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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1993

Morning Sitting

Volume 8, Number 16

[ Page 5027 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

D. Schreck: In the gallery today are approximately 24 students and their teachers, including Ms. How, from Keith Lynn Alternative Secondary School in North Vancouver. Judging from the questions I just answered in the foyer, I would say that we have a lot of budding community activists and organizers among us. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
 (continued)

The Speaker: On the amendment, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I regret that the Chair has made an error. The hon. Minister of Advanced Education adjourned debate. He has risen and can now take his place.

On the amendment.

Hon. T. Perry: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate the courtesy of the Leader of the Official Opposition. Like all members, I'm looking forward to hearing his constructive criticism and comments in the spirit of the prayer we just heard. I have small doubts but great optimism that he will rise above the bunkum we heard from the opposition yesterday and present some serious and rational analyses of the budget and give some constructive suggestions on how we might better serve the public of B.C., which of course is what we're all trying to do.

When we adjourned last night, I was attempting to take us back to the spring of 1991 to look at the fiscal disaster that the present government inherited from the former Social Credit government and, more particularly, to look at the question of how we serve the public during a time of very rapid change in our economy -- a change from a frontier economy, wherein for the first 100 years of British Columbia's history, or perhaps a bit more, we could essentially attack the wilderness, the forests and the ground and take what we wanted, and we could support our public services on the basis of an unsustainable pattern of resource harvesting, hewing wood and drawing water not only for our southern neighbours but also for central Canada.

As we closed debate yesterday, I pointed out that that era is all but finished. We now must convert ourselves to an economically, as well as an ecologically, sustainable society and compete in a much more difficult global environment. It is not one where we can simply sell to the colonies and to the developing countries, or one where we can emerge from our colonial past as a pre-eminent industrial power without having to work very hard at it. We are in a much more difficult environment now. The large budget deficits and debt accumulated by previous governments, particularly at the federal level under both the Liberals and Conservatives, critically hamper the ability of any government to meet those challenges of the emerging global economy.

I pointed out that in contrast to the Social Credit ministers of finance, who left us in the spring of 1991 with a putative budget deficit of $450 million, an apparent real budget deficit of $1.2 billion -- to judge by the then opposition, my party at that time, and by the critical reaction of the press -- but a real budget deficit at year-end of $2.4 billion. We have changed from that era of misleading the public to an era of unprecedented and long overdue frankness. Our present Minister of Finance toured the province in January and in February. He not only attempted to make the seriousness of some of our financial problems clear to the public, but he also listened to the public in a way which no previous Finance minister had been prepared to do. He held forums all over the province and put the dilemma to the people of B.C: how do we maintain our cherished public services and how do we deal with this structural budget deficit which threatens to overwhelm us? I think it's appropriate that this House should recognize that this Minister of Finance has shown leadership of a kind that no one previously has. He has an extremely difficult job.

Interjections.

Hon. T. Perry: Members of the opposition are asking whether I am aware of the large rally staged in Vancouver last night, and naturally I am. I watched the television news; I read the newspapers this morning. I share those taxpayers' concern, and that, in fact, is the very concern which has driven this government to attempt unprecedented frankness with the public, disclosure of the real financial status of British Columbia, and to listen to the public for their suggestions. Sadly, we hear very few from the opposition.

Let's look at what the opposition has told us in the debate that I've listened to. Perhaps the Leader of the Official Opposition will set a new standard and give us some constructive suggestions. If not today, it's never too late when we come to the budget estimates, the detailed estimates of spending of the individual ministries.

Let's look at what we have. We've heard, for example, from the member for Richmond East, who's laughing now, that we should cut spending but increase services. Virtually every time she stands up, she asks for an increase in services. One can sympathize with her. I remember sharing a platform with her during the election campaign in 1991 and thinking how delightful her ideas were. I agree with her, but she's talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of additional expenditure. We've heard no constructive ideas from her or anyone else on how we could actually spend smarter -- the challenge that the Premier gave us in his speech in January.

[ Page 5028 ]

We've heard many requests from the opposition -- not only from the Liberal Party but from the Social Credit Party -- to reduce taxes but increase spending -- for example, on more development loans. The former Minister of Labour, the member for Okanagan-Vernon, was asking yesterday evening for more loans to businesses and more subsidies of the kind the former government handed out, but he wants taxes to be reduced. Just who does he expect to pay for the interest on those loans, hon. members? That's the question I have.

Let's look at what this government is actually doing. I can speak in most detail to the budget for which I am responsible. Let's take an example, because I think there's a very widespread misconception. It has been perhaps difficult for the public to have access to the real facts. As much as I sympathize and share the concern of taxpayers who attended a rally like the one last night -- that they should be entitled to get fair value for their money -- sometimes they don't understand how much has been done to attempt to ensure that.

Look at my budget -- an increase of roughly $30 million; a rather modest increase in the range of 3 percent in total spending on the universities and colleges in British Columbia. Is that an inflationary increase? Is that throwing more dollars to the professors and the college instructors? Absolutely not.

The condition set not only by me as minister but by the Treasury Board was that every single one of those dollars should provide additional student spaces in the colleges and universities. The Treasury Board set a minimum requirement of 2,800 additional full-time places for students. The Treasury Board has been rigorous....

I see that the hon. Minister of Finance has just come in to join the debate. The Minister of Finance has been rigorous, as have I and other members of the government, in insisting that those dollars be spent in the most efficient way possible, and believe me, that does provoke some pain for the institutions. We have a 3 percent or higher population increase in B.C. this year, roughly corresponding to the total increase in government program spending. We're increasing for population; we are not funding inflation. We are tightening the screws on those institutions and asking them to do more -- in fact, insisting that they do more -- for the same dollars.

We are representing well the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia. I hear the odd squeal from some well-fed people in the college and university system. There has been some fat in that system, and believe me, they don't like to hear the criticism that perhaps they could do more for the same.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Perry: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena is responding. He knows, because he shares representation of the University of B.C., that they don't always like someone calling them to account and asking them to show how well they're spending the dollars. They do sometimes live in the ivory tower.

I want to assure members and the public that we are tightening the screws and sharpening the pencils in a way that has not been done before in this province. At the same time, the Minister of Social Services yesterday addressed the question of what the people of B.C. really want from their government. Do they want to see us descend into a two-tier system in health? We think not. We think the absolute bottom line for British Columbians is to maintain the single-tier system in which one is entitled to a good standard of medical and health services regardless of income and social status. We intend to defend that, and we will defend it. Even if it were to cost us an election to defend it -- I don't think it would, because I think the public has spoken clearly -- we will stand on our principles of defending the Canadian universal health care system and the five principles of medicare.

