1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 8, Number 15
[ Page 4997 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. L. Boone: In the members' gallery today we have some special visitors from Thailand. The committee on justice and human rights from the House of Representatives of the kingdom of Thailand is on a study tour of Canada. They are being briefed in the parliament buildings today and will be in Vancouver tomorrow. Will you please welcome these visitors to British Columbia.
V. Anderson: Visiting in the precincts today is a musical group from McKay High School in Salem, Oregon. They gave a concert in front of the Legislature during the noonhour. We appreciate what they have shared with us, wish them well on their visit to Victoria and welcome them to the Legislature.
E. Barnes: I would like the House to join me in welcoming some very special guests who were at the Lieutenant-Governor's reception at Government House today to participate in the presentation of a garden bench by the Commonwealth Caribbean Club of British Columbia. Members of the executive are Mr. Neville Thomas, president, Antigua; Dr. Hebert Allsopp, chairman of education and public affairs, and consul general for the Republic of Ghana; Mrs. Mavis Cooke, treasurer, Jamaica; Dr. Astley Smith, founder-president, Jamaica; Mr. Eugene Haydn, member, Dominica; Prof. Vince D'Oyley, president, Canadian Black Educators, Jamaica; Mr. Wilbur Walrond, president, Trinidad and Tobago Club; and Mr. Roy Taylor, president, Guyana Cultural Association. I'd like the House to please join me in making them all welcome.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'd like all members to welcome Mr. Derek Fox and his family. They have come here from Alberta. He is deputy speaker, from the NDP. He is also the Agriculture critic. Would all members please award him a very nice and warm British Columbia welcome.
G. Brewin: I'd like to introduce a constituent of mine who has just moved into the riding, a renowned businesswoman from Port Alberni and other places: Maria Janssen. She is related to a member of this Legislature. Would you all please make her welcome.
J. MacPhail: I am delighted to welcome two full classes of grade 11 students from Vancouver Technical Secondary School, an award-winning school in my riding. Please make them welcome.
Hon. R. Blencoe: In the gallery today is a former colleague of mine and of some of us who were here in the last session. He was not on my side of the Legislature, but he was part of this building and of this operation: Bruce Strachan from Prince George. Would the House please make him welcome.
E. Conroy: In the gallery today is a longtime acquaintance and constituent. Would the House please welcome Gwen Jones from Castlegar.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the gallery today is Judy Basso, the special projects manager of the 1993 Canada Summer Games -- that event in the great city of Kamloops which all of you, I am sure, have scheduled on your vacation itinerary. Would you please help me make her welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In order not to interrupt the House at 3 o'clock, and if members wonder which school group is coming in at that time, I'd like members to welcome in advance a group from Robron Secondary in Campbell River.
PREBUDGET CONSULTATION ON PROPERTY SURTAX AND HOMEOWNER GRANT
A. Cowie: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the past hour the government reversed its decision on the property surtax, as you probably already know. Can you tell the House what you know now that you did not already know during the prebudget process, other than a resounding rejection of the process by the people of B.C.?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The Minister of Finance articulated the position today; he will be articulating the options in the days ahead, and I'll leave it to the him to do that.
A. Cowie: The Minister of Finance should resign. This is the first government to introduce a budget by trial: come in, come out. The only criterion....
Hon. A. Petter: Point of order.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair would prefer that the point of order be taken after question period.
A. Cowie: The only criterion that this government has to determine public policy is the strength of negative opinion polls. Given this fact....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. If the member would ask the supplemental question directly, the Chair would appreciate it.
A. Cowie: Given this fact, will the Minister of Municipal Affairs also commit to maintaining the homeowner grant for all seniors?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and this government as a whole will be articulating the options in the days ahead.
[ Page 4998 ]
A. Cowie: These subjects do come under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in case the minister doesn't know it. Will the minister table the costs of the provincewide consultative process that he took part in regarding the budget, which evidently didn't pick up the public's anger about the surtax?
The Speaker: Would the minister address the portion of the question that he considers to be within his jurisdictional responsibility.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, the consultation was undertaken by the Minister of Finance. The member may wish to address the question about the costs to him.
EFFECT OF FEE INCREASES ON TOURISM INDUSTRY
C. Tanner: Hon. Speaker, politely put, the tourism industry was hammered in this budget. It took another hit last Friday, when fees for swimming pools, restaurants and angling were increased. Since the government seems to be in a backing-down mood today, will the Minister of Tourism back down on the increased fees that her ministry brought down last Friday?
[2:15]
The Speaker: Phrased in the way the question has been phrased, hon. member, I regret to say that it appears to be a matter of future policy. I ask the hon. member to ask another question.
C. Tanner: Hon. Speaker, the minister did rise.
It wasn't too difficult, but perhaps she can try this one. The Minister of Finance has done nothing to improve the tourism industry since taking power. Since the Minister of Tourism was so instrumental in changing the mind of the Minister of Finance on the surtax issue, why can't she be influential when dealing with things within her own ministry?
Hon. D. Marzari: It gives me great pleasure to be able to respond to the question, especially after the weekend in Vancouver which gave British Columbia over $100 million worth of advertising in this province and in the world.
It also gives me great pleasure to respond to the questioner in the sense that in the last year the Tourism ministry, as it is presently constituted, has gone through a major business plan. For the first time in its history it is now able to look toward the next five and ten years with a real balance between marketing and planning, not only in the central cities but throughout the regions of this province. We now have a Tourism ministry which is ready and prepared to accept and promote tourism as a real industry in this province, capable of matching any industry in its productivity and its job creation.
GOVERNMENT LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE CHARGES
H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. As revealed in Sunday's Province, the government has quietly allowed abuse of government long-distance telephone privileges by relatives of senior bureaucrats. Why has the minister sat idly by while relatives of senior civil servants have run up $800,000 worth of personal phone calls charged illegally to British Columbia taxpayers?
Hon. L. Boone: I am more than happy to have the opportunity to really clarify a situation that was, unfortunately, put in the paper in a rather bad way. This government and I are always concerned about misuse of funds and misuse of government. In fact, the information we have shows there has been $300,000 worth of third-party calls in the entire time since this government came into power a year and a half ago.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister wrap up her comments, please.
Hon. L. Boone: Thank you. I'd be more than happy to wrap them up right now.
There has been no indication at all that any of that $300,000 has been misused, and in fact there is monitoring on an ongoing basis by B.C. Tel, by B.C. Systems and by government ministries. I think the members here should all be happy to know there's been no indication that any of you or your family members have been abusing the telephone system in this government.
H. De Jong: Supplemental. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. The abuse of telephone card privileges is fraud -- pure and simple. What specific steps is the minister taking to recover the money that has been lost due to its failure to monitor the long-distance phone charges?
Hon. L. Boone: We have increased the monitoring since December, when it became clear that there was a North American problem with regard to third-party billing. In fact, this government has received $50,000 back in credit in the last six months from B.C. Tel, which shows what a good job both B.C. Tel and our employees are doing.
H. De Jong: Final supplemental. Can the minister advise the House whether any spouse or relative of a sitting cabinet minister has charged personal telephone calls to the taxpayers?
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, they often say we're not listening to the questions. I'm afraid the questioner wasn't listening to my answer, because I indicated to him that there's been no such indication. Nobody from either the opposition or the government benches is being investigated with regard to fraudulent use of the telephone system.
[ Page 4999 ]
GOVERNMENT POLICY ON HIRING WOMEN
K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. Does the minister support equal opportunity hiring, and does this government discriminate against persons on the basis of gender?
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm very pleased to have the official opposition take such interest in the fair and equitable hiring practices of this government. This government believes there should be no discrimination in hiring. Our government's policy says that nobody will be denied access to employment within this government on the basis of race, gender or disability, and we're proud to have that policy. There is no thought whatsoever that citizens in this province are not welcome to apply for positions or to work with this government. We should be taking pride in the efforts that this government makes to ensure that our staff and public service represent the people in this province.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, my supplemental is to the Minister of Government Services. On March 12, 1993, the government air services posted two positions for first officer, pilot 1. Competition 432 clearly states that no men may apply, and that it is restricted to female applicants who are disadvantaged. Since Government Air already has female pilots, why is the government discriminating against males?
Hon. L. Boone: That posting was for a bridging position, and it was given approval by the federal government because there was not an adequate number of women in pilots' positions. The person has to apply through a competition, the same as everybody else, when that bridging position is finished. It was a bridging position; it was not an employment opportunity in that position.
K. Jones: My final supplemental is also to the Minister of Government Services. Further comparison of the two postings shows lesser qualifications for the female-only posting: 1,000 hours of flight time versus 1,500 hours, and 300 hours on multi-engine aircraft versus 500 hours for the open posting. Since I have always considered females to be equal, why does the minister ask for lesser qualifications? Would it be safe to fly with this less-qualified pilot?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm glad to see the women over there hiding their faces in shame after that comment.
The posting was for a bridging position to give a woman the opportunity to gain the necessary experience and skills, so that she could compete on an equal basis. She had to compete for the full-time position at the same level as everybody else. I'm pleased to say that she did, and she won that competition.
B.C. HYDRO BOARD APPOINTMENT
A. Warnke: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The minister will recall some controversy surrounding the appointment of Judy Urban to the board of B.C. Hydro. The minister indicated that she was going to check to see if there were any rules or common practices about citizenship requirements and so forth. This individual is an American citizen and has remained so for the last nearly two decades. So would the minister indicate just exactly what the hiring practices are? Does she not see a contradiction here, a conflict of interest, considering her citizenship and the fact that we're going into negotiations on the Columbia River Treaty?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, I have looked into that. I certainly can't answer in detail what the hiring practice of B.C. Hydro is. Nevertheless, I know there is no restriction that requires that board members be Canadian citizens.
I have known Ms. Urban in my community for the past two decades to which you refer, and she has been an active and contributing member in the community. She has worked there. She has not only contributed to charitable organizations and worked with community groups, but has been chair of the United Way Community appeal. She has been to the college, taken her education and become a CGA. She is an upstanding and respected member of the community, and one that we should all be proud to have on the board of the B.C. Hydro corporation.
A. Warnke: A supplemental. It is quite clear that the answer went in one ear and out the mouth. The fact is, this person is an American. Does she not see an active contradiction here? Is that not setting a precedent for future B.C. Hydro hirings from abroad?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think that you put a considerable amount of weight into your suggestion that Ms. Urban, as an American citizen.... By the way, she has applied for her Canadian citizenship and will become a Canadian citizen.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the minister's reply.
Hon. A. Edwards: Ms. Urban will become a Canadian citizen as soon as the judge gets to our community to actually swear her in. She had done this before the uproar that was made by local people. So there is no question at all. She has been a landed immigrant. She is now going to become a citizen. She has adopted this country as her country of interest and has lived here for more than two decades, so I think the argument against her sitting on the board is spurious.
The Speaker: I will now take the point of order.
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, the point of order is simply that while the government is very tolerant of question period being used for statements that will lead to questions, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena continues to make statements that don't lead to even the
[ Page 5000 ]
pretence of a question. I would appreciate it if he would cease doing so and that you would call him to order.
The Speaker: Thank you for the point of order. It gives the Chair an opportunity to remind both those who are asking questions and those who are answering them to review the guidelines for question period and to remember that questions should be brief and to the point and without political statement, as should be the answers.
Hon. A. Petter tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the 1991-92 annual report of the Provincial Capital Commission.
[2:30]
Budget Debate
(continued)
On the amendment.
G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure to rise and respond to a budget that presents, I think, the fairest and most balanced approach to the economy and the people of British Columbia that we have seen in a long time. This budget protects middle- and low-income families. It provides for tax savings and reductions for 28 percent of British Columbians. Yes, a cut in taxes. Nowhere else in Canada in these hard fiscal times has a provincial government offered a cut in taxes. In New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan we have seen taxes rise. Even in Alberta, for the first time, they're considering a sales tax -- heaven forbid! -- to meet these tough times. In fact, there has been a $2 cut in spending for every $1 in new taxes in British Columbia.
Six ministries in this government will spend less money, in response to people demanding that government should downsize. Cabinet ministers, MLAs, deputy ministers and heads of Crown corporations are leading the way with salary freezes and cuts. I wonder if the leader of the Liberal Party, who receives a minister's salary, would also agree to take the same cut that ministers of this government have taken.
In the 1992-93 budget we cut $40 million in waste, and have cut a further $35 million in the budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year. The opposition talks about cuts, but will they participate in those cuts? No.
Let us review some of the spending cuts and some of the criticisms from the Liberal Party. Regarding the removal of the Agricultural Land Commission chair, for a saving of $200,000 to this government and the people of British Columbia, the member for Chilliwack said in the Daily Courier on February 6, 1992: "The Agricultural Land Commission needs a full-time chair." He wants to continue spending.
On cuts to the B.C. Business Network, the member for Langley said in the Vancouver Sun on March 6, 1992: "We all know government has been talking restraint. I sincerely hope this isn't one of them." On cuts to the harvesting section of vote 42 of the Forests estimates for 1992-93, the member for Surrey-White Rock said on page 1474 of Hansard on May 12, 1992: "I find it absolutely amazing that the minister can find almost $1 million to cut out of that vital section of his budget...." On the one hand they talk about cuts; on the other hand they advocate increased spending.
On cuts to the 1992-93 research budget in forestry, the member for Surrey-White Rock, again, said in Hansard on May 12, 1992: "...that particular section has suffered a significant cut. What gives?" On the shift to community care, the member for Richmond East said in the Prince George Citizen on February 2, 1992: "I don't think there's any political will for it, but if you're saying you're behind community care, you have to fund it appropriately."
On the Highways budget, the member for Richmond Centre said in Hansard on April 23, 1992: "I would urge the government to consider expenditures on roads and alternative forms of transportation as essential rather than discretionary." We are doing that in this budget. We are capitalizing Highways' projects and doing what the opposition demanded, but they stand and criticize it.
Regarding cutbacks to travel subsidies in sports and fitness, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena said in Hansard on May 26, 1992: "I'd like some assurance that their programs will not be shelved, and that they will not suffer from this budget." Again, members on the other side say one thing, cut and cut, but demand that we spend and spend.
On cuts to the 1992-93 tourism budget, the member for Saanich North and the Islands said to the hon. Minister of Tourism -- and this is truly amazing -- in Hansard on May 5, 1992: "The suggestion is that you should eliminate the sales tax on both accommodation and alcohol." And: "You should allow a wholesale price on bulk purchases of alcohol." The member for Saanich North and the Islands, who says that there have been cuts to the Ministry of Tourism, is advocating an increase in alcohol consumption by cutting rates and the elimination of taxes that are used to fund services in this province. What exactly is the policy of the Liberal Party?
There are no increases in income tax in this budget for 92 percent of B.C. taxpayers. In fact, medical services premiums have been eliminated for 430,000 low-income families and reduced for another 135,000. The Pharmacare deductible for plan E has increased $100 to $500 in this budget. There is more tax relief: the homeowner grant has increased $20 to $470, and increased $25 for seniors to $475 -- again showing there is a need in British Columbia, and this government is meeting that need. As a small business person, I have many contacts in the business community, and the small business tax rate will not rise in this province. In fact, 2,000 small businesses will be exempt from the corporate capital tax and a further 1,500 will see their tax reduced. Does the opposition criticize those cuts? I haven't heard them. They say it's not enough, and I say it's not enough, because growth is needed.
In communities such as mine in Alberni as of March 15 of this year, there were 3,939 people on unemployment insurance and a further 2,200 employable people on social services. The recession has hurt small
[ Page 5001 ]
resource-based communities such as Alberni and Prince George; communities in the interior, in Lillooet and Hope. But this government is offering hope to those people. This government will build B.C. for British Columbia families and their children.
Unlike the Socreds who offered nothing but promises, we're taking action. B.C. 21 -- that new program -- will build our future. It will accelerate development of new schools, highways and forest projects. It will add new investment into the regions. It will expand community colleges, health centres, courthouses and schools. It will provide $500 million in new spending by Crown corporations to stimulate the economy.
