree with us on any single issue, on the Carmanah or trade unions or small business or education, back us up on this one.

K. Jones: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I have great concern about the member's statement that members of the opposition are going to be bribed by people who have a lot of money.

The Speaker: Did the hon. member intend to impugn the motives of any other members in this House?

C. Evans: There is not a member of this House who would accept a bribe, I agree.

An Hon. Member: Do you withdraw?

[ Page 4971 ]

C. Evans: Absolutely. There's nobody here that you could bribe, not in any party. I simply meant to suggest....

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. If you have withdrawn your statement, I think that's sufficient.

C. Evans: You know what I was meaning to suggest. I asked the people of the province to back us up on this budget, not for ideological or political reasons. I ask you to back us up because the weight of the elite of Canada will be aimed at it over the following months, and the future of Canada is dependent on us proving that it will work. The elite shall pay their share.

D. Lovick: I rise rather more slowly than is my wont simply because I was hoping that somebody from the other side might leap into the breach and make some effort to answer the case presented by my colleague from Nelson-Creston, who, I might say, makes me very proud of my caucus colleagues, as do the other members who spoke this afternoon: the member for Parksville-Qualicum and the member for Port Coquitlam. All of you make me feel very proud to be a New Democrat and proud of what we are endeavouring to do in this budget.

Until at least a moment ago, the debate today has been rather less raucous and rambunctious than is typical for this place, and I for one am rather pleased that this has happened. I'm pleased because I want to approach the discussion of this budget from a somewhat more reflective point of view, a somewhat more quiet and, dare I say, introspective, if not philosophical, stance. I want to draw people's attention to....

Interjection.

D. Lovick: The member opposite is referring to the fact that I have some history in this chamber for quoting other sources. If I see that he needs further elucidation beyond my words, I will be happy to quote on occasion in order to help him out.

I want to focus on what we're now discussing -- not just for this audience but for those people who pay attention to what happens in this chamber. We're talking about a budget. We're talking about fundamental decisions regarding what the government ought to be spending money on and, secondly, how the government should go about getting the money to spend. I want to deal with both of those questions carefully.

We're talking today about spending something approaching $19 billion of taxpayers' money. The fundamental question we must start with is: what do we consider to be crucial? What are the priorities? Obviously government must justify itself and explain what its priorities are. I want to start with that premise. What this government has made very clear is that there are three priority areas that we regard as vital, essential services: health, education and social services. We contend that those three areas are virtually sacrosanct -- I choose my words carefully -- because we simply don't have the resources to put all the money into those areas we would like to. We argue that those areas must be protected to the greatest possible extent. Having said that, I want to emphasize that this government in this budget also accepts that there are other vital services to be performed by government.

If the members opposite disagree with those conclusions and think we're wrong in that, then I challenge them to stand up and say so. Tell us you want more Shaughnessy Hospitals closed down and more battles in school districts around the province, which claim that they don't have sufficient money. I ask them also to consider this: somebody has to provide those services.

I think, frankly, that it is shameful that members opposite -- or at least some of them -- have chosen to say that this budget is about rewarding public sector workers. The members opposite tell us that there is a fat-cat sector in this society that is getting rich as a result of this government's actions. I have difficulty restraining myself when I listen to some of the comments from the other side suggesting that people who are making $25,000 or $30,000 for performing vital services we all require are somehow to be regarded as public enemies or as the privileged class. For heaven's sake, that is an outrageous proposition. What we are doing in this province is reducing the settlements for public sector workers, so that we are now averaging 2 percent. If you're earning $25,000 per year, 2 percent is not a huge increase. It's less than half of what members in this chamber make. They might not want to admit that or tell people about it.

[5:00]

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Let me also emphasize that the increase to public sector workers is partly to redress an old problem in this province: namely, the horrendous gap between what women earn and what men earn. At least some of the increase to the public sector has to do with pay equity -- to do something about ensuring that women will not be exploited as a matter of course. Again, I would challenge members opposite: if you want to attack the public sector, then have the courage to say you believe that women should earn 66 percent dollars and that public sector employees are underworked and overpaid. Tell me what else we can conclude when we have the leader of the Liberal Party standing in this chamber and saying that we should have a two-year wage freeze for public sector workers. That is picking on some of the lowest earners in our society and asking them to bear the brunt of our financial difficulties. It's despicable as a tactic.