[10:15]

The Social Services minister pointed out yesterday that we think the people of B.C. reject the notion that we should follow the American path towards homelessness and despair for poor people in our society. President Clinton of the United States is himself concerned about the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who slept out in the cold on American streets during the past winter. We do not intend to follow that route. We do not, as a government, feel any more comfortable than any other taxpayer at the increase in welfare rolls. But we do not intend to say to someone who is destitute and has no other source of income, and who may be raising children and must meet the basic needs of food, shelter and medical care, that we're going back to the Depression era, which some right-wing economists and right-wing parties would like us to do.

We have made a very clear commitment in this budget to education and to infrastructure. We will protect basic services for British Columbians. We have a government that is dedicated to maintaining the sharpest possible pencils, and as Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, I welcome any constructive criticism from the opposition on how to make those pencils sharper. I will be meeting shortly with my official critic, and I encourage him to sharpen his pencil and show us where we can do better. We are always open to such suggestions, but we will not sacrifice the basic services that British Columbians require to make the transition to a sustainable economy in a globally competitive environment.

Hon. Speaker, we have heard a remarkable amount of hypocrisy over the last year -- I've never heard so much in my life -- from people who want their taxes reduced and they want spending cut -- but not on them. An interesting example is the former president of the B.C. Youth Council, a prominent member of the Young Liberals with whom I have worked very closely. I spent a lot of time over the last year attempting to ensure that that council produced the maximum possible output for British Columbians. I challenged him and his council, and I met with them frequently. The hon. member for Port Coquitlam spent more than one weekend with members of that council in trying to figure out -- I see some young people in the gallery -- how we can make that council actually work to 

[ Page 5029 ]

represent the interests of young British Columbians and to effect change on their behalf.

Ultimately we decided that the expenditure of $250,000 on that council was not as high a priority as spending that money to ensure that more British Columbians could study in the colleges and universities and that people with disabilities had the same right of access to colleges and universities as any other British Columbians -- or to bring down the deficit.

I note that Mr. Crawford, former chair of the B.C. Youth Council, suggests that he was canned because he dared to criticize the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I encouraged that young man to speak out as clearly as he wanted throughout his tenure there. He was an appointee of the former government; he remained in place. I accepted without reservation the recommendations for membership on that council that the council brought forward, and I gave them every encouragement to go about their job well. Ultimately we listened to the taxpayers, who said to spend the money as wisely as possible. When we came down to the decision of choosing whether a young British Columbian gets to go to college or whether we're going to fund 17 or 18 young British Columbians to come down to Vancouver or Victoria and spend a weekend talking to each other once in a while, we sharpened our pencils and we went to the bottom line of the best possible service for British Columbians.

I cite that merely as one example where the opposition has out of one side of its mouth said save money, don't spend so much and don't raise taxes, and out of the other side has said to spend more, to let them have this particular favour and to take it away from some other area, like from some young woman trying to raise children on social assistance who has been deserted by her husband and actually has to look after those children."

Interjections.

Hon. T. Perry: I see members of the opposition suggesting it's unfair to level that criticism back at them, but I think it's true. They made a commitment when they were elected under their former official leader -- he's still the leader of the Liberal Party -- to make a positive, constructive contribution to change the spirit of British Columbia politics. I'm still waiting to hear, for example, how they think we should more wisely spend the money when we get to my ministry in the estimates debate. If we get those constructive suggestions, we will act on them.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Perry: I hear members suggesting the government is arrogant, but I assure them we have no illusion that we alone know how to solve the problems of British Columbians. We are doing the best we can in a difficult situation, and if we can get constructive input from the opposition, it is always welcome.

I'm sure there are other members waiting to take their place in debate. I would simply like to say in conclusion that I will be voting against the amendment. I think this is a good budget. It's a difficult one for British Columbians, but it's a humane and fair budget on balance, and I will be proudly supporting it.

B. Jones: Are you leading the party?

F. Gingell: I'm not leading my party down the tube, as the Minister of.... I rise to speak to the amendment to the budget with a sense of bewilderment. Are we now speaking to an amendment to the budget that was presented last Tuesday? Or are we speaking to an amendment to the budget which was changed yesterday? Or are we going to be speaking to an amendment to a budget that we probably will expect to see changed again next week?

For a government that talks about consensus and about listening and making the effort to get out, it is interesting that both the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and the member for Vancouver-Point Grey are here this morning but were not there last night in Oakridge to listen to the 4,000 that managed to squeeze in and the others that stood outside the meeting. Those people were their constituents; those people were concerned. Those people were not organized by us. In fact, I was in Vancouver yesterday and would willingly have gone there to speak, but I was not invited. It was not a Liberal arrangement; it was done by the people themselves, who are concerned.

This government promised that they would bring in a balanced budget. This government has a Minister of Finance who said that he could think of nothing easier to do than balance the budget. Well, he simply can't get it right. This is his second time, and he can't get it right. The right thing to be done now, after yesterday's announcement by the minister to withdraw a critical and important part of that budget -- a change in the taxation methodology, a new tax in British Columbia that was aimed at a particular segment of our people -- is for this government to withdraw the budget, get a new Minister of Finance, prepare a new budget and bring it back -- one that lives up to their promises and one that lives up to the commitment they made to the people of British Columbia to bring out what they call fair taxes.

The embarrassment that one could see on the face of the Minister of Finance on TV yesterday said it all. He knows that he got it wrong; he knows that he has lost the confidence of the people of British Columbia in his role as Minister of Finance; and he knows that he has lost the confidence all members on all sides of this House, even though they will pull their ranks together and not admit to the embarrassment they feel. He should do the honourable thing, which is resign.

V. Anderson: I come fresh from attending a rally of 4,000 British Columbians from Vancouver, Surrey, the North Shore, Port Coquitlam and many areas of the lower mainland. They came so that they might speak to this government. Unfortunately, as far as anyone there was aware, there was no one from the NDP side of this House in attendance.

[ Page 5030 ]

It was interesting that a large percentage of these folks were senior citizens who were demanding their inherent right to protect the ownership of their homes. They are afraid that on the one hand the signs that are going to appear on their front lawns may read: "Evicted by the government"; or, on the other hand, for couples with mothers who have attempted to stay home and care for their children, the sign will read "Forced to go to work by this government."

These people are indeed concerned. They are willing to pay their proper share of the government's finances in this province. However, they are unwilling to have their pockets picked in order for this government to increase spending and to continue to put us into a deficit position and increase debt financing.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: Members on the other side are mocking the citizens who met last night. We shall see who has the last word.

