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)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 8, Number 18
[ Page 5073 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
R. Chisholm: Visiting us today are approximately 70 grade 12 students from Sardis Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. See, and several other adults. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the Legislature, where they will get a firsthand look at democracy in action.
Hon. T. Perry: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Ms. Tracy Farrell, a graduate of the great University of Victoria who has been working in my office as the front-line person handling the telephone calls and incoming mail.
P. Dueck: I am pleased to introduce a constituent of mine, Mr. Jake Thiessen. He is the sales representative of Westform. Would the House please make him welcome.
H. Giesbrecht: I have the pleasure to make an introduction on behalf of the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. With us in the gallery today are three of her constituents from Smithers. Would the House please join me in making Don and Marion Knoerr welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today are some students from Mount Douglas Senior Secondary School in my riding, along with their principal, Mrs. Gloria Metzger and some guests from Hong Kong. I would ask the members to make them welcome.
H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two special ladies from our community: Corrinne Wright, director for electoral area A in the Central Fraser Valley Regional District; and Kathleen Tarabas, who has been employed by the Central Fraser Valley Regional District. I would ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.
F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today is a longtime friend of mine who is a teacher and a member of my constituency executive, and I'd like you to make her welcome: Betty Ann Russell.
D. Jarvis: I'd like the members to give a rousing hand to a former member of this House who is in the precincts, Mr. Gordon Gibson.
PROPERTY SURTAX
F. Gingell: By backing down and eliminating the surtax, the Minister of Finance has cut budgeted revenues for this fiscal year by $37 million. Will the Premier commit today that he will instruct the Minister of Finance to cut budgeted expenses by $37 million instead of looking for another pocket to pick or bank to borrow the money from?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the question was directed to the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance has already spoken on this matter. What the Minister of Finance has said is what this side of the House believes: we will ask everybody involved in the government to tighten their belt.
HOMEOWNER GRANT
F. Gingell: This budget wasn't fair when it was brought down, and it isn't fair now. The Minister of Finance should appreciate that he has the same problem with the homeowner grant reductions as he had with the property surtax. Will the Premier recommend to the Minister of Finance that he amend the homeowner's grant reduction to be calculated only on the value of the buildings and not on the value of the land?
Well, I don't know what to say. The Premier has no response to a sensible, thoughtful, worthwhile proposal to make this more fair. When is the assault on the pocketbooks and the capital of seniors, who have lived in our communities for 40 or 50 years, ever going to stop?
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair does not perceive a question there, and the Chair has not heard....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please! Would the hon. member please address the question to a particular member of the executive council.
F. Gingell: The question I'm asking is: why won't you consider a reasonable amendment to make this fair, instead of continuing to waste the pension money of seniors?
SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL CLOSURE
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Vancouver General Hospital has now joined the thousands of concerned citizens challenging the wisdom, fairness and cost benefit of closing Shaughnessy Hospital. The government persists in using unaudited figures, proclaiming savings of $30 million. This is the same government that said the health accord would cost $50 million, when the hospitals say it will cost ten times more. Will the minister table any cost studies that categorically support the closing of Shaughnessy? If these are not available, will the minister admit that this is the wrong decision?
Hon. E. Cull: Once again we see that side of the House telling us to cut spending, and then as soon as we make a wise decision to move services closer to the majority of British Columbians and to move in new directions in health care, they start complaining. The decision to reallocate services from the old Shaugh-
[ Page 5074 ]
nessy Hospital building will allow us to reinvest $40 million of savings in hospitals in the high-growth areas of the province; it will allow a much-needed expansion of Children's Hospital; and it will allow us to follow the commitment of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, which said we should move services closer to home.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I would ask the cooperation of the House, as the Chair is having difficulty hearing the questions and the answers.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS
L. Reid: A supplemental to the Minister of Health. In the throne speech, this government promised to take health care in a new and positive direction. With this government's newly discovered value of fairness, repeated at every opportunity in this House, is it prepared to provide B.C. doctors with the same access to fair dispute resolution mechanisms as is open to the unions in this province?
Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely. We have said all along that we are willing to negotiate wages and benefits with the BCMA, as we do with every trade union in this province.
L. Reid: No, minister, that is not the message you have sent out. You have said consistently that this issue is about dollars; the BCMA has said consistently that this is about process.
Is the minister today prepared in this House to tell all professional hospital....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I must ask the member to take her seat. I have not heard a word that the member has said, and I would ask the House to come to order so that we can have a somewhat orderly question period.
Member for Richmond East, could you please restate your question.
[2:15]
L. Reid: Is this minister prepared in this House to tell all the professional hospital managers that they are wrong about the cost of the health care accord and that the Finance minister is right?
Hon. E. Cull: I urge the member to have a look at the document that the HLRA is taking out to its members right now. She will see that the numbers correspond exactly with what the Minister of Finance and I have been saying all along.
HOMEOWNER GRANT
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. Senior citizens who own their own homes in British Columbia shouldn't be forced to defer their taxes; they shouldn't be forced to sell their homes. But that's what will happen if the government takes away the homeowner's grant. How does the government reasonably expect seniors to cough up another $745 in property taxes when they can hardly afford the taxes they have now?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If the hon. member would read the budget, he would see that most homeowners are going to get an increase in the homeowner grant.
R. Neufeld: Defer, defer. That's all this government can do. That's their approach to everything: defer the debt; defer spending cuts; buy now, pay later. When will this government realize that British Columbians want real spending cuts, like in Manitoba, not spending increases three times the rate of inflation?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, if the member would read the budget, he would see that almost 30 percent of British Columbians are receiving tax reductions. He would see that MSP premiums have been eliminated for 430,000 families. He would see that there has been a real reduction in per capita spending as part of the GDP, and he would see that there has been a 25 percent reduction in the deficit: $415 million this year. This is a fair and balanced budget. It includes a reduction in the deficit, and it includes benefits for the vast majority of British Columbians. We on this side of the House are proud of it.
R. Neufeld: Mr. Premier, British Columbians are wise to your game. The first step was to wipe out the supplemental homeowner grant...
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: ...and the second was to wipe out the homeowner grant on higher-valued homes. Will the next step of this government be to wipe out the homeowner grant for all British Columbians?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As a matter of fact, we just increased the homeowner grant for most British Columbians.
B.C. FERRY FARES AND SERVICE REDUCTIONS
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. In speaking about ferry service cuts and fare hikes, the minister is quoted in this morning's paper as saying: "It fits in with our overall budget goal of trying to constrain the growth of government. And those elements of government that are spending, we would like to see them as efficient as possible." The government's own third quarterly report indicates a 45 percent increase in administration expenses for B.C. Ferries this year. Is this the minister's definition of constrained growth and efficiency?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I stand by everything that was said in the quote.
[ Page 5075 ]
D. Symons: Another quote. "It will entail service reductions in some areas...." Can the minister detail what reductions are required to pay for the fiscal recklessness of his ministry?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There they go again: speaking on one side of their mouth about constraint and on the other side about increasing costs and services. The service plan for B.C. Ferries for the coming year will be released in due course.
D. Symons: My supplemental is to the Minister of Tourism. The minister proved her ability to change the minds of other ministers on the budget when she realized that her own seat was in the sling, yet she is now silent. Does the minister have any idea what impact these increases in service reductions will have on tourism, and why has she done nothing about it?
The Speaker: The Chair is having difficulty with that being a supplemental.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Supplementals must be supplementals to the answers given on the same topic, hon. member, and the Chair is having difficulty finding that link. Could the hon. member demonstrate how that supplemental grows out of the previous question.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
D. Symons: One of two things, hon. Speaker. The previous question was talking about ferry service reductions. In that sense this is to the minister, because it's going to have some effect upon tourism, and that would be the connection. Otherwise, I would simply rephrase it as a new question to the minister. Either way....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I do appreciate the Chair is somewhat taking up question period and I will extend it accordingly. With that explanation, perhaps the minister would like to address the question.
Hon. D. Marzari: The member is quite correct in suggesting that ferry fares and tourism do go together. However, the member is quite incorrect in assuming that there have been any announcements whatsoever about ferry fares. I would suggest to the member that these issues and this particular issue will be responded to in the fullness of time.
HEU CONTRACT
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Finance. The health care unions have been strangely silent on the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital since the minister paid them off with a contract that could cost this province up to $500 million. Can the minister confirm that that silence was an unwritten proposal of the negotiations, or does he deny that that was part of the discussions at the negotiating table?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I will ask the minister to answer. However, I'm not sure I heard what I heard, because there is too much noise in this House. But I will give the member the benefit of the doubt and assume that the minister did hear a legitimate question, and I ask him to answer.
Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm sure I heard a speech in there somewhere, and it deserves a speech in response.
The Minister of Health met with members of that union from Shaughnessy Hospital, and it was news to us to hear that they are silent on this question. But let me tell you very clearly that we have protected all of the services at Shaughnessy Hospital and have moved them closer to home in the community and in other parts of the growing region. We have protected the workers at that site so we can make the transition smoothly and so we can have workers participate in implementing health care reform. All that's happening is that the building is coming down. Yet on that side of the House, we hear repeatedly: let's save that old building; let's spend $40 million more on that site, rather than on more cost-effective methods of health care reform, on efficient use of tax dollars or on moving health care closer to home, as the Seaton royal commission recommended.
L. Fox: As I'm quickly learning in this House, this is question period; it's certainly not answer period, because we don't get the correct answers to any of the questions.
This negotiated contract between the Finance Minister and those unions has an impact on the budgets of those hospitals that will far exceed his estimates and the estimates of the Health Minister. Who is going to pay the bill when the impact on the hospitals is 4.1 percent and the increase is less than 1 percent in most of the hospitals in this province? Who is going to pick up that bill?
Hon. G. Clark: This is the same member who gets up in the House and demands we cut and slash spending on health care. These budgets are challenging, but they're manageable. The Hospital Labour Relations Association is recommending acceptance of this deal. It saves the taxpayer money, smooths the way for efficient health care reform and gets the workers in the health care field to support reductions and utilization and to work with the hospitals -- for the first time, I might add -- to improve health care outputs and to save the taxpayers money.
[ Page 5076 ]
EFFECT OF THE BUDGET ON THE AUTO INDUSTRY
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The budget is an assault on the auto industry: exemptions for trade-ins are removed; taxes are hiked on new cars; rental car prices will be increased by a new tax; car repairs are hit with new taxes; fuel prices are increased. Did this Finance minister consult with the 10,000 people employed in the car business before introducing these measures? Or were these workers, like property owners, on the NDP's invisible tax list?
Hon. G. Clark: I didn't have to consult, because they're represented very ably in this House. One in four British Columbians received a tax cut in this budget. After this budget, we will have the second-lowest taxes overall in Canada. We have reduced taxes for 600,000 households with a sales tax credit. This is a fair and balanced budget.
HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR FOR DELTA
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to respond to a question taken on notice on my behalf on Friday, April 2; it was posed by the leader of the opposition.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: I know the hon. member wants to hear this answer, since he posed it. The hon. member asked if my ministry and the GVRD had issued permits for a hazardous waste incinerator in Delta. My ministry has issued a permit to Enviro Desorption Inc. for storage and treatment of specific types of contaminated soils. The GVRD has also issued an air emissions permit to the company. The soils that will be treated at this facility consist of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel fuel and fuel oil. No other types of contaminated substances will be treated. The soils will not be incinerated. They will be heated to a point where the gasoline or oil will be vaporized, and the vapours will be treated. There will be no ash byproduct.
The hon. member also asked if public hearings had been held on this issue. My ministry has a very comprehensive procedure in place to ensure proper notification of all parties. In this case this procedure was followed to the letter. When the company first applied for the permit, over a year and a half ago, notices were placed in appropriate newspapers. As well, neighbours on adjacent properties were informed. We received responses from only three members of the public. Each of these people were consulted, and their concerns were addressed to their satisfaction. No further public hearings were needed.
[2:30]
The normal appeal process was also available when the permit was first issued in January of this year. No appeals were filed, either by this member or by anybody else in the community. Delta council and other involved agencies have been consulted. Over the past year and a half a very careful assessment of the proposal was undertaken, and the GVRD issued an air emissions permit.
The permit that was issued under the special waste regulation has extremely strict conditions placed on the permittee, and before full-scale operation of the facility will be authorized a trial demonstration must be successfully completed. The site has had to meet very strict safety and containment standards, and the company has been required to post substantial financial security for any soils stored on site.
The member also inquired whether this was the same type of facility that was turned down by the federal government for the Sumas Indian reserve. Yes, this is the same type of facility. It is my understanding, however, that the reason the federal government rejected the Sumas proposal was because the proponent in that case wanted to be able to treat soils that were contaminated with substances other than hydrocarbons, and that was unacceptable.
The hon. member made reference to a fire at the Sumas site. My staff are not aware of any such occurrence, especially since construction on the proposed facility never even began. I believe the facility in Delta represents a safe and effective way of dealing with these types of waste soils that are being generated in the lower mainland.
Hon. T. Perry tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology for the year 1991-92.
Mr. Lali: I'd like to present a petition bearing 137 signatures. It is from Mr. Bennett's grade 6 class at Ashcroft Elementary School and is promoting world peace. It reads:
Dear Mr. Lali:
"We had a war protest on Monday, November 30, so that we could keep peace in the world. We got people to sign a petition. We are sending this to you so that you will convince the government...to talk to other countries so that we can have world peace. Thanks for your time."
NAFTA PARALLEL ACCORDS
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish to update the House on an issue of critical importance to British Columbia.
K. Jones: Have you given notice?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I have. I've given copies to the opposition; they were delivered.
As you know, the United States, Mexico and Canada recently commenced negotiations on NAFTA parallel accords on the environment and labour -- issues that the current U.S. administration considers to have been unsatisfactorily dealt with in the North American free trade agreement.
[ Page 5077 ]
This government has raised a number of substantive issues about NAFTA. A primary concern deals with the protection of British Columbia's water resources. Regrettably, the federal government has never responded to our request to negotiate an exclusion for bulk water exports in the NAFTA.
The current negotiations of NAFTA parallel accords are being driven by the United States, which has set a deadline of June 1, 1993, for completing negotiations in order to implement the NAFTA by January 1, 1994. These parallel negotiations are of particular concern to Canadian provinces, because they deal with subjects -- labour and the environment -- that are primarily areas of provincial responsibility, and they are important public policy issues for British Columbia. Officials from my ministry, from Labour and Consumer Services and from Environment, Lands and Parks were in Ottawa in late March to be briefed on the first session of the trilateral discussions. Provincial officials are also in Ottawa today for another federal-provincial meeting on the parallel accord negotiations.
Despite the lack of progress to date, and despite provincial advice that the negotiating time frame is too short to reach acceptable parallel agreements, it is clear that the federal government is determined to meet the U.S.-imposed June 1, 1993, deadline for reaching parallel agreements. While this government is supportive of initiatives to improve the quality of the environment and labour conditions in North America, the process of negotiating these parallel accords in the context of the NAFTA and under a June 1 deadline is a matter of mounting concern to British Columbia. The events to date suggest that a situation is rapidly developing wherein a bad deal could be made even worse by poorly negotiated parallel agreements on environment and labour.
Accordingly, I wish to inform the House that I have sent a letter to the Hon. Michael Wilson, Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and International Trade, to advise him of our concerns with the federal approach to participating in the parallel accord negotiations. In particular, I informed the minister that the federal government's decision to proceed with passing Bill C-115, the NAFTA implementing legislation, before completing negotiations on the parallel accords, risks further impairing Canada's negotiating position.
I also told him that in our view parallel agreements on such vitally important areas as labour and the environment cannot be done properly before the imposed completion date when so little informationsharing has occurred between the three countries and when the federal government hasn't put in place a meaningful process for provincial participation.
Accordingly, I have expressed our serious reservations about the ability of the federal government negotiators to protect the public policy interests of Canadian provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure to rise and reply to the ministerial statement.
As the minister recalls, when we had debate in this House on the NAFTA, I think it was my suggestion that we support parallel accords. As a result we've seen that this proposal has come forward from both the United States and Canadian negotiators. I think the minister will also recall that water exclusion was another issue raised by this critic, and it was acknowledged that that was an omission from the agreement that we felt should have been negotiated as well.
Labour and environment were also issues that we felt should be addressed through a parallel accord, and I'm still of that view. At this point in time, the U.S. does have some concerns over these two issues in particular, and I would suggest that it is premature, that there will be ratification of this agreement in June 1993, given the objections the United States government has expressed over the labour and environment issues. So it's not a done deal. I would suggest that what the minister said today is nothing new; we heard it in the NAFTA debate. I think we will see some further consultation and negotiation between the federal government and the U.S. government, and I would support further consultation between the federal government and the provinces in relation to these issues. I encourage the minister to put forward that position to the federal government. It's something that needs to be addressed, and I support his efforts to do that.
H. De Jong: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to this ministerial statement. However, we received this five minutes before 2 o'clock, which is a bit late. So is the government late with responding. If I recall correctly, the Premier and his government were invited to participate in the negotiations last summer. The Premier said: "No, we will not participate in the discussions or the negotiations, nor will we do anything to comply with the NAFTA."
Well, that was a real comfort to British Columbians and, in particular, to the business -- as well as labour -- community in the province. Instead, a committee was appointed to go around the province and find out the pros and cons of the NAFTA. Prior to the committee being established, there was a short discussion in the House. Basically the whole concept of the committee was seen -- at least by this side of the House -- as nothing but a dog-and-pony show for the well-being of Audrey McLaughlin's bid to get re-elected as the leader of her party.
Had the government, in fact, taken a positive stance when the opportunity was there, I don't think this government would have presented Bill 84 in the House last fall, which was an attempt to make it more difficult for business to survive in this province. But neither would they have imposed a corporate tax on the business community. The business and labour communities have known for a long time that the NAFTA was going to come about and that there would be discussions, but it's not the right time to close our ears and eyes to it. Certainly, as I said at the beginning of my talk, it's not a little too late; it's much too late.
Hon. G. Clark: Just before we call budget debate, I'm sure members know -- perhaps some don't -- that
[ Page 5078 ]
we will be sitting this evening in committee to discuss the Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993.
Budget Debate
(continued)
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to wrap up quickly. For people on the other side when they want to tell the good news of the budget, I'll just remind them of some of the points that we heard earlier today: one in four British Columbians will benefit from tax reductions; the overall B.C. tax rate is the second-lowest in Canada; taxes will be reduced for 600,000 households through a sales tax credit; the basic homeowner grant is increased by 4 percent for most homes; MSP medicare premiums are eliminated for 430,000 families; there will be a reduction in real per capita government spending; and finally, the deficit has been reduced 25 percent, a total of $415 million.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a pleasure to rise in support of the 1993-94 budget presented by the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. It's a budget in which one in four British Columbians benefits from tax reductions. It's a budget in which the overall B.C. tax rate is and continues to be the second-lowest in Canada. It's a budget in which taxes are reduced for 600,000 households through a sales tax credit. It's a budget in which the basic homeowner grant increases by 4 percent for most homes. And it's a budget in which MSP medicare premiums are eliminated for 430,000 families.
It's a budget in which there is a reduction in real per capita government spending. There's a reduction of $415 million in the deficit, down 25 percent. Hon. Speaker, that's a pretty good budget. It provides a sound balance between the very difficult fiscal choices that we have to make and a recognition of the need to foster long-term managed growth throughout the province. It is a budget that is going to facilitate just that.
I would like to use the time I have to comment on some of the goals we have and on some of the progress we have made to date, especially in the area of Environment, Lands and Parks. I believe that our plan is right for the province and for the times in which we find ourselves. We have a budget that includes measures that are essential to a dynamic and prosperous economy.
[2:45]
There are signs that the economy is turning around and starting to work into a cycle that is going to be more beneficial for all British Columbians. So there's a real reason for optimism. The growth rate will be 3.2 percent this year and 3.4 percent next year. There will be 35,000 new jobs created. Capital investment will grow by 31.1 percent. The annual inflation rate has stabilized below 4 percent. And our provincial deficit is down by 40 percent from two years ago.
We have made good changes that will benefit all British Columbians. We are leading British Columbia into the new century with a growing economy that will ensure all of us a safe, healthy and prosperous future. That is the continuing goal of the administration and the achievement of this budget. It is a major step in a long journey towards social and economic security for all people in B.C. These are steps that should have been taken decades ago, and they were not. We are addressing tough choices in this budget in a way that is appropriate, balanced and fair.
I would now like to turn to some of our achievements of the past fiscal year. When we came into office in October 1991, the government was in a serious state of disarray. In the area that I was assigned to, many urgent issues were being ignored, and we had a lot of catching up to do. There was no real vision for some of the very critical management issues in the province, especially land use planning issues. There were conflicting principles and processes, with no clear focus on the possible outcomes.
We realized early that we could not stand still on these issues. We moved quickly on them, knowing that our quality of life would be determined by our ability to find answers that will serve us now and in the future. To succeed we need an integrated and cooperative approach which builds partnerships and which recognizes the strength, vibrancy and vitality that is out there in the community and enables that to be incorporated into the resources needed in order to enable our province to function well.
One of the very clearly focused parts of that process is in getting to decisions, and that has to be inclusive, not exclusive. That principle has been firmly entrenched in the kinds of processes that we have brought into being. It has to be one that serves our vision of the balanced use of our precious natural resources that we take pride in for the beauty of the landscape and for the richness of what has been provided within that landscape.
Accordingly, we have created the Commission on Resources and Environment. While we have come into criticism from time to time with regard to some of the delicate issues that we are addressing, no one in this House, or anywhere else, can point to a more appropriate, hopeful and creative land use planning process anywhere in North America than the one we have crafted right here in British Columbia. We have crafted it with the input of British Columbians, in keeping with a promise made while we were in opposition. It's a process that we know is working hard to serve many land use issues in the province. The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has again ensured that this process will continue to unfold by increasing CORE's budget by over 3 percent in very tight fiscal times. He recognizes that the commission is important to the economic and environmental future of this province.
Tight fiscal circumstances have required all ministries to work closely in a more integrated way. This includes funding; some ministries, including mine, have had a small reduction in budget. We must reduce duplication and overlap; for example, environmental quality and public health issues are closely linked, and we can work together to resolve many of those issues. It should also be noted that last year the Ministry of Environment received almost a 6 percent increase. Over those two years it has enabled us to undertake some very worthwhile initiatives to serve the environmental
[ Page 5079 ]
needs of the province. We are working smarter to achieve many of our urgent priorities.
The new protected-areas strategy, a commitment by government to double the park and wilderness areas in the province by the year 2000, is working in tandem with CORE. This will allow British Columbia to reach its goal of protecting 12 percent of the province. It will fulfil the expectations of the environmental community and address a very significant environmental need: our jurisdiction will ensure that future generations are able to experience most of the representative ecosystems that existed in this province during the time of European contact. At the same time, the establishment of these areas will bring stability for the business community by making it very clear what areas are available for integrated planning.