You know what, hon. Speaker? It's not only immoral, but it's economically thick -- and I choose that word carefully. It's thick, because if anybody in this province believes that a group of workers who are organized are going to be symbolically sacrificed by taking a two-year wage freeze, and then at the end of two years are going to come back to the table and say that everything is lovely, then that person is clearly living on a different planet in a different universe. If you artificially choose one sector of an economy and suppress it and repress it 

[ Page 4972 ]

like that, you are going to reap the whirlwind X years later -- that is guaranteed.

The Leader of the Third Party goes even further. I guess it's because the third party wants to demonstrate that he and his colleagues are indeed different from the Liberals, who are the official opposition. He asks why they don't all take ten days without pay.

An Hon. Member: He said five.

D. Lovick: He said five. It sounded like ten to me. If I'm wrong, I will admit it and accept the correction. The principle remains the same. We on this side of the House maintain that government services are a priority. They must be. Logically, if government services are a priority and we regard them as vital, significant and important, then so are the people who perform those services, and it's not fair, legitimate or honest to set them up as a scapegoat to make the other side look good. You don't foment a campaign of fear. You don't solve your economic problems by picking a sector and saying: "They are the villains; they are the bad guys. Let's get them." You don't do that.

The second question I want to return to has to do with how we get the money we require to perform those vital services. Economics, as I suspect everybody in this chamber must know, really has to do with the allocation of scarce resources. Economics is about scarcity. Despite the fact there was a time in human history, probably in the Golden Age of the Greeks -- if that member who asked me to quote were still here, I'd probably give him a little at this point, but I won't now.... There have probably been a few times in human history when we thought we could have everything we wanted and there was no end. But for the most part, human history is the recognition that we are dealing with scarce resources. The question then becomes: how do we allocate those scarce resources?

The philosophy of this government is that we must have what is usually referred to as a progressive tax system, and that simply means -- there's nothing mysterious about it -- that the more you have, the more you ought to pay. That's what progressivism is about. Members opposite, however, seem to take the opposite view. They seem to believe that the only way we can have economic stimulus and development in this province is to make sure we leave the wealthiest alone and give them the discretion, out of the goodness of their hearts, to invest money, and that will solve all our problems. Needless to say, that theory has been discredited in Ronald Reagan's America, in Margaret Thatcher's England and in half a dozen other jurisdictions. But it's still alive and well over there, I'm sad to say.

I want to talk now about our budget and how we designed it. There's no question that in the press we have taken something of a beating. Indeed, the headlines are screaming, the talk shows are screaming, even the normally restrained CBC "Early Edition" seems to be screaming, metaphorically speaking. Therefore I think it's time for us to explain clearly what those four guiding principles for this budget are.

First of all, we said we would commit to a progressive budget guided by the principle that those who are best able to pay, should pay. That's why -- as has been pointed out by a number of my colleagues -- some 28 percent of British Columbians will see what amounts to a tax cut as a result of this budget. I don't hear anything from the other side. I don't hear anybody saying: "What a terrible thing to do; you shouldn't have done that." Isn't it interesting that we start from that premise of progressive taxation and we say that those who can afford to, should pay.

It has always puzzled me -- as a young person and as somebody who was an academic and used to read and reflect on that stuff for a living -- how is it that in terms of ethical and social philosophy we can be taught one thing and accept that as good and appropriate, but when it comes to economic terms we do a reversal. I'll give you an example. If you are a Christian and you believe in the Judeo-Christian ethic, you are taught, � la Saint Paul: we who are strong ought to bear the burdens of the weak. When you're a kid, you're raised on the principle that if you're bigger than somebody else, you don't beat up on them; you don't take advantage of your strength or your superior abilities. We call that socialization. We call that civilized behaviour. The credo -- the religious one and the social one -- is somehow turned completely on its head, however, when we talk about economics, at least as defined by members opposite. There the assumption seems to be that if in fact you're strong you should get stronger, that the strong can eat the weak, and those who are weak should be thankful because the strong are in that position and maybe the strong will do something to keep the economy moving.