On budget day I listened carefully to the Minister of Finance. That same evening I listened to Premier Harcourt for an hour on television as he tried to answer questions from callers. Then I sat at the kitchen table and reviewed those documents. Do you know what I discovered, hon. Speaker? The budget was only half there. Any budget worth its salt has two full sides: the expenditure side and the income side, and the sources of that income. The sources of both the income and the expenditures are only half there.

It is true that if one goes to the appendices of the report made available to members of the Legislature, one can find more details. However, most of this information is unavailable to the citizens of the province in any real way. So the budget comes across as a slick selling job, very similar to that of the carnival medicine man selling his cure-all. Many will buy it, but no one will be helped by it. Even the budget's priorities are misleading: health, education and social services are targeted as the key elements; of course, jobs and the economy and economic income come fourth and fifth.

[10:30]

The underlying focus is supposed to be on the people. It would be great if this were so. What the budget doesn't say is more important than what it does say. It doesn't say anything about the environment, forestry, mining, grain farming, fruit growing or ranching. It doesn't say anything of importance about tourism, commerce, trade or business development. It doesn't say anything about immigration or research and technology. It doesn't say anything about community development or aboriginal contributions. It doesn't say anything about sport and recreation, culture or multiculturalism. It doesn't say anything truly supportive of children and youth, of families and their services. It doesn't say anything helpful about those with terminal illnesses, disabilities or language handicaps.

This budget is a shallow philosophical statement that tries to say that everyone will be dealt with fairly by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What it says instead is that we will take from everyone and return a little bit to some so that they will in turn thank us for not taking quite so much, even though in the end everyone will be poorer. Even those on guaranteed union wages, as well as those on GAIN, will be poorer. When I say poorer, I mean it in the broadest sense: physically, economically, socially and spiritually.

This budget talks about what people have or will have, not about what people are. A 1960s National Film Board film called Indian Dialogue contains the reflections of some aboriginal peoples about their place in Canadian society. It begins with the words of a young aboriginal person who comments, as I remember it: "The Indian agent is always saying that we can become something. He never says we are someone." This budget is saying the same thing about the people of B.C. It says that we might become something, which it doesn't define, rather than saying that we are someone, each and every one important, and each and every one invaluable in our own right, here and now.

This budget talks of people's value only in monetary terms, which, though important, is the least of the real values that anyone possesses. We are not important because of what we own; we are important because of who we are. This significant dimension is missing in the budget. A quote being bandied around in the political discussions these days is that one may have style without substance. That's a good description of this budget: style without substance, and not even that much style.

Take health, for instance. This government is doing to the health community what the Socred government did to the education community ten years ago. It is undermining the confidence, trust and respect for the health professionals and health institutions, and it is attempting to destroy them one by one. It reminds us of the hunter who stands hidden from view and shoots down the flock one by one, until they are all gone.

While the whole world looks to us as having one of the best health programs in existence, we're told that it must be torn apart and redesigned by those who know better than us, or by the health specialists. Health professionals are made to look greedy and self-centered. In truth, they are no different from the rest of us. They are committed to doing their jobs in difficult circumstances.

Money is not the key element in a health system. The key element is the trust of individuals who work together as a team, which enables me to entrust my life to their care and treatment. All the money in the world cannot buy trust. The trust and confidence in our health system that is being lost will take years to regain, and the more confrontation, the longer it will take. Our crisis in health care at this point is not primarily a crisis in dollars; it is a crisis in confidence. This budget does nothing to meet that crisis. Indeed, it greatly magnifies the crisis. The government is not delivering the mediation process it promised.

What about education? As we know, the previous Social Credit government eroded and undermined our educational system in many unconscionable ways. Time and time again our former Premier, while in government, denounced our teachers. The system was thrown into continuous flux. The teachers were 

[ Page 5031 ]

deprofessionalized, and teachers, principals and vice-principals were separated into opposition camps. Schools became settings for conflicts over rights without regard to responsibilities, and strikes became the order of the day. Those in the education system, as is happening now in the health system, were expected to do more and more with less and less. Cooperative home and school associations were disbanded and replaced by a variety of uncertain processes. All this and more happened before this government took over. Indeed, a large part of the "success" of this government in the 1991 election was due to teachers believing that this government would rectify this unfortunate history. Neither last year's budget nor this year's has given any indication that that trust was justified. The situation has grown progressively worse, and teachers in their own turn have picketed the NDP convention just as they picketed the Social Credit conventions.

University and college students were cut out of summer jobs by this government. Tuition fees have increased by 9 to 10 percent, and they will go higher with the present practices. There are not enough seats to meet the demands, and the promised new spaces will in no way be sufficient, even for the present demand. It's only a drop in the bucket. The future needs are not being taken into account.

High school students clearly point out that they are caught in a confused value system. What shall they choose as a future? It's a difficult question when there are no jobs available to them. Indeed, they are being told they will have six or seven careers in their lifetime. If the practices of this government continue, there will probably be periods of unemployment between each of them, and there will be no portable securities. So unrest is growing in the high schools. Teachers are threatened and educational values are diminished. This is the legacy of this government for the future -- an uncertain and disappointing legacy.

This last week in the Premier's own riding I was reminded of a very sobering fact. Because of the lifestyles of many -- not of their own choosing -- their physical and mental health has been so damaged they are literally unable to be retrained to hold a job in a technological age. Indeed, many of them are born with these conditions. Whereas in former generations they would die early, fortunately they now continue to live, but our communities are not prepared for them. Prevention for these people is already too late. The budget fails to give them any significant support.

In our educational system today, children are becoming the pawns of "working conditions." In the struggle to do what is best in the interests of the student, everyone's interest except the students is often receiving priority. Parents and teachers are becoming protagonists, and community schools that bring them together in cooperative funding are being threatened. Teachers fulfilling only parts of their contracts on a daily basis are being paid full time, and the government makes no complaint.

Yes, portable classrooms are a problem, but this problem is nothing compared to the unease and lack of harmonious relationship between all those involved in education. Just look at the community strife because of the strikes in education presently underway. A house does not a home make, nor a school building of itself an educational reality. There is much more involved than this.

This government says it puts people first, and gives priority in this budget to buildings and courthouses. Is this the government's answer to education -- to build more courthouses? Is this the government's promise to prevention -- to build more courthouses? I think it is easy to see that the priorities are wrongly placed.

What about their third priority, social services? This very significant portion of our community also demonstrates the inadequacy of this budget, for it offers no real hope of betterment. Indeed, it does not even promise to maintain the status quo. People are in need of support services for a variety of reasons: family dislocation, physical and emotional stress, and lack of job skills or job opportunities.