Is the Liberal Party criticizing those? If they don't want a new school in their riding or if they don't want a new courthouse, they can just stand up and say: "No, we don't believe in that type of spending." And then they can go to their constituents and complain, and say to them: "The government wanted to bring jobs, but we don't want those jobs, we don't want those new schools, and we don't want those new highways and courthouses."
I invite them to come to communities such as Alberni and Prince George. And I want to invite them to meet real people -- real families and their children, some of whom have been out of work for two years -- and say to them: "There is no hope from the Liberal Party. If you want hope, vote NDP." And that's exactly what they have done. We are meeting the challenge. Government will provide the infrastructure, and private enterprise, the business community and their dynamic entrepreneurship in this province, will provide the jobs that are necessary to sustain an economy.
Let me just give you a small example. In Port Alberni we recently four-laned a highway outside a shopping mall. Because of that small infrastructure, a new Payless Gas station was built, providing some 18 new jobs. McDonald's built a new facility there which will provide some 80 new jobs. That's the type of infrastructure we're talking about. Rebco Wood Products was put together with Pat McKay's Timbermil Logging, and because we were able to offer some forest fibre through a value-added facility, 45 new jobs were created. Coulson Forest Products -- again in the forest industry -- was given a small forest licence and provided 95 new jobs.
Innovative waste management technologies. "Mine Scrap Tire Lode." "If the material in scrap tires were found in the ground in six-foot veins, we'd be mining it," said the manager, Claude Lessard, as he opened up a new $2 million Port Alberni factory. As one of British Columbia's new green industries, it will use scrap tires for the manufacturing of durable, decorative paving stones, and provide 15 full-time jobs for local workers. That's how we are moving ahead with B.C. 21; that's how we're moving ahead in British Columbia to provide jobs.
What about the opposition? How many jobs will they provide? Let's look at their spending demands, hon. Speaker. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, during estimate debates in his role as critic for Aboriginal Affairs, identified several other funding priorities. Education funding: "We have raised education funding 3 percent in this budget," he said in Hansard on April 28, 1992. The member for Richmond-Steveston on colleges, again in Hansard, June 3, 1992: "They expect and hope that these campuses can expand, because there was the former commitment there." We have kept that commitment.
The member for Chilliwack on Buy B.C., again in Hansard, June 4, 1992: "I think we have to put in a little more emphasis and money, and speed the process up, so that we get some results from it immediately, before we lose these farmers." The Minister of Agriculture has embarked on a dramatic Buy B.C. program; I think there's $10 million in this budget for that program. We are listening to the opposition, and we are providing the programs.
The member for West Vancouver-Capilano in Hansard, April 14, 1992: "...districts need more money." This budget provides more money. We have said we will build new schools. The member for North Vancouver, April 9, 1992 in Hansard: "We need a number of additional classrooms plus a new school. A new school is definitely required." We are responding in this budget; we are providing those schools. The member for Richmond East, again on education funding, says: "It doesn't matter what the dollar cost is, the money must be found to provide the rights of the exceptional as stated here." That's in the Times-Colonist, February 20, 1992. And I repeat: "It doesn't matter what the cost is," hon. Speaker, "spend, spend, spend." We are listening; we are providing those services.
We are providing an additional $500 million in Crown corporation spending. And this is in response to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in Hansard, throne speech debate, March 19, 1992: "There must be a greater commitment to infrastructure development: maintenance of existent sewer and water system; the maintenance construction of our highways; the B.C. Ferry service must be seen as a natural extension of our highways." We are responding. Again, $500 million in new spending by Crown corporations.
This budget responds to the needs of British Columbians, and we've been listening to the opposition. The member for Saanich North and the Islands said that given the amount of money raised by children in visits, $72,000 to the provincial museum, the government might as well let them in free -- Times-Colonist, June 10, 1992. On the one hand they say: "cut, cut;" on the other hand they say: "spend, spend." Where are they? Do they have any policy at all? No, hon. Speaker. They should do some research work.
[2:45]
This budget does not promise miracles, but gives a balanced approach to controlling and cutting government waste and ensuring the future of B.C.'s economy and services to people, such as services in health and education. People in British Columbia, in the regions and in my riding of Alberni, are saying that this is a good news budget. It reduces the deficit from $2.4 billion in '91-92 to $1.95 billion in '92-93 to $1.5 billion in '93-94. We are reducing the deficit while we are stimulating the economy to provide jobs for British Columbians. It reduces the taxes for 28 percent of B.C. taxpayers, and it offers a sales tax rebate to 600,000
[ Page 5002 ]
households in British Columbia and tax relief to small business. Most importantly, it offers hope and jobs for families in British Columbia hardest hit by the recession.
When I went home this past weekend, a small business person came to me and said: "This is a good budget. It will stimulate the economy. It will bring customers back into my business, and I want to thank you for that." That's what people in the regions are saying. Ordinary British Columbians are saying that it's time the status quo changed and taxes came down. This budget brings down taxes. I want to repeat to members of the opposition that if they want to come to the regions, to ridings like mine in Alberni, and say that this is not a good-news budget, that we should not be spending money in the regions and that we should not be creating jobs, I welcome them to do it. They want us to cut spending on education, health and social services. We will provide for those people in need. There are people in my riding that do make $60,000 a year and better, but they are more than willing to pay additional taxes to support their brothers and sisters who aren't as fortunate.
This budget is a fair and balanced approach to economic planning in British Columbia. I stand and support it, my constituents support it and I'm sure at the next election the hon. members of the opposition will find out that the people of British Columbia support it and this government.
D. Schreck: This budget is not just a good budget; this budget is a great budget for the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. That the opposition would introduce amendments -- which I must rise and oppose -- to attempt to sandbag this budget, which benefits all of my constituents, shows the lack of thought that this opposition has for them. Many people stereotype the North Shore as being full of $1 million houses and high income people who are different than those in the rest of this province. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In my constituency, 65 percent of my constituents rent; people live at below-average provincial incomes and benefit from the fact that 430,000 British Columbians will no longer have to pay medical care premiums and that 135,000 British Columbians will pay reduced medicare premiums as a result of this budget.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
In North Vancouver-Lonsdale, like everywhere else in the province, no one likes to pay higher taxes. But when the widely expected 1 percent increase in the sales tax was introduced, my constituents benefited from the fact that we also introduced a $50-per-person, $200-dollar-per-family-of-four tax credit. In North Vancouver-Lonsdale, well in excess of that provincewide average of 28 percent will actually pay lower taxes under this budget. In a constituency like North Vancouver-Lonsdale, it's probably closer to 35 or 40 percent of my constituents that will be paying lower taxes, because many of my constituents don't have the money that would amount to over this $50 per person, or $200 per family of four, that they would be paying through the extra sales tax. What this means is that the credit they get is more than the amount of money they would be paying in the extra 1 percent, with the net effect of actually being better off and paying lower taxes. The people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale are winners in this budget, and they benefit from this budget.
Let me talk about just two of the four elements of the B.C. 21 program. The people in North Vancouver-Lonsdale look at the B.C. 21 program and they see $80 million going to stimulate jobs, to help people get off income assistance, where they don't want to be, and take a job opportunity and training that is being offered by this government. My constituents look at the B.C. 21 program that puts dedicated tax funds into transit and highways options. They say: "We need the Lions Gate Bridge repaired or replaced, and we can see that that's where you're going to get the money, and we don't mind paying the dedicated taxes that will give us a safe Lions Gate Bridge."
I have to say that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is going to have my ear on that fund as I lobby for the benefit of my constituents on the Lions Gate Bridge, on the Westview interchange, on the low-level road linking bridge to bridge in my constituency -- where we need the transportation along Marine Drive, where 60 percent of the port of Vancouver economic activity is generated in my constituency.
I look at our local community paper, and I see that the independent Liberal member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has had his constituents say: "Don't build highways or any other transportation projects until you can pay as you go." I must confess that as soon as I saw that, I rushed a copy of it to the Minister of Highways. I said that if the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi doesn't want to look after his constituents, please spend the money in North Vancouver-Lonsdale, because I want a safe bridge, a new intersection and a low-level road. I am here, first and foremost, to look after the needs of my constituents. My constituents see that this budget is a winning budget. It's not just a good budget; it's a great budget for the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
A central theme of this budget is fair taxation. I am proud to see that unlike the right-wing Thatcher government of the U.K., which made a massive tax shift with the poll tax, taking taxes off higher-income earners and shifting it on to the poor, or unlike the Mulroney government in Canada, which introduced the GST, took taxes off income and increasingly shifted them on to low-income consumers, our government has looked at tax fairness, with the consequence that 28 percent provincewide have got lower taxes as a result of this budget. In a constituency like mine, with below-average provincial income, with 65 percent tenants, an even higher percentage benefit directly with lower taxes as a result of this budget.
My friends opposite heckled on a couple of points. Let me talk about property taxation. It takes courage to listen to the people and make a change.
Interjection.
[ Page 5003 ]
D. Schreck: The heckler opposite uses very negative words, some of which may not even be parliamentary, in this chamber.
I was speaking to a reporter from the North Shore News earlier today, and that reporter said to me: "David, is it a sign of weakness, is it a sign of a mistake, for the Minister of Finance to stand up and say: "We've listened to the people and have changed our direction"? Hon. Speaker, I say to you, as I said to that reporter, that it takes courage for a government to be open and honest and to listen, that it shows commitment to doing what's right. Far from listening to those naysayers opposite, we now have a budget that not only benefits the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale, but people in West Vancouver and Deep Cove also have their concerns addressed.
I went into my office on Sunday morning to clear the answering machine. Of 14 calls, two were from constituents, whom I immediately phoned. They congratulated us on the budget because it helps them. The other dozen were from West Vancouver and Deep Cove to say that they have special problems and wanted relief. I can now say that our government has the courage to ignore those naysayers, to listen to the people and to set a course that benefits all British Columbians.
We honestly are committed to fair taxation. Let me take a moment to talk about what fair taxation is. Some of my friends -- and I think some of my friends on the opposition benches -- would say that fair taxation is when somebody else pays. For years we've seen right-wing reactionary government implement their concept of fair taxation. That's when you shift taxes onto the poor so that the people at the top get off lighter. We need to get beyond rhetoric and look at underlying concepts of what really is fair to the people we represent.
Many of the members opposite argue that any form of property taxation is inherently unfair. But I have trouble when 65 percent of my constituents are renting, many making not too much over minimum wage. Not many of my constituents are making over $30,000 or $40,000 a year and are unable to get a deposit together in order to attempt to purchase a home. Picture this, if you will: in the middle of the block in which I live are some half-million-dollar homes.
D. Jarvis: You live in my riding.
D. Schreck: I live in the riding of North Vancouver-Seymour. I have to use an example such as North Vancouver-Seymour; there aren't very many half-million-dollar homes in my own constituency. In my block there are half-million-dollar homes in the middle, and there are tenants at the end. Why should a tenant at the end of the block who is making $30,000 a year pay higher taxes than someone in the middle of the block who makes more in annual appreciation on that half-million-dollar home than the renter makes working for a living in a year? Why should the person making $50,000 or $100,000 or more on the appreciation of their house be subsidized by my constituent who is a renter?
I can accept the argument that many people may have bought their home 20 years ago and, like me, probably couldn't afford to buy the house they live in today. That's reason to make some exceptions. Many people are living in their retirement investment, and they couldn't bear the increased difficulties. It is those complications that provide so many difficulties to work around which has led my colleague the Minister of Finance to say yes, we need to make some changes to accommodate people in North Vancouver-Seymour and in the two West Vancouver ridings. But if we look at the phase-out of the homeowner grant for those in homes over $400,000, I conclude that this is fair taxation.
There are fine restaurants on the North Shore and in Vancouver where it's possible for six people who enjoy such dining to spend more on dinner than the amount of the entire homeowner grant. My constituents, by and large, don't go out for $450 dinners; my constituents make $30,000 or $40,000 a year. My constituents say that they want an opportunity to buy a home too, and they don't see why they should pay more taxes in order to subsidize someone in my neighbourhood in a $500,000 house.
[3:00]
I conclude that it's fair to do what the Minister of Finance has done: listen to the people and modify the harshest aspects of the school tax surcharge. At the same time, if we are to have fairness, my constituents should not pay in order to lessen the property tax burden for my neighbours in $500,000 homes. My constituents should be given a tax break, as they have been in this budget. Therefore fair taxation is what we have in this budget. Fair taxation is taxation in which the poor do not continually bear the burden for those who make more by living in our homes than they make by working for a living. Taxation is fair when we listen to the concerns of our neighbours in West Vancouver and Deep Cove, and we adjust to their needs -- as we have, also.
My constituents benefit directly from fewer people paying medical care premiums, by sales tax credits, by job stimulus programs and by fair taxation. More than 28 percent -- the provincial average -- of my constituents have lower taxes to pay.
Hon. Speaker, what alternatives are offered by those naysayers on the benches opposite? Nothing. I was shocked today when I turned on the noon news -- after my colleague the Minister of Finance had the courage to listen to the people and do the right thing by all the people in this province -- and the mayor of West Vancouver immediately said: "That's not enough. We want more, more, more." That's just like those opposition benches. There are those who will criticize what government does, regardless of what government does. Rather than being concerned about the people in this great province or about fair taxation, all the naysayers have on their minds is partisan politics and how to destroy this good government.
Hon. Speaker, what are the alternatives offered by these naysayers? These naysayers would eliminate 15,000 jobs -- or more jobs than exist in some entire communities in this province. That's about the number
[ Page 5004 ]
of jobs one would find in a community of 40,000 people, and we have many communities with fewer than 40,000 people. If one goes through Hansard and looks at the Liberal opposition campaign promise of a blind 5 percent cut across the board, and you couple that with their reference to the broad public sector of 300,000 jobs, what you see is that opposition party threatening to wipe out the equivalent of entire communities in this province. Shame!
What this province needs is a fair and balanced approach.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The member should not be interrupted in the process of making a speech. All members will have the opportunity to take their places in due course. Would the member please proceed.
D. Schreck: It's not just the elimination of 15,000 jobs that the opposition offers as an alternative; it's far worse. It's stepping on the backs of the poor. When we go through Hansard and we listen to the question periods, we find that both opposition parties distilled the same lowest common denominator. When we ask, "What is your alternative? How would you deal with the legacy of close to a $3 billion deficit left by that former government?" they would say: "Attack the people on welfare, and attack people working in the public sector." On the face of it there are many constituents of all members in this House for whom those arguments initially have some appeal, and because they are so damning, so negative and so destructive, it is important to go to some length to look at those negative alternatives versus the fair and balanced approach of this budget.
On the matter of social assistance. The members opposite would join with all people of British Columbia, I'm sure, and the members on this side, as we do every Christmas in donating to the various charities to feed the poor.
C. Tanner: I do it all year round.
D. Schreck: The hon. member opposite says he does so all year round, and I say, "Good for you, member," through you, hon. Speaker, because it is that spirit of looking after the less fortunate in our community that we need to take to the program. We do not need the antics of the former Premier of this province who, when he was Minister of Social Services, was in the news daily, breaking the back of someone in the poor. He was characterized as even willing to tear the wings off a fly. What we need in this province is firmness and compassion. I am proud to be the colleague of a minister of social services who is both firm and compassionate. The Minister of Social Services has achieved $80 million in this budget to assist in job creation for people on assistance. No one that I'm aware of wants to be on income assistance. Yet, when we say there are the deserving and the not-so-deserving poor, and the not-so-deserving poor tend to be characterized as single males on welfare, I must admit even my neck gets a little Archie Bunker-red sometimes when dealing with single males on welfare. I find that when I look at what that single male is actually paid, it's about the same amount of money that the homeowner grant is for this person in Shaughnessy, who we read about in the newspaper over the weekend, crying about her 20 bedrooms and her $4 million home. What kind of heart does a society have that would say to that person receiving about $500 a month that we're going to take that away so the person in the $4 million home in Shaughnessy will keep her homeowner grant? To me, that is not fair. That is, as the teenagers would say, gross. That is obscene; that's fundamentally wrong. I expect that single male on welfare of $500 a month to get out and to try to find a job. I say bravo to the Minister of Social Services, who has come up with an $80 million fund to offer that young gentleman a choice.