I tried hard today to be dispassionate, calm and objective as I listened to members opposite. But I heard a couple of speakers opposite talking about people sitting on assets of $1.1 million and what a terribly difficult time they would have because of this budget, and I thought to myself: how can I, in all honesty, sit here and say that I have sympathy for the case they present? I remember so well -- in this country and this society, despite all the efforts of government throughout our history -- that we still have the same circumstance it's always been: the top 20 percent of the people in this society have 80 percent of the resources in this society. That's always been the case, despite welfare, despite trade unions, despite progressive governments. And yet I hear people across the way suddenly feeling the need to man the barricades -- pardon the sexist language; to staff the barricades -- to protect the wealthiest and the most powerful. I say to you: where are you, please, when it comes to talking about the 40 percent of people in this society -- the lower end -- who only get about 10 percent of the total income in this society? That's what I wonder about. I wonder if there is anything left there of a social ethic.

The second principle that animates and stands behind this budget is that we committed to bringing in a budget that would protect vital services in our community. We gave an increase of 4 percent to Health and an increase of some 3 percent to Education. Let's note that even with those increases, we have problems. 

[ Page 4973 ]

The Shaughnessy Hospital and the health accord are good examples. The accord to bring about a new, more efficient and better health system is going to mean a loss of some 4,800 jobs. That's a fact. We are going to try to protect the same vital service and spend our money better and more efficiently, but we're not going to solve the health care problem by simply saying that we will cut it or stop things.

That's so with education. I would bet that there isn't a school district in this province that wouldn't say: "We would like to have more money in our budget, because with the current budget -- the 3 percent lift -- we may not be able to keep all our teachers employed, and we may have to have layoffs." Members opposite think that all teachers, administrators and support staff are overpaid. I think that's a good argument. I would like to put it to members opposite to stand up and say that. Go out on the hustings and tell the world.... You will notice I said "some" administrators, because there probably are some who are overpaid.

I want to turn to the third principle that this budget endorses and tries to make real or give flesh to. In this budget we endeavour to grapple with the rising deficit. I expected a comment. I was hoping that somebody on the Social Credit side would find the courage to say something. It's worth remembering that nine out of 11 budgets in this province in the last 11 years have been in deficit. I wonder who was in government at that time. I want people to note....

An Hon. Member: Confession.

D. Lovick: I heard a confession -- exactly.

I want people to note what our Finance minister said a while ago -- and I offer this as a challenge. It was that if we had done nothing to deal with the deficit when we became government, today it would be $3.4 billion. Instead, this fiscal year it is $1.9 billion, and next year we are projecting $1.5 billion. Isn't it interesting that members opposite are so horrified about the deficit? Let's remind them that in 1991-92 we had an increase in government spending of 12.1 percent.

An Hon. Member: Yes, you were responsible for it.

D. Lovick: No, hon. member, not so. It was your government. Last year when we became government, it was 6.5 percent. We now project 5.7 percent.

The Social Credit Party is clearly discredited from saying anything about deficits. They certainly can't do that. The Liberals are in the wonderfully enviable position of having no history, and they can say whatever they want. Not only can they say whatever they want, they do say whatever they want.

[5:15]

I'll give you an example. Fifty percent of them, by my quick calculation, are saying: "Cut, cut, cut." The other 50 percent are saying: "Spend, spend, spend." The curious phenomenon is that some of them get mixed up and say: "Cut, spend, cut; spend, cut, spend." That's the predicament. Let me give you an example of this -- I can't believe these folks would say this. The same House Leader sitting here today -- who believes that we need to do something about this deficit, that we're spending too much money and that we've got to cut, cut, cut -- said on April 13 in Hansard: "...there is more and more evidence of board, or district, underfunding. We in the opposition are certainly very concerned about that...." On the next day -- in case we didn't learn on the first day -- he said: "The districts need more money." Then we have the Leader of the Official Opposition....

C. Serwa: Which leader? Name names.

D. Lovick: The interim leader, the one who seems to be in charge lately. That worthy stood in this chamber and complained: "Block funding has only been increased by 2.4 percent." Now how can we possibly construe that statement to mean anything other than there ought to be more? These are the same guys who yesterday were saying that we've got to cut, cut, cut. So I wonder about credibility. Rather, I think the word that comes to mind is hypocrisy.

The fourth principle of this budget is to create jobs and invest in people throughout this province. It's an economic stimulus. I would like to suggest that there is lots of evidence that we have fulfilled that promise. Despite difficult times, this budget makes provision for 2,800 new spaces at colleges and universities. That's the kind of rational investment we need. There are new incentives in this budget to assist people to get off welfare and get retraining or work. Those are important.