[10:45]

The economic plan fails to confront the basic causes and fails to provide any long-term or short-term solutions. It is basically more of the same: a maintenance program at best. It maintains the status quo, except that the multitude of tax increases falls hardest on those who are least able to pay. The ability to be self-sufficient is the goal of most people, and the ability to support this goal must be the focus of this government. Not only will individuals and families be healthier, but communities will be as well.

This government appears to have more concern for its own philosophical stance than with community development. Current educational and job-training programs are, for the most part, too few and too short. To turn oneself around takes time and growth. Six-week or six-month courses are useless, except for already-skilled persons who need an update or a minor redirection of skills. Employment and training consultants are more important than watchdog financial workers. The consultant process is a highly skilled undertaking that is built on respect, understanding and patience.

However, even if one does develop the skills through an adequate educational process, the present budget fails to provide a sustainable job market for these skills. Employment in government is not the answer. Employment in private businesses is the only way to go, and there is little or no support for job creation. The government says they created new jobs last year -- some 2,800 new jobs, I believe. But nowhere do they say how many jobs were lost last year and what the net result was. I am sure it was negative. The increased unemployment rate clearly answers the question.

What we have been talking about here is in reference to full-time, adequately paid, sustainable jobs with the relevant benefits that are expected by all fully employed workers. For many, full-time jobs are not a realistic alternative, but part-time jobs with the relevant employee benefits are. The government does not encourage this by providing mixed programs of work and support. Only in a very small way are they attempting to acknowledge this need. This at the moment is probably the greatest opportunity to improve employability and to benefit the small business person in 

[ Page 5032 ]

particular. Part-time work has the possibility of growing into full-time work or of, in itself, stabilizing individual and family lifestyle. It is a valid re-entry possibility for many who would economically and socially benefit if government allowed them to undertake this process without, as it currently does, taking for the government coffers much of what is earned -- even from those who are receiving social assistance.

Hon. Speaker, paid employment is not, for the moment, feasible except in specialized circumstances. Many of these circumstances will depend on individually tailored programs with a high degree of computer support. Much of the effort can be and will be undertaken by the volunteer sector with government cooperation, but this cooperation is not easily accessible.

Again, I have to stress that finances are not the primary issue, but rather vision and commitment to support communities in what they can do best. This budget does not provide the framework for community networking. This focus on working with community has been acknowledged and then ignored. Community planning focuses on the local elected municipal councils. This budget indicates no process to develop plans for local community development in response to these councils. This is perhaps the greatest flaw in the whole government process. Instead, the government appears to develop programs independently and then to say to local councils: take this or else. Health councils and health clinics are the latest to be imposed. The inefficiency in this system is demonstrated again and again in the uncertainty that's caused within communities. This government is attempting to perpetuate the Social Credit process. I cannot understand why they would do this. Let me be fairer. Whereas the Social Credit government tended to ignore the local community, this government does not do that. Instead, in its wisdom, it forces programs on communities which are not prepared to endorse them.

You have to ask about the priorities of this government in other areas. They have eliminated the B.C. Youth Council -- and from the Minister of Advanced Education's presentation this morning, they are even proud of it -- and the Justice Development Commission. Yet they have said nothing about how they are going to better respond in opportunities for youth or the development of justice in our society. Both of these are crucial areas. However, the budget does not include them. What, if anything, will replace these programs, except courthouses? Does it simply mean that they are no longer of importance? How could youth and justice not be crucial issues?

There is no meaningful reference to another crucial area: negotiations with aboriginal peoples. This has to be a significant budget item in the planning of B.C.'s future. Agreements must be reached very soon and in all fairness on commitments made to aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. All British Columbians need to be involved in a process which they understand and can support -- a holistic process, a process of consensus-making and of growth together. Instead, we hear of increasing unease and skepticism. We have a lot of unfortunate history to overcome. There are many past areas of action to admit and much healing to be done on all sides. This issue cannot be a side issue; it must be up front in the agenda. Yet this budget makes no mention of provisions for this urgent priority.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The attack on our senior citizens is particularly deplorable, since it appears that this government has not been aware of the implications of their draconian measures. A pensioner in B.C. who has lived in the family home all her married life will soon have to put a sign on the front yard saying: "Evicted by the B.C. government." On a fixed income, this person cannot afford to pay the exorbitant tax increase caused by this government. And a couple with children, where the wife has chosen to be a full-time homemaker, will have a sign on the home saying: "Forced out by the B.C. government."

These are valid concerns that we need to challenge this government on. Why did this government, in its desire to tax the rich, which perhaps has some merit in some circumstances, not provide other ways than taxing those who cannot afford to pay, threatening the very homes that are their security and heritage? Our office is being flooded with requests and protests. We should be dealing with other matters rather than having to respond continually to the results of the uncertainty inflicted upon the people by this government.

I acknowledge that this government has set aside a Citizenship Week in April. However, one week a year to focus on our identity as Canadians and British Columbians will not suffice. This government has not given us an opportunity to be fully involved in our privileges as Canadian citizens. The government has failed to give leadership in this budget towards developing a harmonious, creative, vibrant Canadian culture with a distinctive west coast flavour. I must vote for the amendment and will vote against the budget.

The Speaker: In the very short time that is left before we must vote on the amendment, I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby North.

B. Jones: Thank you for recognizing me, Hon. Speaker, but inasmuch as I've known you for ten years, I'd be surprised if you didn't recognize me.

I've been strategically placed in this debate to bring some enlightenment to the parliamentary opposition -- and to the extra-parliamentary opposition: those people who are using the taxpayers of the West End of Vancouver to organize large meetings, like the one last night organized by Gordon Campbell. I noticed that the Leader of the Official Opposition wasn't invited to that meeting. Perhaps he's not aware of the coalitionbuilding that's going on in this province.

They say that a week is a long time in politics. It was only a week ago today, the day following the Academy Awards, that Budget '93 was introduced. We also had some sterling performances in this chamber. As the curtain went up on budget day, we first of all had question period with that new, tough official opposi-

[ Page 5033 ]

tion. We must remember, though, that they were only in understudy roles in the last session of the Legislature, so it's quite understandable that the academy did not feel the performances of the warmup act really warranted honourable mention. The main feature, of course, was the Minister of Finance.

Perhaps it is time for the vote. I notice that it's 11 o'clock. I would be happy to take my place after the vote.

[11:00]

The Speaker: According to the agreement reached by the House, we will now vote on the amendment. I will read the motion for the members:

"Be it resolved that the motion 'That the Speaker do now leave the chair' for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: ", but this House regrets that the government has seen fit to siphon an additional $1 billion out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia, further impairing the fragile economic recovery of the province; and furthermore, that the budget continues to hamper the development of a healthy, diversified provincial economy through its interventionist, ideologically-driven spending measures."