There's another reactionary attack from those benches opposite on people in need. They would characterize tens of thousands of people in this province as lowly crooks, trying to abuse the system. I am proud of a colleague who constantly fraud-proofs our welfare system, who views welfare fraud as the crime that it is: a crime not only against the taxpayers and the people of this province but a crime against everybody in need of social assistance, because the people who abuse that system are destroying the reputation of all in need. But worse than that are the opportunistic politicians who ride on the backs of those and who characterize the tens of thousands of people in need as equal to the few penny thieves who are trying to abuse the system. They are, in my mind, not much different from those who would defraud our welfare system. We all have an obligation to root out fraud, to create jobs for those on assistance and to get off the backs of the poor.
I've mentioned that the alternatives offered by those naysayers are alternatives which eliminate what amounts to small communities in this province; they are alternatives which step on the backs of the poor; and they are alternatives of attacking public sector employees, for we hear from those opposition benches time after time: "Eliminate their job security, reduce their wages, cut." If a person is taken from the private sector and does exactly the same job in the public sector, should they be less of a human being for it? Who are these public sector workers? The majority of these public sector workers are people making $30,000 or $40,000 a year -- some of them making wages that are so low that they qualify as the working poor -- where even that former discredited government agreed to implementing a pay equity program because of the historic discrimination against women in the public sector.
Nurses make less than $40,000 a year. The people who are having their homeowner grant phased out make more in annual appreciation on their house than a nurse makes toiling 2,000 hours a year. Is it not unreasonable that a $470 grant should be removed from someone to contribute to paying down our deficit rather than firing that nurse? The nurse making less than $40,000 a year wants fairness too, not to be attacked by those members of the opposition who say that she makes too much.
[ Page 5005 ]
Those members of the opposition attacking those public sector workers are, in many cases, attacking women and the working poor, and they should get their feet off the backs of those workers. This budget says very clearly who speaks for whom. This budget says it speaks for the benefit of my constituents, the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. This budget says it speaks for tax fairness. This budget clearly rejects that very sad alternative offered by the amendment put forward by those naysayers -- that unfortunate opposition.
This budget is not only a good budget; this budget is a great budget.
R. Chisholm: Isn't democracy wonderful? Even naysayers get to speak, and maybe the truth will come out.
The NDP government has delivered a budget that will head British Columbia into bankruptcy: by bankrupting the individual, by bankrupting business, and eventually bankrupting the province. British Columbia's provincial debt will hit an all-time high of $26.4 billion this year, nearly double the debt in 1991, and 32 percent higher than last year's debt. This is despite the fact that this budget includes higher personal and corporate surtaxes, higher medical premiums, a 1 percent sales tax increase, plus taxing more items: higher tobacco and liquor taxes, and a hike in gasoline taxes. This is on top of the massive increase in last year's taxes, which included corporate capital tax, tax on legal services and taxes on telecommunications. This government increased existing taxes such as personal income tax, jet fuel tax, surtax on high-income earners, corporate income taxes, small business tax rates, rural property tax, and the list goes on: non-residential property taxes, remove supplemental homeowner grant, which raised property taxes. This government increased hidden taxes such as fees and fares. ICBC rates went up 29 percent. Water licence fees and commercial transport fees have increased. B.C. Ferry rates increased. Birth, death, marriage and licence fees have all increased.
This tax assault is bankrupting business and individuals. In February 1993 there were 407 bankruptcies in British Columbia. This was up from 365 bankruptcies in January. Some of British Columbia's main employers are closing or having massive layoffs, such as Woodward's, Cassiar, the forestry and fisheries industries. Farmers are hurting, hon. speaker, from this poor economy. There is no market for their produce. The Minister of Agriculture, in his reply to this year's throne speech, claimed that farmers are thriving. This same attitude was reflected in the budget speech. Agriculture was not even mentioned. Yet on May 23, 1991, less than two years ago, the Minister said and I quote from page 12174 of Hansard:
"...you'd better ask the wheat producers of the Peace River country, or the berry producers of the Fraser Valley, or the orchardists of the Okanagan-Similkameen and Creston areas. These people have their backs to the wall.
"I know individuals on their last mortgage. They cannot even hold on to their farms together."
[3:15]
Yet, hon. Speaker, last year the Minister of Agriculture and his government cut the agriculture budget by $16.17 million. Now this budget reveals more cuts. What do you suppose happened to those farmers, who two years ago the Minister of Agriculture knew were in need? Probably due to the minister's attitude, many of them are not farming now. Could it be that many of them are on social assistance? Could this be why the social assistance demand has blossomed so dramatically? Let me assure the minister that many of those farmers he spoke about the year he became minister went broke, and he did nothing to ensure their success.
I must continue to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture that the situation has gotten worse since he has been minister. I encourage him to talk to the grain growers in the Peace River. We all saw the lettuce demonstration here on the steps of the Legislature last spring. Let me remind the minister that the reason for the demonstration was because the lettuce growers did not have a market for their lettuce. The same scenarios still exist among the berry growers in the Fraser Valley. Obviously the comments the Minister of Agriculture made last week in the Legislature about farmers in British Columbia can only lead to one conclusion: the Minister of Agriculture is out of touch with reality. He does not know the concerns of the British Columbia farmers.
But the government continues to attack the farmer and other struggling taxpayers by further increasing their tax burden. Yet while this tax assault is bankrupting business and individuals but doesn't even make a dent in our debt. Why? Because the government's spending will soar 5.6 percent, more than twice the current rate of inflation. We still have a yearly deficit. This year the government says it is overspending by $1.5 billion. The debt is even higher and would have been revealed except that the government hid the debt in its creative accounting with B.C. 21. The real overspending is $3.1 billion. B.C. 21 allows the government to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to Crown corporations. At the same time, this sneaky policy allows the government to skirt the normal legislative process by funnelling money into political blacktop projects.
Here is how it works. B.C. 21, in the newly created British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority, will artificially reduce the 1993-94 deficit. Only $100 million in B.C. 21 spending will actually appear on the books this year -- as an appropriation to the Build B.C. special account. Another $80 million in borrowing power for the Transportation Financing Authority will show up as part of the province's accumulated debt, which will be reported apart from the annual deficit. Another $166 million for the educational institutions building authority, $93 million for the Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority and $281 million for the School Districts Capital Financing Authority will be borrowed this year but not included in the deficit.
The fact is that the total accumulated debt of our government, Crown corporations and agencies will increase this year from $23.2 billion to $26.4 billion, a 32 percent increase since 1991 when this government took office. This is the largest debt increase in the entire
[ Page 5006 ]
history of the province. The NDP calls this a more efficient method of governing; I call it anti-democratic. Here is a scan: only half of this year's $3.1 billion in new debt will actually be credited to the minister's so-called $1.5 billion deficit. Not quite offsetting the burden of the new B.C. 21 debt will be $33 million in revenues to the transportation authority from taxes on fuel and vehicle rentals. Now the minister claims that much of the accumulated debt is secured. The argument is nonsense. When was the last time a provincial government sold off a stretch of highway to cover a loan?
The plain truth is that the NDP is running up debt at a historically fast pace, and no amount of creative accounting can hide that fact. Our debt is not being reduced or even held in check. This government believes in higher taxes, bigger spending and more debt -- just the opposite of their election platform, I might add.
H. Giesbrecht: Do you believe all this stuff?
R. Chisholm: I wrote it. I must believe it.
The government proudly announced its elimination...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This one should stir you up, too.
...of a jet fuel tax for international air cargo carriers. What a farce. This won't cost the government lost revenue. Do you know why? There are no international cargo jets currently using British Columbia airports. Imagine that -- another farce.
The budget indicates that various fees and licences will be increased during the year, without giving any details. But I found out some of these details: in agriculture alone, there are astronomical increases. For example, in one area of agriculture -- ranching -- irrigation rates are going up by 56 percent, and Crown leases are going up by 100 percent. Some of the leases are going up as high as 2,000 percent on ranches. Yet at the same time farm income on ranches is down by 19 percent since this government took office.
Truth, justice and open government are absent in this budget. The Finance minister tries to make us believe British Columbia is in great shape and that we're better off than other provinces. What he doesn't tell us is that the bond-rating agencies have put B.C. and all other provinces under a credit review, with a negative outlook for the future because they're in a debt spiral. That debt spiral cannot be stopped until provinces start running surplus budgets and begin paying off their debts. The government hasn't awakened to the fact that we must deal with this deficit.
This is a novel budget. Several of its main features were signalled long before budget day. It's good psychology: if you have bad news to deliver, why not deliver it in bits and pieces rather than in one blow on budget day? It's amazing. There is not a single mention of the environment, and the budget chops Environment ministry spending by 35 percent. So much for this government's commitment to the environment.
The same can be said for our important resource industries, which we should be concentrating on to fuel the economy. Fisheries, agriculture, forestry and mining were absent in the budget speech. The only areas cut in the budget were the most important areas for the economic recovery and the growth areas that would create jobs.
Agriculture was reduced by 9.9 percent, and this is a wealth-generating industry. Economic Development is down by 56.8 percent over two years -- another wealth-generating industry. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is down 4.1 percent this year. Tourism is down 15 percent over two years. These are all wealth generators. Do you notice that, hon. members? Forestry is down 2.0 percent over this year.
In reality, this budget is more a social agenda than an economic blueprint. British Columbia needs to build the confidence of consumers, business and investors. The budget speech gave no indication that the minister realizes that British Columbia is a player in the international market. If the province were competitive, it would attract investment and jobs, and the minister would have the taxes he's looking for. But competition and the minister certainly didn't seem to mix in this budget speech. Instead, the minister kept saying that if we want to save universal medicare and educate our children, we'd have to pay higher costs. He failed to mention that increases in those ministries were dwarfed by the increase of almost 17 percent for the Ministry of Social Services. And he forgot to mention the 73,000 single men on British Columbia's welfare rolls. The minister plans to pour money into retraining. What the minister doesn't realize is that even the trained can't find jobs.
This government's priority must be to ensure industry survives. The industry will then train the people to do the jobs. This budget doesn't address investment, globalization or competitiveness. The budget attempts no major surgery on the basic structure of government. Instead it increases the bureaucracy, adding 300 new employees and two new agencies. It is not much comfort knowing that our tax dollars are being managed by a Premier who is letting his office budget go up by $1.1 million this year -- and he calls that restraint.
There is every evidence that excess spending will continue. Giving the new head of ICBC a $50,000 increase over and above the $125,000 salary is awful. If he gets an extra $50,000 to take the job, I shudder to think what the bonus will be once he's in the job for one year. This type of irresponsibility in government must cease; this type of government mentality in British Columbia we cannot afford.
In a spirit of constructive criticism, I applaud the minister for taking measures to ensure that those in a high tax category of over $100,000, who have not paid any income tax to date, will now pay their share. I also applaud the minister for listening to my constituents by not putting a tax on restaurant meals. This would have had a devastating effect on tourism. I do not criticize for criticism's sake; rather I criticize where I feel criticism is due. I am concerned about the future of our province.
[ Page 5007 ]
Therefore I urge this government to consider these alternatives in their task of coping with these difficult economic times.
Since taxes steal from today and debt robs tomorrow, this government should reduce taxes, reduce the debt and reduce the spending. How? Let's consider a few of these examples. It is interesting to note that MLAs' taxable salaries of $32,812 have been frozen for two years, yet for civil servants, only those over $100,000 will have their salaries frozen. I suggest that all civil servants with salaries of $30,000 and above should have their wages frozen. Spending on wages and benefits for government employees has gone up by 25 percent in two years -- well ahead of the rate of inflation and the growth of the economy.
All ministries must cut their budgets, not increase them. This includes the Premier's office. One way the Premier can do this is to stop taking expensive, non-productive junkets to other countries and far-off lands. He doesn't accomplish much with them.
[3:30]
The subsidy for the legislative dining room has gone up by 67 percent -- from $105,000 to $175,000. Why? Cut the subsidy completely. Make the users pay for its total expenses, just as in any other restaurant. Collect PST at the border from Canadians who shop outside of Canada, just as is done with the GST. Alberta has no sales tax. Why? Because they promote their resources. British Columbia must ensure that our resources survive and create jobs. As an example: encourage value-added industries in fisheries and other resource sectors to create jobs in global competition.
We must have balanced budgets to prevent further debt. Develop a long-term strategy for paying off our current debt. Help the environment and our grain growers by legislating that ethanol be used in all British Columbia gasoline. This would use all the British Columbia grain and assist our troubled grain farmers. No more government jet use by MLAs, ministers, the Premier or, especially, by civil servants and bureaucrats.
An Hon. Member: When did MLAs start using the government jets?
R. Chisholm: Ask the government side of the House. They'll answer.
Hon. Speaker, these are just a few examples of how this government must proceed in order to ensure that the debt is reduced and that our citizens are not taxed further. British Columbians are taxed to the max. Tax increases discourage investment and cause bankruptcy. They can no longer be tolerated. This year the provincial debt has increased by $3,000 per family, and the cumulative debt is $26,000 per family.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: The government side should be very proud of themselves about this.
We are in trouble. We must stop and set goals for ourselves. I urge the government to revamp this budget in order to reflect a decrease in spending, a balanced budget and a long-term repayment plan for our debt to ensure a prosperous future. If we don't, I'm afraid the road is downhill from here.
D. Mitchell: It's my pleasure to rise today and speak on the amendment to the motion. This is not a well-thought-out budget. It's the wrong budget for British Columbia. This budget has no vision for the future of the province of British Columbia, except for a continuation of the tax, borrow and spend policies of this administration, which has clearly demonstrated that it cannot manage the affairs of this province.
In the Speech from the Throne that started this session, there was talk of the need for courage.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. It seems as though we're forgetting that we have standing orders in regard to respect for members who are making budget speeches -- or any other speech, for that matter. I would ask that the members extend the same courtesy to those who have the floor as they would expect when they have the floor. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi continues.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, we must forgive the members if they get a little excited. There is a lot to get excited about in this budget document. Unfortunately, it's not positive excitement; it's the kind of excitement that leads to depression.
When we reflect on the Speech from the Throne that started this session, the speech referred to the need for courage. I agree; there is a need for courage in British Columbia today. But British Columbians want their government to demonstrate the courage of their own convictions and to deliver on programs in a way that can be met on an ongoing basis. What kind of courage has been demonstrated with this budget? I think we have to ask that question. In fact, the government begs us to ask that question with the Speech from the Throne. Has the budget demonstrated courage? No, it hasn't. Hardly. In fact, it's a cowardly document that the Minister of Finance has already been forced to back down on. It is unprecedented in the history of budgets delivered in this Legislative Assembly for a Minister of Finance to have to back down on a major revenue measure introduced in his budget within days of delivering it. He's backed down already, and one can only hope that he won't stop there and that he'll come back to this House with more announcements, backing down on some of the punitive measures that he's implemented with this budget that lacks courage. It's a cowardly document. We have a government that speaks of courage, but it practises cowardice.
Why hasn't this government given the people of British Columbia what they want? British Columbians are fair-minded people; they're willing to make sacrifices for the right cause. My constituents are a good example. I represent a geographically, socially and economically diverse constituency. I know what my constituents want from this government, because they've told me. I know how they feel about British Columbia's budget deficit. Prior to the budget being
[ Page 5008 ]
introduced, I polled my constituents -- it's a scientific constituency poll. I've already shared the results with members of this House. My constituents are not confused about the issue. In fact, when I polled them -- and the government is hoping that most British Columbians aren't really aware of the budgetary deficit that is being run in this province -- 90 percent of my constituents said they were aware that the government is running a deficit. Sixty-three percent of them said they were very concerned about the budgetary deficit. When they were asked whether or not there should be yearly balanced budgets in British Columbia, almost half of them said yes. You have to think about that, because we know that municipalities are required to balance their budgets every year; school boards are required to do the same; so are colleges and universities. We have to ask if it is time for that idea to arrive here in Victoria with the provincial government. A key question on the poll was: "If the government was to act to reduce or eliminate the deficit, which of the following would you support?" My constituents from this diverse constituency were given a range of options, and 72 percent said they would be prepared to maintain current tax levels, to take a hold-the-line approach on taxation, as long as the government reduced spending to balance the budget. There's a strong message there. I don't think that this result would be different outside of my riding; those results would likely apply throughout the province.