Interjections.

D. Lovick: I would remind members opposite who want to say that we sure need some help there that B.C. still leads the rest of Canada in the creation of jobs, in case you'd forgotten that. I'd remind members opposite, as well, that our tax rates in B.C. are still the second-lowest in Canada, despite changes. I would remind members opposite that despite changes to the corporate tax, the increases still put us in the middle range across Canada.

We have done a number of important and significant things, guided by four principles. Again, I would put it to members opposite that if you want to be taken seriously and if you want to challenge us, then let's hear what you have to say about each of those four principles. Tell us how you'd do it differently. Tell us what's wrong with those four principles. We'd appreciate that information.

I began by posing a couple of questions, and both of them were designed to suggest what the questions are when we talk about budget allocation. The first question is simply: how should we spend our money, and what are our priorities? I've enunciated our priorities. I would ask that if members opposite disagree with them, please tell the people watching. Secondly, I've asked the question about how we get the money. I've suggested how we do it, and I've suggested what a progressive tax system is. Again, if members opposite want to challenge that, I'd like to hear from them.

[ Page 4974 ]

I want to end my brief comments here today with another question. It is really, I think, the fundamental question that you ask when you talk about government, budgets and economics, and all of that. It's one that I always used to use -- pardon me for putting on my old college professor hat -- when I was trying to talk to my students about how you evaluate somebody's arguments. When you listen to an argument in favour of X or of Y, somebody who says we're paying too much tax or we're not paying enough, or these people are not gainfully employed -- all of those questions -- the point I always made to young people in my classrooms was: remember the old Latin question. By the way, I see that the next speaker is somebody else who taught political science; I know that he, at least, will understand the question. The question is: cui bono? Who benefits? In whose interest is it? I want to ask the people watching this debate today to please ask that question when they listen to the arguments of the two opposition parties over there. Who are they arguing for? Are they arguing for your interest or are they arguing for the old interests of privilege, status and comfort? Members opposite may cry, caterwaul and complain all they wish. I submit that the reality is that if you look at what they have consistently said for the last 12 or more hours of this debate, you'll discover that the interest they are arguing for is not the interest of the majority of people in this province.

A. Warnke: Here we are, one year later, debating another budget that has been brought forward by this government. I must admit that when I take a look at this particular budget, it sure reminds me of a few questions that I posed then. I cannot help but review a little bit of history and pose some of the questions once again today.

However, before I get into that, I always enjoy my colleague. We were academic colleagues at Malaspina College. I always listen with great care to what he says. I must admit, to be quite honest with you, I found him -- maybe it's just a bit of a bias -- to be far more entertaining than the previous speaker, at least insofar as the attempt is concerned. Fellow academics tend to get a little cliquish. It's interesting that when the member for Nanaimo criticized us for picking on a particular villain, he did not apply that criterion to the previous speaker, who is rather famous in this chamber for picking out and picking on his particular villain, namely the rich. I think it would be prudent for the hon. member for Nanaimo to apply some of the criteria that he advances in providing a critique of our own position to one of his own colleagues as well. There you go.

Interestingly enough -- and occasionally this is brought up about our side -- when I hear comments from the other side, 100 percent of those members say: "Tax, tax, tax," and 100 percent also say: "Spend, spend, spend." I therefore conclude that 100 percent of the members over there believe in tax-and-spend.

When we get into that kind of a situation and put forward the old Latin question, "For whom?" it is interesting to take a closer look. Who does benefit from this particular budget? I have an interesting conclusion that I will elaborate on. When individuals and peoples look at their situation one year from now and then look at their situation right now, no one will have benefited from this budget. No one will benefit, perhaps not even their friends and insiders. As I recall, some of their friends and insiders are well into the six-figure bracket; and maybe they won't benefit from this bill, either. Interestingly enough, all of a sudden the friends and insiders are going to pay their fair share, says the opposition. We shall see.

At any rate, let's take a look at the position of the Finance minister one year ago. The position then was that the economic policies must be committed to openness and honesty. Openness and honesty? By taking something like the BS fund, rolling it over and calling it something else, such as B.C. 21? Incidentally, the public is not fooled by that little phrase. Twenty-one is a kinder term for poker, if I recall.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Blackjack, says one of the hon. members opposite. That indeed is it. He's got it dead on. This is a blackjack budget, brought forward by Blackjack Bob or Bingo Bob or whoever -- Blackjack Bingo Bob. This clearly is a blackjack budget. One of the press has dubbed it the Gunton-Williams budget. I think there's a lot of accuracy to that, and hence the Blackjack Bob sort of thing really fits.