Amendment negatived on the following division.

On the main motion.

B. Jones: As I was saying before that very close vote, the budget speech came down the day after the Academy Awards. There were some sterling performances in the House, and I mentioned the warmup act, but the main feature, of course, was that of the feisty, young East-Ender in a starring role as Finance Minister. It's a very difficult role, but he turned in a very strong, mature performance. He performed under great pressure from members opposite and under great adversity while delivering his budget speech. In fact, we had both parties, both Heckle and Jeckle, giving the minister a very difficult time in their display of rapier wit, of quick one-liners and of scintillating repartee in the finest traditions of our British parliamentary system. But the minister did not waver; in fact, he only left his script at one point, and that's when he said he hoped the members opposite would remember to vote against increases in terms of taxes for schools and hospitals in their ridings.

Some hecklers on that occasion were wearing a button. I think the button said: "No new taxes." I think it would have been more honest if the button had said: "No new taxes, no cuts at Shaughnessy Hospital, no deficit, no taxes on the wealthy and no capital borrowing for roads, schools and hospitals." But that would have been too much on a single button, so I suggest that a button for members of the official opposition have 'Government in waiting' -- with a line through it: 'Government in waiting, not.' However, the moment you've all been waiting for, of course, is the Academy Award for the best actor in the starring performance on that occasion. That award goes to the Leader of the Official Opposition -- or should I say the interim Leader of the Official Opposition? -- who also serves as Finance critic, harkening back to days of old. He received that award because his performance was delivered with great dignity while delivering some of the most difficult and inspiring lines this chamber has ever heard. Let me quote some of those lines.

He started out by saying: "I...am shocked by the budget introduced today." Then: "...this government is shackling the next generation in debtors' chains before they can even walk." Then he went on to talk about his suggestion of slashing jobs to control the debt. He even went into some very difficult areas, such as pulling legs off stone crabs. He ended up with a line which I'm sure I'm going to fumble, because it's such a challenging line. I would never receive the Academy Award. He ended by saying: "So much of this budget that we've just heard was slopped out of the bucket during the past few days that I was really surprised to find today how much swill still remained at the bottom of the pail." Members opposite obviously know what that means -- it escapes me. But those were the difficult lines of the starring performance. I'm sure that those lines reverberated not only off the lips of members of the opposition but also around this province. They will go down in the history of this chamber as stirring words to remember the '93 budget by.

I would suggest that we get real and not think about those kinds of histrionics and performances, because they were lines about a budget that I think is best described as firm, fair and fiscally responsible. Why do I say firm? It's firm in the sense that the budget achieves efficiencies in our health care system. Members opposite and the Rafe Mairs of the world don't think it's firm enough; they want more pain. I would ask those members: how many Shaughnessys do you want to see in this province? Have you talked to any of the 

[ Page 5034 ]

employees at Shaughnessy and experienced the tremendous frustration that they've talked about?

Interjections.

B. Jones: I think it's wonderful that you understand the kind of difficulty and pain that those employees are experiencing. With a 10 percent reduction in force in the health care sector, in the hospital sector, over the next three years -- 4,800 positions reduced, and achieved cooperatively....

It's a budget that's firm in the sense of eliminating 5 percent of senior management, freezing deputy ministers' and MLAs' salaries and the salaries of senior management in Crown corporations and cutting the special allowance given to cabinet ministers and the Premier by 5 percent.

I wrote a letter the other day to the interim Leader of the Official Opposition. I suggested to that member, who receives exactly the same special allowance as a cabinet minister -- $39,000 -- that he should follow the leadership of the government in this and voluntarily take a 5 percent cut in his special allowance. I haven't heard back from that member -- not to my knowledge anyway. If he has responded, and I hope he has, I'm anxious to see his response. I expect that member, who I know is an honourable member, to do the honourable thing and follow the leadership of this government by taking a 5 percent cut in his special allowance. I'm sure that member will do that. However, if he doesn't, then I think all the words about concern for the deficit, concern for the budget and concern about taxes are merely empty rhetoric, because roughly one-third of the ministries in this province have taken a cut, as have those cabinet ministers. So this is a budget that is firm. It does meet the challenges of the tough economic times that we face.

[11:15]

I said it was firm, fair and fiscally responsible. Why do I say fair? It's fair because the revenue measures are targeted to raise revenue from those most able to bear those increased taxes. It's also targeted to assist the working poor of this province by ensuring that there are no tax increases for those individuals. So it's targeted to individuals with the greatest ability to pay and to assist those with the least ability to pay. It's targeted to provide modest increases in the priorities that all British Columbians share in with regard to health and education.

It's also targeted to those 3,500 small businesses, and I know the member opposite would appreciate the assistance with regard to the changes to the corporation capital tax that the budget provides. It has also targeted $80 million to assist those who are, unfortunately, on income assistance at this time to get off income assistance and to enter the labour market. So it's fair, because it's a targeted budget.

I also said it's fiscally responsible. While modest increases are provided for health care and schools, what everybody has been talking about for months has been deficit. What have we seen in this budget regarding the deficit? We have seen a 40 percent reduction in the deficit in two years. That deficit was inherited by this government a year and a half ago. It was $2.4 billion. Last year that deficit went down to just below $2 billion. In this budget we will see a deficit of $1.5 billion at the end of this fiscal year. For the last year the major concern we heard has been deficit reduction. This government delivered a 40 percent deficit reduction in two years. But we don't hear about that anymore. The gears shift. They don't want to talk about the deficit.

So we do have a fiscally responsible budget; a budget that's fair and a budget that's firm. By any objective analysis -- not a partisan analysis, not an analysis of vested interests who are only concerned about power, those objective observers who know a little bit about budgets, a little bit about the economy and a little bit about the difficult circumstances the province faces -- when taken as a whole, this budget is one that fits the times that we live in. It is firm, fair and fiscally responsible.

I do expect the opposition to understand that, but I don't expect them to agree with that analysis. Their duty, quite naturally, is to oppose. And that's an important part of our British parliamentary tradition. It's natural, particularly for the most inexperienced members, to overreact in their zeal and enthusiasm.

This week they're talking about overtaxation of British Columbians. Well, that won't be the story next week. Do you know what we'll hear next week? We'll talk about underfunding. In fact, we'll talk about underfunding for the next three months in the remainder of debates on estimates, other debates, private members' statements and bills. Constant reference will be made to: "There's not enough in this budget for the hospital in my region or for schoolchildren in my region." That's what we'll hear. Day after day last year the cry from member after member was: "Spend more." But at budget time....