It's not easy to decide where you would cut. That's a difficult decision that the government has to make. My constituents have told me what their priorities would be. This has to be put into the context of having a goal of balancing the budget so that we can finally start to deal with the provincial debt which has accumulated rapidly. When it came to education, 83 percent of my constituents said: "For heaven's sake, don't cut spending on education." When it came to health care, 78 percent said: "Don't cut spending in health care. It's very important. It's valuable to us. We don't think that spending can be reduced there."
A controversial part of the poll relates to social services. The minister will be interested in this: 63 percent believe that there is room for reductions in social service spending. We have to think about that. I don't believe that it suggests for a moment that my constituents are hardhearted. But there is a strong sentiment in my constituency that there is overspending in social services and that it's an area that requires stronger discipline.
Transportation and highways is an interesting one -- the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale misrepresented this poll earlier -- because transportation is very important in my constituency: the sea-to-sky highway, the Lion's Gate bridge and a number of other issues -- the Bowen Island ferry run, the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal. Transportation is vital in my constituency, yet slightly more than half of my constituents said they would be prepared to see a spending cut even on transportation and highways, so long as the government was committed to balancing its budget and reducing debt. That's a big sacrifice. My constituents are willing to make that sacrifice if the government has the right motives, the right intentions and the right programs.
In this poll I also asked my constituents if they would support legislation that made it against the law for the government of British Columbia to run a deficit -- a harsh measure, perhaps. My constituents were split roughly fifty-fifty on that, and there was some concern about how that would be implemented. I think the final question on the poll might be instructive for members of the government: "Would you support a law that required the provincial government to obtain approval by referendum before raising taxes?" Fifty-seven percent said yes. They thought there should be a provincial referendum before the government should be allowed to raise taxes.
One wonders whether or not the government's recent measures for a school property surtax would have passed that kind of a referendum test. One wonders whether or not the reductions in the homeowner grant would have passed the referendum test. One wonders whether the increase in the sales tax -- or so many of the other taxation measures that are punitive and regressive -- would have passed the test of a provincewide referendum. I think not, hon. Speaker.
I know how my constituents feel, because I have polled them on this. It's a technique that other MLAs in the House might want to consider using from time to time. I know the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale should poll his constituents, and the reason I know why he should is because he actually has the gall to stand up in this House and say that this budget is a great budget for his constituents. He's so out of touch with opinion on the North Shore that he should hang his head in shame. There's no question that this member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is a one-term member. He will never get re-elected after declaring this budget to be not only a good budget but a great budget. Shame on him for being that out of touch with his constituents!
What my constituents want likely reflects public opinion well beyond my riding. They want fairness and a little bit of courage on the part of the government. But that's not what the government has delivered. They've delivered a government spending program we can't afford, and they've raised taxes to levels that can't be tolerated. The government is taking $1 billion in new taxes out of the pockets of British Columbians at a time when our economy is fragile; at a time when we should be thinking about increasing the purchasing power of British Columbians so that they can spend a little bit more to keep the economy growing, to keep retailers in business. It's the wrong budget for British Columbia.
The only thing that's growing with this budget is the provincial debt, and it's growing rapidly out of control. The government's new budget features another huge projected deficit of $1.5 billion. We don't know what the actual deficit will be. And based upon last year's projections from the Minister of Finance, we know that we can't trust his forecast, because he overestimates revenues and underestimates expenditures. His last year's budget was totally out of control; this year he's telling us he's going to run a deficit of $1.5 billion. Now, what does that mean? That means this government is
[ Page 5009 ]
going to be spending almost 10 percent more than they're taking in in revenue. Think about that when you apply it to your own personal finances. Think about how long you can sustain that. When you add that $1.5 billion to the accumulated debt, the direct operating debt of our province is going to be more than $10.5 billion at the end of this fiscal year. And when you add in all of the Crown corporation debt, it's going to be a staggering $26.3 billion, according to the minister's forecast, if he's right. It will probably be higher.
Over two years, that's a growth of almost 30 percent in the accumulated debt of British Columbia since this government came to office. What does that mean? Is that something we should be concerned about? Some people might ask that. The government certainly doesn't seem to be very concerned or agitated about it. But it is something that we should be concerned about, and I'll tell you why. The interest payments on our accumulated debt are now becoming the fourth largest ministry of this government. After Health, Education and Social Services, the next largest spending priority of this government is interest and carrying charges on our total accumulated debt, and it's growing faster than any other ministry of government. In fact, the only other ministry that comes close to this kind of growth in interest charges is the Ministry of Social Services. The Ministry of Social Services spending went up by more than 17 percent in this budget; interest on the debt went up by 21 percent. Those are the two highest spending priorities of this government.
What happens when we spend almost a billion dollars a year on interest and carrying charges on the debt? That's a billion dollars that each and every British Columbian who I know would rather see spent elsewhere. There isn't one British Columbian I know who wouldn't be able to come up with some other priorities for spending that billion dollars rather than spending it on interest charges to banks -- many of them foreign banks outside British Columbia and Canada.
That spending is growing. Interest charges on our debt is now the fourth-largest ministry of government, and at this rate, it's going to become the largest. If this administration is allowed to spend a few more years in office without cutting growth and debt and increasing debt the way it is, at this rate that will become the number one spending priority of government. That would be a tragedy. It would mean less money to spend on education and health and on the valuable social priorities that all British Columbians want to see fulfilled. That's why this budget is so wrong.
[3:45]
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
The big lie of this budget is that the Minister of Finance didn't have the courage to talk, in very frank terms, about the deficit and his plans to balance the budget and deal with the debt over time. There is no plan. I've read through the budget document frontwards and backwards a hundred times, and I can't find a plan to balance the budget.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Let me tell you, hon. member, that it has given me nightmares.
I cannot find a plan in this document.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: The member opposite is waiting for the movie, but I encourage him to read this document and see if he can come up with a plan to balance the budget. It's not there. The Minister of Finance should hang his head in shame, because he hasn't got a plan to balance the budget. British Columbians are saying that balancing the budget and dealing with the public debt is the number one issue in public administration in our province -- as it is in our country -- so that we can spend more of the taxpayers' precious dollars on valuable government services, not simply on interest charges on the debt.
What is the vision of this government? Is there a vision for the province of British Columbia in this budget? Again, I've searched the document, and I can't find the vision, other than the fact that the two highest spending priorities are interest payments on the debt and increased payments to recipients of social services. That's a pretty grim vision, when you think about it. Is that the vision that we as British Columbia aspire to: paying more and more for interest on the debt and for welfare recipients? We need to see a plan to deal with both of these spending areas, because they are the two areas that are running out of control.
We can't find a vision. Where do the spending priorities of this government lead us? It's very clear to me that we need a plan to balance the budget, and I think that can only be provided by the force of law. I believe we need balanced-budget legislation in British Columbia that will require the government to balance its budget on an annual basis. That might sound like strict discipline, but it already applies at the municipal level in British Columbia. I think it has to be applied to the provincial level as well. We can't get there overnight; it would take a few years to phase it in. But once we get there, we would never have to worry about this again, and we could finally start to address the public debt of this province and start reducing that, rather than adding to it every year.
With a balanced budget plan, such as the one I will be proposing in the House in a private member's bill within the next few days, members opposite, including the member for Nanaimo, will be able to scrutinize this plan and discuss it with me. I look forward to the debate that he will undoubtedly want to have on it in this House. I think the member for Nanaimo will actually agree that it's a plan that can work and one that will address some of his concerns.
We need a special discipline, and it can only be provided by the force of law. We can't trust governments that come in and say that they're going to balance the budget over a five-year business cycle. No one even knows what a business cycle is anymore; economists cannot agree on that. We can't talk about balancing the budget over some multi-year period; that just doesn't work. Elections intervene, new governments come in with new priorities and the budget simply becomes less
[ Page 5010 ]
of a priority. So we need the special force and discipline that can only be provided by law. We need balanced-budget legislation. Many American states have balanced-budget legislation, and the time has come for us to face it in Canada as well.
The very best intentions of the politicians of any party simply can't be met because of the increasing demands of pressure groups in society to spend more and more. The appetite of these groups is insatiable. We need to curb that appetite. We need to put governments on a special diet, and that can only be provided by balanced budget legislation.
One of the best-kept secrets of this budget is the $1 billion slush fund that has been prepared for Crown corporations in our province. The budget contains a special fund for Crown corporations of $1 billion in spending for this year. At a time when we're not balancing the budget, at a time when we're not addressing the debt, Crown corporations are going to spend $1 billion with very little accountability to this Legislature. The previous administration had something they called a BS fund for budget stabilization. This administration has a BW fund -- for Bob Williams. It's a Bob Williams fund for expanding his growing empire of Crown corporations with little accountability. Mr. Williams doesn't come to the House and answer questions, and no one will answer them for him.
The BW fund is going to increase the empire of Crown corporations. How is it going to do that? We don't know. It's hard for us to find out, because this government hides revenues, taxing, spending and borrowing powers increasingly in the corporate form of government -- in Crown corporations -- rather than allowing them to be within the line ministries, where the ministers perform the drudgery of public administration on a daily basis in full public scrutiny. Bob Williams is not exposed to that kind of scrutiny. He has been given $1 billion to play in the market and compete with the private sector and expand the tentacles of government into the private sector on an increasing basis.
I'll give you an example. Just last week B.C. Rail purchased a Vancouver company, Vancouver Wharves Ltd. I have to raise some questions about the mandate of a Crown corporation such as B.C. Rail. It used to be a rail utility servicing customers on its rail line. That Crown corporation is expanding aggressively into telecommunications, real estate development and now, by purchasing Vancouver Wharves, into cargo terminal products. One has to ask: what service does that give to the public in a direct way? B.C. Rail is going into direct competition with its own customers. Can it do that without embroiling itself in conflicts of interest? These are the kinds of investments that I suppose we can expect Bob Williams to make with his $1 billion slush fund for Crown corporation development, expanding the reach of government throughout the private sector in B.C.
When combined with the B.C. Endowment Fund investments in Westcoast Energy, MacMillan Bloedel and other companies, we can see that the strategy of this government is to increasingly intrude into the private sector of the economy and increase its control, influence and power. It's inviting a future government, which will inevitably replace this government in a few years -- at the time of the next election -- to reverse those decisions, to reverse those investments, to reverse those unnecessary and, in fact, negative incursions into the private sector of our economy. That's unfortunate, because it creates instability in our economy to have the pendulum swinging back and forth with a government that's taking an unnecessary activist, interventionist role. It should be focusing its attention on the reduction of debt. Why is it spending this money on purchasing companies in the private sector and going into competition with private businesses? Why isn't it asking those Crown corporations to provide dividends that can be used in a much more constructive way -- to reduce debt? I think it's extremely inappropriate, and Bob Williams needs to be called to account in this Legislature. We need a legislative committee on Crown corporations to review annually, in a thorough manner, the activities of all Crown corporations, similar to the way the Public Accounts Committee functions for ministries of government.
I know I don't have too much time, but I would like to address a matter of grave concern in my riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi: property taxation and the way this government has proposed handling it in this budget. I've already referred to the fact that the Minister of Finance has backed down on one major aspect of the budget. This is a key question of confidence. The Minister of Finance today tried to suggest that he was actually just being responsive; people were calling for his head, and he decided to deliver it to them on a platter in the form of giving them back the school property surtax. That's not good enough. When can you think of a precedent when a Minister of Finance has been forced within days to backtrack, to renege on a major budgetary revenue measure? It's a question of confidence in this government.
By bringing in a budget that was simply a trial balloon, this minister can no longer inspire the confidence of this Legislature. Budgets are not trial balloons. He was supposedly engaged in a process of consultation prior to the budget being brought down. How meaningful could that consultation have been, if he hadn't even thought through the impact of one of the major taxation measures that formed the basis for his budget? This minister no longer has the confidence of this assembly. That's why this amendment should be supported by all members of this assembly. This amendment to the budget motion is a question of confidence. It's an amendment that raises a motion of confidence in this government. I call on all members to support this amendment, because this minister can no longer have the confidence of members of this assembly, who represent the people of this province, who have protested about the unfair, inequitable approach that this minister has brought in with his budget.
There is an element of protest in the province of British Columbia today; there is an element of a tax revolt that's brewing in the land today. We've seen the minister back down, but he should back down further. He still hasn't addressed the issue of the homeowner's grant reduction. He still hasn't addressed the issue of
[ Page 5011 ]
whether or not he's trying to foment some kind of class conflict in our province. At a time when we want to be constructive in bringing people together and mediating disputes, this government is seeking to drive people and communities apart, and penalize people on the basis of property owned, not income earned. And that's a major issue of confidence in this government. Reduction in the homeowner's grant still penalizes longtime residents of many parts of my constituency -- many of whom are senior citizens, who live on fixed incomes, and who have built up equity in their homes. Now the NDP wants to penalize them, to raise their taxes to the point where they have to consider selling their homes. Why? Is it fair? No, it's mean-spirited, that's what it is. That's why a tax revolt is brewing.
This government says that wealthy British Columbians are those who earn $60,000 or more a year as a family. We all know that families where both spouses are working often earn more than $60,000 a year. We have to ask ourselves: are all the families we know who on a combined basis earn $60,000 considered to be wealthy British Columbians? We know from the Minister of Finance's own budget documents that the average family income in British Columbia is $54,000 a year, so there's not much of a margin there from the average to becoming wealthy. And yet he wants to penalize this new definition of wealthy British Columbians by raising taxes on them. British Columbians don't want to pay these taxes, because they don't see the government willing to take the same tough medicine that they're asking British Columbians to take.
And when we take a look around the country today and see what other governments are doing, we have to wonder how British Columbia can be so far out of step. Take a look at what's happening in Newfoundland, where the government has brought in a budget that's trying to address their huge budgetary deficit; and they're asking their public servants to have their pay frozen for two years in order to help meet the needs of the province. Take a look at what's happening in Nova Scotia: the government there has had to consider privatizing a major Crown utility, Nova Scotia Power, in order to meet the demands of balancing the budget and addressing provincial debt. Take a look at Quebec, where the Finance ministry has suggested user fees for health care, higher university tuition and school taxes, privatizing Crown corporations, as well as freezing civil service pay, simply to try to balance the budget, a pressing need of Quebec. Take a look at Ontario, where the NDP government has driven that province into total chaos, where there is now going to have to be massive layoffs of public servants in Ontario simply to meet the needs of trying to balance the budget, which they'll never do in the time that's available to the Rae government before they're kicked out of office. Take a look at what's happening in Manitoba, where all public servants are being asked to take ten unpaid days of leave in order to try to help make a contribution to the crisis in that province. Take a look at all these other provinces, Mr. Speaker, where severe measures are being implemented, severe actions are being taken by governments -- probably too little, too late.
We like to think that we're better off in British Columbia than anywhere else in the country. But are we really? Or is that simply a mythology that we're living? We like to think that we don't need to take such drastic measures here, that we don't believe in them. But is that true, Mr. Speaker? Isn't it time that this government showed the courage of its own convictions, withdrew this budget and brought back a budget that met the needs of British Columbians and had a vision for where we could go, a vision of how we could develop into a strong, competitive, enterprise-based society in the twenty-first century?