We are now in the process of completing provincewide inventories of undeveloped watersheds. We received $10 million in last year's budget for the corporate resources inventory initiative. During a time of having to recover costs, we managed to cut that down to $9 million, but it was still a tremendously important input to deal with the need for resource inventory. In this year of having to do some very careful planning, we had to cut that back to $6 million, but $15 million of new money is being used over two years to address corporate inventory needs on a wide range of issues that are vital to the economic development of the province.
I'm very proud to say that in recent months we have designated nine new coastal parks within the province. Many of these sites are along British Columbia's Inside Passage. We have a package of further park announcements that we'll making in the near future. Having walked in the valley of the Khutzeymateen as long ago as 1963 -- I lived in Port Simpson, the home of the Git'tsiis people, who claim the Khutzeymateen as part of their territory -- I'm especially proud to say that here it is 30 years later, and I have had a major role in permanently protecting the entire Khutzeymateen, for the protection of vital grizzly bear habitat. We have established a logging moratorium in the lower Tsitika Valley to protect killer whales and to enable a study on them to take place. We've appointed the Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee to attend to that task; it's an issue that has been of great concern to British Columbians.
So often on a day-to-day basis these issues seem as though they are the only issue that really counts. There is a great deal of interest and consternation. When an issue is a seemingly negative story, it's right up there in the headlines and as the lead item on the various television media. When we resolve some of these issues, they do get play, but it tends not to be quite as prominent. That's the way it is; we know that's the way the stories are handled, but we're very proud of the fact that we have followed through in a major number of commitments in regard to environmental initiatives and promises we have made. We have promises to keep and miles to go before we sleep, so there are many more that we are going to be working on. This has been done in the context of responsible fiscal management. There's no better example than the protected-areas strategy to indicate how it's a win for the environment and a win for the economy.
To combine habitat protection with the economic driver of tourism, we have purchased a significant portion of the Parksville flats, causing my colleague the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum to be very happy and enabling me to recognize the role that member played in helping us to secure that decision. I announced further moves in the area of Parksville this past weekend, when I attended the annual Brant Festival. If you're wondering what a brant is, a brant is a small goose, and it is a very beautiful species. While Yeltsin and Clinton were dining on caviar and champagne in Vancouver, brant from Siberia were feeding on eelgrass and herring roe -- also as our visitors. It may interest you to know, hon. Speaker, that because I banned the shore-based brant hunt in Boundary Bay, 200 more brant were registered by the Brant Festival this year. Two hundred additional brant checked in, so I'm very proud of that too.
When we became government, there was a very serious and severe need for environmental legislative reform. Indeed, all the major environmental legislation is in need of reform, and we have been attending to that very diligently. As a result of extensive consultations last year by the MLA for Nanaimo, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, we will be tabling new environmental assessment legislation this session.
Hon. Speaker, our new polluter-pay regulations are aimed at reducing pollution through a market-based approach.
I'm proud to say that the British Columbia conservation officer service is among the very best in the world. We have managed to increase the numbers in that service as a result of last year's budget, and we are maintaining that program at a level of 140 conservation officers. At the present time, I think, four or five of those positions need to be filled.
I would also point out that we now have a handful of women in the conservation officer service, and I personally intend to take every opportunity to speak to high school guidance counsellors about employment opportunities for women in ministries such as the Ministry of Environment. I would certainly like to see more young women who attend Malaspina College and the University of Lethbridge consider careers in this field.
This government is dedicated to developing lasting partnerships with the aboriginal community. Doing this will be a win for the people of British Columbia and a win for the environment. We've signed numerous joint stewardship agreements that will help us to address British Columbia environmental concerns together. I was very pleased to be part of the agreement with the Nisga'a Tribal Council to establish the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park, where we unveiled a plaque that had both the logo of the provincial government and that of the Nisga'a first nation. It was a very proud moment. I stood there with Alvin McKay, with whom I attended the University of British Columbia over 30 years ago. It was quite a wonderful experience to stand with him as we dedicated that park, which is
[ Page 5080 ]
on sacred ground in that territory. It's a clear example of how we can work together in harmony rather than in conflict. It's a perfect example of the kind of leadership that my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs brings to the issue of government-to-government negotiations with first nations.
I would like to touch briefly on several issues that relate to funding in my area of responsibility, and especially within my riding. There is the Coquitlam dike project, which remains a high priority for this administration. Negotiations are continuing with the various parties, and I am hopeful that this project will be 30 percent completed this year.
The budget clearly is a reflection of many of our values in the area of human services. I think it's important to recognize the response to need that has been reflected in Social Services in this budget.
The administration is currently reviewing all the options concerning Riverview Hospital, which is in my constituency. As many members know, the process of deinstitutionalization continues, and government is currently preparing a list of objectives for the property. In conjunction with the British Columbia Mental Health Society, a number of government agencies are working together and will soon be seeking public input on the future use of the lands and buildings on the Riverview site. I would point out that there are some incredible trees on that site. Some of them exist nowhere else in British Columbia, and some are from places throughout the planet. It's therefore my intent, working with the municipality of Coquitlam, to give very special attention to the protection of those trees.
Across the Lougheed Highway is Colony Farm, which is partly in the riding of Coquitlam-Maillardville and partly in the riding of my colleague from Port Coquitlam. Again, government is embarking on processes there, through the B.C. Buildings Corporation, to ensure that the public has input into the ways in which that green space should be protected. I say green space because that is what it will be at the end of this process. We believe that the agricultural and wildlife values there must be upheld. It is an island of emerald green in a sea of urban sprawl. It is up to us to protect it, and we intend to do so.
Government is reviewing all the possible options to ensure that we make the best possible decisions with regard to air quality in the lower mainland. I would just point out that I have recently been in California -- part of the time in southern California, where they realize they must put regulations in place to deal with a very serious air quality problem involving half the state population of 32 million people. As a result of that, there are some tremendous economic opportunities right here in British Columbia.
[3:00]
I came back from that trip with a letter of intent from the South Coast air quality management district, in which they have agreed to financially support Ballard Power Systems of North Vancouver -- which, by the way, has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Daimler-Benz. The technology that's being developed right here in British Columbia by that company is exemplary. It's the hydrogen fuel cell technology, the wave of the future. They will be producing zero-emissions buses, which will mean that we will be able to get into that California market on a partnership basis with some companies in California, enabling that technology to replace those buses now discharging a great deal of particulate into the atmosphere.
We recently unveiled the most comprehensive regulation in the country to help protect the earth's ozone layer. Again, I am very proud that B.C. is leading the way in protecting the ozone layer. We know that's still a serious problem, because CFCs that leave the earth's surface today are travelling for 50 years and more up to where the ozone layer is being destroyed. But we are very proud that we have taken a responsible position in this regard.
We are also proud that we have taken the toughest stand with regard to pulp pollution and organochlorine content. We are calling for zero discharge by the year 2002 -- again, a very exemplary stand taken by this environmentally friendly government.
This government has chosen to dedicate provincial revenues so that the people of the province can more clearly see the benefit of their tax dollars. For example, revenues from tires, batteries, diapers and waste permit fees are dedicated only to pollution prevention and environmental renewal -- again, a success story. Where we were fearful of tire fires a few years ago, I can tell you that 80 percent of tires are now being removed from the waste stream. These tires are going into the production of ceiling tiles, stair treads, traffic markers and a variety of other very worthwhile products. That means we've taken something out of the waste stream and turned it into a profit centre, and it's upholding the values of reduce, reuse and recycle, which is far superior to having to resort to other more dramatic means of dealing with waste.
I know that time is moving along, so I wish to conclude my remarks. With the kind of direction and vision, the kind of cooperation and partnership that is being built by this government, we are moving into an era when we will see some tremendous developments that will be very helpful and hopeful for the sustainable future of our province. This budget is one step towards that goal. It is going to be because of the wise choices made within this budget that we are going to be able to afford those kinds of expenses that are so necessary to continue to support environmental initiatives in future generations, because we are not just dealing with the situation in this particular year and time; we are dealing with the situations of our children and of our children's children.
With continued perseverance and wise choices, British Columbia will remain the envy of Canadians from other provinces, and indeed, of people throughout the world.
Hon. D. Miller: I would ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 5081 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, in the galleries, with his parents, who were introduced earlier today, is Jamie Knoerr, whom I understand is one of your constituents. I would ask the House to make him welcome.
D. Symons: I notice that the previous two government ministers who spoke referred to tax reductions for three out of four British Columbians. I suppose the people of this province will have an opportunity over the next year to test that claim and see whether that is indeed the case. I'm sure they'll be waiting to find out the answer to that. I rather suspect they'll be disappointed.
An Hon. Member: Are you complaining?
D. Symons: I'm not complaining at all. I just think there is a bit of hyperbole there.
There is, however, only one way to describe this NDP government's 1993-94 budget, and that is that it is a disaster for the people of British Columbia. They deserve better. There is a theme that will keep repeating like a refrain throughout my budget remarks -- a refrain I believe this government must continue to hear until it understands: the people of British Columbia want tax reform, not tax increases.
During the election campaign the NDP promised: "No new taxes." Since they took office we've seen new taxes, old taxes increased, and excessive fee and licence increases that would make the Biblical tax collectors look like saints by comparison. The Premier also promised: "We won't spend money we do not have." Of the many promises that were made and then broken, these are the two that the people of this province most firmly believe must be kept. The government has failed to understand, and therefore failed to act on, what is most obvious to almost everyone else: the government must hold the line on spending.
It cannot continue, as it has in this budget, to ask the people of this province to make sacrifices and to dig deeper into their pockets while the government continues to spend more. We need tax reform and a freeze on government spending, not tax increases. The taxpayer is not appreciative of a government that makes public sector contract settlements that are higher than the increases in the private sector. The public is not appreciative of a government whose workforce continues to grow while they do not face economic realities by downsizing and spending smarter. People do not appreciate the large number of patronage appointees feeding at the public trough. Never before in the history of this province have we seen a commissioner of patronage to dole out positions to the party faithful. The government has failed to control spending and its desire to reward its friends, all at the expense of the people of this province.
The government plans to spend $19 billion this year, a 5.7 percent increase over last year. The government's direct debt, as a result of its operating deficits, is now $10 billion. That's a 59 percent increase in the last two years of this NDP administration.
D. Streifel: It's a legacy of Social Credit.
D. Symons: The last two years were NDP, and it is an increase of almost 60 percent for those two years. You can't blame the previous administration for that; that's your responsibility and your choice of spending priorities.
The government's claim that it's making difficult decisions to control spending and reduce the deficit is totally false. This year the NDP is going to spend another $1 billion and will raise another $600 million from beleaguered taxpayers to partially pay for the increased spending. Of course, some of the cost of this spending will be passed along to future generations as increased debt. When will the government learn that if we are to really address the deficit and debt problems facing us, they must keep the rate of spending below the rate of economic growth and not increase taxes?
The Finance minister is fond of saying: "We have reduced the rate of the growth of the deficit." Reassuring words, but let us see how words can be used to mislead and misinform.
Interjection.
D. Symons: Listen to this, hon. member. Suppose, for instance, that you owe $1,000 and you borrow a further $500. The increase in your debt is 50 percent; that is, 500 over 1,000 gives you 50 percent. You now owe $1,500. Borrow a further $500, and your rate of debt increase is now 500 over 1,500 -- your base has increased -- and that's 331/3 percent. So hocus-pocus, by borrowing the same amount, your rate of increase has been reduced. Isn't that marvellous! Except that you still owe the money; and to B.C. taxpayers, that is one huge sum.
A further example of the Finance minister's fun with figures is his claim about the size of the previous deficit. He keeps referring to the massive deficit of the last year of Social Credit. We heard that from the hon. member to my left -- quite far to my left -- a few minutes ago. Yet the NDP were in office for five months of that fiscal year and took no real interest in stemming the flow of red ink. Indeed, the Finance minister fraudulently added $43 million to that fiscal year, in substantial wage increases to the health care unions, when it actually belonged to the year just completed. If you take that $43 million from where it does not belong and add it to where it rightfully belongs, the difference between the deficit of the last year of the Social Credit debacle and that of the first year of the NDP's reign of terror is not that great.
What fiscal sleight of hand is the government using this year in order to cook the books? Voil�! Out of their magic hat they pull B.C. 21. This new Crown corporation is nothing more than a shell company. It's akin to a carnival barker asking you to guess under which shell the pea is hidden. In this case the pea is the debt that the government is ringing up, and B.C. 21 is the shell under which to hide that debt. Capital costs for highways, along with some other expenses, disappear like magic from the yearly budget estimates to be hidden in B.C. 21. While I have no difficulty supporting the long-term
[ Page 5082 ]
planning and financing of a limited number of necessary projects, it must be done in an open and accountable manner. It must not be done simply as a method of hiding a bloated deficit.
Twenty-one is the number in a card game called blackjack -- a number that you must not go over; otherwise you are broke. If this farce of B.C. 21 carries on for more than a year, the province will be broke long before the twenty-first century. Blackjack is also the name of a bludgeon that thugs use to beat their victims into submission while they rob them. At least the name of this scheme is appropriate and honest, even if its intent is not.
Interjections.
D. Symons: Well, you're threatening the people of British Columbia. The government would like us to believe that such spending is an investment. Let there be no mistake about it, the significant sums of money to be spent on these projects will add to the deficit and the provincial debt. They are sums of money that will, along with interest, have to be repaid by taxation in future years.
Schools, hospitals and highways are not self-liquidating -- as this government would lead us to believe -- in the same way that investments in B.C. Hydro or B.C. Rail are. At least those corporations have the potential of raising revenue to repay the debt. When was the last time a hospital turned a profit or a highway has been sold off?
Government must learn to control its spending to the level at which the taxpayer has the ability to pay. You cannot continue to defer the day of reckoning by mortgaging the future of our children. No new taxes, no new debt -- that is the message the people of this province have for this government.
School costs have gone up 67 percent, welfare costs 54 percent and health care 37 percent over the last five years, whereas the cost of living has increased by only 20 percent. The increase in each case is greater than the government's increase in revenues. Despite its tax increases, its spending is greater than the growth in the economy. It's obvious that the government has not done enough to control the prime issue facing this government, that of too much spending. Government must be streamlined and downsized. The taxpayers of this province can no longer support the cost of an overly large civil service and its attendant bureaucracy. The message must be loud and clear: no new taxes.
[3:15]
Lest one conclude that my remarks so far are just amusing -- as does the opposition member, who does not know much anyway -- let us look at the reaction of some knowledgable British Columbians, whose opinions cannot be dismissed so lightly. Mr. Bruce McConnachie, president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia, says: "The NDP government will never get the deficit under control until it brings increases in spending into line with the growth in the economy." He further feels that: "This budget could make wealth-creating British Columbians an endangered species." I think maybe the Minister of Environment should hear that. Its emphasis on increased corporate income, property and sales tax will discourage investment in B.C. These are the very people that would be creating the jobs and paying the taxes that British Columbia so desperately needs. It won't be coming.
David McLean, chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade says: "To tax people who are producing in our economy at a time when we need job creation is just nuts."
Jerry Lampert, president of the Business Council of British Columbia says: "Business is prepared" -- hon. members, listen to this -- "to pay its fair share if government is prepared to reduce its spending." We just don't see that in this budget.
Without quoting more authorities, I think the message is quite clear. This budget is a testament to this government's failure to recognize the problem, much less address it in a meaningful way. Their only reaction to the economic mess they find themselves in is to increase taxes, increase fees and licences, increase the size of government and increase spending.
The Premier is proud to say: "We're leading the way by freezing MLAs' salaries and cutting cabinet ministers' salaries by 5 percent." Since the cut was only to the salary portion of their income, not the tax-free allowances, it translates into a real cut of a little more than 2 percent.
Also, spending in the office of the Premier -- that paragon of restraint -- is to increase by $1.1 million this year. That certainly sets a good example. A comparison of spending in the Premier's office in the last seven months of the Rita Johnston administration and the first five months of this bunch of freeloaders shows a whopping increase, and the increase to the Premier's office in this budget continues this disgraceful trend. He should be ashamed. Instead, what's he doing? He's preaching about what courage it takes to address our fiscal challenges while reaching deeper into the pockets of homeowners and others.
Every time I hear the Premier and the Finance minister refer to spending as investment and to taxes as a revenue source, I'm reminded of Orwell's novel 1984, where, with doublespeak, words lose their meaning and often mean the opposite. Indeed, the Premier insists that accelerated capital construction projects will cost nothing because it's money that would eventually be spent anyway. Sounds like something from Orwell's ministry of truth.
The real problem is the philosophical and ideological bent of this socialist government. They are not evil people; they are simply consumed by a traditional socialist doctrine that is out of date and out of touch with the situation in Canada today. They continue to fight a class war of 50 or 100 years ago. Because someone owns a home -- shelter for his family -- in an area where real estate prices have gone wild, it does not necessarily mean they are wealthy. That same home located somewhere else in the province could be worth half as much. The person living in the lower mainland is most likely spending a far greater proportion of earnings on shelter. So in a sense they are poorer, not richer,
[ Page 5083 ]
than their upcountry cousins, since their disposable income is less.
An Hon. Member: Move out of the city.
D. Symons: You think the answer to B.C.'s economic problems is to have people move throughout the province? You think that will help the industry, help the economy of the province? The member is nuts.
The Speaker: I'm sure the hon. member would like to withdraw that last statement.
D. Symons: I suppose I can say that he's greatly confused and withdraw the other statement.
The Speaker: The hon. member is aware that personal attack is not appropriate in debate, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement. I'm sure it was unintentional.
D. Symons: A bad choice of words, hon. Speaker, and I withdraw them.
Anyway, I was about to say that in my area, $400,000 does not buy a rich man's home; it buys a workingperson's dwelling. Since when has the desire to own a home been a sin? For many people in the lower mainland, the Finance minister is punishing them for working for, and achieving, their dream. Some reward. Some government.
Many members of this House are on record as telling us what a wonderful budget this is. The hon. member for Alberni: "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." I'm sure he's not reading the minds of British Columbians very well, as they will find out during the next election.
The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale repeats the same sort of thing: "This budget is not just a good budget; this budget is a great budget for the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale."
In the last few days we have seen people in the lower mainland area meeting in large numbers -- in the thousands -- and believe me, the words they are saying are not the words of those two members.
Interjection.
D. Symons: You will find out, hon. member.
Do not believe for a minute that since the Finance minister has withdrawn one aspect of this punitive tax on homeowners, he's seen the unfairness of the tax. All he has seen are the political consequences of his action. He and his socialist comrades still believe in the class struggle, the we-against-them attitude, and that those who have worked and saved and invested deserve to be taxed back to a common denominator. It is the ideology that does not encourage incentives and effort, but rather discourages them. It is a philosophy that believes that those at the public trough deserve to stay there.
Why are we continuing to go into debt? A year ago the B.C. Federation of Labour stated: "We believe it to be inappropriate for a social democrat government to adopt a conservative fiscal policy." There you have it. Conservative -- read that as a balanced budget -- is inappropriate. If anyone believes that the agenda of the NDP government is different from that of the B.C. Fed, then they just don't understand the political realities in this province. Thou shalt not reduce the size of the public service; thou shalt not control public service costs; thou shalt not bring control to hospital, school, college, university or income assistance budgets. After all, those involved in those areas of society are potential supporters.
There are some points that I feel need repeating, and some facts that must be taken into account when considering the finances of the province. These are some that were not taken into account in this budget. The first is that the government does not create jobs; business does. Government must create the climate so that business can do it. Next, fair profits do not exploit consumers or workers. Without profits, business cannot survive slow times or expand in good times; without profits, business cannot pay taxes to support government spending. Also, what government thinks is fair is to a large extent irrelevant. If the business community believes that a policy is unfair, they will react accordingly by not investing or by moving elsewhere. We're seeing that happen in this province. It should be remembered: money knows no boundaries. And cross-border shopping proves that daily.
Finally, deficits constitute theft from our children. In all of this the government must remember there is only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer, hon. Speaker, has had enough.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It gives me great pleasure to stand here and defend an excellent budget. For the average British Columbia family, March 30 was a very good day. It was a good day because the Minister of Finance brought in a fair, balanced-approach budget and addressed the needs of the average British Columbia family, while representing and respecting their ability to pay.
The average family values its children above all, and as such, they know that they need a sound education system. This budget maintains quality education at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels. This budget in fact provides about 2,800 additional full-time positions at our colleges around British Columbia.
From time to time the average family requires health care for their children or grandparents, and this budget maintains an adequate funding level for health care. I'm particularly proud of what we've done on this side of the House for less-well-off families, in that we have entirely eliminated the MSP premiums for 430,000 British Columbians and reduced the premiums for another 135,000. That's progressive government. While our health care system is being further improved by moving away from the acute care sector and closer to home, this budget ensures an orderly and cooperative downsizing of the acute care sector. The opposition would probably prefer the slash-and-burn labour
[ Page 5084 ]
management practices that typify the third party, but this government will never treat its employees so callously.
Some members of the average family might, from time to time, fall upon misfortune and require a helping hand. A young single mom might require some support; an older couple might have to rely on GAIN payments to get by. This budget allows British Columbians caught up in hard times to get by with dignity. In such a well-to-do society, we should do no less.
And what about the homeowner grant for the typical B.C. family? Ninety-five percent of British Columbia families will see a modest increase in their grant.
While maintaining all of these essential services, we have actually reduced spending per capita in constant dollars. With a 3 percent population growth and about a 3.5 to 4 percent inflationary increase, we have brought in a budget with an overall increase of 5.7 percent, which is 1 percentage point beneath a full budget on a per capita basis. At the same time, we have also reduced the provincial deficit from $2.4 billion to $2 billion and now to $1.5 billion.
[3:30]
But the opposition howls: cut, cut. Slash expenditures, they cry. They would have us fight this deficit on the backs of our children, the sick and the poor. This government won't do that -- ever. Slash expenditures, they say. I sat through estimates last year, and through many question periods, and many times the air from the other side was heavy with hypocrisy. Half the time that hot air was emanating from the Liberal side; it was some hon. member urging the government to spend more money. Day after day in Highways estimates the same members who are now howling "Cut, cut," were then crying: "Spend, spend. Why aren't you spending more taxpayers' dollars on this road in my riding? Spend on this bridge in my riding. Spend on this interchange in my riding." I get letters from them urging me to spend. I'm visited by them and their delegations urging me to spend.