K. Jones: From your side as well as our side....

B. Jones: From that member and from other members, "Spend more!" was the cry. But for the two weeks during the budget period we hear quite a different tune. It's a very convenient and interesting approach, but it's not a consistent one. That's okay. That's what oppositions do, and everybody understands that. Those members have to understand that they can't have it both ways. They can't call for radical cutbacks by slashing jobs at budget time and then ask for increased funding for the rest of the year. It doesn't work that way.

I have a difficult time believing some of the comments I hear from the Rafe Mairs, the members opposite, the extraparliamentary opposition, the parliamentary opposition, the Leader of the Social Credit Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition about such things as class warfare. They suggest that wealthy British Columbians might consider moving elsewhere, where their hard efforts to bring in income would be more appreciated. I wonder what's in the minds of the Rafe Mairs and the Leader of the Social Credit Party when they suggest that people move elsewhere. Are they suggesting that they move to the United States? If they're thinking about moving anywhere else in 

[ Page 5035 ]

Canada, I don't think they've had a look at such simple things as the budget of B.C. If they looked at pages 84, 85 and 86 of the budget, they would see what taxes exist in other parts of this great country. Except for Alberta, which has a $2 billion deficit this year, British Columbia is a virtual tax haven compared to other jurisdictions in this country. British Columbia is the Bahamas of Canada, next to Alberta.

Interjection.

B. Jones: It doesn't matter which tax you're talking about. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about provincial personal income tax -- which, except for Alberta, is the lowest. Have a look at pages 84, 85 and 86. Look at them. Get the budget out so you know what you're talking about. It's the lowest in British Columbia -- except for Alberta -- and those taxes are half those of Quebec and Saskatchewan.

On the corporation capital tax that we've heard so much about, of the five provinces that have a corporation capital tax, British Columbia, the only one that has a three-year holiday for new investment, has the lowest rate of any of the five. The gasoline tax, except for Alberta, is the lowest in the country, and is substantially lower than most other provinces. The retail sales tax is the lowest in Canada, except for Alberta, which doesn't have a retail sales tax. The only tax in British Columbia that is substantially higher than other provinces is -- guess what? -- the tobacco tax. I haven't heard any great cries of complaint about the tobacco tax. The only tax in British Columbia that is substantially higher than other provinces is the tobacco tax.

It doesn't matter what tax level you're at -- whether you're single, whether you're married, whether you're earning $25,000 a year, whether you're on a pension or whether you're earning over $80,000 a year. We've heard a lot of concern about high-income earners and the taxes they pay in this province. Well, have a look at page 85 in this year's budget, because there's a summary there of all the provincial taxes: income tax, property tax, retail sales tax, fuel tax, provincial direct taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes. It compares every province in Canada.

It is true that if that unattached individual at an $80,000 income moved to Alberta, they would pay $1,800 less in overall tax. However, if they moved to Saskatchewan, they would pay $2,600 more; if they moved to Manitoba, they would pay $3,700 more; if they moved to Ontario, they would pay $3,600 more; if they moved to Quebec, they would pay $7,500 more; if they moved to New Brunswick, they would pay $1,100 more; if they moved to Nova Scotia, they would pay $2,100 more; if they moved to P.E.I., they would pay $1,500 more, and if they moved to Newfoundland they would pay $4,000 more. Every province in Canada except Alberta has higher taxes for the wealthy than does British Columbia. Health care premiums, payroll taxes, direct taxes, fuel taxes, retail sales taxes, property taxes -- and for an $80,000 income, that's a two-storey executive mansion. It doesn't matter about age, income, whether you're married -- double income, single income -- B.C. has low taxes compared to the rest of Canada. I don't think anybody wants to move to the socialist bastions where they tax the rich more in Ontario or Quebec. Anybody who says that class warfare is happening in British Columbia or that people should consider moving....

Interjections.

B. Jones: Your leader is talking about them moving. Last year 70,000 people moved to this province, so it's neither responsible nor accurate to suggest that people leave this province or to talk about class warfare.

The leader of the Social Credit Party talks about spending being out of control. When we have a 3 percent increase in population, 4 percent inflation and a budget that comes in under 6 percent, that's nonsense. Those members opposite know about red ink. They know that during the eighties -- do you remember the eighties? -- eight out of ten budgets saw the red ink flowing. When the leader of the Social Credit Party sat on this side of the House, we saw our first provincial budget together in 1987. I bet he doesn't remember that budget. Guess what happened in that year to personal income tax? It went from 44 percent to 51.5 percent of federal income tax. But 7.5 percentage points isn't a 7.5 percent increase; it's a 17.5 percent increase. That raised $185 million in 1987, which would probably be $300 million in 1992 dollars. Compare that to no increase in the personal income tax rate for citizens of this province.

And guess what they did with the wealth surtax at that time? They eliminated it, which put the burden on middle- and low-income earners. They knew they wanted to create a haven for the wealthy in British Columbia.

What happened to the corporation tax? What did the friends of small business and the friends of the car dealers do to the corporate tax on small business? They increased it from 8 percent to 11 percent in that budget; that was a 37 percent increase. That raised an additional $25 million from the mom-and-pop stores on the margin, which are trying to make ends meet and to make a payroll. You know about that. Compare that to this budget, in which there is no increase in the corporate tax on small business. In 1987 Social Credit raised the gasoline tax by 2 cents per litre; compare that to 1 cent. They increased the hotel room tax from 7 percent to 8 percent; that's a 14 percent increase. That's really wonderful for tourism.

Let's think about new taxes. Guess what the big granddaddy of all new taxes that I've seen in my tenure in this chamber is? The big granddaddy of new taxes is the property purchase tax, which raised $140 million that year. That would easily be $250 million now. That budget was targeted so that the middle class would pay more. That's the big granddaddy. Even with all those wonderful tax increases, they still couldn't balance the budget in 1987. Now there's a budget worthy of criticism: the 1987 budget.

So let's get real. It doesn't matter whether we compare the budget to other budgets in this province or we look at taxation in other provinces of this country. If 

[ Page 5036 ]

we're talking about objective analysis, then we will come to the conclusion that this budget is firm, fair and fiscally responsible.

[11:30]

What are members opposite offering? Well, the Liberals have given up liberalism. They've joined the New Right. Or they've joined the Old Right; they're the New Right. What are they saying? They're saying that they're opposed to a balanced approach. They want to get into hacking and slashing. They're opposed to progressive taxation. They don't want the wealthy to pay their fair share. They understand Milton Friedman; they understand the Fraser Institute. There must be osmosis going from you guys over to those guys.