[4:00]
When you talk about the twenty-first century, another one of the lies in this budget is B.C. 21, the so-called innovation that the minister spoke of in his budget speech. B.C. 21 is an acronym for something, but it's supposed to suggest where British Columbia could be in the twenty-first century. And what does B.C. 21 consist of? Does it involve a new approach to the service industries of the province or talking about technology-based industries and how they're going to be attracted here, or where the jobs in the future are going to be? No. It doesn't talk about that at all. It's simply another part of this Crown corporation slush fund. It's going to pave some highways in the interior, which is good. We're going to plant a few trees with silviculture programs, which is great; but where is the twenty-first century part of the vision? Where is the vision in the document? There is no vision in this budget. We all know that where there is no vision, the people will perish. And for those reasons I ask all members of this assembly to support the amendment put forward in this budget speech.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I welcome the opportunity to take my place in the House, speak in favour of this budget and oppose the amendment brought in by the opposition. Not only does this budget meet the realities of today, but it provides some vision and some direction -- indeed, some hope -- for the people of British Columbia.
I'd like to start by talking about the reality today, and then speak a little bit about how we reached that vision in British Columbia by working together, rather than in the most opportunistic way trying to erode the good attempts of people in this province to meet the challenges that are facing all of us, not only in this province but in Canada and in North America generally.
In the last number of years we have seen a federal government that has, without the support of Canadians, negotiated a trade deal with the United States, and that is again rushing to sign an agreement with Mexico. In those last number of years we've seen a country -- not only as reflected in British Columbia but in many other provinces in Canada -- go from a growing, prosperous country to one that is referred to as provinces that are being deindustrialized, as we are seeing in Ontario.
We saw a federal government, in that process of signing the deal with the United States, making commitments to stand beside workers and businesses alike in the kinds of adjustments that they recognized were
[ Page 5012 ]
necessary. But what has happened instead is that we have seen the prosperous, so-called have provinces capped. We have seen the social policies across Canada come to the point where they have more in common with the United States than they have with the traditions of Canada. I think that that is not only mean-spirited, but also shortsighted.
In the last number of years we've seen Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia capped, because the federal government foresaw the increasing need and saw an opportunity to download their deficit, their irresponsible management, onto the provinces. In British Columbia alone the cap on our cost-shared social programs, while it was only 5 percent, actually represented a full 39 percent of the federal government's deficit. And I ask you: is that fair?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
The shortsightedness is indicated when you look at what is happening in other advanced industrialized countries: when you look at the OECD countries, of which we are one; when you look at Germany, which spends 441/2 percent of its gross national product on social spending; when you look at Japan, which spends nearly 43 percent of its gross domestic product on social services. Here in Canada we spend 35 percent, and that is decreasing.
When you look at the mentality that is implicit in the free trade deal, not only with the United States but with Mexico, you see that it is driving Canada to the lowest common denominator -- whether it's the lowest common denominator in wages or in social spending. Quite frankly, where the opposition talks about this budget as a social agenda, I for one don't separate the two. This budget shows the need for balance between a social agenda and an economic agenda, and I'll speak more about that.
The United States spends less on its citizens by way of investing in social spending, and as an economy, it is not doing as well as some of the stronger economies like Germany and Japan, which invest more in their workforce. The United States spends 34 percent of its gross domestic product. When you look at Mexico, which spends 12 percent of its gross domestic product on the people of Mexico, it becomes clear that this downward divesting of social spending and investment in the workforce has real economic consequences on the standard of living of its citizens.
This budget represents the realities of today, and it clearly makes choices to invest in people, in families and in children. It sees that investing in the strengths of British Columbia provides an opportunity for growth and stability, and it provides for the hope of years to come. It rebukes the Social Credit and the Liberal calls for punitive actions, for cutting services and for divesting the support of future generations and of the children, families and communities that, through no fault of their own, find themselves facing the stresses and strains of the restructuring of our economy in British Columbia, as well as across Canada.
This budget recognizes those realities and makes a choice to continue to stand beside children, families and communities. It recognizes that divesting social infrastructure is divesting our economy. It recognizes that business is looking for well-trained workers, for community stability and for the quality that British Columbia has come to expect of its workforce.
By bringing in the B.C. 21 program and by investing in people whom the federal government has written off and thrown away, this budget clearly makes a statement that only through that investment will we be able to turn around the downward spiral that the Social Credit government left as a legacy in this province.
If we look at the bigger picture and at what has happened when people put their minds to change, one of the optimistic things is what has happened to seniors' poverty in the last decade. Ten years ago a full 22 percent of seniors across Canada lived in poverty. But because of the lobby by senior citizens, the community pressure and the acceptance from governments, whether national or provincial, we were able to put together a package that provided security for senior citizens. Today we see only 8 percent -- still too many -- of senior citizens living below the poverty line.
That is optimistic, because that shows what people can do if they fully put their minds to the kinds of reform this government is talking about and to the partnership that is required among communities, families, businesses, working people and government. It's time we got on with the job; it's time that we saw the strength that we have by standing together, rather than by dividing one against the other. It's time that we stood up and said that the kind of society we wish for British Columbians and for Canadians builds on strengths and on supporting each other, and will not tolerate 10 percent of the population being victimized by the economic restructuring and barriers that exclude people from the opportunity to be full, productive citizens in our communities.
I believe there are models and opportunities across this great province of ours to put people back to work. This budget says the government is prepared to enter into partnership with working people and families to put people back to work. It says we are prepared to invest because we understand that that is good for the economy, it is good for families, and it is good for business.
It also recognizes that the kind of road followed by the Social Credit government -- and now the Liberals so quickly chime in with it -- has cost this province too much. It's not only the loss of leadership they have so pathetically abandoned in not standing by people in this province, but also the very real costs that we are now incurring in corrections and social services, the very real costs of the loss of potential -- because there is real loss of potential when you marginalize 10 percent of the population -- and the very real costs that we are now incurring by having to support families that can no longer stay together.
I want to share with this House some numbers that I find very staggering. When we're looking at income assistance -- and all too few people truly understand that when we're talking about 10 percent of the population, we're talking about over 300,000 men, women and children -- a full third of all those people
[ Page 5013 ]
on income assistance are children. Think of that future for this province. As a society, what do we supply to those children as support for their future? When we hear from the opposition side, we hear them talking about cutting social service costs -- cutting welfare.
We give a child on welfare $150 a month to live on. That is the reality in this province. That is the kind of legacy that we have come to in this province after 15 or 20 years of Social Credit administration. What kind of opportunity does that child have to succeed in their education, in their future-building? As a government, we have recognized that those children need a society that is more supportive, that understands and believes in their future and is prepared to stand beside them. We have done that in a very small way, and I would like to do more. We have done that by meeting the needs of children in schools, by bringing in a lunch program last year. In those schools where the children are able to take advantage of those lunch programs the teachers are telling us that those kids are becoming more attentive and more able to tend to their studies, and that bodes well for the future of this province.
But I want to go back to that $150. The previous Social Credit administration put in place in my ministry a policy that was called forced employment. That forced employment policy said that as soon as the youngest child was six months of age, a single parent then must go out and look for work. The reality is that many single parents were unable to support their families, find a job that could meet the needs of their children, and accommodate their children's safety by finding safe and reliable day care in this province. Indeed, the reality is that by that kind of punitive action, families were forced to break down. We saw more and more children having to rely on our foster care network in this province, and that costs real dollars: $150 to support a child with a single parent; $600 for a foster placement; and for some children who became so damaged because of the stresses of poverty and of family breakdown and because of abuse and neglect, we are now paying $5,000 in some instances for a placement to provide care for them. Not only is that inhumane, not only is that the legacy of this previous government, but it is fiscally irresponsible. It is far cheaper to support children and families in real choices and in real opportunities. This government has made that choice, and we are prepared to stand and meet those challenges of the increasing need in this province.
We have done that in two ways. We will be bringing a bill into the Legislature -- it was referred to both in the throne speech and, I believe, the budget speech -- that sees government supporting families in staying together. It has also met the requirements of families to work, in support of the personal dignity of people being able to support their families with a decent paycheque. We have done that, in this ministry alone, by providing an increased amount in the budget for employment and training opportunities. We in this ministry intend to meet the needs of not only single parents but also, as one of the previous speakers said, single people on income assistance.
[4:15]
I spoke about the kinds of optimism that I share with people who have seen what a commitment can do to alleviate seniors' poverty. The other reality that we have seen in the last decade is that the real standard of living in this province has not increased, yet at the same time we have seen a phenomenal increase in the number of women who have entered the workplace. It now takes two full-time wage earners for families to qualify for a mortgage. That means there is a need for increased support for families. It also means that if there are not two full-time wage earners in a family.... A single person is that much more vulnerable, whether supporting children or living on their own. Those statistics are StatsCan statistics. That's the reality that we are dealing with in this province. This budget presents a commitment from our government to meet that challenge and to stand beside people in real job creation, because it's only when we get people back to work that we will see a real turnaround in this province.
There is also a commitment to fairness in this budget. There is a recognition of the reality of today, and there is a commitment from this government not only to support those most in need but also to bring fairness to the tax system. When you compare the tax fairness initiatives of the last two budgets in this province, you see a shift away from lower- and middle-income taxpayers to those taxpayers who indeed have the ability to pay and who have not been paying their fair share. People in this province are welcoming that trend, are encouraged and would like to encourage the federal government to do the same. It's about time that those who are most able to pay their fair share indeed paid it. When we look at the kind of balance that this budget has brought, and the challenge that we have in facing a federal government that is all too quickly dismantling not only the social programs but also the economic infrastructure in this country, it's time for all of us in this House to put our minds to what we're going to do in this province to turn this around and get on with the real task of getting people in this province back to work, rather than playing petty politics in these hallowed halls.
I talked in the throne speech debate about balance and the need for more balanced decision-making tables. In the past, when governments have looked at economic development opportunities, they've looked to business, whether it's been small business, large business or, indeed, the multinationals and trade opportunities. But what has been missing from those tables is working people. It's the New Democratic government that allows and encourages the broadening of those decision-making tables, that encourages representation not only from men and women, but from all walks of life, from working people who have been the backbone of this province, who have built this province, who bring their talents and skills to the kinds of challenges that we see in this province. That is the difference that a New Democratic government and a New Democratic budget proposes.
I understand that for a number of hon. members in this House this does look a lot different than the kinds of budgets they have seen in the past, but I believe that is welcomed also. It's the kind of reality and the kind of
[ Page 5014 ]
recognition that budgets are more than simply numbers, more than simply speeches, and are a statement of values that reflect the needs of people, that include people in the solutions and meet the challenges of today. It's that sort of vision -- the recognition of the reality we are in today and the kinds of tools that are provided in this budget -- that allows people to move on with the task of building this province. We have a wonderful province here in British Columbia, but unless we British Columbians embrace the task ahead of us and stop looking for someone else to fix the problem, I despair.
I think I will leave it at that, and only say that this budget provides hope. It provides opportunities for those who often are victimized at a time of recession and change. I'm proud of the record of this government. I'm proud of the record of my ministry. In the last number of months we have seen those so-called have provinces, like Ontario, deindustrialized by shortsighted federal initiatives, with an increase in the welfare caseload of 21 percent. We see our most conservative neighbour, Alberta, embracing the Social Credit policies and now the Liberal policies -- punitive, mean-spirited policies. They are now rejecting the support that families and children need on welfare, and their caseloads are up 26 percent. So here in this province, where we also are being impacted by federal initiatives -- whether it is the downloading of the federal deficit or the kinds of trade deals that this federal government is now engaged in and has signed in the last number of years -- we, through our support of the strengths of British Columbians, are seeing opportunity and hope. I find that not only a privilege to represent, but I am indeed proud of this budget and of the direction in which this government is headed.
J. Pullinger: I, too, am pleased to take my place in this debate and to speak in favour of a budget that's a good, fair and balanced budget. It's one that I believe most or all British Columbians can take some pride in because it is fair and balanced.
First of all, as I speak about this budget, I want to look a little bit at just what it does in terms of fairness, what we see in this budget and why my colleagues and I can say unequivocally that it's a fair budget. What does it do? This budget cuts taxes for a great chunk of British Columbians. About the lower third of British Columbians will realize a net tax decrease, and so will small businesses. It shifts the burden of taxation ever so slightly to those more able to pay. It reverses the trend of the last decade in British Columbia and across this country of lowering costs and taxes for those with the largest incomes, and increasing them -- because it has got to come from somewhere -- for the average working family and those least able to pay. We've seen over the last decade that as a result, there is a gap growing faster than in any other decade in our history between those who are doing just fine and those who are no longer making it very well. We have decided to reverse that trend and make taxes a little more fair, and to return to that social contract we've had in this province since World War II that says that you should pay on your ability to pay, rather than on your ability to lobby government. We have brought in some tax increases, and nobody likes tax increases. But the reality is that if we're going to pay for our programs and for the things that we want and hold dear in this province, we have to raise taxes. We've done it in a very fair way. I think that's something that we can all feel pretty comfortable with.
The budget also eliminates further waste. It reduces the deficit. It cuts spending in real terms per capita while protecting important services. It's about balance; this budget is balanced. We've had a difficult challenge facing us as British Columbians. We took up that challenge, we made some tough choices, and we have decided to protect those social services. We heard the member from West Vancouver saying that people don't want to see those services cut. If anything, they want to see them improved. So we've done that. The budget finds that balance between reducing the deficit, limiting government spending and protecting social services.
The budget also contains a very clear economic strategy. I am amazed when I hear the opposition members asking what our economic plan is. The only conclusion I can come to is that they don't want to recognize, or can't recognize, an economic plan when they see one, because we certainly haven't had one in this province for quite some time. The fact that we've got an economic strategy, a means to begin renewing our economy and building for the future, is certainly a feature of this budget and one that we can be proud of.
We have heard a great storm of protest from the opposition benches in the wake of this budget. I want to look at that for a minute. First of all, we hear the Liberal benches screaming that we should be cutting spending drastically; at the same time, at different moments in the day, they're saying that we should increase spending on hospitals, on education, on tourism and all of these things. Then they change their hat around and say we should cut spending. I find it a little bit difficult to comprehend where they're coming from on that, except that I remember that this is the party that had a platform with 272 election promises; they immediately ran away from all but two, and then raised some questions about the remaining two. Certainly those protests leave a lot of people scratching their head and wondering just what they're trying to do. They want to spend, spend, spend on the one hand and cut, cut, cut on the other. I don't know how you're supposed to do that.
We also hear Social Credit with the very familiar refrain, being echoed by the Liberals: don't increase taxes for those at the top; don't increase taxes for those who are able to pay; rather, increase them for those at the bottom. I'm sure they would be happy to see us.... In fact, the opposition benches have said so. I hope the working people of British Columbia -- the health care workers, the single mothers, the teen moms, all of those people -- are listening very carefully to the opposition, whether Liberal or Social Credit, because they are making it very clear that what they would do is dump people out of jobs onto unemployment and then onto social assistance. They would cut the paycheques of government workers, who I'd like to point out are mostly women, mostly not earning a lot of money. They
[ Page 5015 ]
would reduce their paycheques further. They would make changes to the health care system without any kind of involvement by the health care workers. They would simply dump them out of their jobs and let it happen. They would probably go back to doing things such as those we saw in the last six years that were so reprehensible, like reducing incomes for single mothers a further $50, cutting supports to the people who need them most in our society.
I hope all of those people who were so badly affected under the last Socred government are listening, because they'll discover two things. One is that the Socreds, who are trying to argue that their party has taken on a new face and is being renewed and is going to thrive again, have not changed one whit. The other thing is that the Liberals are no different from the Socreds in terms of how they would balance the budget and on whose backs they would balance it. This government has looked at its choices and decided to bring about some balance and fairness. I'm very pleased about that.