Some marvels of nature can change their colours; they can change their plumage with the season. The species opposite, both Liberal and Socred, keep their colours, but they sure can change their tune. I think we should notify the local bird-watching society, and perhaps any noted ornithologists in the area, to be on the alert. In a few weeks, when estimates arrive again, we may well see these same birds changing their tune again. Listen to the feigned outrage about the modest tax proposals that the Minister of Finance has put forward. "Liberals would never tax at those levels," they say, and they're right. Everywhere in this country where Liberals govern, average families are taxed much higher. I just happen to have a few figures handy.
Sales tax: British Columbia, 7 percent; P.E.I -- a Liberal bastion, I believe -- 10 percent; New Brunswick, 11 percent; Newfoundland, 12 percent. Oh my, how they've devastated their economies there. What about the provincial tax as a percentage of the federal tax? Well, we're at 52.5 percent, I see. What about our brethren in P.E.I.? It's 59.5 percent -- oh, what a tax grab! What about New Brunswick? Sixty-two percent. Newfoundland, 69 percent. All of them, I think, have Liberal Premiers and Liberal majorities. What about the 1992-93 deficit as a percentage of gross national product -- the fairest way of looking at it?
J. Beattie: Give us some figures.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Shall I? I happen to have some figures right here.
In B.C., 2.2 percent of our gross national product is represented by deficit; in P.E.I., 3.7 percent -- about 80 percent higher than British Columbia; New Brunswick -- get this -- 4.1 percent, nearly double our rate of deficit; Newfoundland, 3.1 percent. The average of all these good Liberals? They're running deficits close to 70 percent higher than ours -- not too bad for fiscally responsible people. What's worse about it is that these Liberal spendthrifts have drawn up much worse relative deficits, while receiving equalization payments from British Columbia. Just think how well we would be doing in this province if, instead of having to subsidize four rampantly spending Liberal jurisdictions, we received revenue from them? Wouldn't that make an interesting picture in our deficit and our budget debate?
One of the most exciting developments in the present budget is B.C. 21, and that includes the introduction of a transportation funding authority. We have had, not only in this jurisdiction but in almost all jurisdictions in North America, an underinvestment -- yes, I said "investment" -- in transportation infrastructure. I would pause, in passing, to note that the member opposite in his previous statement said that governments don't create employment and don't create jobs. I wonder who is going to tell the folks at B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail that they don't have jobs. Isn't that amazing? We don't create jobs. I'm dumbfounded.
We have had chronic underfunding of transportation. I would point out to the members opposite, if they'd like to help a little on this, that the feds currently extract from British Columbia taxpayers about half a billion dollars a year in gas taxes, and they remit nary a cent back to the taxpayers of British Columbia. If the feds would carry their end of the burden, we could be doing much better.
The situation in transportation at the present time is that we have congestion in various parts of the Island, in the lower mainland particularly and in parts of the Okanagan. Over the next five to eight years we're going to have continued growth, and if we are not careful we will end up in gridlock. The congestion on some of our bridges and tunnels is already to that point now. The people of British Columbia are paying enormous hidden tolls in that congestion. They are paying the toll of time lost to and from work, the toll of time lost as it applies to commercial vehicles, which means that all the costs of not only the driver but the vehicle itself are tied up in congestion. That gets added to the cost of our consumer products; that's a toll. We're paying an environmental toll with stop-and-go driving in these jams that is adding to the worst pollution, in the lower mainland particularly.
All of these are a burden on our economy; all of them affect our competitiveness nationally and inter-
[ Page 5085 ]
nationally; and all of these tolls exist now. There are a number of other major tolls we pay: accidents, the desperate loss to families related to accidents, the economic loss and the health care costs -- another toll that we pay right now. The overall economic cost of gridlock is something that I'm sure none of us on either side of the House wish to bear. So we must come up with a new and more rational funding method for solving the transportation problem.
I have spoken over the past year of capitalization and debt financing with an element of user-pay, and I was pleased to see that a year ago my critic indeed confirmed that this was a good way to go. The key is that the revenues we receive, be they from a toll or gas tax, must go into a dedicated fund. That dedicated fund must be spent only on transportation, and it must be accountable to the public. That will be the case. So we should now get on with the job and derive the long-term benefits that will come from a more efficient transportation system. And to boot, we'll create some jobs now. But they're not senseless make-work jobs; they are legitimate investment jobs that will give us long-term benefits as well.
When a few weeks roll by and we're into estimates, it will be very interesting to see whether the rarae aves -- the birds on the other side -- change their tune again. I can hardly wait for estimates to start. I'm looking forward to it.
I will conclude by just making a few comments about my home in Kamloops. We've had good year. We've had some strong economic recovery in the area and some major developments in housing. Unfortunately, there's a downside to that: the vacancy rates are so low that rental rates have gone sky high, creating hardship for many people. We are trying to deal with that situation, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is bringing forward some quite interesting and what I think will be fruitful policies for affordable housing. We had the announcement that Unitel would be locating in Kamloops, creating about 400 jobs. That's good news for the interior generally, because for a long time we've had a depressed economy.
Last but not least, I will again extend to each and every one in the House an invitation to come up to the Canada Summer Games. Kamloops is the smallest community to ever host the games, and approximately one out of every three residents of Kamloops will end up being a volunteer, one way or another, in that two-week period. It is truly an incredible outpouring of support from the community. I compliment those people to the maximum degree, and I invite all of you to come up and visit during that time in August.
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm pleased to rise in support of this budget as the vice-chair of the Treasury Board, as the Minister of Women's Equality and as the MLA for Surrey-Newton.
The budget that we are debating reduces taxes for 28 percent of British Columbians. This budget reduces the deficit by $415 million from last year, and is down $820 million from October 1991, when this government was elected. It increases homeowner grants for 92 percent of British Columbians. This budget is a fair and responsible budget. This government has made some tough choices in order to present a budget that supports the needs of families, seniors, children and communities.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
This government has made a commitment in this budget to equality for women. The voices of women in British Columbia have been ignored for too long.. The voices of women have gone unheard for many years in this province. The previous government failed to listen and to address the urgent needs of 52 percent of British Columbia's population. This government values all of the work that women do in this province. It values women who work for wages outside of their home; women who work inside their home, not for wages; women who work in their communities, not for wages; and women who run small businesses inside their homes for wages or for income. It is different work that women do, but it is all valuable work and needs to be acknowledged as such.
[3:45]
This budget has continued and expanded the government's commitment to women and children. To do less would be disrespectful and would indeed be breaking a trust. The budget protects and secures the gains made by and for women in the last year, and it preserves vital services that in many cases have only just begun. As I've travelled British Columbia and listened to the experiences of women in urban areas, in rural areas, in the interior, in the north and in very isolated areas, I know how critical it is that these services and supports are preserved. It's not only about statistics and about numbers, but it's also about the personal stories that women tell: women who've been beaten; women who've been raped; women who can't find work or can't get training because there is no child care; and women in rural and isolated areas who have few or no supports where they live.
That is why this budget has preserved services and supports such as: 80 new counselling services for women who are victims of violence in over 100 communities in this province; 11 new sexual assault centres, which triples in one year the number of sexual assault centres in British Columbia; money for research, education, awareness and training projects to help end violence against women -- because we must break that cycle, and we will only break it through education and through early work with children; teacher training in school curriculum that has the goal of preventing violence in its early stages by promoting non-violent ways of resolving conflicts; 145 new spaces in transition houses across this province -- these are all part of preserving, protecting and securing services; top priority for non-profit housing unit placements for women who have left abusive partners and are living in transition houses; a new policy to address violence against women in relationships, which ensures that prosecution is vigorously undertaken and charges are laid. In communities across B.C., 5,000 new child care spaces are being protected and preserved: 11 expanded child care programs; 23 new child care centres; 13 centres expanded through capital funding; the first
[ Page 5086 ]
operational 24-hour day care in this province and the first 24-hour hospital-based day care in Canada that provides child care support for staff, community and patients.
Changes to the day care subsidy program are secured. Core funding to 28 women's centres in this province is secured, with the potential of expansion this year. Never before in their history have women's centres had stable funding so that they can say to women: "You can count on us being here." Funding and regulations are secured to improve a woman's access to contraception and abortion. There is more than $17 million in new money for additional job and training opportunities for more than 25,000 British Columbians on income assistance.
These are some of the services that the budget has secured and protected. I am proud that this government has stood up and said that these are important services for women and children in this province. There's much more work to be done. The government has a good start on new priorities, which are protected and expanded in the budget. But can any of us imagine how women who have benefited from these new services that they've never had access to before -- women who are victims struggling to become survivors -- feel when the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale says in his local paper that women's services should be the very first thing on the chopping block? I reject completely any thought that this is an acceptable statement. I promise that this government will ensure that the voices of women are heard and the needs of women are met.
First and foremost I'm the MLA for Surrey-Newton. What does this budget mean to the people who live and work in my community? It's a rapidly growing community of almost 60,000 people -- families and children and seniors, and people from many backgrounds and cultures who bring the diverse skills and talents that we need.
Reflected throughout this budget is a commitment to securing and protecting vital services as they affect Surrey and Surrey-Newton, and to providing job stimulus. In Surrey-Newton and Surrey this means that initiatives directed to health care and health care close to home will benefit people. Too frequently, adults and children in Surrey have had to leave their family and friends in order to access the health care that they need. The protecting of vital services means there will be new acute care beds and multi-level care beds for Surrey Memorial Hospital. Surrey deserves its fair share, and although this budget will make a significant difference, our bed ratio will continue to be well below the provincial average. A cancer clinic in Surrey will proceed, meaning that people who live in Surrey can have treatment close to home, close to the families and friends that all of us need at such times. And it means that in such a rapidly growing community, site plans for a new ambulatory care facility can go forward.
Surrey's unique needs as a growing district have been ignored for far too long. Surrey's needs are beginning to be acknowledged by this government, and it is beginning to receive its fair share. There are 45,000 students in Surrey, and as those of us who read of the numbers of students coming annually to classrooms in Surrey know, it is growing rapidly. This budget protects, secures and expands the initiatives for new classrooms to eliminate the portables in which children have had their education. Indeed, there are children in our school district who have spent so much of their school life in a portable that they think they went to Britco Elementary. This moves closer to eliminating those portables. This government has acknowledged that Surrey has unique needs in education. Some steps have been taken to address those, but there is more to be done. The Minister of Education has pledged, with Surrey and with other growing districts, to find a way to ensure that those needs are met.
Also secured, protected and enhanced are the areas of advanced education. In a rapidly growing community and rapidly changing work world, skills and knowledge acquired after high school are vital in building our future and ensuring economic security and self-sufficiency for adults today. In Surrey we have 2,400 students finishing grade 12 this year who will need access to post-secondary institutions.
The new Kwantlen College campus in Langley, which will be able to proceed this fall, will have almost 900 new spaces -- more than in any other place in British Columbia. Work will be able to go forward for Surrey, phase 2, on 72nd Avenue, which will eventually have almost 1,800 new spaces, and necessary planning work will proceed on a new campus for trades and technology for 1,400 students. Trades and technology will play a vital part in meeting the jobs that will be created as a result of the job stimulus, as part of B.C. 21 and other initiatives in this budget. Again, hon. Speaker, a fair share for Surrey. This budget believes that education and training are critical. This government believes that skills will be needed to fill the jobs created by the initiatives that the government is taking.
I have said that Surrey-Newton is a community of families as well. Because we welcome families that have chosen to move to our community, this budget speaks of fairness to families. It ensures that 92 percent of homeowners in this province will receive an increase in their homeowner grant. This is fairness for families. The reduction or elimination of MSP premiums for almost 600,000 British Columbians who need that kind of support is a support for families. Everyone must know that they can access health care. Knowing that they can access health care when they need it for their children is fairness for families.
This budget also protects and secures initiatives around women's issues in Surrey. Surrey has one of the highest rates of sexual assault in British Columbia. There has never before been a sexual assault centre in Surrey. As a result of securing these services and enhancements, there will be a new sexual assault centre in Surrey. We see an increase in the rate of violence against women, and that centre will reach out to women in our community. This budget continues to support and expand the work of organizations working with immigrant women, and will support and continue core funding for the women's centre in Surrey. Again, fairness for Surrey.
Surrey-Newton, by the way, is not only where people work but also where they live. Small business is
[ Page 5087 ]
a vital part of the economic strength of our community, and we have many excellent small businesses in Surrey that are active partners in their community. They are not simply businesses in the community; they are active partners who contribute in significant ways to the health and well-being of Surrey. This budget places a freeze on small business income tax and, as well, raises the exemption level of the corporate capital tax for small businesses. A number of those 2,000 businesses in B.C. that will benefit from that are small businesses in Surrey.
I am proud of this budget. I am proud of the fact that it continues to support the people in this province who need assistance. I am proud of the fact that it continues to support education, services for children and women and small businesses that are a part of their community. This budget and this government stand both with and for women, workers, small business and families. I am proud of that. This budget is fair and responsible, and it says to people in this province that this is a government that recognizes and responds to the needs of British Columbians.
C. Tanner: In reply to the budget address. On March 30 of this year, the Minister of Finance tabled his second budget with the remark that this budget continues a process of deficit reduction, and that they have accomplished this by "shifting the government's spending priorities." That statement is only partially correct, Mr. Speaker, and one word in particular is wrong. Instead of shifting, shading or shifty would have been a better description. I would rewrite the remarks as follows: "The minister and his shifty cohorts have fudged their figures and shaded their accounting practices to deliberately confuse the taxpayers."
A few years ago, under that masterful manipulator, the Socreds used the technique they called "contingent liability." This was a method....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry to have to interrupt you, but I would just like to check. Did the hon. member make reference to "shifty cohorts" with respect to someone on the government side? I'm sure that upon reflection the hon. member would agree that language such as that is unparliamentary. I'm sure the member would not wish to offend any hon. member with language that is inappropriate for the House. Would the member please withdraw, if that was the case.
C. Tanner: Which particular word was the Speaker referring to?
Deputy Speaker: The quote I just referred to, hon. member, was "shifty cohorts," I believe.
C. Tanner: Shall I read it...?
Deputy Speaker: No, it's not necessary. If those words are in your text, then I would ask the hon. member to please substitute more appropriate language.
C. Tanner: Other than "cohorts," Mr. Speaker?
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, "shifty cohorts"...
L. Fox: Are you challenging the Chair?
C. Tanner: No, not at all.
Deputy Speaker: ...is, in the opinion of the Chair, highly unparliamentary. I ask the member to simply withdraw those words and find more appropriate terms to make his point.
C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if I said they shifted their figures around....
Deputy Speaker: That's not what you were saying before, hon. member. But it's up to you how you wish to speak. Referring to anybody in the assembly with those words is inappropriate. I'm sure the member would agree.
C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I assume that when they got together and started to fudge their figures, they weren't in the assembly. They did that in their offices.
Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member challenging the Chair's request to withdraw those terms?
C. Tanner: No, not at all, Mr. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Then if the member would withdraw, it would be most appropriate, and he could get on with his debate.
C. Tanner: Okay, I will withdraw the word "shifty."
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.
C. Tanner: I don't know what I'd replace it with, because that's the best word to describe what happened.
A few years ago, under that masterful manipulator, the Socreds used a technique they called "contingent liability." This was a method of disguising their fanciful footwork by passing off public debt to Crown corporations and then claiming that the government was debtless. You may even recall that in Kelowna they had a barge-burning. It was a typical Socred gimmick. The Premier of the day shot a burning arrow into a barge full of bonds. It was great theatrics and a popular entertainment, but it had nothing at all to do with responsible accounting or with the reduction of debt. But at least you could say this for the Socreds and Mr. Bennett: it illustrated a little flair.
This government and this minister, with their sleight-of-hand deficit reduction, portray only deceit with their pale imitation of the Bennett brigade and what the NDP are pleased to call B.C. 21 a comprehensive multi-year plan to invest and improve the province's economy. The minister travelled around the
[ Page 5088 ]
province, he says, stopping many times to talk to the public. He must have done a lot of talking, because he didn't do any listening.
[4:00]
This past Monday people were taking a survey in my constituency. They took every second page of the telephone directory and phoned the third name on the list. They made 17 phone calls and asked three questions. Of the 17 calls they made, they got 16 responses. I would like to tell you some of the comments they got. First they were saying: "We need a new Premier." Then they were saying: "There's an insensitivity to people on fixed incomes. There are not enough cutbacks. There is no concern shown for people on fixed incomes. They said they would not raise taxes, and they did -- is this becoming the norm? They understand more about taxes on income, but not on non-income-generating property. Why is the government borrowing money while attempting to bring down the deficit, spending too much money on studies rather than actual work, and paying too much based on patronage? The NDP suffers from short-term thinking. It's more and more difficult to absorb tax increases on fixed income. Not happy with where the increased tax moneys go. Not too happy with tax increases on services, like the GST." I guess they don't have to take responsibility for that one, but it's the only one they don't. "We pay too much tax already. We cannot afford this provincial government anymore. Property taxes is the wrong system. Government members should be tightening belts along with the rest of us."
That's the sort of comment we've been hearing on this side of the House. Where have those members been when the public has been talking to them? Certainly not in the same country that I live in.
Interjection.
C. Tanner: And I'm enjoying it, compared to the world that you people live in.
If the minister had been listening, he would have heard the public saying: "Cut the taxes, cut the costs, cut the crap, and give it to us straight." The public understands what this minister, this Premier and the NDP caucus do not know -- that the overriding fiscal need in British Columbia is cutting debt. And to cut debt, one must honestly state the case. The public debt in this province is inclusive of everything, including B.C. 21. Perhaps since the NDP are not so fond of bingo, particularly in the bastion of socialism in Nanaimo....
It was the member from that city who inadvertently came up with the misnomer B.C. 21. Could it be that he had gambling on his mind when he suggested to the Minister of Transportation and Highways that driving the Island Highway is a crapshoot? Could the member for Kamloops, following that line of thought, suggest to the Minister of Finance: "How about calling our scheme B.C. blackjack? Couldn't we call it B.C. blackjack instead of B.C. 21?" Can't you see this aspiring young Premier jumping to that brilliant suggestion until, of course, the Premier called off the hotheads and insisted on another misnomer: B.C. 21?
But I prefer B.C. blackjack: your chance to pay more for gas, pay more to drive the toll highways -- more debt incurred, more interest paid for. And for what? To play B.C. blackjack with the Minister of Finance. At least if you go to a casino there's a chance, albeit small, to win. When you play with an NDP dealer, with Sleight-of-hand Clark or Double-shuffle Harcourt, they keep all the cards and they tell you what the hand reads. You put up your wager but you'll always lose, because in B.C. blackjack, even if you win the hand, you lose the interest on the previous accumulated losses. Can't you visualize it: this circus shill culling the crowd for suckers, giving them that old socialist doubletalk about fair taxation, particularly if you have a buck in your pocket. Services for all, irrespective of cost, free to everybody. All you have to do is play B.C. blackjack, and voil�, we have roads, we have hospitals, we have schools, we have highways, and best of all we have no debt -- courtesy of Sleight-of-hand Clark and Double-shuffle Harcourt, and conceived by Williams the mole.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. I'm sure by now the member is fully aware that referring to members by their personal names is entirely outside the rules of the House. I would ask the member to please rephrase his references to members of the Legislature.
C. Tanner: I would rephrase and say that we have no debt, courtesy of the sleight-of-hand Finance minister and dealt by the double-shuffle Premier.
But friends, I suppose we should be thankful. At least they didn't insist that we play Russian roulette. They're going to leave us our miserable lives, having fleeced our pockets.
An Hon. Member: We're not looking for a letter of reference from you, anyway.
An Hon. Member: You wouldn't understand it.
C. Tanner: You couldn't read it.
I would like to turn to other aspects of the budget. This minister has introduced two budgets, and he's managed to trip over his own feet so many times it's becoming embarrassing. Against the advice of all members in both opposition parties, he attempted to tax one of the professional groups in this province -- the lawyers -- to pay, as he said, for legal aid. That was his justification for attacking a particular profession. He didn't want to tax all the professions; he chose to victimize the widows, the single mothers, the disadvantaged -- because lawyers will pass onto their clients the costs of their advice. Companies, on the other hand, can include them in the cost of doing business, and it doesn't come out of their personal income. The courts threw out this novice Finance minister's discriminatory tax on lawyers, and they threw it out because it was ultra vires and unconstitutional. This minister is at it again. Now, not content with discriminating against lawyers, he's going to make it retroactive.
This minister is the same one who brought in a corporate capital tax, which was so obviously misdirected that their own members are now standing up
[ Page 5089 ]
today and boasting about the fact that they're changing it. He blew it; he had to correct it -- and these examples of fiscal mismanagement are ones that they're proud of. They're using it as an example of this Finance minister's business acumen, his fiscal ability. So here we arrive today, when this minister in three short days has completely reversed himself. What sort of mismanagement would be so incompetent that he didn't know the consequences of the tax that he was imposing?
I have a letter from a constituent of mine who has an assessment on her home of $458,000 for the land and $130,000 for the house. This is her most recent property assessment: total cost, $588,000. She said I could use this in the House. I'd like to just tell you what she said. She and her husband live on yearly pensions of $24,000. They bought this land in 1968 at a price of $37,000. This so-called $130,000 building is in fact a little two-room cottage. These people want to tax this family of two, who have an income of $24,000, because they're living in a home for which the assessment and retail sale value today is $588,000. And they're representing the little person?
Please don't tell me that he didn't look at what would happen to the thousands upon thousands of people who want to live out their lives on pensions and had the foresight to buy a piece of property which has since increased in value. This poor excuse for a budget was produced by a poor excuse for a Finance minister in order to attack what his party calls the rich. I suppose he is fulfilling that great NDP principle in the preamble of the New Democratic Party constitution. It reads as follows:
"That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not for profit;
"To modify and control the operations of monopolistic, productive and distribution organizations through economic and social planning towards these ends and, where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership."
The manager of this province's finances should resign -- he's incompetent; and if he doesn't want to go, I've got something to make his life simpler. I have in my hand the New Democratic simplified tax form. It's really simple; even your Finance minister can handle it. On the top, it says:
"Individual Tax, 1993.
1. Put your social insurance number and how much money you've got.
2. How much money did you make last year? Fill in space.
3. Send it to us."
I think that the Minister of Finance could handle that. You know, that's fairly straightforward. Incidentally, if you've got any problem with this, or you can't handle it or you've got a comment, there's a little box here that you can fill in. That's about all that Finance minister is capable of.
There is only one objective this government should strive for, as every other government in Canada is, and that's the reduction of debt. It's time, fellow members over there, to come down from the socialist clouds in the skies of reality to today's fiscal reality. We're broke! We're overspending, and we're not cutting costs. It's time, fellow members, to look around in your ranch over there and find yourselves a new, experienced Finance minister before this one runs us into the ground.
L. Fox: I am pleased to take my place in this budget debate. It's easy to see in this budget that socialism is alive and well in the NDP government. It's very obvious by this budget that this NDP government knows nothing more than to tax, tax, tax -- to the point where the business community is fed up, because this government doesn't realize how important that community is in the restructuring and the rebuilding of the economy of British Columbia.