They said that the health care accord is a sweetheart deal and that a 4,800 reduction in force is not enough. They said we need more layoffs and more health care workers losing their jobs. They're cleverly saying the sweetheart deal must say that health care workers are underworked and overpaid. They're saying that health care workers, provincial employees and school teachers are underworked and overpaid.

They want the meat-cleaver approach. They want to slash jobs. That's brilliant; that's going to help unemployment, help reduce income assistance and create a very positive business climate for British Columbia. But we saw that movie years back. We've seen Reaganonomics; we've seen restraint. We don't need to go back to those days.

We hear talk about tax room. I think those hon. members opposite think that because we have 1 percent less unemployment than the Canadian average, we have unemployment room and we should unemploy thousands and thousands of British Columbians so we'll get up to the unemployment levels of the rest of Canada. Maybe we'll even get back to the unemployment levels when restraint was in this country, when we had 1.5 percent greater unemployment than the Canadian average. They have no objective analysis of their supposed alternative. They don't remember how that kind of prolonged restraint approach hurt the British Columbia economy and they have no understanding of the current situation.

The meat-cleaver approach, the hack-and-slash approach, is the alternative. At least they offer an alternative. I was critical last year when I said they weren't offering an alternative. Now we see the hack-and-slash alternative, but a proven, failed alternative is not an alternative. We don't need to return to those good old days where a weak Premier, propped up with a tough-guy image, brought in a right-wing agenda that abolished the human rights branch, the human rights commission and the rentalsman and undermined unemployment standards in this province while finding money for megaprojects. We don't need that pain and suffering; we don't need that sledgehammer approach. We need the skill and sensitivity of the kind of arrangement that we see in the health care accord.

I'm proud to see that this government has brought a balanced approach to the difficult economic situation that we face; I'm proud to see a lowering of the deficit; I'm proud to see new directions in health care; I'm proud to see a targeting of tax increases and decreases to where they will do the most good; I'm proud to see the provision of modest increases in health care and schooling; I'm proud to see that those changes that have to take place are being done with skill, precision and strategy; and I'm proud to see that we have a province served by a government that wants to see a balanced, fair and fiscally responsible budget.

Hon. D. Miller: It certainly is a pleasure to follow the member for Burnaby North. I'm afraid that he has captured the essential elements of the debate, and I'm going to be forced to repeat some of those very cogent arguments made by him.

Whether I will have any success in trying to convince the opposition to pay closer attention is, I suppose, a matter of some conjecture. But let me say, having spent a considerable number of years on that side of the House.... I think, by the way, that one of the things that should be a prominent feature of any parliamentary democracy is a strong opposition. So despite some problems, I certainly wish them well in trying to get to that stage.

Certainly there's an old adage in parliamentary democracy that asks what the role of the opposition is, and it was summed up by a more famous parliamentarian than I, who said: "It is to oppose." And I recognize that in opposing the budget, much of what has been said is simply for the sake of opposition. I would simply add one more caveat, and that is that it seems to me the role of the opposition is to oppose and to oppose in a responsible manner.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: We were always responsible in opposition -- and, I might add, effective.

An Hon. Member: That's why there's a $2.4 billion deficit.

Hon. D. Miller: Now the hon. member wants to blame us for a deficit incurred by the previous administration -- because we were so effective. Now that's really claiming credit. Nonetheless, I'd like to get on to the budget, because that's what we're here to talk about.

Listening to some of the speakers, one would conclude that we live in a state of perpetual crisis in British Columbia -- in perhaps one of the worst venues in the world -- that our people are generally suffering, that somehow we're saddled with debts and that our society has ceased to function in a rational manner. The hyperbole that I hear coming from that side of the House is nothing short of amazing. Let's try to put some issues in context, and let's try to look at the budget in a more rational way. I want to try to make five points with respect to the budget that I think are fairly fundamental.

Starting out with the statement that in British Columbia -- as in all other provinces in this nation and, in fact, in the western world -- we live with some very difficult issues. There was a summary last week -- I think in the Sun -- that had a sort of capsulized 

[ Page 5037 ]

comment on every province in Canada and the difficulties that each is generally facing as a government with respect to budgeting. Right across this country, to lesser or greater degrees, the difficulties are the same. And they are also the same at the federal level.

It is generally the case that debt and operating deficits are consuming an ever-increasing part of governments' budgets. Governments generally are facing difficulty in trying to continue to fund institutions that we, as Canadians and as British Columbians, find fundamentally important. Unless action is taken to control that spending and that debt, then we are heading for further impairment of those institutions.

When I talk about those institutions, I'm referring to the fundamental institutions that we hold dear. Medicare is a tenet of faith in this country. No party -- except, I think, the Reform Party, and increasingly the Conservative Party at the federal level -- says it is prepared to undercut medicare. To my knowledge, every other party in this country says medicare is fundamental and must be maintained. The basis of medicare is that your standing in our society, whether or not you have wealth, will not be a barrier to receiving good quality medical care. It's a fundamental tenet.

We find that the proportion of the budget that has to be spent to maintain that system is expanding at a rate that clearly tells us something has to change. You have the choice, it seems to me. You have to recognize that the change is necessary; you've got to have the courage to face that change; and you have to involve your citizens in managing that change. Having said that, I am absolutely appalled at the spurious criticism coming from the opposition benches. In trying to manage change in the health care field and deal with the difficult issues facing communities, at times we have to reduce acute care beds and at times we have to close hospitals. I'm appalled that the opposition would rather take advantage of the fear of change by trying to exploit it than assist in managing that change. All this tells me is that they are not yet capable of being government.

How do you control costs? One way is by some fundamental restructuring. The other way.... I note the comments starting to be made by the people running for leadership of the Conservative Party, the stale statement that they're going to cut spending; they're not going to cut spending. They're talking about it because they want to attract votes. The way to control deficits is to control the expansion rate of spending over time.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm being heckled by the Socred member for Prince George-Omineca. He supported a government that increased provincial spending by 12 percent for three years in a row. I'm afraid that that party has lost the right to criticize this government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Would the minister take his seat.

The Chair has been fairly flexible this morning, but members are aware that we cannot have conversations going back and forth across the floor. All members will have an opportunity to participate in the debate, but at this time the Minister of Forests does have the floor.

C. Serwa: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, you failed to mention to the hon. minister that his responsibility is to address you, not to debate members across the floor of the House.

The Speaker: That's always a good reminder to all members as well.

Hon. D. Miller: I really am delighted that I've appeared to energize the opposition benches, which were really kind of flat this morning.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I humbly apologize if I gave any appearance of arrogance. It's not within my nature.

[11:45]

I was saying that the way to deal with the issues of the debt and the deficit is by controlling spending over time. If anybody in Canada thinks that there can be a radical slashing of the budgets, they're kidding themselves. That cannot be. The way to control them is by controlling expenditures over time.

In that respect, I would note that the budget that we have brought in, contrary to the Socred budgets of 12 percent year after year after year.... In our first budget we reduced spending to 7 percent, and now we're down to 5.7 percent. We are controlling the rate of the expansion in spending over time, and that is the wisest. We talk about debt and deficit, and there seems to be a remarkable transformation taking place in this province. All of a sudden people are focusing in on total debt. They're not even taking the time to consider what that debt has purchased. They don't want schools and hospitals, as my colleague for Burnaby North said. They're not taking into account where the money is being spent. I'm surprised that anybody on the other side with municipal experience would make that comment, because that's routine in municipalities. You borrow for capital projects, and you borrow to build hospitals. What are we doing? We're saying that we're going to capitalize some highway spending. We are putting the infrastructure in place now, which leads to a better economy.

If I'm not mistaken, I recall a bill that came into this House in 1983. What was it called? It was called the Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act. They borrowed $350 million for the Coquihalla Highway. Not only that, they overspent the budget by $500 million, and they're now criticizing us. It's just too much.

We have reduced the operating deficit, which is the worst kind of debt. We inherited a horrible burden from those Socreds opposite. We've reduced it over two years 

[ Page 5038 ]

by a significant amount, and we're on target for a deficit of $1.5 billion. Watch our next budget, because it will be going down again. We are managing the economy of this province in a prudent way.

Hon. Speaker, we have maintained critical programs. I hear this contradiction from the opposition all the time. When they go to their constituencies and people say, "We need more money for this and that," I wonder if they say: "Oh no, we shouldn't spend more money." I wonder if, on the other hand, they say: "That's right, that horrible government in Victoria is not giving out any money, and they should be spending it." I think they do that, and they know what I'm talking about. So they're not really being responsible. They like the freedom to criticize, and it's easy to criticize when you don't have responsibility.

We have brought in a budget that combines a good mixture of revenue measures and which distributes those revenue measures in terms of people's ability to pay. When I was home on the weekend in my constituency -- I was in Prince Rupert talking to people -- and they weren't objecting to the 1 percent increase in the sales tax, because they realize that at the same time we've offered that protection for those on the low end. We've offered that $50 rebate. They weren't objecting to that 1 percent, because my constituency recognizes, as other people in this province do, that we must try to contain that deficit. They are prepared to pay their share.

We spread that revenue, that tax load, over the populace in a way that people can afford to pay. What's wrong with someone who makes more money paying a little bit more? Tell me what's wrong with that in our society, when we have people in our province -- and it appalls me, as I'm sure it appalls all members -- living well below the poverty line? We all know of people living in this province in circumstances that we personally would find very undesirable. Yet somehow the notion that we put a tax on those more wealthy British Columbians who have more ability to pay is wrong. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with laying the tax burden equally according to some ability to pay?

Again we get this spurious opposition. Opposition for the sake of opposition is what we're getting from these people over here. What's wrong with increasing expenditures a very modest 5.7 percent to maintain those critical areas in terms of health care and education? We always hear these members saying: "You've got to spend more." We've maintained not a big increase but a fairly modest increase of 3 percent. Where do we get the money from, hon. members, to provide that kind of increase in critical areas like education, so that we can maintain and improve education for our young people? We've taken some from other budgets. My colleagues who have had their budgets reduced are not happy, but they understand the need to sacrifice to maintain important institutions like education and our health care system.

I'm surprised and appalled at the opposition. They oppose just for the sake of opposing. Really, I think there's such a thing as responsible opposition, and I'm waiting, quite frankly, to hear it; I'm waiting to hear the concrete suggestions. All you talk about is spend, spend, spend, and you want to criticize the government for modest increases.

There's nothing wrong with having fair and balanced revenue measures, putting the tax load on those who are most able to pay, providing a reasonable increase in spending in those critical areas like health and education that we know are important for the future and capitalizing some highway projects. Increasing that debt for specific projects makes sense in a tough operating budget, because we think providing the highway infrastructure in northern British Columbia makes sense. It will improve the economic opportunity in northern British Columbia, on Vancouver Island, and wherever we can get those kinds of programs going.

That hon. member wouldn't be opposing if we were going to expand a highway in his riding. He would be out there spotting for the cameras and saying he worked hard to get it. But he wants the right to criticize us for capitalizing some highway expenditures. Mr. Member, you've got to at least try to be consistent.

Hon. Speaker, I apologize; I should be speaking through you.

When and if there are highway projects that we announce and we start on this year, those MLAs on the opposite side will be out there smiling and saying they worked hard to get it. They'll forget about their criticism of capitalizing highway projects, hon. Speaker.

We're making some critical investments in infrastructure in a tough operating environment. Whether they be schools, hospitals, courthouses or highways, they are critical investments that will allow this province to prosper in the future. I'm somewhat baffled by the cacophony of noise I hear coming from the opposition benches -- opposition for opposition's sake. I hope we get some more realistic debate going on some of these critical issues: debt versus deficit. I hope we get some acknowledgment that we're bringing the deficit down and that we will, over time, eliminate the operating deficit. That's the number one target; that's what we should be eliminating in this province. We're spending $1.5 billion in this fiscal year that's simply going into the great maw. It's not buying anything. It's deficit. You've got to get rid of deficit. Debt can be managed over time.

This budget addresses critical issues in British Columbia. It talks about the need to change and outlines where that change is going to take place. It does not avoid the tough issues; it deals with the tough issues and involves our citizens. It's fair taxation. It provides the kind of infrastructure that's going to make this province prosper long into the future and that's making it prosper right now. Over 70,000 people are moving to B.C., saying that it's a desirable place to go. "I want to live in B.C. because they've got a good government. They're managing their province well, and there's opportunity." We're not frightening people away; they're pouring into B.C. I wish that the opposition would stop trying to scare them and would welcome them into this great province, where there's prosperity and opportunity for the future.

I'm looking forward to some more detailed debate in estimates when we get into the real nuts and bolts of our budgets. We'll see what they oppose then. I know 

[ Page 5039 ]

that the forestry critics for the opposition parties are going to stand up and hammer me because I'm not spending enough money. I guarantee it. Stay tuned for forestry estimates. I'm reading Hansard. I've noted every word that the opposition has said. I'll bring it up when we get into my estimates and they say to me: "Miller, you've got to spend more money out there." I apologize for using my own name, hon. Speaker.

This budget faces the tough issues. Governments in this day and age require the courage that it takes to face those issues, to provide the leadership it takes to face those issues, and to treat our citizens fairly. And this budget does that, in spades.

In view of the time, I move that we adjourn the debate.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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