[4:30]
We hear the opposition crying that we have increased spending, that we should cut spending. True, we have increased spending. We've increased it by just over 5.7 percent, to be specific. But in real net terms, the spending per capita has declined. If you add up inflation and the population growth in this province, you'll discover that the increase in spending is less than that total. It has declined. Also, the Socreds forget to mention that average spending over their term in government between 1988 and 1992 was something like 55 percent. In our first year we reduced that annual increase of more than 12 percent to 6.5 percent, and this year to 5.7 percent. Because we've reduced government spending, because we've cleaned up government waste, because we've brought a different set of priorities to government, we're able to reduce the deficit.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: Our Socred friend over there is grumbling. Let me remind the member opposite that we inherited the largest deficit in the history of B.C. from Social Credit. The right wing that is so able to deal with finances brought this province the largest spending increases we've seen for awhile -- over 12 percent year after year, resulting in a $2.4 billion deficit. If we'd left it alone, the independent financial review made it very clear that it would have been closer to $3 billion. It dropped to $1.95 billion in our first year and $1.5 billion this year, and we will see it continue to decrease until we get to a balanced budget.
This budget is clearly fair. It's based on the ability to pay, and it balances those conflicting needs to protect our services and reduce spending and the deficit. We've certainly done that. What I hear from the opposition -- and I'm hearing it right now -- is that we should cut, cut, cut and that we shouldn't have raised any taxes at all. We simply should have slashed government spending. A few minutes ago I listened to the member from West Vancouver say to slash government spending but don't cut health care and don't cut education. That's a huge chunk; that's the majority of the budget. Don't cut that, but cut spending.
Let's look at some of the options. I think the opposition needs a little reality check. If we wanted to balance this budget by doing nothing other than cutting this year, one option would be to close down 50 percent of all hospitals in B.C. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
L. Fox: Scare tactics.
J. Pullinger: No, that is truth; that is the reality. If we wanted to get rid of the deficit in one year, that's what it would take. But we have other options; you're quite right. We could close every single college and university -- that would balance the budget.
Interjections.
J. Pullinger: No, that's what it would take. Or we could shut down half of our K to 12 education system -- that would balance the budget.
Of course, what the opposition benches will argue is that we should look inwardly and that we could clean up waste. I find it surprising to see the Socred member over there nodding his head and agreeing when it's his party that's been in power for the last 20 years -- and that's a real kick at his own party. If he believes there's so much slack, why is it they didn't deal with it when they were in power? But if we were going to look inward and say we'd balance the budget by cutting government spending internally, we would have to eliminate all of the following list: the ministries of Tourism and Culture; Labour and Consumer Services; Environment; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Forests; Finance; the office of the auditor general, the Commission on Resources and Environment, and the office of the ombudsman. And that would balance the budget. What a dumb argument we're hearing from the other side!
I heard one of the members on the opposite benches crying this morning, I think, because his salary had been capped. Isn't that interesting -- willing to force all public sector workers to take time off, to cut their incomes, to lay them off, to cut back their wages, and do all those sorts of things; willing to cut services to women and children and families who need those services, but crying about the fact that we also froze their salaries. Quite frankly, I am very pleased that we did that, because in my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues, government ought not to ask people to do something they won't do themselves. So we have tightened our belts, and that's good.
One of the things I want to address and which I think is one of the important parts of this budget is B.C. 21. It has not yet come to its full understanding, and we hear a lot of misleading comments about it, again from the Social Crediters and Liberals. It's one of the least understood so far, but one of the more important parts of the budget, because it contains an economic strategy for the future. We hear the Liberal opposition criticizing it. As I say, I don't think they know what an economic
[ Page 5016 ]
plan or an economic strategy looks like, because they can't see this one. It's there, it's clear, but they don't seem to be able to see it.
I think what else is interesting is that we have yet to hear any kind of an alternative from the Liberal or Socred benches. The Socreds were around for 20 years, and I didn't see an economic plan. I saw things like Music '91: $30 million. We saw the balkanization of British Columbia, which created little Socred czars in every region. We saw all sorts of wild ad hoc schemes under Social Credit, but we never saw a comprehensive plan.
What we clearly have here is the beginnings. It's not a fix-all, it's not a cure-all, and it's not going to fix our problems overnight. But it will begin that process of rebuilding, particularly rebuilding in the regions of British Columbia, which, under Social Credit, had been collapsing. Their economies were collapsing into the overheated economies of the lower mainland and Victoria. So we'll see a rebuilding of the regional economies and the economy of British Columbia under B.C. 21. That plan is going to coordinate, focus and target government spending, and add some new money into a comprehensive plan that we can ultimately all benefit from. I'm certainly not saying that this is a cure-all or an overnight quick fix, such as Music '91 was supposed to be. Rather, it's a long-term strategy and a multi-year commitment to lay the groundwork for longer-term economic growth in the regions.
It will do four important things. First of all, it's going to increase capital spending in the regions of B.C. on vital projects, such as schools, colleges, community health centres and courthouses. Infrastructure of that nature will be built. We have to build that sooner or later. Sadly, we have a situation in this province whereby the misguided policies of restraint on the part of the Social Credit government have left hundreds of children in portables, in conditions that are not favourable to learning. Those children, their families and the teachers are trying to deal with that. We want to see them moved out of those facilities -- and there are a large number of them -- into something that's more adequate and more conducive to learning, so that we get the full value out of our tax dollar that's spent on education. We're going to increase capital spending and move that agenda up a bit, as a first pillar of B.C. 21.
Secondly, we're going to renew B.C.'s transportation infrastructure. The Socred government had no plan for transportation. Their own study pointed out that we have a problem in that the transportation infrastructure is in trouble. It's in trouble because under the previous administration we overbuilt highways in some places and didn't keep them up in others. We've got strips of highway to some of the strangest places in this province, which few people go to. Quite frankly, it has been blacktop politics in this province, and that is going to cost the people of B.C. a significant amount. The Socreds' own study pointed out very clearly that the infrastructure had been let go. While the optimum is to repair a piece of highway in about ten years, as you go beyond that, the costs escalate exponentially.
We have some problems. For instance, we have a 30-year-old promise for an Island Highway. I have a letter from 1962, from one of the many Socred cabinet ministers, promising that Ladysmith would be the next area to be worked on and that they would start on the Island Highway. That simply hasn't happened.
Under this plan we have an opportunity to have a financing authority that will raise capital. This year, 1 cent a litre on gas and $1.50 on short-term car rentals will be dedicated to renewing the transportation infrastructure. I know that a lot of people on Vancouver Island, certainly in my area, are very pleased that there is going to be a plan and a schedule to get that highway finished, because it's imperative not only for safety reasons but also for the economy.
The third part of Build B.C., or B.C. 21, will be to use our Crown corporations a little better. Again, we haven't seen any coordinated economic strategy or look at the Crown corporations under Social Credit to try to make them more useful to our economy and society. They just simply ran themselves. Some of them worked very well and returned money and benefits to the province; but others haven't worked so well. There certainly has been no effort whatsoever to coordinate them. The spending of the Crown corporations -- about one billion dollars -- is going to be reviewed, and we're going to focus that money and target it to the regions that need it the most. I certainly expect that we will see some benefits for B.C. from that program, and I am very pleased that we have undertaken to do that kind of coordinating.
Fourth, and very important, is that there will be $100 million of new money in the B.C. 21 package. That new money will go toward improving the skills of young people and supporting communities around the province. Those of us who come from the various regions of British Columbia know that there are some real problems out there, and there are changes from resource economies to more diversified economies. People in the tourism industry and other industries are very aware that there's a big gap -- about 20 percent -- between the skills we need and the skills we have. If we are going to get people back to work and build a new economy for the future, it's imperative that we close that gap and educate people to learn the kinds of skills that are needed. We must provide that kind of support not just in the lower mainland or in a few areas, but in the regions of British Columbia.
The Liberals from the lower mainland don't seem to have any understanding of what it's like in Lake Cowichan, Duncan and many other regions that have really been hit hard by changes in the forest industry. The Social Credit government allowed that industry to develop without a plan, so we've ended up with overcutting and overprocessing. If we are going to be environmentally responsible and bring some stability back to communities and to the industry, we have to rationalize that and make it more stable and sustainable. That hurts families in those communities and leaves them in a pretty uncomfortable situation.
[4:45]
Therefore I am very pleased that the B.C. 21 plan has come this far. It will coordinate the efforts of government and focus attention on where they're needed the most in British Columbia, in order to level things out
[ Page 5017 ]
and move away from the two British Columbias: one with the overheated economy in the urban areas and one with a lagging economy out in the regions. That is an important part of the budget that the opposition refuses to look at or acknowledge. Instead, it just beats its collective head and pretends that it isn't there.
I want to comment, ever so briefly, on....
L. Fox: What are you going to say next year?
J. Pullinger: No, I didn't say next year. Unlike some of the programs from the previous administration, it's no cure. There's no quick fix, and we recognize that. We recognize that we have some tough situations. Some tough choices have to be made, and we're making them. We realize that there needs to be some balance among keeping those vital services to people, economic renewal and balancing the budget. We recognize that, and we're willing to take on those challenges instead of creating a BS fund, artificially manufacturing figures and having big, fancy plans like Music '91, which seemed to do more for promoting Social Credit backbenchers and cabinet ministers before the election than anything else.
So it's a big problem that we've got. We've got a cyclical deficit, and we've got a structural deficit because of the withdrawal of federal funding. We're going to deal with it in a constructive and consultative way. If we all work together, we can certainly make some changes.
When the critics opposite cry that the sky is falling because this budget doesn't balance the budget on the backs of the poor or kick the working people around -- instead, it finds some balance -- I just want to remind them that after this budget, B.C. still has the second-lowest provincial sales tax in the country.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: The only one that is less is Alberta, because they don't have one yet. I understand that they're going to bring one in.
An Hon. Member: And none have a rebate.
J. Pullinger: Yes, none have a rebate. Let's not forget that our sales tax now has a rebate of $50 for every man, woman and child who qualifies. Some 600,000 families can take advantage of that. For the advocates on the other side, let me remind you that small business lives on money from the community.
L. Fox: The money that they used to have.
J. Pullinger: That's right. And by cutting taxes to the lower third of householders and families, they will have more disposable income, which will support small business.
B.C. still has the second-lowest provincial sales tax in the country. You don't hear that from the opposition benches. We still compare favourably with our neighbours to the south and the east of us in terms of the overall tax base. We're still in a good position. We have a wonderful province here. We've got good resources, hard-working people and an incomparable economic climate in terms of taxes. We certainly can compete.
What has been the biggest problem for competition, especially for those who rely on exports, is the federal monetary policies that have maintained the gap between interest rates here and interest rates south of us, and have made it very difficult indeed for business to compete. That has cost us, and cost us dearly. That's precisely the kind of policies I'm hearing advocated from the other side of the floor.
But B.C. still is in a favourable position overall in terms of taxation. B.C. still has the best performing economy in the country. We're in good shape here. We've got good investment. We've got a good taxation level -- one of the lowest. The economy of the country will rebuild itself, and British Columbia is going to lead the way in that. There's lots of evidence to see that.
We have the highest immigration. Again we continue to hear how everybody is going to flee the province because we have raised taxes, but the members neglect to recognize that we have large numbers of people coming to this province. It's a great place to live. It's a wonderful place to live. It's a good place to do business. We have lots of people coming here, and we will continue to have people coming here. That will continue to stimulate the economy, but it will also increase pressure on services. That's why it's important that we keep that balance.
Just to recap this budget, we have found a lot of balance between lowering the deficit, which we have done, contrary to what was seen under Social Credit where it was skyrocketing.... We have lowered the deficit, and that trend will continue. We have cut government spending in real terms. We have eliminated a great deal of waste. We started by cutting five ministries from what Social Credit had. Government jets are being used for the people now as an ambulance service instead of as a taxi service for Social Credit cabinet ministers.
There's been a lot of savings -- some $40 million last year and a projected $35 million this year -- and we're looking for more, absolutely. Government should continue to examine its own operations and continue to cut waste. I'm pleased that we're doing that. So we've found that balance. We're cutting spending, we're balancing the budget and we have increased taxes in a way that is fair. Those most able to will pay the increases, and I am very pleased with that. It makes sense not only in social terms; it makes good, sound economic sense to make sure that we don't have large numbers of people in this province without adequate means to live. Believe it or not, across the way, it costs a lot of money as well as being destructive in people's lives. If we raise children in poverty, as too many are being raised, that costs all of us down the road. So I'm pleased that we're finding and bringing about some balance and also some economic renewal, particularly in the regions of the province that need it most. By every indicator, B.C. is leading the way, and I know that we can and are beginning to build the kind of economy and the kind of society that we will be proud to leave to our children.
[ Page 5018 ]
For those reasons I am pleased to support this budget.
L. Reid: A year ago I rose in this chamber to comment on this government's first budget. I spoke of the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who are looking for work, and of the individuals who are out of work in my riding of Richmond East. I spoke of the opportunities this government had to create a stronger economic environment in British Columbia. Finally, I spoke of how the Minister of Finance had let down those British Columbians who had looked to him and to this government for hope, for an economic platform and for leadership, and how he had reverted to the traditional NDP method of tax and spend.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Today I want to tell British Columbians, particularly those living in Richmond East, that there's some good news and there's some bad news. The good news is that British Columbia remains no less a place of infinite potential, if only it had a government that wouldn't frustrate entrepreneurial spirit. The bad news is that once again tax and spend is the government's only solution to our economic challenges -- in fact, more so than ever. Last year the government picked middle-income British Columbians' pockets 12 percent more than its Socred predecessors. This year they took that -- and an additional 13 percent. Once again this budget has done away with the NDP election pledge of balanced budgets and no new taxes.
The minister would tell us that the end justifies the means. After tabling the highest budget deficit in provincial history last year, this time he expects us to rejoice: this year's deficit is only the second highest. Perhaps he's satisfied, but the middle class of the province feel particularly betrayed and frustrated at this government's arrogance. They feel anger every time this minister or the Premier tells us how only rich British Columbians are being asked to pay more. It's just not so. It's not only the Premier who's having to pay more; it's the single working mother who's having to pay more sales tax on top of an extra tax on gasoline. While this government purports to frown on crossborder shopping, individuals have been given another reason to buy gas across the border. When these same people visit the doctor, they'll be paying 3 percent higher premiums for that service. I'm sure this government is aware of the regressiveness of this measure; at least, it claimed it was when it was in opposition.
Working couples earning $60,000 a year are losing more than ever in income tax, but the average family income in British Columbia is $54,000 -- just $6,000 lower than the level the minister deems to be fabulously wealthy. I suspect that a working couple making $30,000 each would be very surprised to know that their government considers them wealthy. In fact, over this past weekend I've spoken with such people in my constituency, and they're more than surprised; they're offended. They resent this budget's implication that they live in the lap of luxury. These aren't corporate executives; these aren't ICBC presidents or ministerial assistants. They're the ordinary working British Columbians for whom this budget and this government have been masquerading as the champion. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: "Some champion! Some government!" They're offended because they're struggling to make ends meet, to make the house and car payments, to clothe the kids and put a little money aside each year for their children's post-secondary education. That's not wealth. If the government thinks a couple consisting of two people making $30,000 each before taxes is obscenely rich and can fork over more money any time it snaps its fingers, this government front bench has clearly lost touch with its constituents.
The Minister of Finance is also under the delusion that only wealthy people own their own homes in British Columbia. Wrong again. Today it is true that in the lower mainland, Victoria and other parts of the province, only wealthy British Columbians can afford to purchase a home. But many British Columbians have owned their homes for years. They took title at a time when owning a home wasn't viewed by government as a luxury. In his budget, the minister claimed to know the difference between an asset and cash flow, but his new property tax surcharge betrays a fundamental ignorance of the distinction. People in the lower mainland, while watching their property values increase, have also watched their property taxes rise exponentially. For elderly couples wanting to remain in their own home, the increased value of their house is only a burden to them because of the increased tax load. While they have an asset, it is offset by reduced cash flow. But this government has decided that these sorts of people are exactly the sorts of British Columbians who should pay more. They're rich, says the minister, so he has reduced their cash flow even more. Again, in terms of my earlier remarks, these individuals are not wealthy British Columbians.