Honesty means putting forward something that is fair and square and that everyone understands. And I think by messing around here, we're far from that. Indeed, the methodology has been pretty interesting. It started last year with the Finance minister introducing a methodology that is kind of cute. What you do is present the most extreme case to the public -- usually called trial balloons -- and then provide the most extreme example so that you can reject what you want to reject: an outrageous sum that we're going into deficit for and then come short of that, which is really nothing but a disguise. And it's a disguise which you don't want revealed. It's either that or you don't want to reveal a particular fact. Or you don't want to reveal your ignorance -- I would not apply that to the Minister of Finance.

Another kind of methodology has been introduced. You manufacture the worst-case scenario, use that as a fact, and then provide a little shortfall for it. We saw it in the budget last year when we talked about the deficit. We saw it in the context of Bill 84 -- I was going to say 19 and 84, but we'll go on to that somewhere else. Or Social Services. We understood that the Social Services ministry needed $70 million; they ended up only needing $40 million, and somehow we're supposed to be relieved about that.

This kind of methodology is infectious. It's infectious as introduced by the Minister of Health just a little while ago, saying that the water of Vancouver and Victoria is unsafe because of some little locality in the Kootenay where the water is unsafe. Somehow there's a deduction here that all of the water in B.C., including the water in Vancouver and Victoria, is unsafe. And down the line this Minister of Health will no doubt turn right around and say: "The water of Vancouver and 

[ Page 4975 ]

Victoria is safe, and it's through the efforts of my ministry." That kind of methodology is catching on and we're beginning to see it in many different ministries. But there you go. Perhaps that's a Blackjack Bob mythology that's used here.

Committed to fairness? The Finance minister's second goal was fairness. Where do we see fairness when, in fact, taxes are applied in a particular kind of context that obviously penalizes the savers? Here it's extremely important to reflect on a basic economic lesson, which I thought most members would appreciate. Evidently we have to relearn it. Savers are extremely important for investment in an economy. Without investment in the economy, the economy simply does not grow. Therefore it is extremely important, when one is taking a look at the population as a whole, that one appreciates a basic, fundamental fact. There is a principle called the marginal propensity to consume. The flip side of that is the marginal propensity to save and invest.

[5:30]

By imposing some of the tremendous taxes on savers, two things happen. First, the saving class, if you want to call them that -- the member for Nelson-Creston sure likes to think in those terms -- decreases in size. They decrease if there is not sufficient growth in an economy. Second, if economic growth is insufficient, then, in fact, even those who have the marginal propensity to dissave actually increase and financial emiserisation occurs. It's not just a simple matter of taxing the rich. It's not just simply a matter of let's sock it to those of a certain income strata -- $60,000 and above.

Sometimes when a certain kind of a tax is employed and there is insufficient economic growth, everyone is adversely affected in the economy, not just the rich. That is a basic, fundamental economic fact. It's about time that some members begin to realize that, especially those members in the government. We've seen some evidence of that. A year ago the Finance minister outlined what he expected of the economy in the following year. The minister actually expected the economy to grow by 3 percent. He was so confident that was going to occur, he assumed that was a premise we could accept.

Guess what? The British Columbia economic growth fell short of 3 percent. It was only 2.4 percent, which meant that the rate of growth slowed down. It not only slowed down, it did not meet the expectations of this Finance minister a year ago. Hon. Speaker, I'll bet you that a good reason for that is found in the economic and financial policies of this government. There's no doubt about it. Their policies are designed in such a way as to slow down the rate of investment. The rate of investment is slowing down in this province and, as a result -- as anyone should know -- the rate of economic growth slows down.

Investment leads to productivity, which leads to economic growth. That's fairly basic and simple to understand. Yet somehow this Finance minister hasn't understood that. Indeed, it is quite all right to tax those who invest in the economy. Taxing investors contributes to the slowdown in productivity and in economic growth. It's no wonder that the British Columbia economy grew by only 2.4 percent rather than 3 percent.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Yes, it's basic sophomore stuff. I agree with the member for Nanaimo. Therefore....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: The hon. member for Nanaimo suggests that the minister should know that, and I agree. He should know that, but he doesn't. What can we do about it? The fact is that the Finance minister does not understand that the overall tax burden in British Columbia is 18.4 percent, compared to the overall tax burden in Alberta of 14.6 percent and the overall tax burden in the state of Washington of 12.6 percent.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

How does this Finance minister or this government expect to compete with their neighbours, let alone the whole world? How do they expect to compete, when they cannot compete with their neighbours?