Nothing could better state the position that this government took when formulating this budget than if you read Hansard and you refer to the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. Both of those people stood up and firmly said they were pleased that this government reached into the pockets of the rich and forced the homeowners out of their homes in order to add to the social programs of this province.
I would much rather have seen this government's first priority be to cut its spending and to look very closely at where it's spending its dollars. I'll get into some of that a little later. But this government continues to tell half-truths about the financial state of this province. Day after day in this House, we hear the Premier and the Finance minister say that they've cut the deficit.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. Just a moment, hon member. The conversation that's taking place across the chamber is quite distracting for the Chair. I will ask hon. members to show the courtesy that they would expect if they were making a presentation. Would the hon. member please continue.
L. Fox: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll note that it wasn't coming from our caucus.
As I was saying, day after day we hear from both the Premier and the Finance minister that they've cut the deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth; they have not cut the deficit. They are trying to play on that very expensive report that was generated by Peat Marwick some 18 months ago in order to provide the necessary background for this government to lay its claims. I'm sure there are many partners within the Peat Marwick Thorne company who are ashamed of the day their corporation produced that very fictitious and misleading report.
[4:15]
The fact of the matter is that this year this government is spending $3 billion more than it's collecting in revenue. That's true: $3 billion more. We've heard from the government benches, as part of the rationale to suggest that this government is in fact reacting to strong fiscal management, that the previous government created this deficit. Let me tell you some facts, taken right out of the auditor general's report.
The consolidated debt in terms of the accumulated deficit, beginning in the year of 1988, was $3.5 billion.
[ Page 5090 ]
By 1990 that deficit had dropped to $2.2 billion, a paydown of $1.3 billion over those three years. In 1991, admittedly, it went up $6 million to $2.8 billion. Even with all the skulduggery that the Peat Marwick report and the Finance minister created during the first six months of their administration, this deficit was still only $4.9 billion -- or $5 billion, to round it off. That's a $1.5 billion increase in the deficit from 1988 to 1992.
I recall very clearly, as do all members of the House -- and certainly most of the province -- that right after he took office the Minister of Finance laid blame on the feds for decreasing their provincial share of the revenue by $1.4 billion. So if we assume that the minister was correct and that was indeed fact, then even with the fictitious budget that was brought in at the end of 1991-92 -- the responsibility of the provincial government -- there was still only $1 million more deficit in 1992 over 1988.
What we have before us, last year and this year, is accumulated deficit equal to that which has taken place in this government over the last 40 years. In two years alone this government has equalled the total deficit of the province of British Columbia. Those are the real facts.
When I listen to some of the speeches on the government side about what this government would have to do in order to react to the input from the opposition, they use scare tactics. They suggest they'd have to cut health care, education and all those issues that are really dear to the hearts of British Columbians. But in fact that's not the case. This government is reacting rather than being proactive.
Interjection.
L. Fox: Some of the government backbenchers are now asking what I would cut. If they will wait and allow me the time, I will get to what they should cut.
Over the last year this government has done just the opposite of what it should have been doing. The budget for Agriculture in 1991-92 was $101 million. This budget has it dropped to $89 million. As I've tried to point out, this government is reactive rather than proactive.
But in order to get to the final point, let me list a few others. Energy, Mines and Resources is one of the major producers in this province and has contributed wealth throughout the province -- certainly to the coffers of this government. The budget has gone down from $73 million to $68 million. I see that that minister is in the House, and really she should be ashamed of the way she's represented that particular industry in this province.
Transportation and Highways has a major impact on the economy of British Columbia, and plays a major role in getting our resources to their delivery points. That budget has decreased from $969 million in 1991-92 to $762 million now. That shows what kind of reaction this government has to development.
Although the budget is small, a very key area is one that in fact should be diversifying the economy of this province. We should be utilizing tourism to shore up the incomes of rural communities and of Victoria itself. Tourism is becoming the number one industry in many areas of the world. I hear debates from this government every day about how we should protect this area and that area with respect to the land base to enhance tourism. Those are only words, because in real action they cut the tourism budget from $68 million to $58 million in just two years. This government does not recognize the economic opportunities before it in the tourism industry. There are many people in this province who recognize that this government does not understand the importance of that industry; they'll do something about it.
Yet where do we see the budget increase? Where do we see the government emphasis?
An Hon. Member: Education.
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I hear a man say "education." That's a joke. Education hasn't kept up with the growth in this province, never mind the inflation. That's what the education budget has done.
Social services: there's a good one. That has increased substantially. This year we see a social services budget of $2.9 billion. In 1991-92, before this government got into power, that budget was $1.9 billion. What has it done? By being non-proactive in encouraging economic development and in putting a heavy tax on business and on industry -- policies which are driving both of those out of this province -- it's created 57,000 more welfare recipients in one year. That's what this government's financing policies have done.
We've gotten to the point where one out of every ten people in British Columbia is on welfare; one out of every ten is on UI; two out of every ten people in this province work for some level of government. That leaves six out of every ten people trying to pay the bills of those other four. It's impossible. Those kinds of economics will not work, and this government continues to expand the amount of dependency on government rather than reducing it.
Let's take a good look at what's happened in health care. Everybody in this province welcomes the opportunity to review the way we deliver that service; everybody also understands the importance of a good health system for the low-income as well as for the high-income. We all enjoy those services. But what has this minister done? She refused to implement a key part of the royal commission that would have put a provincial health council into place and that would have developed a plan for how this new close-to-home process would work. During that time, it would have also allowed a look at how we are going to re-educate displaced people from the acute care system and how we are going to place them into the closer-to-home system. It would have done away with the need for the Finance minister to buy off the three unions because of the Shaughnessy closure.
If there had been consultation between all the stakeholders in this province, we would never have seen the need for the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the Finance minister's very expensive buyout of the unions that were extremely upset about the Shaughnessy closure. That one bit of courtesy, to negotiation on how
[ Page 5091 ]
we are going to shift from acute-care to closer-to home, could have saved this province up to $500 million. It would have done a few other things. That particular process could have identified some pilot projects around the province -- one in an urban area, one in a combined urban-rural area, one in a rural area itself, along with other kinds of settings -- to see whether or not this concept was going to meet the objective that the royal commission set out for it, which is to provide a high quality of health care at a lower cost to British Columbians. My worst fear is that without that process in place we are not spending our health care dollars properly. We are making ad hoc decisions that end up costing this government more money and the people of B.C. more taxes. We did not sit down and design a program. We do not have any kind of accountability in the process to see whether or not it works. We're going on a concept that this Health minister believes is going to work, but I'm sure she is not able to tell us with a high level of certainty that it is going to work and at the same time save dollars for the province.
We continue to have dilemmas throughout this province. In one particular area the budget talks about reducing government's advertising costs. I have to ask: if the Minister of Health had consulted with the people of Shaughnessy, if she had consulted with the board, if she had consulted with all those unions, would she have had to spend millions of dollars on an ad campaign to try to cool off the populace of this province? If they were really sincere about cutting advertising costs, that's one area where they could have saved a considerable amount of money. Add to that the tremendous number of dollars used by the Minister of Health to try to fight her battle with the doctors in the media, rather than sitting down and designing a process to accommodate everybody in a fair and honest way, not the kind of process that we've seen the minister enter into up until now.
We could also have cut costs in this budget in just a few areas and cut the need for taxation. Six percent to the BCGEU is going to have a significant compounding effect. The fixed-wage policy is going to cost the province between $2 million and $3 million this year. Those are some of the ways that we could have cut it. The minister spent a lot of time talking about the need to create new revenues. One of the biggest investors in this province is union funds. I don't see any mention of them paying their fair share to help pay down the deficit and control the economy of this province. No way. No mention at all. Yet it's one of the largest businesses -- and it is a business -- in the province with tax-free status. Instead, this minister chose to tax the rich.
[4:30]
Let's look not only at the rich. This budget has implications for everyone. I'm really pleased that the Finance minister took a second look at the surtax on homes. It pleased me substantially, but I wish he would have looked with the same kind of logic at other aspects of this budget. The one I want to touch on is what I call the provincial GST. This particular section of the budget flies in the face of all the environmental initiatives that this government has put in place, as well as the initiatives that the previous government put in place in terms of recycling. Let me explain it to them. The government doesn't understand the business community, so let me tell them how this particular aspect is going to impact recycling.
Three years ago there was an initiative in the Environment ministry requiring all service stations and garages that sell oil and do oil changes to pay a collector to recycle that oil. By taxing labour on oil changes, they are driving that economy underground. More and more people will do their own oil changes. At present we in the automotive business have to collect the filters and pay $1 a filter to have them destroyed. Where does this government think that used oil and those used filters are going to go when those oil changes are done in the back yards? This government has driven up the cost of labour to the point that people will start to do more oil changes themselves or have them done by back-yard mechanics.
H. Lali: Not true.
L. Fox: "Not true," the member says. Hon. Speaker, I've been in this business for 20 years, and that young man should listen, because he has something to learn about the automotive business.
I'll tell you where that used oil and those used filters are going to go. They're going to be packaged in a way that's not identifiable, and they will end up in the landfill. Yet the initiative by the Ministry of Environment was to stop that process.
Let me talk a little about the impact this tax is going to have on ICBC rates. At present body shops don't have to charge tax on labour for repairs. Who pays for the bulk of the repairs in this province? ICBC. Who pays the premiums? We all do. What's this going to do to the cost of repairs? Well, hon. Speaker, when you take a typical automobile that's damaged, 50 percent is parts and 50 percent is repair. So if the cost of the repair is $1,000, there's going to be a 3.5 percent increase. That's going to directly reflect on ICBC's ability to pay and therefore on our ability to buy insurance. That's what it's going to do.
What's this going to do to small businesses? This government seems to think it's going to be the garages and repair shops that pay this. But it's not. Take an industrial truck engine in the logging or freighting industry. Right now these people are very marginal in the money they make; they very rarely make any significant profit over and above their cost of living. A typical engine repair on a large truck is about $15,000. The labour component of that repair is about 50 percent. Fifty percent of the 7 percent tax is 3.5 percent on $15,000. That's almost $500 extra on that repair. That's what it's going to do to small business.
It's not just small business. It applies to farmers who are presently having extreme difficulty with the increase in taxation on their property. Last year they paid an 11 percent increase in school and property taxes. This year those same farmers are paying 8 percent between school tax and property tax. This government doesn't seem to understand that they're hitting the same individual. It's compounding.
[ Page 5092 ]
I want to point out a couple of other areas where this tax is going to impact. I'm sure the members of government will not be aware that at the present time there are between 10 million and 12 million shoes repaired in this province annually. Fifty percent of that is done by home-based business. Appliance repairs are very similar. What this tax is going to do is drive more of that business underground. This government is not going to increase the amount of money it collects from that tax, because more and more of it is not going to be declared.
One of the most difficult things we have to deal with in landfills today is our white metals: old fridges, stoves, washers and dryers. Those, along with shoes, should be considered recyclable. We shouldn't be taxing them; we should be encouraging people to repair them. But no, here we are taxing an appliance repair. Go to any landfill site and see what creates the largest problem: it's those white metals; there's no way of recycling those white metals. We should be encouraging people to repair those instead of throwing them in our landfill sites. We should not be taxing them so that we discourage that. We should not be driving that industry underground. That business is largely conducted out of the home.
Think about your own communities. How many businesses operate out of a car or a van? Most of them do. What this government's going to do with this taxation is drive that business right underground. It's encouraging people to cheat on the system, and therefore put more burden on the rest of the taxpayers in this province.
Let's look very closely at what the removal of the trade-in allowance for taxing purposes does to the car purchaser. Earlier today this government kind of laughed when it referred to car dealers. It really believes that it's taxing the car dealerships when they take away the tax credit for trade-ins. They're not. Automobiles are not a luxury in the rural parts of this province. There's no rapid transit. People need automobiles to get to work. In my constituency people drive up to 60,000 or 70,000 km a year just to go to work. It's a necessity. What you've done with this piece of taxation is added $300 to $800 to that person's purchase of a new vehicle. I would be pleased to supply the Finance minister with those kinds of stats, because I have them.
It's no shame to be in small business. I'm proud of my record in small business. I'm proud of what I contribute to my community. I'm proud of the fact that I supply 14 high-paid jobs in my community in the automotive industry.
H. Lali: At $6.50 an hour?
L. Fox: That man should be informed, and I beg him to get informed, because I have many people working in my business that make more money than that individual's ever made on a yearly basis in his life.
I'm disappointed, because that's the kind of mentality that this government has. It doesn't realize what kind of contribution small business makes to the community and to the economy of this province. And I'm disappointed that that member hasn't got an understanding. He's standing over there ready to speak to the budget, and he doesn't even understand those simple basics. That disappoints me substantially.
I could go on and on, but I see my time has run out. I can only say that I hope this Finance minister looks at some of those issues that I've brought forward today with the same kind of compassion he showed for those homeowners in Vancouver and Victoria last Monday. And I hope to God that he sees the error of his wisdom. I apologize for that, hon. Speaker; I didn't mean to say that. I really do hope, and I meant it sincerely, that he sees the error of his wisdom with regard to this budget.
H. Lali: Unlike the naysayers on the Social Credit benches and the doom-and-gloomers on the Liberal benches, I stand here with pride, and I support this budget.
The member who spoke a couple of minutes ago seemed to imply that he's somehow better than I am because he has made more money than I have. Shame on him for demeaning people who make less money than he does.
In any case, unlike the Liberal opposition, who are masters of double-speak when they talk about this budget.... Some of my colleagues say they are actually speaking with a forked tongue. Somebody who grabbed me in the hallway said that they're actually speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time: out of one side they're saying that they want us to increase spending; yet at the same time, out of the other side, they're asking us to lower taxes and the deficit. Such hypocrisy!
Interjection.
H. Lali: The Socred member opposite is yelling and screaming right now. When his leader gave his speech on the budget, he said that the NDP government is blowing a billion dollars a year on interest payments on the provincial debt. I've got news for that same member. Hon. member, if your inept government had not mismanaged the economy and finances of this province and had not accumulated a $20 billion debt between 1975 and 1991, this government and the people of this great province would not have to pay a billion dollars a year in interest payments for the Socred's financial incompetence over the last 40 years. Shame on you and shame on Social Credit for robbing British Columbians blind.
He also said that the NDP has increased the overall debt. The Leader of the Third Party said that the NDP wants to build new roads and bridges by mortgaging our children's future. What in the dickens do you think your government, of which you were a member for six years, did when they had a $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla Highway? What do you think your government did when it had a $175 million overrun on the Alex Fraser Bridge and a $300 million overrun on Expo 86? You mortgaged the future of British Columbians.
He also said that he is against the introduction of tolls. He doesn't like the idea of users paying. Last year the Leader of the Third Party said in his budget speech that he wanted the government to introduce user fees in
[ Page 5093 ]
health care. I say that the Leader of the Third Party is a hypocrite for wanting to introduce user fees in one area but not in another.
[4:45]
Both the Liberals and the Socreds have made anti-union statements in their speeches. The member for Peace River South specifically said that public servants are being paid too much. As public servants are represented by unions, I'd like to ask: how many workers in that member's riding are making wages that unions fought hard for? How many of those people are spending money in the small businesses, restaurants, grocery stores and clothing stores in his riding and putting people to work? Union wages are keeping those small communities in his riding afloat.
I'd like to concentrate a bit on the highlights of this budget. This government has lowered the rate of spending growth from a high of 12 percent under the Socreds to 7 percent last year and 5.7 percent this year. In actual terms that's a 1.3 percent cut in spending. I would like to say that there is an increase of 3 percent in the population and 4 percent in inflation predicted for next year. In 1991-92 the Socred deficit was a record $2.4 billion. This government lowered it to $1.9 billion last year; and in this year, 1993-94, it's forecast to be a $1.5 billion deficit. As you can see, we have decreased the deficit two years in a row -- unlike the Socreds, whose deficits for the last three years, in the three budgets under Bill Vander Zalm, were increasing astronomically.
An Hon. Member: Desperately trying to get re-elected.
H. Lali: That's right. If we would have kept the status quo, this deficit would have been $3.1 billion. I say to the Minister of Finance, sitting to my left over there, that he also should be proud of his budget and the fact that he is continuing to decrease the deficit. Now that's leadership.
We've maintained the critical programs in health, education and social services. Health will receive a 4.1 percent increase to $6.2 billion this year. This demonstrates the government's commitment to maintaining our excellent health system and will enable us to continue with the New Directions health initiatives.
We've also introduced a fair tax package, in which 28 percent of British Columbians will get tax relief. MSP premiums will be eliminated for the lowest-wage earners in this society -- that's 430,000 people. MSP premiums will also be reduced for an additional 135,000 people, while MSP for the remaining will go up 3 percent. We've asked people to share in the deficit reduction. The homeowner's grant will increase 5 percent for 94 percent of British Columbians, while the homeowner's grant will be phased out for those owners of homes with a value over $400,000. We've also made modest cuts in taxes on small business.
We've escalated the social capital budget for building courthouses, schools, hospitals, specifically in the regions of this province, from $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion. We've also created the Transportation Financing Authority. Major capital projects in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways will be carried out by this authority. It will be paid for by revenues from the 1-cent-per-litre increase in gas prices, a charge of $1.50 per day for car rentals, and tolls on highways and bridges in the future, which will generate $600 million in revenues.
The Crown corporations are also investing $900 million, including almost $500 million in new projects to create new jobs in regions throughout this province. There is also an income surtax for taxpayers earning $60,000 or more, while families earning $60,000, with a dependent spouse and two children, will not be paying more. A single person earning $80,000 will pay $285 more per year. Although the sales tax went up from 6 to 7 percent, 600,000 lower-income earners will receive a $50 per person credit on their income tax.
The Finance minister has used a balanced and fair approach in this budget. This budget serves hardworking middle- and low-income families. It protects vital services and reduces the deficit. Our taxes are the second lowest in Canada. The sacrifice begins at the top. The wealthiest 8 percent will pay more, and the remaining 92 percent will be treated more fairly. It's the lowest per capita deficit in Canada.
Some, like the Liberals, want more cuts; they want less healthy, less educated British Columbians. Yet others want us to spend, spend, spend. That's not a balanced approach; that will not bring down the deficit.
D. Symons: We never said: "Spend, spend, spend."
H. Lali: Oh yes you have, over and over again. Just look at the Hansard. They want us to....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please allow the member who has the floor to continue without these interruptions.
H. Lali: They want us to pay for this budget on the backs of middle-income and working people.
Also we have identified and cut $40 million of waste last year and $35 million this year, and we're looking for more cuts. We've cut the Premier's pay and the cabinet's pay by 5 percent. We've extended the MLAs' pay freeze to deputy ministers and Crown corporation heads.
I'd like to mention how this budget affects the interior and my constituency. I've gone around my constituency and talked to people, and they like the budget. They say that it's a fair budget, and that the minister has used a balanced approach. As the member for Cariboo North says, it's a good budget, and I'm proud to stand here and support it. I've talked to people who have represented both the left- and right-wing spectrums of the political arena. People have come up to me and said: "Your government has cut waste, and we don't mind paying a little bit extra in taxes to help in reducing the deficit."
This government listens to the people. Not only that, it also listens to the backbenchers, unlike the dictatorship of the Vander Zalm era. We have a working group of our general caucus called the interior caucus. It
[ Page 5094 ]
consists of 17 MLAs from the area north and east of Hope. All last year we identified some issues in the ridings we represented and also throughout the interior and the north. We talked to our various colleagues in caucus, cabinet ministers and the Minister of Finance. We said that we needed to bring down the unemployment rate by creating new jobs in the regions.
I'm happy to say that under B.C. 21, this government and this Finance minister have listened to the backbenchers and identified regional economic development as the number one objective for this government. There will be $100 million spent in the regions for building highway projects, bridges, schools and new hospitals. There's also going to be tree-planting taking place on a major scale.
J. Doyle: The Liberals have never been east of Hope.
H. Lali: That's right. The Liberals have not been east or north of Hope. So what would they know about trees and tree-planting?
This government is committed to putting people who are welfare recipients to work on these jobs.
Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I have been north of Hope, east of Hope, south of Hope and west of Hope. The member said I hadn't, so I just want to have it corrected.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the member take his seat. That was not a valid point of order, hon. member.
I would ask that the House please consider the rules of the House with respect to members who are speaking. They should be allowed to make their presentations without interruption. So would the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet please continue.
H. Lali: I'd like to congratulate the member who just rose on a point of order, which was not a point of order, for having gone east of Hope, north of Hope, south of Hope and west of Hope. But quite frankly, I think he's beyond hope.
In any case....
Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member address the Chair and proceed with his presentation.
H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I apologize to you. Next time I will address the hon. member opposite through the Chair. In any case, I was getting down to my summary.
The point was that the Liberal MLAs, with the exception of one person from Okanagan East, are all elected from the area which is south and west of Hope. I doubt if they know what the issues are north and east of Hope, in order to be standing up here trying to validly address those issues. That was the point I was trying to make: what would the member opposite know about tree-planting if he hasn't spent much quality time north and east of Hope?
They've spoken against this budget, which pays quite a lot of attention to creating jobs north and east of Hope in small communities in all of the ridings. I've got 42 small communities in my riding that are dependent on the resource industries, especially forestry. The people who depend on tree-planting in small towns like Princeton, Merritt, Lillooet, Lytton, Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Hope and various other small communities throughout my riding will be happy to know that this government is allocating funds in this budget towards tree-planting. That's going to put people in my riding to work. If the people across there have a problem with it, I say shame on you, because this budget is going to put people back to work.
In conclusion, I'd like to ask the members opposite, through the Speaker, one question: just who do you represent? Do you represent the 92 percent of British Columbians who are average working people, ordinary citizens, lower- and middle-income earners, or the 8 percent of the population who are the privileged few? If you represent the latter, I say shame on you.
Finally, I would again like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on an excellent budget that addresses a lot of the needs in my constituency. I look forward to some of the funds that will be coming my way when I go into the small towns to hand out some cheques.
U. Dosanjh: It's a privilege to rise in support of this great budget, a progressive and a caring budget for the needs of the people of British Columbia. I want to go on record as congratulating the Minister of Finance for the finest consultation process in the history of this province in putting this budget together. That minister has the courage to respond to the concerns of the people of B.C., whether before the budget is presented or after.
Perhaps the opposition benches need a lesson in what a budget is for. Among other things, a budget is for imposing fair taxes and ensuring that those who can afford to pay their fair share of taxes do pay. A great budget is for ensuring that the top 8 percent of income earners in B.C. pay their fair share of taxes for a change.
A good budget is for ensuring that 28 percent of lower-income earners see a reduction in their income taxes; making sure that the small business tax rate is not increased; extending the corporate capital tax exemption to reduce taxes for another 3,500 businesses in B.C.; extending a $50 tax credit -- up to $200 for a family -- for lower-income earner British Columbians; ensuring that at least 600,000 households in British Columbia will be eligible for this tax credit; ensuring -- and I want the opposition to hear this -- that the homeowner grant will increase for at least 95 percent of homeowners. A sensible budget is for ensuring that 430,000 lower-income British Columbians will not pay any medical premiums, and a sensitive budget is for making certain that another 135,000 will pay reduced medical premiums. A great budget is for making sure that 92 percent of British Columbians will not see an
[ Page 5095 ]
increase in their income tax rates this year. It's a great budget. It's a good budget.
[5:00]
What is good government for? Good government is for caring for the people of the province and for guaranteeing good education, good health and economic and job opportunities for the people of the province. This government is good government. This government has cut the cost of government in half, has reduced the growth in government spending to the lowest since 1987-1988, and in the coming year the six ministries will spend much less than they spent in the last year.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition rises on a point of order.
F. Gingell: I would like to reserve my right to make a motion of privilege with respect to the remarks just momentarily made by the hon. member for Mission-Kent in which he improperly, unfairly and untruthfully shouted out in this House statements that aren't true.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member you're referring to is not on the floor. You are referring to a matter which took place outside of the...?
F. Gingell: No, hon. Speaker. I'm referring to remarks he just now shouted out, as I have been advised by an hon. member.
Deputy Speaker: It's sufficient to have reserved your right to raise this matter at a later time. The hon. member will please proceed.
U. Dosanjh: Good government is reducing the deficit by $415 million this year to $1.5 billion. It's good government to build for the twenty-first century by accelerating the development of the economic tools that we need for long-term prosperity, like highways, schools, colleges and universities; by targeting government investment to the regions and to the people who need it most; by building community colleges and courthouses; and by replacing portable classrooms with permanent facilities so that our children and future generations of British Columbians can get the best education under the best circumstances possible.
It's good government to provide for the education of British Columbians by providing an increase of at least $100 million in grants to the elementary and secondary schools in British Columbia, and to provide a further increase of $34 million in grants to the universities and the colleges so that we can provide for the growth in British Columbia of 2,800 new full-time positions in post-secondary spaces.
It's good government to maintain the B.C. social safety net by providing more than $80 million this year to help move people from income assistance into the workforce.
This is a progressive budget a budget that cares for the ordinary working people of British Columbia. But how is this budget viewed by some vested interests outside of this House?
An Hon. Member: The right wing coalition.
U. Dosanjh: The right wing coalition. While the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has expressed praise for the budget brought in by the hon. Minister of Finance, there are a couple of mayors in the lower mainland of British Columbia -- one who has suddenly come out of the wilderness in the steep and isolated hills of West Vancouver, and the other from Vancouver itself, who can't decide whether he's a Socred, a Liberal, or other; one day he's not a Liberal, the next day it's a whole new ball game for him -- Mark Sager and Gordon Campbell: these two mystery mayors are the new champions of privilege in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
While the previous government floundered from scandal to scandal, not a word was uttered by these heroes. While the previous government slept through the scandal-rocked dying days of the Vander Zalm government, these apostles of fairness had not yet learned about the concept of recall.
While our party was out in the trenches fighting the dinosaurs of conflict and scandal....
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would you please take your seat for a moment. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour rises on a point of order.
D. Jarvis: The gentleman is talking about scandals in the Liberal party. What does this have to do with the budget debate? Tell him to stick to the budget, would you?
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. That's not a valid point of order. As all members know, when we're in this stage of debate on the budget, members have considerable latitude, and I'm sure we'd have great difficulty if we tried to hold every member precisely to the budget at this stage. Would the hon. member please continue.
U. Dosanjh: We're being touchy, I suppose.
While our party was out in the trenches fighting the dinosaurs of conflict and scandal, these rebels for riches and wealth were nowhere to be seen. While the people almost totally recalled the entire Vander Zalm government, they installed a new one -- a progressive, caring and compassionate government. I can assure these mayors that if they dare to come down to where the real people live, breathe and toil, mark my words: you will be recalled very quickly. Given the opportunity, the people of Vancouver will recall at least one of them for defying their often-expressed majority wishes for a ward system in Vancouver. Politicians like these mayors give rise to the level of cynicism found in the public, which gives rise to measures such as recall. If they listened to and implemented the wishes of the people, we would be far better served than we are by them adopting the most opportunist tactics that only detract from any real understanding of how a good budget is
[ Page 5096 ]
put together, what a good budget ought to look like and what it should do to meet the needs of people, while creating more economic and job opportunities.
Hon. Speaker, who do these mystery mayors speak for? Who do they represent? They certainly don't speak for the 28 percent of British Columbians who will see a reduction in their income taxes. These voices from the wilderness don't speak for 430,000 British Columbians who will no longer have to pay medical premiums; they're not concerned. Nor do they speak for the 600,000 households that will be eligible for a sales tax rebate of up to $200 per year. These fiscal revolutionaries certainly don't speak for the 95 percent of homeowners in British Columbia whose basic homeowner grant, whether they are seniors or otherwise, is increased. They are out of touch with and certainly do not voice the concerns of small business, whose taxes have not been increased in this budget.
Who do they speak for then? While at least one of them has been reducing services in garbage collection and the like in the city of Vancouver, they go into the in-camera meetings of city council and appropriate millions of dollars in taxpayers' hard-earned money to improve and beautify the golf courses in Vancouver. Then they talk to us about the correct sense of priorities. They certainly have their priorities right, in capital letters. They certainly know who they represent, and we know who we represent. We represent the vast majority of people of British Columbia for whom this budget is a godsend.
I know that the people of Vancouver-Kensington and the people of British Columbia in general will see through them very clearly. They know who their friends are, and these mystery mayors from the no-principles association -- otherwise known as the NPA -- are certainly not their friends. The philosophy of these mayors is: those who can't afford to pay shall pay, and those who can afford to pay shall continue to hoard and not pay. That is not the philosophy in this budget; it's quite the contrary.
In reconsidering the property surtax, the Minister of Finance showed courage and the ability to respond to concerns. However, my friends, take note: the new sociologists of the right provide us with a new definition of middle class. Five percent of homeowners -- owners of the most expensive homes in British Columbia -- are part of the middle class, according to the city councillors and the new sociologists of the Right. These homes range in price from half a million to multimillion dollars. If that is the middle class, I suppose the upper class is not on the charts anywhere, and the rest of the people in British Columbia are either lower than middle class or are the underclass. These radical tax revolutionaries have never shed any tears for the 95 percent of the British Columbia homeowners who have always borne the brunt of taxes. That 95 percent has had their homeowner's grant increased in this great budget.
The Leader of the Third Party has suggested that public sector workers should take ten days off without pay so we can further reduce our deficit. What a novel suggestion. There is no quibbling with this desire to reduce the deficit. However, this government has already brought the deficit from the projected $2.8 billion to $1.5 billion within the space of eighteen months. I know there are some touchy people around here, but this proposal of the Leader of the Third Party would take $1,500 away from an average working family; it would take that money away from communities across British Columbia. The member for Vancouver-Langara has expressed concern about the loss of the homeowner grant on behalf of the top 5 percent of homeowners in British Columbia. He has asked, like the third party has, that the grant be reinstated.
The leader of the opposition, my friends, has invited the Leader of the Third Party into the Liberal tent -- what a tent! -- so that both these parties can agitate throughout British Columbia on behalf of the 5 percent, the owners of the most expensive homes in B. C. Was that their mandate when they got elected to this Legislature? These political parties have never expressed any concern about the unprecedented rate of demolition of affordable rental housing in Vancouver. They have expressed very little concern about the 25 to 40 percent rent increases for the tenants living in the lower mainland, particularly those living in Vancouver.
Yes, this government has done away with the renter's tax credit, but it will bring in a program that adequately deals with the needs of the renters. It will not be the kind of program that we had before, which didn't meet the needs adequately. Suddenly these representatives of privilege are in an uproar over the plight of the 5 percent, the owners of the most expensive homes in British Columbia.
Sure, a few seniors got caught who don't have the ability to pay. After listening to those concerns, the surtax was removed. However, if the Leader of the Third Party -- whom the leader of the opposition is ready to embrace; my God, in the tent -- is ready and willing to take $1,500 away from the pockets of ordinary working men and women without any concern for their families and communities, then why are they shedding tears over the loss of $470 to $740 in homeowner grants to the wealthiest British Columbians?
This is a great progressive budget that takes the economic needs of British Columbia into account in terms of job creation. It takes the aspirations of the people of British Columbia for educating their families and their desire to have a better health care system into account. It corrects the imbalances of the past many years. This budget is a godsend to the people of British Columbia. It brings fairness, compassion and the correct sense of priorities to bear upon the fiscal problems, conflict and scandal that we have inherited from the previous bunch of dinosaurs.
[5:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: As a cabinet minister of a relatively small ministry, a number of important questions come to mind concerning this year's budget. I believe, as do a number of my colleagues, that one of the most important priorities of my government -- and I think of any responsible government -- is job creation. Job creation is important. And why are we concentrating on it? Well, we have the best record in Canada for job creation. These are not our figures; these are the
[ Page 5097 ]
figures of the federal government. We have created somewhere between 28,000 and 36,000 jobs in one year. That's the highest rate in the country by far. Out of the ten provinces, only two provinces have created jobs: one of those is British Columbia, the highest by far, about 2 percent; the other is New Brunswick, about 0.8 percent. It's very important in this time of what I think is economic duress. The other eight provinces have shown decreases in jobs.
Actually, we have done extremely well in British Columbia. The only place where I see we've had any job loss at all, really, is in the opposition benches. The opposition benches of the Social Credit Party started out with seven people, and now they have six. That's a 14 percent job loss. So we haven't done a good job there -- haven't done a good job at all. As for the Liberal Party, they started out with 17, and they're down to 16 or 15. That's about a 6 percent job loss, and it may indeed grow significantly. We can't do much about that, but we can concentrate on the public at large, and I think we're doing a good job of it.
We have targeted about $100 million specifically for job creation. We're not going to throw the money at it like the former government did -- you know, putting up signs on the highway saying: "Buy in B.C." The people were going by at 80 miles an hour, they couldn't read the sign, and they kept on going down to the States. We take a much more rational approach. Our approach is to start with a pilot project. Then we monitor that pilot project and make sure it works.
Interjections.
Hon. B. Barlee: I am very pleased that the two members of the Social Credit Party are responding, because it shows they're awake, and I really appreciate that as a speaker in the House.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker would appreciate it if the hon. minister would address the Chair from time to time.
Hon. B. Barlee: I apologize, hon. Speaker.
What is the most important engine? Well, the most important engine really is small business. There are probably 40,000 or 50,000 small businesses in British Columbia, and we've received all sorts of criticism. Realizing that small businesses and entrepreneurship are important, we've taken a hard look at....
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: We do indeed, we do indeed. If you will give me your undivided attention, which will be extremely difficult, I will explain it to you; and I might even explain it in monosyllables -- through you, Mr. Speaker, of course.
What we've done, for instance, is take a look at the restaurant industry. The restaurant industry has about 10,000 food outlets in British Columbia: from ma and pa right up to the Empress, the Pan Pacific and all the rest. I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination, that they could be considered social democrats. The restaurant industry looked across Canada and they said: "My heavens! Seven out of ten provinces have imposed not only a high GST but a PST ranging from 8 to 9 to 10 to 11 to 12 percent." They imposed a PST on top of the GST. So we said, okay, this is a fragile industry; this is an industry that really counts; this is an industry where the mortality rate is very heavy. We decided not to impose a PST on the restaurant industry. That's fairly important. That would have meant $125 million for this government, maybe even more. You know, I think it worked well, because now the restaurant industry -- and they were before, by the way -- is cooperating significantly with this government. They realize that we're going in the right direction and that we have a long-term plan. I alluded very briefly the other day to the differences between the former government.... The former government, which is represented by a corporal's guard over there, didn't do a very good job at all. They didn't cooperate among ministries, and it requires some cooperation among ministries. So I cooperate with various ministries -- Tourism, and Economic Development, Small Business and Trade -- and we save a lot of money. We froze their tax rates. We didn't impose what I would consider a draconian 7 percent tax on meals. I think they are responding as I anticipated they would. When you look at exactly what's at stake, I think we're beautifully positioned.
The tourism industry is about....
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: You'll learn something if you listen.
The tourism industry is about a $3.5 trillion industry worldwide. British Columbia has all sorts of advantages. For example, I'll tell you what we're doing, and you will probably understand it. We're cooperating with the Ministry of Tourism. Agriculture has some money which we fund very carefully, and we're putting in funding with the Ministry of Tourism. We're embarking on a project that is also funded by the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association.
As it happens, we have an advantage in this area. In the Okanagan, the Similkameen and the north Okanagan -- many of those seats, by the way, are not held by the government -- we believe that we have a strategic advantage. We have about 21 wineries and some unique vineyards in that area. The ambience of the area is really quite unusual. Some people consider it to be even more beautiful than the Napa Valley, and I'm inclined to agree with them. So we're going to take advantage of that.
We will be launching an agrifood and agritourist project later this spring, after we launch a restaurant program. I think you will agree that the restaurant program and the projects we've started so far have been eminently successful. I know it's hard to admit it, but it's a fact. There's no doubt about it at all. In fact, as I mentioned the other day, we thought we were going to get 40 restaurants onside. We had 172 onside, and they ponied up $50 each. They were absolutely ecstatic about it.
[ Page 5098 ]
Hon. Speaker, we hear a lot about the economy and how the other side would handle the economy. Well, let's take a hard look at how the other side has handled the economy. Confederation was in 1867. It took Canadians 100 years to get to a debt of $17 billion. Between 1867 and 1967, the total federal debt of Canada grew to $17 billion. Then we had the Liberal Party. My, they were clever. They came in with a multimillionaire, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who's a very clever man indeed -- probably a Mensa IQ. But gosh, he was cheap -- personally.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock on a point of order.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the history lesson and the advice of the hon. member about Pierre Trudeau. But fortunately we don't have to deal with that budget, which was 25 years ago.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. That, with the greatest of respect, is not a valid point of order. Will the minister please continue.
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Speaker, I think it's quite valid because, first of all, that debt rocketed from $17 billion to $184 billion in 17 years. Then another party took over: the cousins of the Social Credit Party, the Conservative Party. Their promises were grandiose. They were going to reduce the debt. They were going to wipe it out. The Socreds and the Conservatives went hand in hand down the aisle. And do you know what they did? That $184 million, which had grown from a grasshopper to a horse under the Liberals, now became an elephant. It was a staggering $456 billion, and rising daily. So our two critics really have a very dubious background when it comes to handling any sort of money at all. In fact, most of them should be sent home without their supper -- indeed they should. I think that's what my mother said.
Now we examine something else. I was in the House when the Social Credit Party voted for it. It was the free trade agreement. I remember it well. I remember them sitting over here, and all of them trotting up and voting for the free trade agreement. What they were voting for was the corporate elite. What really happened under the free trade agreement? By anyone's measurement, there are 400,000 Canadians out of work now because of the free trade agreement.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, hon. minister.
The Chair has shown restraint to the point that.... The number of interruptions that we're having to hear is becoming intolerable. If members are going to persist in interrupting the member who has his place, they are going to be asked to withdraw from the chamber. I've watched this continue for too long. I think that members know we cannot conduct public affairs in an atmosphere of disorder. So please, hon. members, restrain yourselves to the extent that you allow the courtesy you would expect if you were making a presentation yourself.
Would the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food please continue. It would help if the hon. minister would address the Chair.
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly, hon. Speaker. Thank you very much.
The free trade agreement, which the Social Credit Party voted for unanimously, was by all considerations a dismal failure. Then a few months ago we were in this House, and much to my absolute astonishment all of the opposition members -- all 24 of them -- popped up and voted for the North American free trade agreement, commonly called the NAFTA. Even the Americans under new President Bill Clinton are having some doubts about the North American free trade agreement. They're having grave doubts about it. I think we should have graver doubts about it. Again, it is driven by the corporate elite.
We have a number of areas of real concern. One of those areas is the potential damage, in my estimation, to the agriculture community. All of our research has indicated that. Another area, of course, is the loss of jobs. How do we compete with jobs in Mexico that are a dollar an hour? Finally, there is another area that I think is perhaps even more important than all of those. Water is on the table. All the experts say that under the NAFTA, water is on the table. We really have to be extremely careful when our neighbours to the south start eyeing our water. I believe that they're not aware of the impact of these agreements.
[5:30]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I was just reading the Globe and Mail the other day, the "Report on Business" -- and this is under the free trade agreement. Under the free trade agreement, it says this: "Canadian ranchers are nervous because U.S. cattlemen have already launched two countervailing actions against Canadian beef and have threatened more. The United States lost the first...action in 1987...." -- and they're going to lose the second action. Why do they do it? It's a punishing countervail. The American have what they call the ITC, the International Trade Commission, and it pays for the Americans to launch countervailing actions against Canadian cattlemen. That may cost a million dollars. We may win the case. We may win the second case, and we may win the third case. But it's extremely hard, because we have to pay our share whether we win it or not.
The Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, the relevancy of this to the budget debate is beyond me. For ten minutes he's been going on about things with not one mention of anything relevant. It is item 40 of standing orders, I think, that says we're supposed to have some relevancy to what's before the House. This certainly does not.
[ Page 5099 ]
The Speaker: Normally that point might be a valid one. However, in both the throne speech debate and the budget debate we characteristically allow a very wide range of debate. However, I'm sure the hon. minister will take your comments under consideration.
Hon. B. Barlee: I believe they're getting a little confused. Trade is an integral part of the budget process; it's part of the money process. Of course, I know I would be extremely nervous if I had voted for the free trade agreement too, or for the NAFTA. But I think you get the message. So what I'm trying to say.... The philosophical differences are really a gulf between us. We believe that a long-term economic strategy is absolutely necessary, that you have to be extremely careful about any prospective trade agreements and that there should be cooperation between the various ministries, which we did not see from the government in charge when we were on the opposite side. I also believe there are a number of farsighted British Columbians who value our resources as much as we do, and that they will agree with our long-term strategy; most of them do.
W. Hurd: I am privileged to rise in my seat today to debate the second budget of this government, which as we now know, contains between $800 million and $1 billion in new taxes and a total budget deficit of $1.5 billion, which has fuelled a tax revolt from one end of this province to the other. Part of the reason why the people of the province are so disaffected with this budget is that there was what now appears to be a sham consultation process leading up to the introduction of this budget. Before taking my place today, I wondered why the gap between what the minister heard on his budget tour and what occurred in this budget is so wide. I thought I would do some research in past pages of Hansard to determine if some comments about fiscal prudence and responsibility would be the kind of thing we would have seen in the Minister of Finance's budget tour, and if that may have created this huge gap in expectations. I think it's important to review the record of what was said.
Since I am following the Minister of Agriculture, perhaps I can read one of the comments that he made in Hansard about the need for tax relief in British Columbia: "The provincial gasoline tax is probably the most draconian tax in British Columbia." He used "draconian" again in a different context in this chamber today. He also said: "...they" -- referring to the Socreds -- "are actually going to increase the gas tax in British Columbia, and we have the second-highest rate in Canada." Imagine that. He made that statement in March of 1991, a short two years ago. I can only assume that a memory loss occurs when one member crosses from this side of the floor to the other.
But I could go on. This is a statement from the hon. Minister of Finance, in 1989: "There's no magic to balancing the budget in British Columbia. In fact, it's extremely easy, absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing." The two NDP budget deficits have been the two largest deficits in the history of this province. They abandoned that commitment by the Minister of Finance three months into their mandate.
And from the premier, this gem: "We are committed to living within the means of the people of British Columbia." I wonder if the Minister of Finance said that to the people when he was touring the province during the month and a half leading up to this budget. Today in B.C. a family of three is paying $1,600 more in taxes than when this government took office, and I say: shame on them! Shame for presenting a message to the people of this province that they represent tax relief for middle-income and medium-income people in this province. It simply isn't true.
Let's talk about some of the other quotes. This is one I love from the Premier: "If the funding isn't there, we won't spend it. We'll have to go back to the good old-fashioned way of cutting out waste, of getting spending priorities right." In the 1993-94 budget we have a $1.5 billion deficit. Let's talk about some of the old-fashioned ways of reducing spending and waste. Increase civil service travel by $5 million during the current fiscal year. Double the cost of the cabinet secretariat. Increase the office budget and office furniture of the Premier by a total of $1 million. The civil service has been increased by 2,200 people since this government was elected -- and that's an example of this government getting the spending priorities right.
I'm glad to see that the Minister of Energy and Mines is here. I have a quote from March 1991: "What we need is relief." Hon. Speaker, relief. "We need the assurance that...there is a tax freeze...on gasoline." Some assurance. I have a quote from the hon. member for Alberni: "Time and time again this government" -- referring to the Socreds -- "raised fees and raised taxes for small business of the province. And: "It is time for all levels of government to realize the" -- tax -- "system is killing small business in this province." This gem from the Premier in 1991: "Taxpayers expect value for their hard-earned dollar, and we're going to provide it."
Interjections.
W. Hurd: Perhaps they can pound their desks for this list.
Here's a classic: "The entire Women's Equality ministry went on an overnight retreat at a luxury resort where they made objects out of drinking straws." Twelve thousand dollars was spent for one day's work by an American image consultant, to help bolster the Premier's image. Given his image after this budget, I almost can't complain about that expenditure.
The operating costs of the government communications office have almost doubled under the NDP. I understand that government members sent out their throne speech and budget speech press releases with fill-in-the-blanks. That may be the reason the communication costs have doubled.
This is almost unbelievable. The hon. Minister of Finance said on June 8, 1990: "In many cases fees have been increased by 100 percent" -- by the previous government -- "a dramatic fee increase across the board in British Columbia." Thus far, existing and new
[ Page 5100 ]
fees have increased by 2,000 percent under this government.
Finally, a statement that I can agree with, although it was said in this chamber too late, I guess, for the people to respond to: "British Columbia taxpayers urgently need some relief from the tax unfairness of this government." That was the Minister of Finance in 1991.
It is apparent to me that if that's the kind of message the Minister of Finance was delivering during his sojourn around the province, taxpayers wasted their money on that junket as well. The people of this province have indicated time and time again to this minister -- if he was only willing to listen -- that they will not tolerate an increase in taxes if it doesn't correspond to a reduction in expenditures by this government. The people of the province will accept higher taxes if the government tightens its belt, but they see absolutely no evidence that this government has any commitment to reducing expenditures. The minister could have consulted a poll that was done for the Globe and Mail that said a majority of people in this country want the government to cut back, not spend more. So what could the people of the province have been telling this minister when he went around the province? I know what happened with that free budget tour. While this minister was going around wearing earplugs, the mandarins in his ministry were producing a socialist budget -- a socialist agenda that had nothing to do with these so-called prebudget consultations. And that's exactly what's happened in this province.