Hon. Speaker, like me you are from an urban riding. You know this story all too well. This measure compromises the independence of seniors with fixed incomes and forces middle-class British Columbians out of their homes. That's not melodrama; that's a fact of life for thousands of our citizens who over the past six years have made sacrifices to keep their own homes. Now, because they've been more careful with their own money than this government has, an out-of-touch Minister of Finance thinks they've got money to burn. It's absolutely not true.
I recall during the last election that the NDP had all sorts of creative plans to help British Columbians own their own homes. Of course, none of them have been implemented and, naturally, we've all become accustomed to this government's broken promises. But there are two types of NDP broken promises. First of all, there are those promises which have simply been broken and the issue not addressed. This group would include the Island Highway, pay equity, that sort of thing. But there is another class of broken promises. These are the promises that have not only been broken but where, in fact, this government has gone in the opposite direction. I think we're all familiar with these. They include the tuition freeze, a balanced budget, no new taxes, reduced welfare rolls and more money for
[ Page 5019 ]
education. This government is heading in a direction they said they would not pursue. This government's promise to help British Columbians acquire their own homes falls into that second category, because not only has this government failed to assist those people but it has now done an about face. And it is doing everything it can to force British Columbians out of their homes.
[5:00]
Hon. Speaker, this budget has been called complacent. Indeed, the minister has asked us to ignore a 13 percent increase in taxation on the middle class, just like he asked us to overlook last year's tax grab. The minister assures us that compared to other Canadians, British Columbians are well off. If that's so, it hardly has anything to do with this minister and his government. In fact, it's despite this minister's best efforts that there remains an entrepreneurial class in this province.
Those aren't simply my conclusions. The Dominion Bond Rating Service recently assessed where British Columbians fit into the overall taxation picture in Canada, and the results were startling. Because the Dominion Bond Rating Service concludes that this NDP government raises more money in taxation from its citizens than any other provincial government -- even more than Ontario. That doesn't even factor in the minister's latest tax increase. Yet despite taking more and more of British Columbians' money, this government has spent beyond its newly acquired means. In fact, since coming to power a mere 18 months ago, this government has managed to increase the debt by half, and that doesn't even include Crown corporation debt.
Now I understand that the Minister of Finance has protested, hon. Speaker. "Don't blame us for the budget deficit accumulated during the government's first six months in power," he says. But even if we concede that to the minister, even if we absolve this government of all responsibility for its woeful first six months in office, they have still managed to increase B.C.'s total public debt by 30 percent in the short space of 12 months and two NDP budgets.
Hon. Speaker, that's another example of that second class of broken promises. The promise, reduced debt; the result, exactly the opposite. This result would be almost laughable if it weren't for the tragic consequences. British Columbians, especially young British Columbians, are well aware of this government's fetish for spending beyond its means. They are increasingly frustrated that young people are going to have to pay for this government's inability to make tough decisions.
I recognize that the debt problem is endemic among Canadian governments, but that's no excuse for continued fiscal irresponsibility. As it becomes harder to find Canadian lenders, our currency is being devalued. Ultimately this means less buying power for our people. The cost of living, already intolerably high, can and will go even higher. That's the cost of borrowing; that's the cost of fiscal ineptitude. And that's why this government should have the moral courage to tell British Columbians that it will not spend beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay. It's time to deliver on that campaign promise.
When I examine my critic areas, hon. Speaker, especially health, it is clear that not only is this government spending more, but it is spending it in the wrong places. This government has increased public sector wages by over 12 percent, but by the minister's own estimates, economic growth is merely a fraction of that picture. Once again public sector wages are outpacing private sector wages, and once again this government is spending beyond British Columbia's means.
This minister will tell us that health care spending is up 4 percent. We've been down that road before. Is this an increase over actual dollars or an increase over budgeted dollars? What's more, British Columbians are receiving less health care for more money. I'm looking forward to the Health ministry estimates, because I'd like to see how this Minister of Health can justify a 17 percent increase in hospital administrative costs. Also, in this so-called era of restraint, the minister's office salary costs have increased by nearly 10 percent.
As well, the Minister of Finance assures this House that the government is now exercising prudent fiscal policy to reform the health care system to a community-based model. It's an interesting claim. Unfortunately, the facts don't support it. Community health services still make up slightly more than one-sixth of the total health care budget, falling somewhat short of monumental reform. What's more, even within that token amount it's interesting to note where the money is going. It entails a $14 million increase in salaries. This is not reform. It's not community-based health care. The whole point of health care reform is to place the decision-making abilities within the community to ensure that priorities are established by those who use the system: in Abbotsford, in Nelson, in Hazelton, in Port Hardy.
Consider a case in point. With revamping, the internship program for medical students at the University of British Columbia could save the taxpayers of British Columbia millions of dollars by reducing the demand on large hospitals. The Ministers of Health and Finance should take a minute and sit down with those students, because they have some good ideas. They propose an expanded family practice program to provide a perpetual supply of interns to our interior communities. This is the sort of creativity that can benefit all of us, if only the government would listen to the people who work in it and to the taxpayers who pay for it.
British Columbia is the only province not offering this sort of linkage between physician training and community-based health care. Out of 900 physicians across Canada in family practice, British Columbia offers 19 of them. We are not carrying our load. We are not committing to community-based health care in this province. It's about time this Minister of Health stopped paying mere lip-service to a community-based system and started getting down to the work of saving taxpayers' health care dollars.
This government's idea of community-based health care is to add yet another layer of health care bureaucracy. Health care reform is not defined as having another bureaucrat in Victoria staring into a video display terminal, making decisions on people's lives hundreds of miles away. That is not the definition.
[ Page 5020 ]
Reform requires some initial expenditure. I understand that, but it should not be solely in publicly financed salaries. The stakes are high, and that's why this government would do well to start acting on these priorities. Create genuine reform, and not simply add on more bureaucracy and call it community-based health care.
As usual the budget lacks specifics in health care, where the total costs exceed $6 billion. That's unacceptable. When British Columbians are being asked to give more and more money for a system that is top-heavy, to say the least, there ought to be some guarantee from this government that their dollars are being translated into direct service for clients. These questions may not seem important to the government, but health care involves making decisions not only for people, but with the people who are most directly affected.
For myself, the best definition of government is a government that facilitates good decision-making: a government that makes decisions with people, not a government that makes decisions for people. This government was elected on the promise of open government, on consultation, on bringing people together. If those statements were truly held in high esteem by this government, you would see this government making decisions with people, not rendering edicts and decisions onto people.
It's a far cry from what we've seen happen at Shaughnessy Hospital. Ask any of its former board members if they were asked for their views on any matter. Ask Shaughnessy's doctors, nurses and hospital employees. It may be that this government doesn't think their contributions matter. I believe every single person in this province has something to offer the decision-making process. The public has been deprived of some very creative minds dedicated to serving people in changing times. The people who deliver health care in B.C. know that the system has to be reformed. Most of them made the case for reform years ago and again were not listened to. Who should we be asking if we're not prepared to ask the people who receive the service and the people who deliver the service? Who is this Minister of Health listening to?
It would seem quite natural to me that the people who know the system best be consulted on fundamental changes like closing a principal teaching hospital. If the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital goes forward, it will be the first time that a major teaching hospital has ever been closed in Canada, not a situation I can support and not a situation I would have the gall to try to sell to anyone. It is a bad decision that must be rectified. This government has closed its ears and its collective mind. Forget what the people in the field say; the minister and her bureaucrats know better than anyone else. That is not a position I can support; decisions must be reached with the people and the communities. This decision was reached in isolation, and we will see this bad decision become worse. This sort of attitude was the hallmark of the worst years of Social Credit arrogance. It took them 39 years and 36 budgets to sink that low, but it's only taken this government 18 months and two pickpocket budgets.
I would like to say a few words about our province's seniors. It's important that this Legislature understand the need of seniors to maintain a sense of independence and continue making decisions for themselves. While government ministers may quietly nod their heads in agreement with these notions, they've certainly not made use of the opportunities to espouse these values. We heard nary a word about seniors on budget day, and seniors were also neglected last year by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. It is merely indicative of this government's priorities. Seniors deserve better than this. They deserve better housing options, about which I've spoken many times in this House. They deserve better than a Housing minister who lacks the political clout to go before Treasury Board and get the same kind of money for seniors housing that the government negotiating team got for the BCGEU.
That brings me to my final point. It is clear from this budget and the government's performance over the past year that pre-election promises have been put on the back burner to make room for post-election promises to NDP friends and insiders. Whether it's promises to seniors for dignity and independence and to women for a full and comprehensive pay equity program, or whether it's meaningful health care reform, this government's priorities lay elsewhere. And who can be surprised? This government has some big debts to pay off to big labour, to the public sector trade unions and to the construction trades. Commitments made to women, students, seniors and taxpayers have been relegated to a lower place on this government's agenda. This budget has exposed a government masquerading as a "let's pretend" friend of small business and average B.C. taxpayers. Who can forget the Premier's glitzy television ads showing him putting a penny in his bank and vowing fiscal responsibility? This government would like to think its deception is working. The government is exposed for what it is: new faces spouting old, tired NDP solutions.
These politicians haven't been seriously contemplative, and we need to ensure that these issues go forward. Average British Columbians will dictate the future of this province, and average British Columbians are not accepting the quagmire they find themselves in today. The experiment of taxes and deficit spending by this government simply cannot work, as small business and middle-class British Columbians are paying the price. My office has been flooded with letters and phone calls from people who feel intensely frustrated by this government. They feel disenfranchised. They're outraged that they were misled by cheap electioneering, and they're unhappy at having to wait three more years to elect a government genuinely committed to reform and fiscal responsibility.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
This government can no longer masquerade as free enterprisers, as the Premier used to call himself at chamber of commerce luncheons when his caucus wasn't listening. They've burned that bridge. The government has heaped the cost of its own excesses and lack of political courage onto middle-class British
[ Page 5021 ]
Columbia with tax hikes and budget deficits that it promised would never be a part of an NDP budget. But we've seen these promises before; we've seen things done by an NDP government which they promised would never happen in British Columbia. The hard questions have yet to be tackled by this government, but members on this side of the House aren't about to stop raising them. They're going to speak for those hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who have difficulty as it is balancing their books, and who resent having to pay a second made-in-British-Columbia GST.
This budget poses lots of other questions, and this caucus is going to explore them fully with this minister with questions about lots of other NDP promises -- like education funding and highway construction. Our constituents pay good money to keep this place operating. They expect us to work constructively in bringing about the sort of changes they require. I've made that commitment to my constituents. But I will not support a budget that contains nothing constructive and does not reflect wider consultation that goes beyond the government's own political patronage appointees. There are people in this province who could have advised this government. There are people in this province who had good ideas that were again ignored. It is not the way of the future in the province. We will not have British Columbians being ignored -- because this government has lost touch with the economic needs of our province, if indeed the government ever was in touch.
[5:15]
Politics and taxation are the first order of the day on the government front bench, and the long-term needs of our province and our people are taking a very distant second place. I challenge this government to try harder next time, to take a few moments to step outside their taxpayer-funded offices, get in their taxpayer-funded cars or perhaps use their taxpayer-funded Greyhound Bus passes and get away from these buildings and the patronage appointees to meet the ordinary British Columbian who pays for all of these items; who pays for the services that they expect to receive. They'll find that reasonable British Columbians are willing to pay their fair share, but they have some good ideas on how to better use that money. They need to be asked, and they need to be listened to. When we're increasing the public debt at record rates, it's about time that this government started to listen.
L. Hanson: It's with some mixed feelings that I get up to talk about this year's budget. I guess I'm pleased in one sense and dismayed in another. I'm pleased at the opportunity to try to give British Columbians some insight into some of the things in this budget that I think are very difficult for our economy and for our citizens. I'm kind of dismayed at what it is going to do a province that I think has the potential of becoming the outstanding province in Canada, as it has under another jurisdiction, in job creation and in economy.
I heard a number of speakers talking today about the in-migration of people to B.C. Why are they coming to B.C.? I suppose one reason is that it's such a wonderful place to live. But they see that it has a potential and an opportunity -- that, in my opinion, this budget is going to negate.
There are some facts that I would like to lay before this House. One is that the total debt that is going to be created -- the secured debt, that is -- by this budget and this government is $26.3 billion. As the member of the Liberal Party just preceding me pointed out, that is a 30 percent increase since this government took office.
Another important fact is that this budget will increase spending about 5.7 percent, which is quite a bit in excess of the rate of inflation. But the revenues are going to increase by over $1.4 billion. I listened to some members, and let me tell you where this is leading us. The total direct debt contribution this year will be $3.1 billion, and that includes the indirect debt. The amount of money needed to service the debt has risen to $988 million, and this is up $340 million from just two years ago. The debt crisis is of staggering proportions, yet the NDP shows little concern for the situation. In all of this, it's all the fault of the past government and of the federal government, and if they could find anyone else to blame it on, I'm sure that they would. But no responsibility lies with this government; it's everybody else's fault.
I suggest to you that if in the five months of the 1991-92 budget when this government was in charge it had attempted -- much as they attempted last year -- to put in some restrictions on spending for that short period of time, they could have brought that budget in at where it should have been. When you look at that, doesn't it make you think that maybe part of the blame they put on the past government and the federal government rests with this government? They seem to be driving the bus; they seem to have the purse-strings. As near as I can tell, they have control of the general fund.
The Finance minister has managed to hide roughly one half of this coming year's deficit from the public books. He's created a magic way -- termed B.C. 21 -- to hide what the actual debt for this year will be. The press has referred to that as jiggery-pokery, but I would call it fiscal hide-and-seek. Unfortunately, the Finance minister is doing all of the hiding, and the people of British Columbia are going to be seeking how they can possibly find the money to pay for it.
George Bush was just punished by the people of the United States for breaking his promise of no new taxes, and so will this Premier be punished. I can remember him very clearly on television during the 1991 election campaign; we were absolutely bombarded by those ads. There he was, saying: "If the money isn't there, we won't spend it." If I remember correctly, he had a piggy bank, and he put a penny in it, and he said: "You can take that to the bank." I think British Columbians now recognize the truth of this government. This government is obviously willing to spend away our children's future. I don't think that British Columbians will very soon forget the promise that was made to the citizens of this province, who it was broken by and what party that individual represented.
A Prime Minister of Canada from a number of years ago, Mackenzie King, once said that the promises of yesterday are the taxes of today. Well, the NDP
[ Page 5022 ]
promised its labour chums Shangri-la, and we are paying taxes as a result of it. I think this government is rapidly becoming familiar with the difficulties in fulfilling promises. They are familiar with the demands of their union bosses, and they have found it easier to uphold their promises to those public sector union bosses than they have to provide fiscal responsibility in the management of our citizens' money.
Public sector employees are paid by the taxpayer of this province. Yet rather than go through a process of defending the taxpayer, this government has given the public sector a virtual chokehold on the citizens of British Columbia. One of the most telling signs that British Columbians have reason to worry about this budget is the comments that we see coming from the leaders of our labour unions. It is very difficult for them to hide the absolute fascination they have with this budget and how pleased they are to see it being presented before British Columbians. They subscribe to the tax-and-spend philosophy, and there is no question that that's the philosophy of this government. The really unfortunate part of that is that my grandchildren and everyone else's grandchildren are going to pay for it. They won't live long enough to pay for it at the rate that we're creating debt.
Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States wrote: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." I believe that this Minister of Finance has abused that power and that he has destroyed the hopes of many British Columbians, who were seeing a fragile but definite upturn in the economy.
A middle-income family of four will pay another $1,000 in taxes. Earlier I heard a member say that the lower-income group was going to have a decrease in taxes. I'd ask members on the other side who are making remarks to consider whether the one-third of the population in the lower income section drives automobiles. Do they buy gasoline in order to drive automobiles? They won't after this.
H. Giesbrecht: They can't afford it.
L. Hanson: I heard a member saying that they can't afford it. They won't after this.
Do those people have their appliances, their shoes or their cars repaired? And you're going to give them $50 to compensate for all of that. What a joke!