Look at the several types of taxes imposed by this government. There's a sales tax increase, a property tax increase, an income tax increase. Let me pick out one in particular: sales tax. When the last budget was introduced a year ago by this Finance minister, he made it very clear that we were not increasing the sales tax. That's what he stated in this chamber.

F. Garden: That was last year.

A. Warnke: That was last year. He said that we're not increasing the sales tax. For the record, I'd like to refer to one part of my speech last year that is most appropriate here:

"For example, the Finance minister says: 'We're not increasing the sales tax.' I want to tell the Finance minister that from here on, if the economic improvement of this province is going to occur, he should concede that he does not have to raise the provincial sales tax in the future. Is that not right? What if the economic performance does not meet his expectations? I am sending out this warning right now. If the provincial sales tax increases, will he resign?"

If the British Columbia economy is doing that well, if it is growing to meet his expectations, which it is not.... When this Minister of Finance believes that all you need is to inject some sort of new strategy, as he did last year, but the economy falls short of his expectations, which it shouldn't do, the minister should resign when those expectations are not met.

Some Hon. Members: Resign, resign!

A. Warnke: The hon. member for Nanaimo believes in logic. He likes to look at logic. But the logic that follows from here on is that if economic improvement occurs, should there not then be any increase in the sales tax? Obviously, if there is an increase in the sales 

[ Page 4976 ]

tax it is fairly consistent and logical that the performance of the Finance minister just doesn't meet the mark. Oh, it's very clever strategy to refer -- like he did a year ago -- to something called the Peat Marwick report and to say that the deficit would rise to this. For example, last year the Minister of Finance said: "Without government action the deficit would rise to $2.8 billion this coming fiscal year and $3.2 billion the year after. This situation is clearly unacceptable." This government accomplished that very goal with government action. Is that also inconsistent with the Finance minister? For that reason, he should dismiss himself from cabinet. When we take a look at the overall public debt increases -- up to $26.4 billion -- is this a tremendous increase? Certainly it is. It's an increase of 32 percent in the time that the NDP has been in power. The overall public debt increases to $26.4 billion must be compared to the increases of $16.2 billion three years ago

Something is dreadfully wrong with this particular government's economic strategy; I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that they have no strategy or plan. They know who to target, or they figure that they do. They know that there are certain individuals in British Columbia who they've just got to sock it to; that's where the wealth is going to be and that's where paradise is going to evolve from. We're not on the way towards paradise; if anything, we have a paradise lost. We're losing it fast because of the position of this government.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Oh, they talk. Here's where we get back to this funny methodology: "We've only got a $1.5 billion deficit." Yet they do not include the Crown corporations in that, and when we talk about the debt that the Crown corporations incur.... This is fair, because after all, wasn't it the NDP who was criticizing the budget stabilization fund? I recall the Finance minister saying a year ago that it was hocus-pocus politics by the Social Credit administration and that there was a particular definition of debt that did not really amount to real debt once you included the debt involved in the budget stabilization fund. Therefore, it's very fair to suggest that we take a look at the debt that will be incurred by B.C. 21, managed by Blackjack Bob. As we take a look at that, the deficit, the overall debt, has increased, and we're well on our way to getting ourselves in a first-class financial mess such as this province has never seen before. That's really a tall order, considering the fact that they had to compete for their legacy against that of the Social Credit's administration. But they feel pretty proud of it. The member for Nelson-Creston said: "We pulled it off. Pulling it off usually refers to a bank job, but perhaps that's the lexicon of Blackjack Bob and his buddies.

An Hon. Member: Theft.

A. Warnke: Perhaps it is. They're pretty proud of the theft and the fact that they "pulled it off."

When we look at the inability of this government to embark on a strategy that is competitive with its neighbours -- and we do have to compete with Alberta, Washington State and Oregon.... By the way, to suggest that we're somehow competitive with the rest of Canada.... I think we're headed towards a rude awakening in a couple of years when the people of Ontario assess their present government and decide that that particular government is on the way out. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a genius to go around Ontario and figure out that the NDP are destined to get cleaned out but good and proper. Those members on the other side who are plotting our financial future had darned well better be on their guard when they have to compete with Ontario.