If this Minister of Finance had wanted to do any homework at all, he would have acquired a copy of a study done by the Dominion Bond Rating Service, a respected service that establishes the credit rating for governments throughout the Western World. This particular organization pointed out that B.C. already raises more per capita revenue from its citizens than any other provincial government -- an average of $4,194. That comes from the Dominion Bond Rating Service, not from the opposition. But as we saw with the Peat Marwick Thorne report prior to the last budget, this government has selective memory loss when it comes to accepting the verdict of respected organizations like the Dominion Bond Rating Service instead of the kind of hired hacks that they have to provide them with the information that merely confirms the direction they want to go.
We're now taking more from individual British Columbians, at the rate of 21 percent over four years. That's what has happened to the people of the province under this government. I think the reason why there's such frustration in this province is the kind of statement being made by members of government, in which they seem to understand the issues of the day, they seem to understand the problems in the province, and they say a lot of the right things, but it is never backed up by specific policies from government.
I have some comments made by the Minister of Labour. He said that governments of all political stripes in Canada need to pursue a third option in addressing government deficits. He said that rather than increase taxes and cut programs as a way out of their fiscal problems, governments need to do more to generate economic activity. This is from the Comox District Free Press. You can imagine how the good people of Comox will react when they pick up a copy of this budget and try and balance it with the statements made by the Minister of Labour. There's absolutely no correlation.
[5:45]
The Minister of Finance obviously didn't listen to the people of the province. He professes to be surprised by the firestorm of controversy and concern that has greeted his budget. But if he is surprised, it's because he didn't listen to the people of the province. Every other provincial government in this country, with the exception of Ontario and British Columbia, is cutting back. This week a budget was brought in in Nova Scotia which almost amounts to a balanced-budget law.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: I can tell that member over there that if initiative was on the books of this province, we'd have a balanced-budget initiative and we'd be dealing with it in this chamber. I would urge that that balanced-budget initiative be given to Ken Georgetti, John Shields and the rest of this government's union friends, saying: "Here, guys, you're the chief executive officers; you balance the budget."
Hon. Speaker, welfare costs in this province are out of control. We've seen a dramatic growth in Crown corporations. By the end of 1993-94 this province will be an additional $5 billion in debt because of the actions of this government. I appeal to the members opposite who have children getting out of university and entering the workforce to think about what it's going to cost those children to pay off $5 billion in debt. One thing we do not want in this province is a situation like we have in Ottawa, where 33 cents of every dollar goes to servicing the debt before 1 cent is spent on government programs. That's the road this government is taking us down. They're taking us down the road to fiscal ruin, hon. Speaker, and they're mortgaging the future of the young people in this province to do it. Shame on them!
I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Burrard, whose views I respect. He talked about the need to preserve the sanctity of those universal social programs in British Columbia. I respect that view, hon. Speaker. But as surely as I stand in this chamber today, the way that you sacrifice and undermine those programs is by adding to the debt of this province. A debt is nothing more than deferred taxes, and deferred taxes mean reductions in program spending five or ten years down the road -- long after this government has left office and is no longer accountable. We simply cannot deficit-finance our way to prosperity. We cannot add more debt and expect the welfare of the future to take care of itself. We cannot increase the debt service costs and expect to have prosperity in the future. That's the road this government is taking us on, and that's what is infuriating the people of this province. They understand only too well that when you're running a $1.5 billion deficit at the end of the fiscal year, it goes to long-term debt, and that when that happens, you have to start servicing that debt.
[ Page 5101 ]
Even governments have to start paying their bills. Every cent that goes to debt service costs represents the mortgaging of the future of the province, and that simply cannot be allowed to go on unchallenged. The people of this province have served notice that they will not let it go on and that if they had the right of initiative and recall, they would take control of the agenda and produce a balanced-budget initiative which would force the members of this government to deal with the hard fiscal realities that the people have to face every day of their working lives. We haven't seen that from this government.
The spending priorities of this government are devoted to increasing the size of the bureaucracy. There's an agenda attached to this budget. It's not about taxes and spending priorities; it's about redistributing the wealth of the people of the province. It's about saying that the people who have should pay because this government refuses to recognize the work that those people put into achieving their position in life.
This government does not recognize the value of somebody going out to work hard, to create jobs, to borrow money, to take a chance, to take risks, to create economic growth in British Columbia. That is alien to this government, and they simply aren't prepared to reward it with a budget that is fair and equitable. They have singled out people. They have singled out income classes; they have singled out classes of people, as they did with the doctors. They have decided that they are going to conduct what amounts to class warfare in this province. It's got nothing to do with equity or fairness. It is an agenda of wealth redistribution, and the people of the province are outraged. They will not accept the kind of government that purports to represent the people of the province and instead brings forth a budget that bears no resemblance to the things that the Finance minister would have heard on his budget tour around the province. Instead, it was generated by the mandarins deep within this government, who have an agenda which is only faintly masked.
It was the Minister of Finance who stood in this chamber and foreshadowed the kind of draconian budget he would bring down, when he said a year ago that nobody living in a $400,000 house in the lower mainland, regardless of how long they had lived there, should be eligible for any assistance from this government or any help from the people of British Columbia. He had an unrealistic view of wealth in this province then, and he has an unrealistic view today. It's reflected in this budget, which simply will not be accepted or tolerated by the people of the province.
What are other people -- other than those in opposition -- saying about this budget? How is it being reviewed elsewhere? In the Globe and Mail they talk about B.C.'s complacent budget. They say it's a budget that is taking us down the same road as Ontario. Today in Ontario, Premier Rae is sitting down with his public sector unions to cut $9 billion out of his budget. It's a crash course in fiscal collapse in Ontario. The future for British Columbia is fiscal collapse along the lines of that in Ontario. They're bringing to this province the same tax-and-spend philosophy that has driven Ontario to the brink of economic and financial ruin. That's right in the Globe and Mail.
Here's what it says: "Quite simply, B.C. has a record..." -- of financial mismanagement -- "under first Social Credit" -- sorry, guys -- "and now the New Democrats that is second to none. The only difference is that under the Socreds, spending grew faster than taxes, while under the NDP, taxes have grown faster than spending." But it's a shameful record nevertheless.
In the minutes left, perhaps I can return to my list of classic budget-balancing euphemisms from this government. It just goes on and on. "Taxpayers expect more for their hard-earned dollars. We're going to provide it." In many cases fees have increased 1,000 percent.
As I read this list, I don't detect a single ounce of shame from the members opposite, who misled the people of the province during their four years in opposition and continued to do so during those prebudget tours around the province. People will not accept a government that plunges them into debt to the tune of $5 billion. They will not accept a government that refuses to cut spending at the same time it raises taxes. They will not accept a government that spends $3 for every $1 it raises; they understand that no economy, no business, no enterprise is sustainable when you're spending $3 for every $1 that you make. It is simply not a sustainable level of government.
These members who suggest that they are protecting the social programs of the province will bequeath such a financial mess that sooner or later those programs will probably have to be sacrificed because of the amount of debt that this province has and the cost of servicing it. The suggestion that they are fiscal stewards is an utter sham and a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Furthermore, the people of this province have seen through it. They're organizing now. If we had a balanced-budget initiative in this province, the Minister of Finance would be holding a lot of press conferences and backtracking from virtually every measure in this budget. I look forward to the day when there is initiative in this province and the people can take control of the agenda when the government has failed miserably in its responsibilities to the people of this province and to our children.
F. Garden: I'm still trying to get over the diatribe that I just heard. But the hour is getting late, and I would like to adjourn the debate at this time.
F. Garden moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.
The House resumed at 6 p.m.
[ Page 5102 ]
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 2.
JOB PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 2; E. Barnes in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
W. Hurd: I certainly welcome input from either the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Economic Development about the rationale behind the changes to the Forest Act contained in this particular bill. Both ministers will recall that the opposition expressed concern about the juxtaposition of these rather significant changes to the Forest Act with the extension of the mandate of the job protection commissioner. The opposition would certainly welcome input from either minister as to why these rather significant changes need to be dealt with in this particular bill, and not in a separate bill from the Forests minister.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's our view that the sections of the Forest Act that are contained in the Job Protection Act need to be permanently entrenched in the Forest Act. Presumably we'll get into debate on the specifics of those sections, but they need to be permanently entrenched.
I'll just go back a bit. The Job Protection Act -- and there was some debate in second reading about that -- was clearly designed to assist in a variety of circumstances where industries were in jeopardy and where jobs and community stability were threatened. We have heard from the minister responsible for the bill -- and I'm sure all members are aware; probably these instances have arisen in their own constituencies -- how the job protection commissioner and his office have been extremely helpful in maintaining industries and jobs that are at risk. One of the tools available to the job protection commissioner.... In addition to these sections in the Forest Act, there were a range of tools, as people will see if they have a copy of the original act, essentially dealing with the ability to reduce fees in certain circumstances, to make agreements on reduced fees -- all those kinds of things that you would normally try to bring to bear in order to assist an industry through a difficult period of time.
The central issue that I've heard the members opposite talk about is section 56.01 of the Forest Act, which allows the Ministry of Forests under certain circumstances to take a certain percentage of volume and make it available -- as I recall from some of the earlier debates -- to workers' associations or others who may be prepared to use that volume to maintain jobs and economic activity in a community. So it was a useful tool, given the range of tools that are available to the job protection commissioner, to achieve the end that I think we all agree on.
We have made some amendments to section 56.01 because, quite frankly, we discovered over the course of the last two years that it had some serious deficiencies in its applicability. One particular case comes to mind. I was somewhat embarrassed, although I ended up by not dealing with it because I was on a short holiday last year. Nonetheless, we had assumed that the section was applicable in the case of a small community which had a mill close down, and an adjoining licensee had taken that volume and diverted it into another community. If we had had the provisions under section 56.01 that we're debating now, we would have been able to make about 30,000 cubic metres available to the smaller community -- either to existing operators who would make a commitment to expand operations and provide more opportunity, or through whatever arrangement we could put together. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of the section in the existing bill, we were not able to do that.
So we're trying to correct that situation by these amendments to the Forest Act. We believe, as I hope other members believe, that they are useful tools and should be permanently entrenched in the Forest Act, in order to give the Crown -- the owners of the resource -- and the government, which is responsible for communities and jobs to the degree that it is, an additional permanent tool to allow these kinds of things to happen. That's the premise behind what we're doing. I'll leave it at that and try to answer any specific questions the members might have.
W. Hurd: That answer still leaves me somewhat puzzled, because the job protection commissioner has a broad mandate to review failing businesses and businesses in difficulty throughout the province. In the excellent briefings on this bill that were received by the opposition, it was apparent that these amendments to the Forest Act would in no way inhibit the job protection commissioner from carrying out his immediate duties. On the one hand, the purpose of the bill was to simply extend the mandate of the commissioner, because there was a sunset clause in the original legislation. In fact, under this section, we're now dealing with significant changes to the Forest Act, which really are not needed at this juncture by the job protection commissioner. Again, my question to the minister is: in view of the fact that they aren't urgently needed by the job protection commissioner, why is it necessary for us to be dealing with these rather substantial changes before April 12, when the mandate for the job protection commissioner runs out?
Hon. D. Miller: I am somewhat surprised, having spoken to the job protection commissioner today and been advised that he had had a conversation with at least two members of the Liberal opposition and had assured those members that indeed he is desirous of this change. So I'm really quite baffled by your statement. It's certainly supported -- and well supported, I might add -- by the job protection commissioner.
W. Hurd: The concern the opposition has about this change is that it obviously carries import far beyond the bill we're talking about at the moment. For example, talking in specifics, in a situation where the chief
[ Page 5103 ]
forester was to reduce the annual allowable cut, as he has indicated he will do in 38 timber supply areas across the province, and a mill is unable to secure the timber it needs, would these changes to the Forest Act not mean that the minister could come in and further remove cut, based on the inability of the mill to secure the timber it needed for perfectly logical reasons?
Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps you could enlighten me, Mr. Chair, and advise me which section of Bill 2 we are discussing.
The Chair: Section 1 passed. We're now on section 2. There are no amendments before us, so presumably it's section 2.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can readdress my remarks to section 3 and to the amendment to section 55.1, which gets to the heart of the matter of the rather natural reasons why timber allocation would be reduced in an area and whether or not the minister, under these changes to the Forest Act, would have the power to remove cut because of a for reduction in operations, which might occur for perfectly logical reasons. I'd certainly welcome an explanation from the Minister of Forests of whether that scenario could be possible.
The Chair: The hon. minister on section 3.
Hon. D. Miller: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I really do apologize. I was discussing with my officials. Perhaps the member could rephrase the question.
W. Hurd: We were just dealing with a situation that could occur if the annual allowable cut was reduced in a timber supply area and a mill had a logical reason for being unable to access the timber that it needed to not reduce the harvest. I wonder if the minister has an explanation of what might happen in that event.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, again.... Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with section 3, correct?
The Chair: Yes, we're on section 3.
Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps I might offer a brief explanation of section 3. It simply allows the waiving of the cut control provisions of the Forest Act. For those members who are not familiar with that, the cut control provisions of a licence require that when a licence is granted and an annual allowable harvest rate is established, the licensee is obliged to harvest plus-or-minus 50 percent of that volume in any given year. Over the five-year period, I think it's 5 within percent...
[6:15]
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: ...within 10 percent of the total volume. The theory behind that is that we allocate long-term licences. Even though there are market conditions that do exist, we expect that because we've allocated the licence on a long-term basis, the licensee has an obligation to maintain, at the very minimum, 50 percent production in a bad year. In a very good year -- and I anticipate we might see that this year, for example -- the licensee, in order to take advantage of a high price, could harvest up to 50 percent more, or 150 percent. This section simply allows us to waive that cut control provision in the event that we apply section 56.01. In that sense, it's attendant to section 56.01, rather than being a central change in legislation; it sort of follows from section 56.01. If it is applied, then we have the ability to waive that cut control regulation.
Further to that, the section changes the word "licence" to "agreement." In a legal sense, I suppose that agreement is a word that captures licence and any other agreements that might exist. That's the explanation of that section.
L. Stephens: At present, the licence holders are governed by section 55.1 but a wood lot licensee or a salvager.... What about a salvager, for instance, where they're not a licence holder or an agreement holder? My understanding is that if a salvager wants to go into a cutblock, the salvaging must first be offered to the licensee. If they do not do the salvage work, it is in fact charged against their annual allowable cut. Do you understand where I'm going, minister?
Interjection.
L. Stephens: Would this allow the minister to allocate a salvage agreement to an independent salvager, and that annual allowable cut not to be charged against the major licensee?
Hon. D. Miller: The short answer is no, not at all -- and I understand the situation you're describing.
A woodlot wouldn't be captured, because woodlot licensees are not allowed to have processing facilities. So they really are not captured at all. The situation you describe is actually quite interesting, and it has been fairly contentious in some parts of the province, with salvage operators wanting to get onto a licensee's cutblock and having some difficulty. We're doing some work to try to improve that, but when that does occur.... Let's say, for example, that a licensee makes an agreement with a salvage operator to allow that operator to go onto their cutblock and salvage. Any of the wood that is salvaged is measured, and it is attributable to the licensee's cut control. This is simply a consequential change because of section 56.01.
V. Anderson: It would be helpful to me if there was some definition. If I understand it correctly -- and perhaps I don't -- if a licensee takes out a licence, it has terms, and the terms are fairly standard for everybody who has that particular licence. It's a fair description that there would be general terms for the licence.
[ Page 5104 ]
Interjection.
V. Anderson: If I understand an agreement, it may be tailored for each situation and could be quite different. That could have both pros and cons. It could mean, if I'm correct, that the agreement might be more flexible for the operator, so there might be some advantages. But the flip side of that is that it would also give a lot more freedom and power to the minister to play with those agreements, if you want -- in a philosophical sense, to redirect the program -- whereas the licences would have more restrictions than the agreements. The agreements open the system and make it more flexible, but they also place more power in the hands of the person who's controlling or rewriting those agreements for each circumstance.
Hon. D. Miller: As I said earlier, the impact of this is really a change in terminology; it has no other impact. Section 10 of the Forest Act refers to forms of agreement. I guess you could say that by changing the word "licence" to "agreement," we're simply making it more consistent with section 10 of the Forest Act, as I've outlined. It has no impact beyond that in the situation you've described.
L. Stephens: I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this business of licences and substituting the words "an agreement." The people who have a licence now.... Will substituting the words "an agreement" broaden the category of people or groups that now hold licences? Will this broaden the scope?
Hon. D. Miller: The short answer is no. I'll repeat that it's really being consistent with section 10, and I think it would only apply to forest licences and TFLs.
V. Anderson: To clarify that, are we saying that the terms and conditions of the agreement, which now is called a licence, will be exactly the same, without any changes or variations?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, the term "agreement" would apply to forest licences and TFLs, and I would, add replaceable timber sale licences. So it does not constitute a change.
I don't know if the hon. Forests critic is aware that when licences or agreements -- it's an interchangeable term -- are up for renewal, as are a significant number of the forest licence agreements in the interior of the province, we are discussing changes to those agreements with the licensees. Members might recall that one of the policies of the previous administration was to loosen the tie, if you like, between a licence and a processing plant -- what we call an appurtenance clause. When we go back to the origin of some of these licences, clearly they were designed to obligate the licensee, in exchange for a tenure of some duration that the Crown allocated, to construct and operate a processing plant. That's the quid pro quo implicit in licence agreements.
Agreements used to contain a clause that said the licensee shall not close an operation without the permission of the Minister of Forests. That was the check, if you like, that the resource allocated for a particular purpose was indeed used for that particular purpose. During the previous administration there was a change in philosophy that saw those licence agreements diluted and the wording changed quite dramatically. Instead of requiring the minister's permission, it was changed to read that the licensee should give three months' notice of closure. We as a party -- and I hope even current members of the Social Credit Party would agree -- disagreed with that change in philosophy. We thought there should be a fairly strong connection between the granting of long-term tenure and the obligation on a licensee to continue to provide jobs and economic activity as a result of having that licence. So because a significant number of forest licences are up for renewal, we're in the process of making that commitment stronger in the contract documents themselves.
I'm just explaining this for the edification of members. It's quite separate from anything contained under this section. Hon. member, perhaps you felt that this section had something to do with this other activity, and they really are completely disassociated.
V. Anderson: It's just because of the possible connections there. I understand quite well that when licences come up, new arrangements or contracts -- agreements, licences; whatever term you want to use -- are rewritten according to the circumstances at that time. Whatever is agreed on is carried through for the term of that agreement. What I'm wondering about is licences in existence at this point which do not come up for, say, one, two, three or four years. Do those licences still maintain the full length as they now stand, or is this retroactive, in that when this is passed, they will be agreements and in the process, de facto, rewritten?
Hon. D. Miller: The answer is no.
L. Fox: I have a couple of questions along the same line, just so I'm sure that I understand this. I don't see any interpretation of the word "agreement" within the Forest Act, but in looking at section 10, I note that there are four or five categories there that don't have the word "licence" after them, but "agreement" or "permit." Is the purpose here that section 55.1 will then pertain to everything from (a) to (j) in the Forest Act?
Hon. D. Miller: No, hon. member. The simple explanation is the one that I gave, really. If you look at the heading of section 10, it says "Form of agreements," and then it lists under that a variety of types of agreements. I've already dealt with a woodlot licence and explained that although it is a form of agreement, woodlot licensees cannot operate a processing plant. We will not grant a woodlot licence to the owner of a processing plant. So clearly, if you look at the next section we'll be debating -- section 56.01 -- which allows under certain circumstances the takeback of a percentage volume, it would only apply to those licences or agreements, under the broad heading of agreements, where there was a connection between the
[ Page 5105 ]
licence and a processing plant. Pretty clearly, whether you're talking about.... I mean, one of the forms of agreements is a road permit, and obviously that has no bearing on this. So the answer again is no, hon. member.
L. Stephens: Would the minister agree that a licence has more value than a road permit, or a permit, or a...? What I'm asking is: if you're saying that they both now have the same value, when before they very clearly did not, will they all have the same value now -- a licence and an agreement? You're saying that these will all be called agreements, but at this point a licence has more value than an agreement. So would you please explain it?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite certain of the question, and I hesitate to get into a philosophical debate about whether or not a licence should have a value. You could get into that whole thing about whether or not stumpage is supposed to capture -- that there should not be uncaptured value, that a licence really is designed to allow the holder to operate a business on the basis of the resource that's extracted. But that really would be taking us down a road, in terms of this bill, that I'd prefer not to go down. I'd be happy to discuss that kind of philosophical issue in estimates.
But, getting back to it, we are simply changing the term "licence" to "agreement." And, as I've already stated quite clearly, there are three agreements and/or licences that section 56.01 would apply to: a forest licence, a tree farm licence and a replaceable timber sale licence. Those are the only three out of the list that you see under section 10. As to the relative value of a road permit versus a licence -- I'm not certain how you'd get into the valuation of a road permit.
[6:30]
L. Fox: I would be satisfied if the minister would specifically state for the record that for a licence holder or an agreement holder, there is no difference in terms of autonomy for that industry -- that they both are exactly the same.
Hon. D. Miller: I really must confess that I don't quite follow the question.
L. Fox: Let me try to rephrase it. As the minister is well aware, I've been involved in changing some of the licences from one manufacturer to another. In that process, there was a value placed on the licence or on the cut. I'm concerned about whether that same value would be there if it were an agreement as opposed to a licence. If the minister can assure me that that is in fact the case, then I would be satisfied that the change is merely a housekeeping change.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I think we really are straying from the section. The member is familiar with the process -- which I established when I was named the minister -- of MLAs' panels to conduct public hearings on licence transfers. I was pleased with the member's participation in the licence transfer in his constituency. I think that by and large the panels have done a very good job. It's refreshing that people in communities now have an opportunity to make their comments about the implications of a licence transfer. But I would have to argue that in the cases that I have dealt with to date, there has been no transfer of the residual value of the Crown's timber. In fact, that was one of the principles that I sought when looking at what would guide me in approving or disapproving a transfer. If you look at the prices that were paid for the licences and assets that have been transferred, the value of the inventory, the roads and the mills was paid for, but not the value of the Crown's standing timber.
I think we're really getting into a convoluted discussion, quite frankly, about the difference between a licence and an agreement. I don't know what more I can say. I could go back and say that the heading for section 10 is "Form of agreements." Under that, from (a) to (j), are listed the various kinds of agreements that we enter into with companies and individuals. I have stated emphatically for the record that this would only be applicable to three agreements: a forest licence, a tree farm licence and a replaceable timber sale licence. I don't know how much more emphatic I can be in answering the member's question.
L. Fox: I recognize a bit of impatience, but in my view, this a very important issue. Given that following the clauses of this act would allow the minister to revoke a licence for non-production -- or it will now be an agreement.... Given the Gregory sawmill situation where the timber was held by a bank for collateral and the sale of that structure was dramatically influenced by the fact that there was a licence to cut 100,000 cubic metres of wood per year, I'm asking the minister point blank: if that had been an agreement to cut 100,000 cubic metres per year, instead of a licence, would it have changed the value of that tenure to the Gregory sawmill sale, which was in fact an FBDB bankruptcy? I'm sure the minister will recall it. That is precisely what this act is dealing with. That was a category 2 operation that had failed and was shut down beyond the 90 days specified later on in this legislation. The fact is that the bank recouped at least some of its losses. The sawmill is back in production now because the mill was tied to that licence and therefore was able to be sold off and put back into production. Does this wording change that opportunity?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
L. Fox: Just to be sure that I understand and that it's on the record: the words "an agreement" do not change the value of that resource to that production facility, irrespective of whether or not it changes hands?
Hon. D. Miller: No. I stand by my answer. In that particular case, the company went into bankruptcy, as you indicated. Let's run a theoretical argument and see if that answers your question. Had they simply shut down the processing facility but not gone into bankruptcy and receivership, then at some point I would have been able to utilize section 56.01 to take a given
[ Page 5106 ]
volume of timber from that licence and make it available in your community. That's really what I would have been able to do.
Now, in the case where it went into bankruptcy, clearly it was in the interest of the receiver to sell. And in that case my obligation was to ensure that the purchaser would continue to honour the obligations of the licence. That would be the only condition under which I would approve the transfer of the licence.
I repeat that this change from the word "licence" to "agreement" is simply to reflect the wording of the Forest Act. I repeat that section 56.01 -- which we haven't yet started to debate, and I think we really should get into that debate under the next section -- is only applicable to those replaceable licences.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are rather belabouring the point.
V. Anderson: I'm sorry to belabour the point, but I think in the past we have found that the insignificant words this government has put into bills have become very significant at a later stage. By that time it's too late to do anything about it, particularly when they have not put in definitions so that there is some understanding of what this is.
You say it's only in those three licence areas. It's about the three licence areas that I'm particularly curious, because I understand the minister's concern that the value of the forest products to the Crown should not be lost but rather should be maintained under the control of the Crown. I understand that as you explained it a few moments ago. The concern is for those operators and to make sure that until a transition, or until their licence runs out, they will not be threatened by the change in this wording and the shift that's taking place. That's the concern about these specific licences -- that these operators may be protected until the term of their licence runs out.
Hon. D. Miller: I tried to explain, and I don't know what more I can say. We are simply changing the word "licence" and replacing it with word "agreement." There are no implications beyond that. I've offered much explanation; I've made very definitive statements on the record. I can't be responsible for whatever suspicion might lurk in the minds of members opposite. I can only give you a straight answer, and I've done that. If there's some other explanation I could offer, or if there's some other way that the question could be phrased, I want to clear it up. I want to answer the questions, but I sincerely believe that I have answered them in a very straightforward manner. I'm at a loss as to what more I could do.
L. Stephens: Having been a small business person, I know that having a licence has more security and more legal standing than having an agreement. If there is no need, if it's simply a change of wording, then I'm asking: why change it? Why bother? I find that if you want something substantial, then you make these kinds of changes. If you're saying that there's no difference between the two terms, why change it? Why is this coming forward now?
Hon. D. Miller: As I explained, I would be quite happy.... I know that we made a briefing available to members; I'm not certain whether this issue was canvassed, because I wasn't there. But I would certainly make my staff available for a more protracted discussion. I'm advised by my staff that the change simply reflects the wording that's consistent throughout the Forest Act, where there are repeated references to agreements. As I indicated, section 10 has that heading. It says "Form of agreements" and then it lists the agreements. For ease of drafting legislation, I suppose we could take a much more convoluted approach and specify, but this is absolutely consistent.
As I said, I'm fully prepared to offer even an independent legal opinion. If I can somehow give some assurance to the members opposite, I'd be quite happy to do that. But I repeat that I have responded to this question now on I don't know how many occasions, and it seems to me that we are getting to that position where nothing further is really coming forward.
The Chair: I recognize the hon. Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: And the minister responsible for the Job Protection Commission.
If you read section 10 of the Forest Act, it's fairly clear. While "Form of agreements" is in the title, it also uses the word "agreement," and the types of agreement that are applicable under the Job Protection Act are also there. So it really is just a clarification of language. I think the suggestion that the Minister of Forests offer a legal interpretation is fine. We don't have the benefit of counsel here. We take the counsel when they write the amendments; these are the explanations given to us. We are saying that the intent is to cover something more than just a licence, because some of these things aren't called licences; they're called agreements -- pulpwood agreements, for example.
W. Hurd: Just a couple of quick questions, because I still don't have it straight in my mind. Are we suggesting now, for example, that what heretofore were tree farm licences are to be called tree farm agreements, and forest licences are to be called forest agreements? Is this an across-the-board terminology change?
[6:45]
Interjection.
W. Hurd: My question was whether we're dealing with a change of terminology across the board here: whether what heretofore in the province were forest licences or tree farm licences will now be known as forest agreements or tree farm agreements. The concern from the members of the opposition is for this rather sweeping change of terminology -- if indeed it applies to the term "licence" throughout the act.
Hon. D. Miller: As I've said already, the term "agreement" is used throughout the Forest Act currently. These sections that we are debating will be sections of the Forest Act. Instead of using the term
[ Page 5107 ]
"licence," we are going to use the term "agreement." I would draw the member's attention to section 55.1: "Where...an agreement...." It uses the term already. Throughout the Forest Act the word "agreement" is used with frequency and regularity. This change simply makes that consistent with what already exists in the Forest Act. There is nothing nefarious; there is nothing hidden; there is no other meaning. It is as simple as that. I don't know how much more simply I can explain it to the members opposite. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that they really want to deal more explicitly with the following section. Read the Forest Act.
W. Hurd: As the minister well knows, a licence in any jurisdiction implies commitments by the Crown and by the holder of the licence. I think what we want is a categorical assurance from the minister that in fact this change of terminology does not result in any sort of financial penalty or in any difference in the relationship between the holder of an agreement and the holder of a licence.
I ask this question of the minister: does it mean that down the road, after this bill becomes law, tree farm licences are going to be known as tree farm agreements? That is a significant change which the minister, I would think, would welcome the opportunity to clarify. Are we dealing with an across-the-board change in terminology? If I go out and visit TFL 55 or TFL 35, am I going to be visiting a tree farm agreement area? It's a simple question.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll try to give a simple answer then: no.
K. Jones: I've just taken the liberty of looking at the Forest Act, and in it I see over and over again references to tree farm licences and woodlot licences. I'm afraid the minister must be looking at a different act. Could the minister please explain the difference between what he's telling us and what's actually in copies of the Revised Statutes, which list the details of the Forest Act of 1979?
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I wonder if the member could explain the question, because to me it was completely incomprehensible.
K. Jones: I realize that the minister was probably distracted, trying to run around doing whatever he's doing, and didn't concentrate on the question being asked. But I can understand that, because it tends to happen from time to time.
The minister referred to the Forest Act and stated that in sections 50 and 55 the term "agreement" is used. But I've just taken the liberty of looking at the act, and it very clearly refers to "licence." It refers to a tree farm licence; it talks about a timber sale licence; it talks about a woodlot licence. It doesn't talk about agreements.
In section 55.2(1), which the minister referred to, it says: "Where the volume of timber harvested...under a forest licence...or...a timber sale harvesting licence...." Now perhaps you have your own edition of the Forest Act that's different from what's in the Revised Statutes, or perhaps you were just trying to give us a different interpretation or you thought that's what it said. Could you explain why your previous statement differs from what the statutes state?
The minister appears to not want to answer a question that's very straightforward and simple.
The Chairman: Would the member please take his seat. The hon. minister.
Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, that was not a question. I would draw the member's attention to the section of the bill that's before us. A rambling statement about a quick perusal of the Forest Act and discovering that it contains words like "forest licence...." There are probably lots of other words in there too. There's "pulp mill"; there's "road." What bearing that has on this section is, quite frankly, beyond my ken, so I would appreciate some relevance to the section.
K. Jones: Hon. Chairman, the real question that we're addressing here is the honesty and integrity of the statements made by the Minister of Forests in referring to the act and in making statements that he cannot show to be true. He has no documentation to show that what he claims to be in the statute is there. I think it's very relevant, because it indicates that the minister, for some very questionable reason, is trying to change the wording in this section to make it mean something different from what is in the act today. The minister has to come clean and be honest with the people of British Columbia. What is the name of the game? What are you trying to pull on the people of British Columbia?
Interjections.
The Chair: Would the committee please come to order.
Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest that I would be prepared to offer free night classes on the Forest Act.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: No, not tonight, please. I suspect the prospect might appear somewhat painful to most members.
I'll give it one last shot, Mr. Chairman. Here is a list of sections of the Forest Act -- the member may want to make a note of these; there's some good bedtime reading for you -- that use the word "agreement": sections 50, 55, 55.1, 55.3, 59, 60, 61 and 62. The member might want to peruse those sections, and hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we could move on to the next section of this bill.
K. Jones: Hon. Chairman, words that we use in legislation are the most important factor of what we do here today. If we use the wrong word, somebody will have to pay something. It's going to cost. It's going to be a loss of privilege or special benefit to somebody else. The words that are being changed in this clause are very vital. They have very significant legal differences in definition. It is wrong for the minister to stand here and say he doesn't know the difference between the two words. Has he no legal advice on it? I don't believe that
[ Page 5108 ]
the minister could possibly bring forward legislation like this without having legal advice to show him the exact difference between those words. He knows exactly what he's doing; it's being done with a definite diabolical reason behind it. I want the minister to come true and to give us that reason. Why are you making this change? You have tried to bamboozle everyone...
The Chair: Order! Would the hon. member please take his seat. The debate is being treated by some members as though we were in second reading of the bill. It would be helpful if the members would be mindful that we must be strictly relevant in committee and that the debate on either side of the House has to address the specifics of the section. Otherwise, the Chair will be required to impose the rules with respect to tediousness and repetition. I would also remind the committee that they may ask questions but there does come a point where the answer they receive may or may not be satisfactory, and they cannot insist on any other reply than the one the minister wishes to give. I would ask the members to please proceed with that in mind. Let's hope that we can stick as closely as possible to the rules of committee. The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. I think your suggestion is perfectly correct. We should be right on the item; I have been talking about exactly what's in this section. It's a change of name from licence to agreement and from licensee to holder of an agreement. That's exactly what it's about. We have had misleading statements from the minister that try to deflect the fact that he is making those changes for a very definite reason. He is unwilling to admit the reason for this change -- and the true definition as he has already been given -- to this House and to the people of British Columbia.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the interest of bringing this to a close, let me try to explain it to the member. This is precisely what we're doing: on the advice of lawyers we are changing the act to reflect the intent and to make it more clear that this applies to agreements.
K. Jones: I am very pleased that after all this effort we have a very simple explanation from the Minister of Economic Development. Thank you very much. We could have had that at the beginning if we had had a cooperative member.
D. Symons: I wasn't going to enter the debate, but as it went along, it seems that the clarifications have confused me. The member for Langley asked whether the intent or the meaning was changed by changing the words. I would like to hear a reassurance from the Minister of Forests that this is indeed not the case. When the member from Surrey-White Rock asked if it going to be a tree-farm agreement, the answer was a definite no, and if the words are seen to be interchangeable, as suggested, then I'm curious as to why. The answer just given a moment ago, when you said it's not changing, or how the wording there, with the intent.... Anyway, I'm not quite sure if it was the intent as the act currently stands, in which case I'm happy with his answer, or if it is the intent that we have in mind now. If he would clarify that he means the intent as it's currently worded will not be changed if the wording of the term is changed, I would be very happy.
[7:00]
Hon. D. Miller: You have my assurance, hon. member.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to move an amendment to section 4, notice of which I've given to the table. The proposed amendments are intended to more clearly specify the intent of the proposed changes to the Forest Act.
There are two major changes. The first is a change to the proposed section 56.01(1) to more clearly specify factors which the minister must take into account in determining whether it is in the public interest to take action under section 56.01. The section would now require that in determining if the action was in the public interest, the minister take into account the economic and social interests of the Crown for the local area in which the timber processing facility is located.
The second change adds a new part 1.1 which provides a number of criteria which the minister must consider in determining whether to make a reduction, or in determining the amount of the reduction. These criteria are intended to help safeguard licensees from unfair determinations under this section.
I'd like to move that amendment.
On the amendment.
[SECTION 4, in the proposed section 56.01
(a) by deleting ", the general region and the Province," and substituting "of the timber processing facility,", and
(b) by adding the following subsection:
(1.1) In determining whether to make a reduction, or in determining the amount of a reduction, under subsection (1)(e), the minister must consider the extent to which the difference in average annual volume calculated under subsection (1)(d) is attributed to
(a) reductions under section 7, 50, 54 or 170 of the Forest Act in allowable annual cut,
(b) the fact a non-replaceable agreement under section 10 of the Forest Act has expired,
(c) reductions in the volume specified in a pulpwood agreement,
(d) the making of an order under section 167 or 168 of the Forest Act,
(e) the fact that a strike or lock out has occurred, or
(f) an interruption in the supply of logs to the timber processing facility caused by
(i) a fire, flood or other natural cause, or
(ii) a forest closure under section 115 of the Forest Act.]
[ Page 5109 ]
W. Hurd: I'm not sure whether to address my questions with respect to the amendment to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade or to the Minister of Forests. As both ministers well know, there are a series of amendments on the order paper from the opposition which seek to clarify the circumstances under which a cut reduction can take place at a processing facility in the province of British Columbia. So to expedite dealing with this bill in committee, I can specifically deal with the questions that the opposition had in moving the amendments. And if the concerns have been dealt with under the amendment proposed by the minister, then we could simply deal with those.
The first issue that we raised was what happens when, under the old section 1(a) of the bill where an owner or operator of a timber processing facility closes or reduces its production where said production is deemed to include the sale of harvested timber to similar processing facilities -- i.e., where the mill decides that the logs can be put to a better or higher use by selling them to another mill that might be adding further value and has to reduce a shift or in some way add value to the resource by sending it to a different location -- whether that would be considered a reduction of production and therefore a reason for reducing the cut of the processing facility. In the marketplace or in the timber supply area, I think this issue of cut reductions is really going to force a reallocation of log movement to ensure that the most appropriate and highest use is put to the log flow in each timber supply area in the province. I know that the Minister of Economic Development has addressed this issue in his own riding with respect to log flow, so perhaps we could just deal with that one issue first.
Hon. D. Miller: Very briefly an explanation of the amendment, and then I will try and answer the hon. member's specific question. The members opposite had registered some concerns with respect to what the limits on the Minister of Forests are in terms of applying section 56.01. There was concern expressed that they could be misapplied, if I can use that term, or applied in an arbitrary or high-handed fashion, and various examples of what might cause a licensee to reduce production were used and questions were asked. For example, if a licensee's harvest rate was reduced because of a protected area, let's say, or because of a recalculation of the annual allowable harvest rate by the chief forester, or any number of other scenarios, could we still apply section 56.01? There is no absolute answer to that question. It's impossible to frame, in a legislative way, every potential scenario and to offer that kind of legislative restriction in real words.
What we have proposed in this amendment is that prior to the implementation of section 56.01, the minister must consider certain issues. The range of issues that the minister must consider are (a) to (f) in the amendment that I've just described, and including some others. Members will see that strike or lockout has been added as one of the issues that has to be considered prior to utilization of section 56.01; or a fire, flood or other natural cause; or a closure of the forest under section 115 of the Forest Act. We have tried to offer in the amendment a reassurance. In fact, including it in the amendment is an obligation that the minister clearly has to consider a range of factors before being able to use section 56.01.
As I said, I think a canvass of legislation generally would reveal that there are probably many acts that confer discretionary powers upon ministers through a range of ministries and that all of us are really governed by the practical application of legislation. We cannot, as ministers, act in an arbitrary or high-handed fashion in applying legislation. That is a fact of life, if I can put it that way. Everything we do is subject to some further check in our system, and misapplied legislation, like anything else, can be subject to a challenge under the court. That governs and tempers the ability of legislators or ministers to abuse their authority. That is the nature of our system.
But in recognition of the concerns raised by the members opposite, and in recognition of the concerns expressed to me by some members of industry whom I met with in Prince George last week, I brought the amendment in to try to offer that level of comfort. I should say that in meeting with the industry there appeared to me to be a clear understanding, in the letter they subsequently sent me, that they certainly respected my stated position to them that we'd had no intention of using this legislation in any other way than to try to protect, in limited circumstances, workers and communities from the circumstances that section 56.01 was originally designed to be used for, and for which it has not really been used all that much in the last two years.
I didn't really get to the member's question. You talked about an owner or an operator making a decision, in their own interests, not to put into a processing facility the wood from a licence that would normally flow into the facility, but to send it somewhere else. Admittedly, hon. member, we're dealing in hypothetical situations, and it's very difficult to make an absolute statement if we're dealing with hypothetical situations. But in that case I would say the likelihood is strong that the answer would be yes, section 56.01 would be used.
To go back to my original explanation of the quid pro quo, if a company was granted a licence with the understanding that they would operate a processing facility and they made a decision that might have been in their own best interest, saying, "I'm not going to send the wood to that processing facility; I'm going to send it somewhere else because I can get a better return," then I would say that that would invite an examination of the situation to see whether or not 56.01 should be utilized. I see some heads nodding over there. I would say that the situation you described -- if I understood the member correctly -- would invite an examination to see whether 56.01 was applicable.
W. Hurd: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that answer and for the minister's concurrence that he has met with the industry to discuss the changes. Of course, in years gone by we weren't blessed with such a reasonable Minister of Forests, who might have used
[ Page 5110 ]
the previous language of this bill to undertake all kinds of intervention in the marketplace.
Perhaps I can return to whether or not the minister would consider the fact that the licensee had decided not to process a portion of his wood in his own mill and had sent it elsewhere. The concern from the opposition is that one of the features of forestry in British Columbia today is a reduction in the amount of quota wood or licence wood that is available to mills and an escalation in the volume of wood that they have to buy. That led to another amendment that we had, where a mill has only a 20 or 30 percent supply in the form of a forest licence and has to buy wood on the open market. How would the minister make a determination, if the mill closed or curtailed production, that market conditions caused the closure, rather than the utilization of the licence wood? It may be, as well, that the licence wood wasn't really applicable or practical for that mill to process, in which case it would be sent elsewhere. We saw a number of practical difficulties in the interpretation of this particular section, and I'd certainly welcome a comment from the minister on that.
Hon. D. Miller: Of course, every situation bears examination balanced against the issues that the amendment deals with. I'll just give you a couple of examples -- perhaps two opposite examples -- to try to deal with your question.
There was a licence that was granted -- in fact, transferred out of a bankruptcy -- up on the north coast. The licence initially was clearly designed to create jobs and economic activity on the north coast. The initial licensee failed, and when the licence was transferred, that same obligation applied to the new owner. The new owner wrote to the ministry and said: "Relieve me of this obligation, because there is a general timber shortage, and I'd rather take the wood somewhere else." My response was: "I understand that there are shortages and that we're trying to deal with a very difficult thing, but I reject your request to relieve you of that obligation. The licence was originally put forward to create economic opportunities in a certain location, and you have an obligation to fulfil that. So what else can you do with the wood?"
Clearly what we're seeing is a balance of an individual company's corporate interest -- which I fully understand -- with society's interest, if you like, as interpreted by me. So you can get those kinds of situations. I draw your attention to the fact that I was thoroughly castigated by the Liberal forests critic in a news release on March 9, dealing with the situation in the Cariboo, where a mill was closed. In the particular circumstances in the interior that I'm referring to, there was no appurtenance clause. In other words, the licence was not attached to that particular mill, and therefore I had no ability to intervene. But it seems to me that the broad issues in the Cariboo are an overcapacity in milling and a serious issue with respect to timber supply. In my view, it would not be prudent, in generalizing, to insist that a primary mill be maintained in an operation that clearly was not in the general interest.
[7:15]
We understand that we're going through an extremely difficult and painful period in our forest history on the manufacturing side, and that there's more to go. Maintaining -- if I can utilize that term -- excess capacity is not in the long-term interests of anybody. It's not in the long-term interests of the communities, the people who work in that facility or of the resource. So it seems to me that some intelligence has to be applied, depending on the situation. The section should, and will, only be used when balanced against society's interests and the economic interests of communities, and bearing in mind the various factors that can cause processing facilities to be curtailed, either in part or in whole. That's a fairly lengthy explanation.
W. Hurd: Far be it from a member of the opposition to castigate the minister about another mill closure and the loss of 110 jobs in Williams Lake. In the future, when we're dealing with mill closures -- which the minister has assured us will occur throughout the province -- the opposition will get its press releases out earlier and be part of the ongoing debate in these communities around the province.
[M. Farnworth in the chair]
Perhaps I can get back to my specific question. Where a primary mill is buying 60 to 70 percent of its wood on the open market and is facing the crunch that comes with escalating timber supply costs, and in the event that that mill has to take some down time, is the mill in danger of losing its quota wood? Under this section of the act, is it in danger of having the minister arbitrarily decide after 90 days that the mill is never going to be able to acquire the market wood that it needs to run, and therefore he should step in and redeploy the quota wood to another source? That's the fear that I'm hearing about. I think it's a reasonable question.
Hon. D. Miller: I would say that the answer is probably no. Again, I'm being very candid, because I don't think it's possible to describe a hypothetical situation and give an absolute answer. I don't think that's wise. I would say generally, in terms of the conditions you've described, that the answer would be no. If there were circumstances as described in (a) to (f) under the amendment, it seems to me that it would be foolish in the extreme for me to try to make the situation worse by taking wood away. Clearly that kind of action would not meet any test in the courts. So I'd say that the answer to your question is no. If the closure was of a short duration and if there were clearly rational reasons why that took place, I don't think the use of section 56.01 would even be entertained.
W. Hurd: My next question then is a process question or perhaps a bureaucratic question. In the event of, say, a fifty-fifty split in purchased wood as opposed to quota wood, how would the minister make the determination that a mill was closing down because of its failure to meet its obligations with respect to the licensed wood it was using as opposed to facing severe
[ Page 5111 ]
market conditions for its product, or that it was not able to buy the market wood that it needed? How would the ministry make the determination that the mill was closing for market wood reasons as opposed to having decided to sell its licence wood elsewhere or undercut or whatever? It just seems to me that we're dealing with a very difficult determination for mills that basically rely on an open market situation to continue running.
Hon. D. Miller: Really, just by a prudent examination of the circumstances that prevail. I don't know what other explanation I could offer. It seems to me that we have to weigh any given situation at the time. What is the balance of quota wood versus wood on the market? What is the size, for example, of the quota? Are we talking about a small one or a large one? What are the opportunities to utilize the quota wood in some other form of manufacturing or to add more value and more employment?
I hope the member appreciates, given the infinite variety of circumstances that might prevail, that in a very strict sense you cannot capture every possible scenario in legislation -- which is why I said at the outset that ministers have an obligation to be prudent in exercising powers conferred on them under an act, whether it be the Forest Act or any other, and that they are subject to further checks and balances.
I appreciate the member's question, and I certainly think that it's the member's obligation to castigate me when he thinks that I'm not doing what I ought to be doing. I guess it goes back to there being no strict answer to some of the scenarios you are outlining.
W. Hurd: I think the minister has acknowledged one of the glorious roles of an opposition, which is to castigate a member of an NDP government when 110 union brethren walk down the road of unemployment. That's just too tempting to pass up.
I am satisfied with the explanation offered by the minister in terms of the amendments proposed by the opposition, but perhaps I could just ask one other question about the amendment by the Minister of Economic Development. Under section (f)(ii), where section 56.01 is affected by "a forest closure." Would that apply to a reduction of the annual allowable cut in a timber supply area by the chief forester, where cut reductions of 20 or 30 percent are clearly going to impact dramatically on just about every sawmill in the system? Where the mill could demonstrate that as a result of those cut reductions by the chief forester it was forced to curtail operations, would that fit the definition of a forest closure under section 115 of the act?
Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I appreciate the member's concern for workers who have lost their jobs. Perhaps it's all too easy to try to look for someone to blame, whether it's me or the forest company involved. It's not my job to stand up for individual companies, but I do acknowledge that in this particular instance Weldwood gave lengthy advance notice. They have gone to considerable efforts to try to relocate -- and in fact will relocate -- a significant number of the workers who have been, or will be, displaced from the Williams Lake sawmill.
All the credit in the world goes to the hon. Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, who has worked tirelessly to ensure that where protections and alternative employment opportunities can be put into place, they are. He has really done a remarkable job of trying to take care of the interests of those workers, in the face of a pretty difficult situation.
To get back to answering your question, the two situations.... Under section (f)(ii), we're talking about closure for fire reasons. It is frequently the case that we will shut down -- and I cross my fingers that we don't see too much of that this year -- where harvesting is curtailed because of the danger of fire. Clearly it would be foolish in the extreme to then move in and say I'm going to take some of your timber because you're not operating a processing plant.
The other section that you talked about -- in other words, the reduction by the chief forester -- is captured under part (a) of the amendment, section 7.
L. Fox: I'm a little confused. In your amendment you've got section 4(a): "by deleting 'the general region and the province'." The only place I can find that is under 56.01(c) in the actual amendment bill. Is there an error?
Hon. D. Miller: I think, hon. member, that you're confusing two things. The (a) and the (b).... Under the sheet of paper that says "Proposed amendment to the bill," it says: "to amend as follows: section 4 in the proposed section 56.01," and then it lists two areas where there is change: (a) and (b). I think what you're doing is confusing that (a) and (b) in this with the (a) and (b) under section 56.01. Let me read it to you a different way, and hopefully you're following my explanation: (a) -- the first change -- by deleting "the general region and the province" and substituting "of the timber processing facility." That's one. And (b), "by adding the following subsection." Does the member follow my explanation?
L. Fox: I follow it very clearly, and that was exactly how I understood it. But I'm asking: does that amendment, then, fall into 56.01(c)? Is that where it's changing on your actual Job Protection Act?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In the bill under 56.01, it goes (a), (b) and (c). Then there's a paragraph beneath (c), and you will see the words there that are subject to the change of the amendment. So if you strike out the words "the general region and the province" which end that paragraph and substitute the words in the amendment, you will see.
L. Fox: That's what I did, but I wasn't sure I'd done the right thing. But I just want to ask a couple of things. In my view, the amendment appears to be a very reasonable one and a very sensible one. I think it intends to guarantee some security over the resource for a community that may in fact have a processing plant go down. It allows that resource to be contained
[ Page 5112 ]
and subsequently awarded to a new manufacturing facility, perhaps within that same community. The minister is well aware that I have made mention of this particular need in the past, and certainly I think the councils in most resource-based communities would endorse this amendment to do exactly that.
There's only one further question. In 1(1)(a), where you have reductions under sections 7.54 and 1.70, the copy of the act.... I can't find 1.70. Could the minister explain what the 1.70 refers to?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Perhaps I will just run through the explanation of those sections, hon. member. Section 7, as I've already talked about, is the reduction in the annual harvest rate; 54 follows from 7. Section 50 is on transfer of a licence. There is a 5 percent reduction in the volume. We debated section 170 last year. That's where the government implements a study area -- I think it's under part 15 -- resulting in a reduction of the annual allowable harvest rate.
[7:30]
L. Stephens: I think we all agree that this amendment would give the job protection commissioner and the Minister of Forests a lot of leeway in determining what kinds of actions could be taken with regard to job loss in all of our single-industry towns. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea. A lot of our resource-based towns need all the help they can get these days. However, under subsection (1.1)(e) -- where a strike or a lockout has occurred -- would the minister agree that it might have some effect on whether or not a facility negotiates labour contracts? Would the minister have something to say about that? How would you handle an occurrence such as that?
Hon. D. Miller: All this says is that we would not contemplate invoking section 56.01 if the processing facility were curtailed as a result of either a strike or a lockout. That's really the simple explanation.
L. Stephens: It says: "In determining whether to make a reduction" and "the extent to which the difference in average annual volume calculated under subsection (1)(d) is attributed...." It says the determination of the reduction, not that there won't be a reduction; it simply says the determination whether to make it or the amount of it.
Hon. D. Miller: It says that in determining whether to make a reduction -- that's one scenario -- or in determining the amount of the reduction -- that's another scenario -- I must consider the following.... The fact that there may be a strike or a lockout which has caused the curtailment of a processing facility would be a reason why I would not use section 56.01; but if the facility were down, then we'd go back and look at the words in determining whether to make a reduction. You'd have to balance that against subsection (e). Clearly, I'm saying that I would not contemplate using section 56.01 to make a reduction if the processing facility were closed because of a strike or a lockout.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
W. Hurd: A specific question, again, about the cut reductions by the chief forester in timber supply areas throughout the province. Obviously, as these cut reductions unfold, there are liable to be many mills experiencing difficulty in acquiring fibre, as the minister has acknowledged. If a mill could demonstrate that its ability to run two full shifts or to run at full production has been compromised by a reduction of timber resulting from a decision by the chief forester, would there be any danger of this minister or a future minister being able to insert himself into the marketplace by reallocating the quota wood that the mill already had? As the minister has indicated, we can see a serious problem down the road with this industry in accessing the wood that it needs, and in the fact that it's quota wood may not be enough to save it from having to curtail or close production. Where the mill can demonstrate that it has been impacted by the chief forester's decision, would the minister contemplate being able to utilize this particular section to redirect the flow of wood in the timber supply area in a fairly significant way?
Hon. D. Miller: I think the very reason we put these issues into the amendment indicates that we would have to take those into consideration in determining whether or not section 56.01 should be applied. But I repeat: there are no absolutes. It may be that upon examination, given the size of the quota, given the size of the processing plant, given some of those kinds of variables, it might be appropriate.
I think it is appropriate for the Crown to be able to exercise some influence where it's appropriate in terms of what happens with our timber resources. Clearly we do that in a variety of ways, partly through our licensing system, where we offer a variety of licences, for example, to achieve certain ends. The 16.1 licence is probably a good example where we offer nonreplaceable small business sales to induce the creation of value-added industries. So it really does require an examination of the facts at hand prior to being able to make an honest determination of whether 56.01 is appropriate or not.
I'm sure the hon. member, as a British Columbian, is not interested solely in putting out press releases every time a mill goes down, castigating either me or the owner. I'm sure -- beyond the normal politics that we engage in -- we're all interested in seeing how we can go through a very difficult transition period in this province, try to meet those tough choices, look at trying to produce products that obtain more value from our resource, and provide more employment on a per unit basis from our resource than is being achieved in many parts of the province right now. I think it's legitimate for the Crown to be a player in terms of those kinds of issues. I don't think we will achieve our objective if we don't have some ability to play a role with respect to those questions. But I'm sure we share that objective.
W. Hurd: As we debate press releases, the minister will certainly be aware of the press release he issued
[ Page 5113 ]
with respect to forest sector industrial strategy and with respect to this particular section and the reductions in cut by the chief forester. He will be aware that there's extreme disappointment and that this type of strategic planning in the form of a forest sector industrial strategy can't be done prior to the impact of these cut reductions on communities like Williams Lake and elsewhere. And he will recognize that there's a real feeling of lack of empowerment by these communities when a forest sector industrial strategy is not in place and these mills face the rather draconian results of significant cut reductions. So in the absence of that strategy, I think it's entirely appropriate for the opposition to question why these communities are being dislocated, and why the minister seems more intent on amendments to the Forest Act which give him the right to intercede, rather than an overall strategy for particular regions of the province.
With respect to the cuts by the chief forester, if what I hear the minister saying is correct, he's saying there would not be an amendment or an additional section under this particular amendment that would be appropriate. I believe it would be advantageous for that to be spelled out for the benefit of mills in the province that are going to have to make difficult decisions about closures or downsizing because there may be overcapacity in the province. For example, the Sunshine Coast has gone through a significant timber supply reduction because of an action by the chief forester. Could the minister contemplate a scenario where he might have to use this particular section of the act to redeploy the quota wood of a mill that might have to curtail because of those specific reductions in the annual allowable cut?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I'll say first that I'm bound to apply the Forest Act in a prudent manner; and if I don't, then there are other checks and balances.
I want to say a couple of things. If we were to put into this section of the Forest Act that we would not use section 56.01 because of a decision of the chief forester that might result in a reduction in the annual allowable harvest rate, we would be effectively saying -- because the chief forester and the ministry are analyzing every timber supply area and every tree farm licence in this province -- that we would never be able to use section 56.01. I don't think the member would intend that consequence, but it seems to me that would be the consequence.
From discussions with industry, I'm familiar with their contention that we should fully analyze the province and then do a final setting of the harvest rate. I've rejected that. That is a dynamic process; it is ongoing, as it must be. I would say further that I've worked hard to indicate to industry that it's not my intention to act in an arbitrary fashion, but rather to try to engage the industry, the unions and the communities in seeking solutions to some of these very difficult problems in a collective way. I can't sit across the table from industry -- and quite frankly, I'm looking forward to this forest sector strategy -- and try to engage them in this kind of process if, on the other hand, I'm out there acting in bad faith and trying to do.... Well, one member here suggested I was a really bad guy and would do all kinds of bad things. It doesn't work, and you know yourself that life doesn't work that way.
To my knowledge, this forest sector strategy is the first attempt in British Columbia to form a group with representation from industry, communities, workers, academics and others to try collectively to come to grips with problems that have been bedevilling this province for some time. If there's not good faith, the process doesn't work. It's going to be tough enough with good faith. I think that faith is there, and hopefully it will continue.
W. Hurd: The lack of empowerment to which I referred originally certainly extends to sawmills in the province. The chief forester was not mandated to consider the ramifications on communities and on individual processing facilities. Certainly there is a feeling of lack of empowerment by those mills in determining their own future when, instead of a universal forest sector strategy, they have to deal with the decision of the minister under section 56.01 to potentially intervene. The point I was making was that if there were a reciprocal commitment by the minister to accept the forest sector strategy's recommendations prior to exercising this particular section of the act, or prior to seeing sawmills close, we would see far fewer community rallies and far fewer job protection committees springing up around this province. They really don't see a connection between the direction this minister is taking and their jobs in the sawmills.
[7:45]
I would be far less troubled if the minister were to state clearly under this section that where huge cuts occur in the annual allowable cut and a mill is forced, through no fault of its own, to curtail its production, he recognizes that this in itself conveys a special limit on the minister's power to intercede. We're not talking about a small reduction here. In the case of Williams Lake, for example, we're talking about a 32 percent overall reduction in the annual allowable cut as a result of the protected-areas strategy and cut reductions as a result of the mountain pine beetle, but that may occur as a result of cut reductions by the chief forester.
Some direction from the minister that he recognizes we are going through this transformation in the province, this major downsizing, and that mills will be forced to take the kind of action that they don't want to take.... Certainly I think they would appreciate seeing in this particular section of the act some acknowledgment by the minister that these are exceptional times.
Hon. D. Miller: The member is quite wrong. The chief forester is obliged, under the Forest Act, to consider the economic and social objectives of the Crown, as expressed by the minister, for the area, the general region and the province. We are going through and doing a job that, quite frankly, has been put off. I'm not here to blame those who preceded me, but the fact that we didn't do this work in the past is a shame. We're doing it now. We're doing a timber supply review -- it's a snapshot -- and we will be able to tell what we have.
[ Page 5114 ]
We then do our analysis and present our options to the communities and the affected regions or districts.
This is an extremely difficult exercise. To try to explain it better, we had a seminar in Vancouver last week. My parliamentary secretary attended on my behalf. The ministry was there. There were representatives from the community. We explained in detail what we're doing and how we're doing it -- all of that. I've discussed with my officials the possibility of taking that explanation around the province, starting at the regional headquarters of the Forests ministry and then perhaps moving into the districts. People have to understand why we're doing what we're doing. We can explain the process that we're going through to community leaders, workers and people generally in the community.
But I state emphatically that the chief forester is obliged to consider those factors, and we will be presenting the options to people in the timber supply areas as we go through the process. I would be delighted to be Minister of Forests at a time when the harvest rate is expanded. The difficult choices you would have to make would not be that difficult compared to what we're looking at today.
I'll go back and say that we cannot accept a blanket statement with respect to 56.01 that simply because the chief forester may analyze a timber supply area and establish a new harvest rate, we would never invoke section 56.01. In most respects it would invalidate section 56.01. Therefore the preceding almost two hours would have been a waste of our time. I hope the member appreciates the position I'm outlining here. In the amendment we have provided an acknowledgment that prior to using this section, we are obliged to consider the following: timber supplies that may be reduced and other things that might cause timber-processing facilities to be closed, such as fires or floods, potential fires, and strikes or lockouts. We've acknowledged that upfront. But to say that we could never use it because the chief forester made that kind of determination would simply invalidate the clause entirely, I'm afraid.
W. Hurd: The chief forester may have that as part of his mandate, but all I can say is that the communication isn't there. Later this month in the city of Chilliwack, there will be a rally of 1,100 to 1,200 people who are concerned about their jobs and the effect of these cut reductions. What we're dealing with here is a decision by the chief forester to reduce the annual allowable cut while inventory work takes place. In fact, he has no idea of whether those cut reductions are required to the extent decided on or whether the percentages he's dealing with are accurate.
We have to make it utterly clear under this particular section that people do not feel empowered, because this is a bureaucratic process that the chief forester is involved in. If the chief forester is taking into consideration the impact on communities and on mills, I hope that he, rather than the Minister of Forests, will appear at this public meeting in Chilliwack to explain that he has taken into consideration the impact on the communities and mills, and that he's introducing these cut reductions because he has taken that into consideration.
That is not the perception around the province. There's a perception that we're dealing with an arbitrary, bureaucratic decision that may or may not be rooted in the realities of the timber supply needs in a particular area. The minister should welcome the opportunity to go out to the communities, and I hope that will happen. In the meantime, I think it's unfortunate that under this section, which gives the minister the power to reallocate the resource if he so chooses, he wouldn't recognize that the chief forester's decisions have a major impact on communities around the province and that people do not feel connected to that decision-making process. They do not feel that that process reflects the realities of the areas in which they live. I certainly hope that the forest sector industrial strategy, which is being trumpeted by the minister -- in the absence of apparent direction from the chief forester -- will provide some comfort to communities. At this point they have no comfort at all that there are going to be jobs in the timber-processing industry in a few months or years.
Hon. D. Miller: It really makes it hard to take, Mr. Chairman, when that hon. member mouths the big industry line that I've heard. If he's going to be the Forests critic, I think he has an obligation to do better research.
Mr. Chairman, I'll stack up my chief forester and his credentials to determine what's an appropriate cut, how much timber should be cut and whether the beetle kills are effectively dealt with any day of the week against that hon. member, who knows zip -- nothing. He has no technical expertise whatsoever in the business of forestry. To suggest that the chief forester of this province has any motive other than the sound management of forest land in this province is, quite frankly, an insult. If that member had a grain of sense, he'd withdraw any such suggestion.
The member put out a press release in which he stacked his amazing expertise on beetle kill timber.... I think he once worked as a PR flack for a forest company. He stacked his amazing expertise as a technical expert in forestry -- he said it's ridiculous....
The Chair: Order, hon. minister. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock on a point of order.
W. Hurd: I realize that the minister's job r�sum� and expertise make fascinating debate. The fact is that he's not even addressing the amendment at hand, and I think he would welcome direction from the Chair to address the issue at hand.
The Chair: Thank you for your input, hon. member. Would the minister address his remarks to the amendment, please.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chairman, we're talking about what constitutes.... The amendment deals with the issue of annual allowable cut reductions, and the hon. member has raised some serious questions about
[ Page 5115 ]
those annual allowable cut reductions. He's also made some rather silly statements. He seems to think that his technical expertise is greater than the chief forester's and that he can determine what an appropriate beetle-kill level is. Even though he doesn't know anything about forests, he says that the beetle problem is merely being used by the chief forester as a convenient excuse. What an insult! What an appalling and ignorant display about what's going on in this province! There will be 2,000 people, I hope, at that rally, Mr. Member. I'll be there, and I'll be happy to explain to those 2,000 people how we are finally trying to manage the land base of this province in an appropriate manner. I have all the respect in the world -- and British Columbians should too -- for the chief forester of this province.
We've said in our amendment that clearly we need to recognize circumstances that impact on licensees and on their ability to maintain a processing facility. We've put them in the amendment to provide a level of comfort. I would hope that the hon. member would understand what we've done with the amendment -- we have dealt with the concerns raised by the opposition -- and that we would have no more of these rather silly statements with respect to the work that the chief forester is doing.
W. Hurd: When it comes to job losses, this minister has been hiding under the apron strings of the chief forester for the last two years, and I expect that he'll continue to do so. I don't blame him for that. If I was presiding over the most massive job loss in the province, I'd be hiding behind a bureaucrat as well. I expect he'll continue to do that.
The Chair: On the amendment, please, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Again, this minister has concentrated on increasing his powers, on increasing his ability to intercede in the marketplace and get involved in decisions that big companies make, because, hey, they're bad corporate citizens. That's the message he's trying to spell out with this increase in his powers. He can do that; that's up to him. But the fact is that the workers throughout this province who supported that government and voted for that minister are losing their jobs, and he's yet to offer an adequate explanation for that. He's too busy playing games with changes to the Forest Act, rather than dealing with the real issues out there. If he wants to continue to blame the chief forester, he's welcome to go ahead. But certainly the opposition doesn't accept that.
Amendment approved.
On section 4 as amended.
L. Fox: My main concern with this section is with the 90-day aspect of it. In 56.01(1)(b) it says: "Where...the closure or reduction continues or, in the opinion of the minister, will continue for a period longer than 90 days...." As I'm sure the minister is aware, for any processing plant that has a financial problem, 90 days would not be sufficient time, in my view, to try to find new financing. In fact, that's the most difficult time -- when your plant is in financial difficulty. Can he give me some assurance about the rationale for the 90 days?
[8:00]
Hon. D. Miller: That may be a legitimate question. I think you do need a time, and we're simply duplicating the time that was drafted by your party originally when it brought forward the Job Protection Act in 1991. That's the period that's in the act, and we have simply duplicated it as a permanent part of the Forest Act. Clearly, there needs to be a trigger of some time when you would examine the issues. I suppose we could spend some time debating the merits of 90 days versus 100 or 120 days, or whatever. But it seems to me that that's a reasonable period of time in which to at least start to examine the issues.
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's answer. But given that this new amendment broadens the opportunities of the job protection commissioner and the Minister of Forests, I'm somewhat concerned. For instance, it seems to me that regarding the Gregory licence issue, this would have been extremely negative to the financial institution that was hanging on to that licence as security for the plant. When I look at the positive aspects of it, I look at the Carrier Lumber situation in Anahim. It would have been nice for the ministry to have had the teeth to put those people back to work by revoking a licence when a licensee was not wanting to comply with the Forest Act.
I see two sides of this particular aspect. But I'm extremely concerned, given the new powers that are here, that the 90-day clause now allows the minister to revoke a licence and reallocate it. That wasn't previously the case. With all due respect, Mr. Minister, it's a little different from the intent of the 90 days under the previous Job Protection Act.
Hon. D. Miller: Fair enough. The member might be interested to know that I was in the picture long before Mr. Gregory eventually had to take the ultimate step. Believe me, I was not kind to the financial institution in my efforts to try to maintain jobs in your constituency; in fact, I was rather brutal.
I suppose I could argue on the other side that the industry might seek some solace in having a defined period in the act. There's some assurance on the part of industry that if there's a blip and the mill goes down for two weeks, they're not going to see the Minister of Forests or the Ministry of Forests flying in and saying that we're going to take cut. I think 90 days is a reasonable period. Three months is a long time if you've been displaced as a worker. I don't think that's the issue. I don't think we'd be looking in any absolute detail to say that financing had to be arranged at all.
The real issue with respect to section 56.01 -- and you'll see it later in the bill -- is where we're able to act some time after the fact. So we've got a period of time to act long beyond the closure, to utilize provisions of section 56.01. I think that clearly recognizes -- and
[ Page 5116 ]
maybe it goes to the heart of your issue -- that it sometimes takes quite some time to deal with putting financing together and to look at what other processes might be appropriate for the resource that's being utilized. I think that really is the issue you're getting at. I don't think the 90 days in particular has that much bearing with respect to the ability to raise capital.
Section 4 as amended approved.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I wonder if I might seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Miller: Waiting patiently in the gallery is the Hon. Howard Hampton, the Minister of Natural Resources for Ontario, who I had originally planned to have dinner with at 7 o'clock. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to introduce Mark Lofthaus from my ministry. He has been here assisting with this and takes general care of the Job Protection Commission's needs insofar as my ministry goes. Maybe the Minister of Forests would like to introduce his officials who are here, too. They laboured hard on this.
Hon. D. Miller: They are really bashful.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 2, Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave not granted.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]