While I'm talking about it, somebody made the remark the other day that there obviously aren't many automobile dealers on that side. I think that's obviously true. But in a very serious sense, think of how many people are employed in the automobile industry in British Columbia. There are literally thousands of them. If you add up the number of people employed in that industry, it is a major employer in this province. So what have you done to them? I suppose there may be support for having a tax surcharge on cars in excess of $32,000. But couple that with the fact that the tax credit for a trade-in has disappeared completely. A $10,000 car that had a value of $10,700 when it was traded in was immediately knocked back to $10,000. Then you add 1 cent per litre on the gas tax and add to that a tax on labour for service work. I suspect that this government will hear much more from not only people involved in the automobile industry but also from those who drive automobiles.
It's fair to say that on the lower mainland and in some of our larger cities there is a fairly sophisticated public transit system, and in some communities it's quite a good one. But unfortunately not all British Columbians live on the lower mainland or in our large cities. They live all around British Columbia, and they need a transportation system. They need an automobile of their own simply to get around, so that they can get to work and to the various service facilities they need, because there isn't another method. This government has said that they've offset that with a $50 credit.
Let me talk for a minute about the GST. When I was sitting on that side of the House as a member of the then government, I listened to the NDP members talk about the GST when the federal government was talking about it. If I heard one word of encouragement, I would be absolutely amazed. It was total opposition to the GST. What have we got now? We've got a made-in-B.C. GST. We've harmonized the rate from 6 percent to 7 percent; we started to apply it last year to legal services and some other services. This year it's increased. I'll bet you, hon. Speaker, that next year we'll see another increase and another addition to the products that it's applied to. Eventually the PST will be totally harmonized with the GST. That's from a government that spent hours telling us what a regressive, prohibitive tax the GST was.
Hon. A. Petter: On a point of order. Hon. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the member. The time has arrived when the House would normally be expected to vote on the amendment. By leave of the House and with the concurrence of the House Leaders, I would ask the House to consent to defer the vote on the amendment until 11 a.m. tomorrow.
Leave Granted.
L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, the announcement today by the Minister of Finance was quite interesting. The tax that was applied to homes -- homes in excess of $500,000, I believe -- was suddenly rescinded by the Minister of Finance, because he felt there might have been some unfairness in it. I have to personally congratulate the minister, because a Premier of this province who was probably the longest-serving one -- although I'm not sure of that -- had developed a reputation for that famous second look. I'm glad to see that the Finance minister learned something from those years, even though he may have been of an age where he had to read about it.
[5:30]
In any case, hon. Speaker, I think the interesting point of that change in the government's taxation initiatives this year is the fact that it reveals a philosophy of this government that is long going to be remembered by the people of this province. The fact that the tax has been rescinded and that those people will not suffer a tax.... We all know of a number of circumstances where people were living in houses
[ Page 5023 ]
where the land value had increased to a degree that they really couldn't afford the taxes that were now being applied. Through that process they were finding it a very difficult time to keep up with their expenses, even though they lived on a property that might have a tremendously high value.
So I would like to congratulate the minister for the change, but I don't think there's any question that British Columbians will see the philosophy that was behind the tax being suggested in the first place.
I could relate that to another issue. I think it was Bill 32 last year that allowed for compensation for companies that had a right in some cases to some of British Columbia's natural resources. When they found that there was no compensation for taking those resources back, that bill was withheld. But it was again an indication of the philosophy behind the generation of those initiatives in the first place. I don't think British Columbians will forget that. I think they will remember that, and it will come back to haunt them.
I've heard a number of the members on the government side asking what alternatives there are. "Are there no alternatives from the people who are complaining so bitterly and criticizing this budget? What alternatives do you offer?" Well, I think we could look to other governments in other provinces in Canada, and simply recommend to the government here to take a look at what is happening in other provinces. As an example, in Manitoba, the public sector employees were asked -- I guess ordered, in fact -- to take ten days off at no pay to help with the difficulty the province is having in financing its budget.
Let me compare that to what is happening here in British Columbia. Instead of asking the employees to contribute something to restraint, here we see them given lavish agreements, big increases and guarantees of no time off. The Finance minister says that the recent agreement signed with the HEU is going to cost the taxpayers $50 million. The Hospital Labour Relations Association said that that figure could easily rise to in excess of $500 million. After a little pressure was put on the HLRA people, they came back and said: "Well, we agree with the Finance minister's figures." I suspect there's a lot more honesty in the $500 million estimate than there is the $50 million estimate.
By the end of this year, we will have growth in the civil service that will create a civil service of a size that we have not seen in British Columbia for a number of years. To give you an example of that growth, it's my belief, by looking at the estimates, that the budget for the Ministry of Government Services will this year be $191 million. In the previous two years combined the budget for that ministry totalled $94 million.
Interjection.
L. Hanson: The member says that that ministry didn't exist, that it was called the Provincial Secretary. The fact is that that ministry did exist -- maybe under a different name, but still it did exist.
This can be attributed again to the inefficiency that this government condones, and the fact that the Ministry of Government Services is stuffed like a beanbag full of NDP patronage appointments. If you did that same calculation for the Premier's office, you would see that spending increases of 32 percent have taken place since the NDP took office.
Just getting off that subject for one second, to give you an indication of how the thinking is, the former manager of ICBC was given many kudos on the wonderful job she had done in managing ICBC. When you look at the facts, the administration costs within ICBC had gone up almost 15 percent in that time. That's not efficiency, nor should it generate compliments.
When you look at the way this government chooses to spend its health care moneys, that's also another indicator. Funding to acute care is dropping by 4 percent; spending on administration and wages is increasing by 17 percent. I don't think it's any wonder that the doctors of this province are angry with the Ministry of Health.
I heard an awful lot of discussion today by the Minister of Social Services speaking to the budget. It might surprise you that I agree with some of the things she said. But if you start to analyze what was said, I think you would find it a little harder to accept. I don't want to speak for the Liberals, but I'll take that chance in suggesting they might not be totally against providing help to people who are in dire need of support that allows them to live a reasonable life.
The concern is that we have 73,000 single employable men on welfare rolls. The contention of my caucus and my colleagues is that people not only have the right to assistance when it's needed, they also have a responsibility to seek employment and to try and support themselves. That is the part that's missing. Looking at the amount of dollars by which the Social Services ministry increased last year -- $400 million last year and $400 million again this year -- I think everyone in this House would, without question, support the principle of helping people who need help. But there is a responsibility on people to try and help themselves. At the rate we're going, if -- heaven forbid -- this government should be re-elected for a second time, we would have more people on social assistance than people working to help pay for it.
I heard a member suggest that by the words coming from the opposition, a number of ministries should perhaps be discontinued. If you look at what is left of some of those ministries in terms of the spending they had before, they've been all but eliminated. The Economic Development ministry is the one used by this province and this government as the vehicle to put more people to work, to attract investment income into British Columbia so that we can create jobs for some of those 77,000 single males who are on welfare. What happened? In 1991-92 the budget was $200 million; it is estimated this year to be $77 million. I'd like the people of B.C. to have an opportunity to say whether they would sooner spend $200 million on the fixed-wage policy or on helping to create jobs in British Columbia.
When all of the speeches and the rhetoric have passed and this budget is presented as a fait accompli, the facts will stand and the people of British Columbia will see them. Spending is up considerably. Taxes are up considerably, and if they don't pay any attention to
[ Page 5024 ]
the media, they'll find it out when they reach for their wallets. The debt is ballooning. The debt in this province has grown so large that it threatens to jeopardize the chances of future generations. British Columbians will realize that they will no longer be able to enjoy the standard of living they did prior to this government.
Hon. Speaker, this government will not face the facts. In the game of fiscal hide-and-seek that the Finance minister is playing in attempting to hide the debt, B.C. 21 is a farce, and it is an insult to the people of this province. The government has demonstrated that there is no specific plan for deficit reduction and no long-term plan to promote economic development. The president of the B.C. Business Council summarized the budget very well. He claims the government doesn't address investment, globalization or competitiveness. The government has told us that it had the courage to change. We have discovered that the NDP has the courage to spend and tax, and I don't think that the people of B.C. will see that as courage to change. This government has not demonstrated the courage required to deal with the debt problem or to be honest with the people of B.C.
Thank you, hon. Speaker. For the record, I heartily oppose this budget on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm pleased to take my place in the debate on the amendment. For those members who weren't following the parliamentary procedure, we are debating an amendment proposed by the opposition, and for the record, I will be speaking against the amendment.
I think it's sometimes.... I see hon. members opposite laughing. They think there's no need to....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
C. Serwa: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The party Whips have agreed on a certain order of speaking, and it clearly states that the member across from me is to speak, and not the minister. We've come to an agreement on this.
[5:45]
Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I would never do anything to offend my esteemed colleague from Burnaby North. The speakers list shows the hon. member for Cowichan-Ladysmith at this point, who was obliged to substitute for the member from Prince Rupert earlier in the debate. I think the House Leaders are aware of the substitution. I hope my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby North will forgive me, and I know he will give a particularly salient, pungent and interesting speech tomorrow.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has given quite a bit of leeway in discussing the point of order. While I appreciate that lists are helpful to the Chair, and that the Chair does have an amended list in this instance, lists are only a guideline for the House. While we always appreciate when agreements are made, sometimes there are changes to the list. I would ask the hon. minister to continue with his debate.
Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I think I see consent in the face of the hon. member for Burnaby North.
Sometimes it behooves us to stop and recollect some of the benefits of life in British Columbia. I think that today, shortly after the wonderful summit of President Clinton and President Yeltsin in Vancouver this past weekend, is an auspicious moment.
L. Fox: Good organization.
Hon. T. Perry: I thank the hon. member opposite for the compliment on the organization, but I think many people had a hand in it. Although my riding of Vancouver-Little Mountain was proud to host the summit dinner, I think the credit really goes to the restaurateurs and staff at the Seasons in the Park, who made such an excellent meal. It wasn't me, although I thank the member for the compliment.
Sometimes it's worth reflecting -- as did President Clinton, President Yeltsin and former President Gorbachev, who was in town the week before -- on some of the advantages of life in British Columbia. We tend to hear from the opposition only the bad side of life in British Columbia and relatively little about the advantages. I can remember playing that role once or twice when I sat on the other side. But let's remind ourselves that this, above all, is a democracy where people can still say what they think and express their views openly and honestly. We have a Legislature where legitimate debate can apply and where government can listen to the people. We've seen an example of that earlier today -- the Minister of Finance has shown the government's willingness to listen to people when problems arise. That speaks well not only of the Minister of Finance, but also of our democracy and of the ability of people to take the kind of second look that the hon. member referred to earlier.
We have some other wonderful benefits in this society which are not often mentioned or are forgotten in this House. We have a multicultural society in which people from virtually every country in the world feel comfortable, welcome and, by and large, safe. They are welcomed not only by our province but also by our country to play a full, complete role in our society. Unlike any other country in the world, we are a uniquely multicultural society. We know that we're finally moving, after over 100 years, to make our own aboriginal peoples feel welcome in the same way, in the land where they preceded us.
We sometimes forget that we have a health care system which, while not perfect, is the envy of most of the rest of the world. President Yeltsin undoubtedly would have been impressed if he had the chance to compare the health services available to British Columbians with those available to his own people. More
[ Page 5025 ]
significantly, even President Clinton's wife, who is now in charge of health care reform in the United States, looks to our country for guidance on how to design an effective, rational health care system that meets the needs of all of the people. It's not perfect, but it's a darned good system.
We have a university and college system which is not only the best in Canada, but also rapidly becoming perhaps one of the best in the world. Hopefully, it will be the best in the world, as we integrate its operation in a system that serves the needs of the people optimally.
We have a school system which is not perfect, but which strives to provide a high standard of educational attainment for all British Colombians. In areas such as mathematics and science, our students do as well as any students in the world. In other areas we've got a little ways to catch up, but we have the ability -- which few countries have -- to offer a high standard of education to every citizen, regardless of their location in the province, regardless of their social background or class, and regardless of whether they've been privileged or less fortunate in their family life. We have a system determined to make that work better for all British Columbians.
We have a generally clean environment. Again, it's not perfect. We have problems in protecting our environment, historical problems in the management of our forests, but we have a population that is among the most environmentally literate in the world and a government and citizenry determined to make us one of the environmentally sustainable societies that will lead the rest of the world.
Our greatest strength is our citizens and their ability to face up to difficult problems, difficult decisions and the need for change in a constructive manner. It's a solace and a consolation to me to think about those citizens when I hear some of the puerile debate in this chamber, the ranting, the demands to spend more but tax less, to spend less but increase services, the illogical argument that we've heard so much of this afternoon from an opposition that has sadly left behind -- indeed, has seemingly forgotten -- the promise made by the former Leader of the Official Opposition, when he came to that office, that the opposition would always be constructive.
I listened vainly this afternoon for any suggestions as to how the dollars might be spent more rationally: what programs could be cut without hurting delivery of important services to people; if the opposition felt that tax measures proposed in the budget were unfair, where instead they would tax. I listened in vain for some constructive criticism, and it will perhaps emerge either in this debate or in the estimates debate; it's not yet too late. I see the former Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, looking on, and I know he has promised to initiate such a constructive debate when we get to my ministry's estimates. I look forward to that, because I think he has the skills and the knowledge to offer it.
We are at a time of some crisis in British Columbia, a crisis of confidence. The people do not want either the government or the opposition to delude them with loony arguments or phony facts. The people want real leadership, they want the straight goods, they want real answers -- and that's what they've got from this government.
The challenge facing this government and the people of British Columbia is the challenge of converting our society from the end of the frontier era: an era when we could be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, not only to our great neighbours to the south but also to central Canada; when we could enter the forest and take what we wanted, explore the earth and rip what we wanted from the earth without concern for environmental protection; and when the rest of us who were not engaged directly in those occupations could live off the fat of the land without any concern for the future. Those days are all but gone. We're now converting to a much more challenging era when, in order to maintain our prosperity and the diversity and strength of our society, to which I alluded a few moments ago, we will have to design a sustainable economy -- not only environmentally sustainable but economically sustainable in the face of a much tougher world, a much more competitive global economic environment. That is the challenge this government is facing, on the basis of the legacy of a severely out-of-balance budget inherited from the former government.
Just before we adjourn, let me refresh the memory of a few hon. members and take us back to the spring of 1991 and the last budget presented by the former Social Credit government, at that time by the Hon. John Jansen. The official budget deficit figure was $450 million, in round numbers. The hon. Minister of Finance now -- then the opposition Finance critic -- looked at that budget, scrutinized it carefully, as did the accountants, and thought that the real deficit might be $1.2 billion, almost three times as much. Little did any of us imagine -- I see the hon. Minister of Labour smiling because he too was taken in -- that the real budget in that fiscal year 1991-92 would be $2.4 billion, more than five times higher than the ostensible number. That was the kind of situation this government inherited: a tradition of dishonesty, a tradition of fabricating figures, a tradition of the BS fund, a tradition of hiding the real financial situation from the people of B.C.
And what has happened since then? We have unprecedented disclosure by the current Minister of Finance. Never before in British Columbia history has any Minister of Finance toured the province so exhaustively -- with his senior civil service staff -- presenting the real facts to the people of B.C., attempting to lay out for them the real situation faced by the government, by the people of British Columbia, and by all members of this Legislature, regardless of which side they sit on. Never before has a Minister of Finance held such extensive prebudget consultations in communities around this province, not only explaining to people but also listening to them. The hon. Minister of Finance spent many evenings away, sacrificing his own family, in order to listen to the people of British Columbia. Whether or not members opposite agree with the decisions, they ought to recognize that that is a precedent-setting move by a Minister of Finance in this province. The willingness to face people, to listen to
[ Page 5026 ]
them and to explain the hard decisions reflects real courage -- something we have not seen much of in this province.
I see that the time on the clock is rapidly approaching six. I have many more things I would like to say in opposition to the amendment and in support of the budget, but I would seek leave of the House to adjourn debate until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Hon. T. Perry moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Another interesting day as we debate the budget. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]