An Hon. Member: They cleaned out the Liberals.

A. Warnke: Yes, and they're going to clean out the NDP. I tell you, you guys are on the way out.

Moving right along. As I summarize the government's financial plan, their budget, I find that it lacks integrity, competence and dedication towards fiscal responsibility. It's funny, because I said those things last year. All they think is that something called a progressive tax system equals penalizing the rich. When I take a look at the people in Richmond, the people of Richmond in total certainly cannot be called rich. When I take a look at their real estate values and their assessments, you can't just simply assume they're all rich -- far from it. I would suggest that, in addition to kicking out the bums in Ontario, if this government keeps up the way it is, there will not be an NDP member elected in Richmond. I have a strong suspicion there will not be an NDPer elected in Surrey nor in the Fraser Valley, the interior of British Columbia, the Kootenays, nor in the north. Nowhere. Not even Vancouver Island and maybe not even Nanaimo. Who knows?

Interjections.

A. Warnke: Without sufficient economic growth...

[5:45]

The Speaker: Order, order, hon. members. The Chair has tried to be patient, but the noise level is making it difficult to hear the debate. At this time the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston does have the floor. Please continue, hon. member.

A. Warnke: It's interesting that they were pretty quiet over there until all of a sudden a few facts started going their way. Without sufficient economic growth, the rate of savers and investors in the province of British Columbia declines. Declining saving and investment means that productivity is off and economic growth is off. Therefore, I think it is about time that the government rethinks its position. Having seen the implications of the first budget, I cannot see how they could be proud of that first budget. Seeing the implications of that first budget, surely somewhere along the line there is the thought that maybe they're on the wrong track. You know what? The Minister of Finance did make one slip in his speech on the second budget. One slip -- that 

[ Page 4977 ]

the corporate capital tax should be reviewed. I wonder why. No, the Finance minister didn't go so far as to say what it needs is a radical overhaul or change. That would be too much to expect. But there is a suspicion in the back of the mind of the Finance minister that something is not working, and obviously the corporate capital tax is not working. Something is wrong here. The investors are not investing at the rate that the Finance minister expected. There is a problem of international investment in British Columbia. There is a problem of domestic investment in British Columbia. Something is wrong, otherwise the minister would not have made that kind of a slip.

That may be one very small step, but at least it is a beginning to recognize that something may be wrong with the strategy of the government to tax and spend, go after the rich, and all the rest of it. Maybe moderation of some sort is a virtue in this particular case. They're rushing too fast, and they're applying too much extremism in their budget and in their policies. So I think the implication of the first budget is that this government is boxing itself in. And I said a year ago, come to think of it, that the implications of the first budget may well box itself in. Box itself in for what purpose? They will find themselves where they will have to increase the provincial sales tax.

There is talk about progressive taxation. When is there ever a situation where a sales tax is a progressive tax? A sales tax is not a progressive tax. It is a regressive tax: a sales tax that does affect ordinary men and women in this province -- those people they claim to protect and to enhance their interests. Well, I'll tell you, they have not. They have negated their interests and they attacked their interests. Just as much as they attacked the rich, they attacked the poor as well. That's the implications of the first budget which led to the increase of the provincial sales tax. That's why they've had to increase the provincial sales tax. That's a concession that this government is on the wrong track, and it's about time this government reassesses all its policies and begins to move in the proper direction.

I would like to conclude by saying that what is absolutely essential is that this government be held accountable for its disastrous economic policies. It's about time that this government totally reassessed itself, but in a context of accountability. It's about time that this government became accountable to the people of British Columbia.

H. De Jong: I rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents but also, I'm sure, on behalf of most British Columbians.

This budget basically contains three specific ingredients. One is the extreme taxation of the average middle-income sector of society, the drivers of British Columbia's economy. The other taxes those who have made a lifelong contribution to society and to the economic well-being of this province. The third ingredient taxes those who have no vote, perhaps in order to expose the ineptness of this government, but certainly to hide the real deficit contained in the budget.

Before I get into details, and given the hour of the day, I would move that this debate be now adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's been a very calm day in the House. With that I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada