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)
THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 8, Number 19
[ Page 5117 ]
The House met at 10:09 a.m.
Prayers.
H. De Jong: From the great constituency of Abbotsford -- where the sun shines even today -- we have with us today Rick and Christine Bomhof. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.
VOLUNTARY SALARY REDUCTION BY LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
F. Gingell: At approximately 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 7, in reference to the question of salary reductions to cabinet members, the member for Mission-Kent called out in the House, "How much of a cut did your leader take -- zero?" or words to that effect.
I am now also aware that the member for Alberni made a similar assertion in his speech on Monday, April 1, shortly after 2:30 p.m. As the Speaker is aware, more than a week ago the Leader of the Official Opposition voluntarily agreed to a cut in salary similar to cabinet ministers. I ask for a retraction and an apology from both members.
The Speaker: Would the Clerk please make the statement available to the Chair.
Hon. G. Clark: I know that from time to time questions of privilege are used to raise political concerns, and I think we understand that in this chamber. This is clearly not -- in any way, shape or form -- a privilege motion, and I'm sure you'll find that. However, if there are incorrect statements inadvertently made by members on our side of the House, then I'm sure -- as is the parliamentary tradition -- that members on this side of the House have no intention of attempting to make those kinds of assertions in an unfounded, accusatory way.
On behalf of the government members -- and I'm sure I speak for all of them -- we have no hesitation in withdrawing any remarks that were incorrect with respect to the member opposite. I'm sure that there was no public acknowledgment or House business where members of the House acknowledged.... Was there any reference to the leader of the opposition taking a wage cut? That knowledge is not widely known. Therefore it was an assumption made by members that wasn't the case. If that assumption by government members is incorrect, then we certainly have no hesitation in withdrawing it.
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has raised this point of privilege and may have felt aggrieved by the comments that were made. Considering the submissions made by the Minister of Finance, the Chair does agree that in this instance it is not a matter of privilege. I'm sure the House will be the wiser now for this discussion having taken place.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm glad you made that ruling, because if we were to have a privilege motion every time there is an inaccurate statement, I'm sure we'd have many.
The Speaker: Hon. member, please.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker.
I call third reading of Bill 2.
JOB PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. I understand that because there was an amendment, we require leave to report. So I'd ask leave.
The Speaker: Yes, the Chair understands it has not been reprinted at this point.
Leave granted.
Bill 2, Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call continued budget debate.
[10:15]
Budget Debate
(continued)
F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in my place this morning in support of the budget document that was placed before this House by the Finance minister. We've had great debate about this budget over the last week, and we've heard rhetoric from the opposition. Unfortunately it was very narrow rhetoric; it zeroed in on one particular part of the budget. I thought it didn't do justice to an opposition examination of a broad budget that we presented. As I said, the opposition was narrow. It focused on particular people who were affected, namely the people that could most afford the changes we were bringing in, and I kind of felt let down that there wasn't a proper debate on the whole budget. This budget is fair, it's balanced and it's a blueprint for leading B.C. and its citizens into an economic future of well-being.
I'm not going get into any more of the details, other than to say it's an excellent budget for the constituents in my regional riding. For the people in Cariboo North, it maintains municipal grants at almost the same level as last year. That's good news for municipalities in my region and in the rest of the province.
In Quesnel, it reduces the school tax burden because of a cap on school financing from $10 to $9 a thousand. That's a reduction for the constituents in my riding. That's good news for the taxpayers in Quesnel.
[ Page 5118 ]
It removes the notice-of-work fee for miners. That's good news for the miners in the Cariboo. It exempts from tax the mining access roads over Crown lands. That's good news for the constituents and the miners in Cariboo North.
It includes reductions in the public health inspection fees for restaurants. That's good news for the restaurant owners in Cariboo North.
The corporation tax has been raised so that it doesn't catch so many small businesses. The numbers have been expressed here time and time again. That's good news for the small businessmen in the Cariboo and other regions of this province.
The homeowners in my constituency almost inclusively get an increase in their homeowner's grant. Every one of them in Cariboo North who owns a home gets an increase in the homeowner's grant. That's good news for the people of the Cariboo. It's provides funds for retraining young people who have been affected by the downsizing of resource-based industries in the Cariboo. They can look forward to a future where they'll have opportunities. For those who are on welfare but don't want to be, it's good news that there will be money for retraining. They will be able to get off the welfare rolls and take part in the future of this province when we implement the provisions of B.C. 21. We're going to bring forward a program that provides the infrastructure -- things like highways maintenance -- that will put these people back to work in this province, and we're going to do it soon. We have a plan for the future, and this budget provides it.
It's good news for those who have been left out because of the concentration of wealth in the lower mainland. The people in the Cariboo and in other parts of this province are fed up with seeing the resources they are extracting being driven right past their front doors, when there has been no increase in the value of their housing. They're stuck in $60,000 houses when people on the lower mainland earn more just by sitting still, because of increases in house values, than people in the Cariboo earn in a weekly wage. They want to see more money put back into places where the wealth is extracted from, and this budget does that.
I'm proud of this Finance minister. I think he has taken a broad look at this province. He has balanced out the small increases in taxes that we've had. I'm also proud that he has been able to provide an increase for Education, Health and Social Services. It's not as much as people wanted; just to stay still, we would have had to have given 10 percent. We've cut spending in that regard, but we've given them an increase. That's the kind of priority that people in this province are looking for, and this government has provided it.
As I conclude, I'd like to say that in the last election the voters of this province voted for change. They voted in 51 social Democrats. By electing 17 Liberals, they were looking for change there also, and for a brief while, they got that change. They saw in the leader of that party a different type of opposition. They saw in the leader of that party somebody who wasn't going to kowtow to the corporations or the Liberal Party establishment back east. They saw change. So they elected this government and what they thought was a progressive opposition. For a while I thought we had that, but unfortunately the opposition has kicked the slats out of that leader, and now they're no better than the former Socred party. They're the spokesmen for the right in this province, and if the people watching this don't realize that, then they're in for a shock in the future. There will be no change. We're back to the same old opposition: tear down. They'd like to promote class warfare. People, don't fall for it.
Follow the lead of your government. You're getting the change you asked for. Sure there will be blips along the way; no government is perfect. We'll make mistakes, and we'll correct them when it's necessary to do so, as we've done recently. But stick by this government. They will lead this province to a future of economic prosperity, and I'm proud that this budget goes a long way toward providing that.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to commend the previous speaker. I thought he had some interesting points.
To a large extent, I think we're losing sight of the big picture when we're talking about this budget debate. There is no question that this budget does represent change. What kind of change, though? We find that we're stuck in the same paradigm. It's the same gridlock that we were in before. We have a pendulum that has swung the other way.
As I look through these documents, what I find are probably some very good intentions. Obviously I have a philosophical difference with the government, so there are a lot of things.... I would consider this not be a direction that I'd like the government to take us in. The most important point regarding this budget is that we haven't broken with the status quo. We're still in the same car, if you will. We've got a different driver and there has been some tinkering with the engine, but it's the same automobile.
The previous speaker was absolutely right: the people of the province do want change. In my opinion, the kind of change that is represented by the leader of the Liberal Party is exactly what the people of the province want. They want a vision, and the kind of vision they want is a breaking of the old paradigm, which is something that was very dry, very rational and very corporate versus a class war. The public -- the grass roots, the voters, the people whose lives are affected by this budget -- are being alienated by the process because special interests are being catered to. To some extent, whether you are on the right and you cater to the corporations, or you're on the left and you cater to organized labour, you still have the same mind-set and the same approach. I would hesitate to say that each of the 75 members of this House comes with the same commitment and belief that he or she is bringing forward good intentions and good motivations. But what is driving this process is a mind-set and a world view that are outdated, and a paradigm that we must put behind us if we are going to actually serve the constituents.
Hon. Speaker, what is the objective? Why are we all here? That is what all of us have to come to terms with when we try to evaluate the budget. I would hazard a guess that each of us is here to represent the democratic
[ Page 5119 ]
process in the way that each of us defines it. It is that definition of democracy that will determine how we evaluate this budget.
When we look at this budget, we can recognize a few things. In the previous Social Credit administration, we had increases in taxes, in government spending and in the size of government. It happened with the Socreds; it's happening with the NDP. Just as the Socred members, elected within their own definition of democracy, honestly felt that they were doing democracy in their own way, the NDP are now sitting there with their world view and their perspective, saying: "This is what I believe is the right thing to do; this is the definition of government that I bring forward." Based on that definition, taxes increase, the size of government increases and spending increases.
Because they're trapped in the same treadmill and world view, we will not get the kind of change that people want. What the people -- the grass roots and the general public -- actually want is to be represented in this House. They want real reform. They want small-r reform, not the kind of institutionalized reform that we might see within this paradigm, but the kind of reform that recognizes that the true objective of democracy is to represent the individual voter in the House. As each of us struggle with our definition of democracy, we have to go out into the streets, put aside our own egos and world view and try to actually hear what's being said about the economic and environmental changes that need to be made.
As the previous speaker mentioned, it is absolutely true that the wealth of this province by and large has been garnered from the interior and has then been transported to the lower mainland. Then we have the service industries and the taxation benefits in the secondary industries coming off the wealth generated from the interior. That's a fact. It's being missed that we must move from that. We must not only maintain the level of primary resource extraction in a balanced and sustainable way, so that we can move forward from a fairly stable economic base, but we must branch out. We must have a vision for the next century that takes us to research and development, environmental technology and a change in the way we do things.
As the leader of the party has suggested, we have to try to get away from fossil fuels and into things like magnet-based motion -- railways or mass transport as we see in Japan. That's not being guided by the kind of environmental-degradation world view we have now. Some of the debates in the province are interesting. An AirCare station might end up right beside a college. The debate that comes into play is whether or not it's environmentally acceptable to have something like a college, which is an non-industrial site, next to an AirCare station, which is an industrial site. Clearly, the government regulations don't allow for that. The Minister of Environment is talking about the precautionary principle, which I don't see in this budget in terms of setting out the regulations. That precautionary principle is the very thing that would preclude not only an AirCare station locating beside a college, but also the kind of transportation system we have set up in the province. If we look at this budget, we find that we are gridlocked into a paradigm that doesn't allow for the precautionary principle the Minister of Environment tries to put forward as he guides the very infrastructure of the province that will be paid for by this budget.
We're at odds, because at the same time that many of us sitting in this House may recognize that intellectually we're ready to accept a new way of looking at things, the very monstrous bureaucracy and the mechanisms by which we govern preclude that world view from having any impact. The message that has to get out in this budget debate is not how much money is spent here and there and who is right and who is wrong; it is certainly not the kind of rhetoric that we see bandied about where we have name-calling and aspersions cast on individuals. The bottom line is that each one of us has come to election based on our thinking that our world view is the best thing we can bring forward.
[10:30]
It doesn't do any good to throw rhetoric back and forth. We must struggle to define the kind of democracy that the people want. We must be able to bring forward the new paradigm and the new way of doing things, because as I said in the response to the throne speech, we are on the verge....
Whether or not we recognize it -- because unlike members of the public who may lose their jobs and who may not have any money coming in -- many of us are complacent because our money will come in, whether or not there are job losses. Although we may feel compassion for the job losses, we're not feeling it in our own homes. Our families are not breaking up, family violence is not visited on us because of job losses and economic constraints, because we're sitting here in the House and we're benefiting from the tax dollars being paid by those with and those without personal hardship. What we have to do is recognize that, notwithstanding our own complacency.
If we do not wrestle with the fact that we are on the verge of socioeconomic collapse, that the global system will not support the kind of quality of life that we have right now without a radical change in approach, if we do not bring forward the very humanity that brought us forward into the political process and into this Legislature in the first place; if we don't wrestle with these kinds of very difficult issues head on -- not on the basis of numbers in a book, but on the very principles and philosophy that we bring forward as elected representatives, and if we don't get down to those very basics and fundamentals of what it means to be a democratic representative in this House, then I feel we're lost.
Although we will continue to table budgets in the House, we will see the same three fundamentals of all the budgets continue to come forward. We will see taxes continue to increase, because we cannot support the growth of government -- which we're seeing right now and have seen for the last ten years -- at this rate, without increasing taxes. So we will see taxes go up. That will drive the economy down. And when the economy goes down we'll see a growth in government, as we see with the job protection commissioner and these other areas of government which are band-aids, which are reactive solutions being brought forward. We
[ Page 5120 ]
will see that continue, and it will be a continued downward spiral. The size of government will increase, government spending will increase, taxes will go up, and basically we will all end up going right to the edge of the very things that we're trying to protect in casting those motions.
So in the strongest possible way I'd like to urge the government to be proactive, not in terms of this paradigm and this gridlocked world view, but in terms of the new reality that must come forward to this House if we're going to be able to continue not only to table budgets, but to try to get government spending under control. If we're going to be able to downsize government, if we're going to be able to wrestle with the kind of global environmental and economic concerns that are facing every single one of us every single day.... These issues are so enormous that they can't be dealt with in this House, but we must at least try to come to terms with them, and try to recognize them first of all in this House, and then, after recognizing them, play our small role in trying to set up a proactive approach, a long-term vision and something that will prevent us from the socioeconomic collapse that I see as being almost inevitable.
Again we see an example where it doesn't matter which government is in. If we continue to be locked into this system of increased spending, of alienation of the public and of people not being adequately represented -- not in terms of partisan spending, not in terms of internal power struggles, where you have, "I want to be leader...." It doesn't matter who is in charge at the end if we don't get out of this world view, if we don't come forward with a vision for reform.
Although this is not a budget that I can support -- philosophically I don't like the direction it's going in -- I do recognize that they are trapped in the same treadmill the previous Social Credit administration was trapped in, and if we don't get off that treadmill, we're very soon going to run ourselves into the ground.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and participate in debate on the budget speech. By agreement, we've tried to restrict ourselves to 20 minutes in this delivery, and if your lights go on or if my stopwatch signals me, then I'll strive to conclude my speech in that time.
Exactly a year and one day ago I spoke in response to the throne speech. At that time I talked to the government and I said a number of things that they should recognize, and in fact have failed to recognize. In listening to the response to the throne speech, I heard no one in government and no one on the government private members' side recognize the fact that they didn't win the election. They won by default, if you will. We lost the election. Only 38 percent of the people who voted, voted for the socialists. That's 2 percent less than the socialists got when they formed the opposition in 1986. That is certainly not a strong show of support. I had hoped that their actions and activities would be more temperate, and that they would recognize their responsibility to all the people of the province, as governments must. This government has failed to do so.
Social Credit has had a proud history in British Columbia. It served the needs of all the people in the province of British Columbia and managed the economy and other affairs in their best interests. A great deal of what we have -- each one of us and the people in the province -- is the result of good Social Credit governments for 37 of the 40 years prior to the last election.
Social Credit has played a vital role in British Columbia's history, and Social Credit will play a vital role in British Columbia's future. The reason for that is the partnership agreement with the dynamic, hard-working people of the province, who were willing to take chances and to work without any kind of security, potential or hope of return, and who settled the remote areas and started to develop and build this province. We're taking advantage of that. Capitalism and hard-working people built this province, and we have an obligation to see that energy, that movement and that growth continue. We owe that to the coming generations.
I suggested a year ago that the government temper their initiatives, watch out for their political debts and remember that it is not the single-interest or special interest groups that motivate or influence government. It's government's collective responsibility to all the people of the province. They have failed badly in this. They have been driven by the single-interest groups and special interest groups in the province.
They should have been focusing on building a strong provincial economy, but they haven't. They've stuck their heads in the sand and tried to work from an isolationist point of view, feeling that we're a unique and separate economy. Rather than recognizing the implications of a shrinking global economy that we're very much part and parcel of -- whether we want to be or not -- they've been resisting bilateral trade negotiations and the North American free trade negotiations. They've got to get their heads out of the sand and see that we're part of a global economic community.
By hiding their heads in the sand and confusing the public -- especially those who supported them so ardently in the last election -- they are deceiving the people. The only way that we're going to provide a good standard of living and provide for all the social concerns -- whether it's women's equality, social services, education or health -- is with a healthy economy. A healthy economy means that we have to be competitive. That imposes a sense of discipline on the private sector and on the public sector. We can't have public sector wages going out of kilter like they have been -- 35 to 40 percent above the private sector. Government has continued to yield, in the past year and a half, to the pressures of single-interest or special interest groups. The economy in the province and in Canada as a nation is suffering from that. We are able to provide those services because of the economic momentum that was built up in this province, and people's faith, trust and confidence in former governments that showed leadership and allowed the private sector to expand, to create jobs and to develop. We created an environment of opportunity for the private sector. That momentum is continuing; the current government is riding on the backs of former administrations.
Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!
[ Page 5121 ]
C. Serwa: That's fine. I like the oh's and ah's. The only reason you're here and able to enjoy the standard of living that you have, hon. members, is the hard-working people who built and developed this province and created a strong and healthy economy, which has been the envy of the rest Canada and many other areas in the world.
Last year Peat Marwick Thorne reported that there was tax room available. Well, that tax room has gone the way of the dodo bird. There is no more tax room available. The Minister of Finance, in his diligence, has erased any and all advantages that the province might have to remain competitive. It doesn't matter what we do, we have to recognize that we're a trading province in a trading nation. We have to trade to survive. The only way we can provide for the good things that people need and want is by having the cash flow provided by trading and trading opportunities.
If widgets are produced for export, they must incorporate all of the costs of production. The only means of creating wealth is through productivity. If we have an onerous burden placed on the private sector, due to the cost of government, they're not going to be able to compete with other national firms or international firms in the world marketplace. When we're not able to compete, we're not going to be able to provide jobs for people.
The economic slowdown will in fact come, and when it does, we're not going to be able to look after areas that we should be looking after, whether it be social services, education or health. All of those things will vanish. That will be the end result of the tack that this particular government is taking. Their ardent supporters, who have worked so hard to have this government elected, will finally see what the actions of this government are going to be and how those actions are going to place them in a situation which is not going to be very palatable for them, their communities or the province.
A number of the things stated in the Peat Marwick Thorne report were very favourable to the former administration, and I'm very pleased about that. But a more ominous thread of thought in the report was a bias toward a greater centralization of power and higher taxes. We've seen both occur. With the centralization of Crown corporations and health care initiatives and with the thoughts prevailing out there with respect to hospital boards and school boards, that's clearly a centralization of power. The concept is perhaps: "My way or the highway" or "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the world." But it isn't. The people of British Columbia will pay dearly for that.
When I spoke last year, I recognized that the Minister of Finance is a very bright individual and that he has the capacity to do an excellent job. He should see everything with a clear vision. He has that capacity. I excused him last year because I believed that he was being deliberately led along the track. But I can see from this year's budget that there is no such thing. This is simply a tax-tax-tax, spend-spend-spend type of budget that is clearly very socialist in its origins. It has no intention of serving the needs of British Columbians; it only has the intention of serving the government of the day and their friends and insiders.
It is a corrupt budget because it is looting from the people of British Columbia, and I'm deeply offended by that. The public is outraged that a government would increase taxes not only for one sector but for all the people of the province, and make no effort whatsoever to restrict government spending. They would have applauded the government if it had increased taxes and made a commitment to reduce government expenditures. But this government hasn't done that. It hasn't attempted to do it. It hasn't attempted to increase productivity.
[10:45]
I've heard members opposite speak in glowing terms about cutting down the size of government -- wonderful! -- from 20 ministries to 17 ministries. But what did we actually do? Did we lose any employees anywhere along the line? No, we didn't. In the legislative buildings, in the ministers' offices, did we actually lose any employees? No, we didn't. There was a substantial increase in number and an increase in cost. We didn't save any money at all. We have only a few less ministers -- that's all. There was no cost saving, no initiative and no benefit for the people of the province.
I've heard a lot of complaints in the response to the budget speech about the debt load that was left, and that all of our problems today are because of the nasty government that preceded this government. Incredible! Well, let's look at that. What sort of legacy did Social Credit leave for this province and for this current government? We didn't leave them a pot full of money, and I suppose that's why they are a little bit bitter. We learned from the lessons of '72-75, because they really blew it and much more. But we left them with a number of things that we're very proud of and that they are very proud of, because I continue to hear the Premier, the Minister of Finance and even members on the government back bench speak out loudly and glowingly of the legacy that we left.
We left the lowest debt-servicing costs of any government in Canada. We left the lowest debt as a percentage of gross domestic product -- 7 percent in British Columbia. The next closest is 14.7 percent in Alberta. Oil-rich Alberta has double the percentage as a percentage of gross domestic product. I'm really proud of that. The high in Canada is the federal debt, which runs at 67.8 percent, and I understand it's up closer to 80 percent of gross domestic product. So that was a pretty fine picture; that was very positive.
We paid only 3.8 cents out of every revenue dollar on debt. That allowed 96.2 cents out of every revenue dollar that government received to provide goods and services and programs delivered to people. That's something to be really proud of. The current government has taken advantage of that. We had the highest percentage of health expenditure commitment of any government in Canada -- 33 percent of the provincial expenditure was for health. For government spending directed to education and advanced education, we had the highest percentage -- 27.4 percent.
We had the best economic performance in Canada. And I don't have to speak about it; other Canadians speak about it. They came to British Columbia by the tens of thousands. In our last year of government, over
[ Page 5122 ]
50,000 Canadians came from other jurisdictions, and I must say with pride that many left Ontario for British Columbia. Perhaps it was a bit prematurely, but nevertheless they came to British Columbia because of the quality of life and because of the opportunities for themselves and their children.
Investment in British Columbia grew from $9.6 billion in 1987 to $16 billion in 1991 -- truly an outstanding performance, and a baseline that I challenge the current government to stand up and measure themselves against. At the conclusion of their term in government I will be bringing this matter up -- that base line measurement, an enviable record of performance.
I think everyone recognizes that deficit and debt should be eliminated. Today's bills must not be left for tomorrow's generations. We say that, but I'm afraid the government is paying lip service to it, because they have increased the direct debt. They have increased the deficit and the debt of the Crown corporations remarkably in less than two years in office.
Services to society must be related to society's ability to afford those services. Government has no money on its own, and I think we all recognize that. The only sources of revenue for the government are the resource sectors or the taxpayers of the province. Surely there's an incumbent responsibility on this government to manage their spending with respect to the ability of society to continue providing funds for government. Most people are willing to accept responsibility for themselves. I'm afraid that the socialists and this socialist government have the concept that someone else should pay for the services they want, need or demand. I think that's wrong.
We've heard a lot about the state. I've tried to indicate the legacy that the former administration -- a good, solid Social Credit administration -- left for this government. We play casually here with a lot of figures, but I would like to say a few things. In our final year, the deficit for 1992 was $2.16 billion. I might add -- remembering the words of the Minister of Finance -- that there was a shortfall of $1.4 billion from the loss of federal revenue-sharing allocations. That was the final year's deficit. The total of all government deficits and surpluses amounted to $4.96 billion at the end of fiscal year 1992.
Now, what was our record of performance? In 1988 we had a $3.483 billion accumulated deficit. That was reduced by $851 million for the following year. The next year we reduced it by another $351 million. So we had two successive surplus budgets. I'm very proud that from the time we came in, in 1988, until the 1991-92 budget, there was an increase of $1.48 billion in the accumulated deficit. In 1991 alone there was a federal offloading of $1.4 billion. I think that was a remarkable performance.
When you look at the rhetoric of the current government and the Minister of Finance, the attack is on those who are wealthy and those who can afford to pay more, with thunderous applause and desk-thumping from the government side. This tax attack is worse than a Big Mac attack. It affects every citizen in the province. The expanded sales tax is nothing but a provincial GST. No one is surprised at it. It is part of the harmonization process with the federal GST. Who made great noise and took a strong public stance in opposition to the federal GST? Why, the current government of the day. What a horrendous tax! They made lots of opposition to it in the federal government; they made lots of opposition to it in debate here in the Legislature. How soon they forget. Now this same government...what once was wrong is now okay.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
I don't know if the people in the province really understand the impact of this additional 1 percent and the expanded social services tax. Every item sold in the province of B.C. has the 7 percent social services tax applied to it, and when it's brought in for repair, the repairs also have the 7 percent added to them. Whether you're a housewife and you have an electric utensil in the house, whether you're a farmer, a fisherman, a logger, a businessman or an industrialist, we're all going to pay more -- and a lot more. That's the provincial GST, courtesy of the government of the day searching desperately for more funds. But what are they doing with those funds? Are they acquiring any capital assets? No, they're not. They're partaking in perhaps the worst expenditure of all, which is an unfair debt burden on the people of the province and certainly on the generations that will have to pay for it. That expenditure will not provide any future economic benefits. It's loosely referred to as an operating deficit. How is that operating deficit made up? It's made up because of increased wages and increased bowing-down to the public sector unions by the current government.
You can't tell me, hon. Speaker, that 6 percent to the BCGEU -- three times the rate of inflation -- is holding the line, is making tough decisions or is serving the needs and interests of the people of British Columbia. No one will convince me of that. No one will convince me that the concession to the hospital employees unions, as an indirect result of the Shaughnessy closure, is smart or prudent or good fiscal management -- not when it's going to cost the people of this province somewhere between $320 million to $520 million a year for that changeover.
The economic impact is going to affect every British Columbian, and every British Columbian is going to become more and more angry and outraged at what this government is doing. What the government says and what the government does are two different things. The spin doctors certainly give them the right catchwords and trite phrases, which they repeat again and again in an attempt to make something that is not truthful into the truth. They do it very well, and I compliment them for their discipline. But they're not going to deceive the public, because the public will measure government by their deeds and accomplishments. They will see that the current government falls far short of standing up for any deeds or accomplishments.
Hon. Speaker, this government has got what it takes to take what you've got. That's the only thing they've
[ Page 5123 ]
proven. They're the masters of doublespeak, and there is duplicity in their words, promises and actions.
Hon. Speaker, I note that my 20 minutes are up, and I've hardly gotten into this. But in honouring my time commitment, I'm going to cut my debate short. I will just conclude with a few things.
A short while ago I saw a video on New Zealand, which is a socialist country. We know what happened with Russia -- which certainly had the noble socialist experiment, no different from the socialists here -- where Yeltsin comes to North America and wants more, much more. It's potentially the richest country in the world, with good people and abundant natural resources, but with a socialist philosophy and no hope of digging themselves out. They've come to the west and to capitalism for support.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, socialism has failed everywhere, as it will fail in British Columbia. The only good thing I can say about this budget is that it is the second-last socialist budget that people in British Columbia will ever see. When the socialists go out at the next election, British Columbians will never again venture close to touching that iron furnace. The socialists are no different than they were perceived to be. They have a number of good people, but the philosophies and principles of that party are destructive to British Columbia.
[11:00]
Everything is not sacred. Everything has to paid for, and everyone has to pay their way. There can be no lifetime security for jobs. In New Zealand they found that in government contract employees are the ones who have to produce; that's part and parcel of their job. If they don't produce, they're gone. Here we've got a different attitude. The Minister of Finance is certainly not going to tamper with public sector employees and ask for increased productivity, a hold back on wages or a reduction in numbers. No sir, that's sacred. But for the people of British Columbia living in the real world, it is not sacred. If we're going to share the pain, we're going to share it universally; everyone has to take part and parcel of it.
We're looking at a government that is ethically bankrupt, corrupt and filled with a remarkable degree of conflict of interest. It's a government that will, if allowed to continue, bankrupt this province. The people are well aware. If this government thinks it's on the right road, then I suggest they go to the people right now. It's a horrible budget; it's a poor excuse for a budget. It's a socialist budget with no future for British Columbia.
Hon. P. Priddy: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you. I would like to introduce some friends of mine from Surrey who are in the House today: Patrick McIlveen, Meaghan McIlveen and Shannon McIlveen. Because they are such nice people, they also brought their dad Rick with them on this particular visit. Rick is a friend who's active in local, provincial and federal politics, and someone I had the privilege of serving with as a Surrey school trustee. Will the House please make them welcome?
D. Jarvis: My friend for Okanagan West is right in one way but wrong in the other. There is actually nothing wrong with socialism, but it just plain doesn't work. However, I find it incredible that in every jurisdiction across this country, economists, financiers and even NDP premiers say that in order to have a stable financial position, we require a reduction or a restraint in government spending and an economic plan to allow the economy to grow.
Here we are faced with a gross debt in B.C. of approximately $26.4 billion. If we took the $4.4 billion of unfunded pension plans into consideration, we'd be well over $30 billion in debt. That has to be considered a debt because it is a debt. Our gross debt is, as I said, in excess of $30 billion. That is very sad. Yet this government presents us with a budget that raises taxes, increases spending and borrows more for the future. The irony is that this socialist government is praying that the global economy will improve and will bail them out.
It's obvious in this budget that the government views any money in private hands as uncollected taxes. They have again fallen back on the old socialist dogma: tax the rich for the poor. In this instance, there's a very fine line drawn as to who is rich and who is poor, because the tax increase affects every employer and every wage earner in this province to the tune of over $800 million more than last year. We are all being drawn down to the lowest denominator of poverty.
Where are the voices that support this budget? I'll tell you who some of them are. People like Ken Georgetti, John Shields and Carmela Allevato praise the government and say wonderful things: (1) "It's about time the government brought in a budget that walloped the wealthy;" (2) "But the business community wants a free ride;" and (3) "The people who complained are only those sitting in their yachts and their penthouses." What a bunch of garbage. What ignorant attitudes! Mr. Speaker, this type of socialism is the philosophy of failure, a creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Sweetheart deals were made with the union bosses prior to this budget. If you go into any hospital right now and walk through the corridors, you'll hear all the health care workers singing: "Let me call you sweetheart." In the long run it will show that the fate of all cannot be mortgaged for that of a few. The people are going to see that they are paying for this government's complete lack of understanding of how to manage our economy -- right now and in the future.
What will the union leaders do and what will they say when half the jobs in the resource industry are lost because the companies have had to close or have headed south? This is where the Guntons and
[ Page 5124 ]
Williamses and the Crown corporation aspect come in. It's going to come forward. In 1988 the head of the Treasury Board, Mr. Gunton, provided a paper for the NDP stating that the resources in this province belong to the people and should be a Crown corporation. Failing this, he said, we can dictate through taxation, to the resource companies how much profit they should make. Here we see it; it's coming to the fore. The stage is now being set, and we should all be trembling in fear at the regressive mind-set that dominates this government.
At this time in this province we cannot expect our economy to exist or to grow without our resource industries. They are still the major economic drivers of this province. Nowhere in this budget does this government provide the resource industries with a future. Where is the economic plan to encourage development and investment in this province? Where is the tax base coming from? If there is no plan in this budget for the future growth of our resources, we are in danger of seeing a complete collapse in hard-rock mining, and coal is not far behind. Everything is in turmoil, yet we see no significant attempt to alleviate these pending disasters. Mr. Speaker, 30,000 mining jobs are on the line, and another 30,000 indirect jobs, such as suppliers and transportation, are also in danger. The choices and challenges of Budget '93 state that we are in economic renewal. But nowhere in the budget does it state that we are actually creating jobs for the resource industry.
The budget goes on to say: "We must lay the groundwork for renewed economic growth now, by making investments which are critical for a productive and sustainable economy." They are going to take $300 million in taxes out of the petroleum and mining industry. And what is going back in? Where is the plan for its future? Where is the future of these industries when all you see is a take-and-tax policy? There's no economic plan whatsoever.
Where is the strategy for coal in this province, for example? Entire communities in the southeast are facing tragic circumstances with the potential collapse of this industry. Over the last ten years, more than $1,500 million in taxes has come out of the coal industry. This is an industry that could be managed safely using modern technology, without causing any irreparable harm to the environment. We can use coal for creating energy and jobs throughout this country by using thermal-generating facilities and at the same time help the environment by using up waste coal. Plus there's the added value of exporting electricity. We have clean coal technology in ample supply. Why, for example, does this government not push harder for the removal of provincial trade barriers, which cost coal companies 32 percent more to ship coal to steel mills in Ontario than to go through the United States. Eastern Canada burns dirty U.S. coal while our clean coal market dies. Why didn't the government speak out for B.C. and provincial free trade when they had the opportunity during the constitutional debates? They didn't.
Where is the government's plan for encouraging hard-rock mining? For example, are they prepared to put Windy Craggy, the richest copper prospect in the world -- it's in the news all the time now -- into the mine development assessment program? Why not? All that's being asked is to put Windy Craggy out for inspection to see if it can compete with the environment in a responsible manner. This government has no idea of the future. This would send out signals that B.C. is again being realistic to the resources of this province -- an encouraging word.
Mining has not fallen because of world market conditions; it's B.C.'s market conditions: uncertainty, delay and high taxes. Ten thousand jobs have been lost in the last few years, yet this government spent $150 million last year to get on the boards of two resource companies, without creating one job in this province. We are the leaders of research and development in the mining industry, and this government fails to give $1 million to a B.C. research and development company. We have job creation in the energy field. Geothermal plants all over this province are asking for it: Lytton, Houston, Elk Valley, Kamloops and so on. But this government will not allow them to start up. With the simple approval of independent power in this province, we could create many more jobs and added-value of exporting electricity and the removal of environmental waste.
We export gas to the United States. Nothing wrong with that. But the state of Washington takes our gas and creates electrical generation plants. Four have been built in Washington in the last year. Yet B.C. companies are crying out for the opportunity to create jobs and added-value. This government talks with the big stick about added-value but does nothing about it. The recirculation of our own money through this phony B.C. 21 slush fund to create regional development for schools and roads and infrastructure is not the answer to our economic woes. Borrowed money will only create unemployment and larger indebtedness. Such circular economic voodoo is reminiscent of the old Social Credit policy, which coined funny money. There's a proverb that says those of us who are unable to learn from our history are condemned to repeat it. The irony here is that the NDP are repeating the all-too-forgettable history of the previous governments.
We in the Liberal Party have clearly and consistently articulated our concerns over this government's lack of physical direction. It's alarming. The lack of anything resembling an economic policy has been spoken to by all members of this caucus, and the government fails to do anything about it. For all our effort, this government is still unable to understand that an economic policy is more than an unrestrained tax gouge.
I've pointed out repeatedly that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has provided no sense of direction or reassurance to the resource sectors. Glossy pamphlets notwithstanding, this industry is being left to sink slowly into the sunset. There is nothing in this budget to stem the flood of mining companies and investors heading south for warmer climates. Last year $1.5 billion left Canada to go to Chile alone. Governments of Argentina, Chile and Mexico are in Vancouver right this moment, encouraging and cooperating with the mining sector, while our government allows worthwhile projects to perish in their bureaucratic limbo.
[ Page 5125 ]
When it comes to mining, this government's tape is as red as its underwear.
I deeply regret the fact that there is not one measure in this entire budget which will provide a positive boost to the mining and resource industries. I'm glad to see you smiling, Mr. Speaker. You're listening. Right on.
This government will continue to run up inexcusable debts and deficits for our children that they'll have to pay back, and at the same time they are killing the very industries that provide us the money to pay with. The only jobs this budget will create are a few minimum-wage tourism jobs, leading to day tours of our abandoned mines and abandoned mine towns.
When the last mine finally closes its doors and the last investment dollar leaves this province, perhaps then reality will draw on the brain trust of this government. There is no workers' paradise without work, no investment without reward and no hope for this budget until this government is prepared to take the meaningful steps to correct its past mistakes and those of its predecessors. The exodus of this industry will continue if this is not done.
My friend from Cariboo North was complaining that there are no moneys from the resource industries returned to the outlying areas of this province, and he is correct. But the B.C. 21 slush fund will not be the answer for that. If this Pecksniffian government allows this to happen, it will have betrayed the very people it professes to represent, and they will not soon forget. Therefore I cannot support this budget.
[11:15]
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to rise and state on behalf of my constituents the great concern that people of this province have about this budget. It is indeed a very harsh one for most of the people of British Columbia. It's one that is going to bring a great difference to the debt of this province. Just to give you an example -- from the figures in the summary to the Speech from the Throne -- we had a debt in 1990 of $4.2 billion; in 1991 the actual debt was $4.7 billion; the 1992 actual debt was $6.6 billion; and the estimate for the end of 1994 is $10.5 billion. That's going from $4.2 billion in 1990 to $10.5 billion in 1994. That's the basic direct provincial debt.
That does not include the Crown corporations and agencies doing the borrowing in addition to this, which is also adding to the debt load of the people of British Columbia. The total figure for 1990, including the total direct and guaranteed debt, was $16.2 billion; the 1991 actual debt was $17.2 billion; the actual in 1992 was $19.97 billion -- that's almost $20 billion. But the projection -- the estimate for 1994 -- is a whopping $26.3 billion, almost $26.4 billion. That has got to be of concern to all British Columbians. In addition, there is an unfunded liability of approximately $4 billion in pension plans that the government has guaranteed they will make payments on. That's a debt of British Columbians which will have grown even more -- in the range of $30 billion -- by the end of the '93-94 fiscal year. These facts are taken right from the minister's own documentation.
M. Farnworth: Tell us what they mean.
K. Jones: They mean that we, and our children in the future, are going to have to pay a lot of dollars to provide continuance of the way government is now. We will not be able to pay for the additional services that we know we need in certain areas in this province, because we will spend all of our money on debt payments. Debt payments are going to kill us. It's taking away from our children's future. It's taking away from the pensioners, because when the time comes for their pensions there may not be money in that fund; the province won't have money to give out, either. It is a very serious problem, fellow members of this House, and I hope you realize just how important this is going to be to the people of British Columbia.
I'd also like to bring some of the ill-stated facts in this budget about revenue sourcing to the attention of the public and to my fellow members of this House, particularly the government members. Do people who rent houses know that their renters' tax reduction is going to be eliminated -- not this year, but in the coming year? It's going to make $18 million for the province's revenue. They're showing that as a revenue source. That has not been well-publicized by this government.
There are several items projected into 1994 that should be made public. The basic personal income tax surtax increase will only bring in $15 million this year, but next year it's going to bring in $105 million. That's a big chunk out of our pockets and out of the economy. That money goes into government; it doesn't go into creating more jobs. The refundable sales tax credit is showing no return for this year, although it's claimed to be a real advantage for those people who are supposed to get it. They're not getting anything until after the tax year at the end of 1993-94, so the people should not be deluded into thinking they're going to receive something this year.
The homeowner's grant is being increased -- $15 million in revenue. But we're phasing out a lot of the homeowner's grants, and that's going to take $20 million out of the pockets. Municipalities are not going to have that kind of money. By increasing the homeowner's grant, you're reducing the amount of money available at the municipal level. In other words, you're downloading this additional $15 million onto the municipalities. In addition, you're taking away another $20 million -- to general revenues -- and that isn't available for the municipalities. I think that people have to realize what's actually happening here. The provincial sales tax has been increased by 1 percent. That's a tax which directly hits working people and the poor. It's not something that they're going to get a discount on. They've already started to pay it in some cases. That 1 percent increase in the sales tax is going to bring in $305 million. That's a real bite out of working people's pockets in British Columbia.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
In view of the hour, Madam Speaker, and to provide an opportunity for a summation of this by the Minister of Finance, I will curtail my further presentation at this
[ Page 5126 ]
point. We will pick up on these items in further debate, as we get into the estimates.
Hon. G. Clark: I will be brief in my response to the comments of members opposite. I just want to reiterate the themes of the budget. First, there is a major investment initiative called B.C. 21, which will help get the economy going, particularly in the regions. I will return to that.
Secondly, in a very difficult fiscal environment we have maintained spending on basic health and education services. Although the budgets in those two sectors are challenging, they are enough, in a very difficult environment, to maintain the services in education and health facilities.
We have a fair tax package, which I'm very proud of, in which 28 percent, or more than one in four British Columbians, will see a tax cut with this budget; four thousand businesses will see their taxes cut in this budget; and 95 percent of homeowners will see an increase in the homeowner grant, so their taxes will go down as well. We've done all that with a significant reduction in the deficit, from the $2.4 billion that we inherited from the previous administration to $1.5 billion budgeted for next year. This is a balanced approach to dealing with our fiscal problems, and it protects our basic health and education services while reducing the deficit.
On the spending side, the budget has the lowest spending growth since 1987 in British Columbia. If you take out population growth and inflation, the real per capita expenditures in British Columbia are minus 0.8 percent, a real reduction in per capita spending. It is true that there's a 4 percent increase in spending for the health care field and an increase in spending for education. But we've done that by cutting in other lower-priority areas. For example, there's a $30 million cut in overhead, on top of $40 million last year. That's a $70 million cut in the overhead we inherited from the previous Social Credit administration. We have cut advertising and furniture costs. We have eliminated 5 percent of all senior management positions, for a saving of $4 million. Seven boards and commissions are eliminated; salaries are frozen for senior management, and salaries are cut for cabinet ministers.
On the tax side, no one likes to raise taxes. But to protect health and education services, and reduce the deficit, some tax increases are unavoidable. The taxes in this budget are fair; they are based on ability to pay. Besides the 28 percent of British Columbians receiving a tax cut, a middle-income family making $45,000 a year will pay about $3 more per week. While no one wants to pay more, we think that working people will be prepared to pay $3 more per week in order to protect our quality health care and education systems. Small business and lower-income earners, again, receive a tax cut.
What have the opposition said to this budget? I've gone through some of their remarks, and they're very interesting. The Liberals and the Socreds would like us to slash health and education spending. I see some nodding, and I appreciate that. They would like us to return to the radical restraint program of the early 1980s. We have specifically rejected that approach. At the same time, they said there should be cuts -- some 20 percent, I think I heard from one member -- in the size of the public service, health and education. They said we should not cut Agriculture, Economic Development or Energy.
[11:30]
On budget day, the opposition critic for Tourism said there should be huge increases in the Tourism budget. Both opposition parties opposed closing a Tourism office in the Los Angeles suburbs. They opposed closing a tourism office in Seattle. They opposed closing Shaughnessy Hospital. They oppose the spending cuts we have made in this budget, but at the same time they stand here and say....
F. Gingell: You're picking the wrong ones.
Hon. G. Clark: What's left? Health and education are what's left. They are opposed to closing Shaughnessy Hospital, but they claim we should cut spending by 20 percent. They can't have it both ways. I know in opposition they like to try, but the public rejects radical restraint -- closing half of the hospitals in British Columbia -- and that is the prescription we hear daily from opposition members.
In addition, we've heard the opposition say we should eliminate the capital tax -- $300 million.
An Hon. Member: Poppycock!
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry -- I woke someone up over there.
They say we should eliminate the capital tax, and they said we should give more money to Canadian Airlines. They say we should give $1 million to B.C. Research. They say there should be more money for Tourism. They're opposed to any cuts in Economic Development funding. They're opposed to any cuts in Environment. I have all the information and I can go through the speeches, but I won't bore you with them. The pattern is clear. They're opposed to all those cuts, but they want to see a radical reduction in the deficit, and they want no tax increases. Well, the only way you can do that is to close half of all the hospitals in British Columbia, and we don't think British Columbians expect that.
They're also opposed to B.C. 21, and they're going to vote against it. I heard the leader of the opposition and the Leader of the Third Party on a talk show saying that we shouldn't be building any more schools or hospitals while we have a deficit. So I look forward over the next two or three years to every school, every hospital and every highway construction in this province that they are going to vote against in this budget. You have to invest today in infrastructure so that we can have a strong economy tomorrow. Everybody said that when I travelled around the province. That's what this budget does. It means that essential spending on infrastructure is maintained.
On the highway side, for the first time we have dedicated revenue. Every penny raised from the 1-cent-a-litre gas tax goes into building highways in British
[ Page 5127 ]
Columbia. That's what the public wanted; that's what we have given them. As a result of that, we have the opportunity to build the infrastructure of this province. Shame on the Social Credit Party, with their proud history of investing in and building the province, for voting against a budget which has significant resources with which to invest in and build the future of British Columbia.
Some people are not happy with this budget. I saw an entrant to the Liberal leadership race -- Gordon Gibson. He rejected running for the Reform Party and found his soul mate in the provincial Liberal Party. I think they are going to change the name to the SLP -- the Shaughnessy Liberal Party. I know that Gordon Gibson is involved in that court case to stop the Ronald McDonald House for terminally ill children in Shaughnessy, because it would reduce property values. I can't think of a better representative for the interests of the Liberal Party and what they represent than Gordon Gibson.
So it's good news that we see the true colours of the Liberal Party and the Social Credit Party. They want to return to the radical restraint of the early 1980s. They don't want fair taxes. If we raise taxes on the poor, they would stand here and support it. But we cut taxes on low-income British Columbians. And yes, we have said that those who can afford to pay more have to pay a little more to protect quality health care and education. When I drove down Granville Street and saw those tax revolt signs on the lawns, and saw right next to that "Save Shaughnessy Hospital" on the same lawn, I saw hypocrisy, and I see it every day in this House with the Liberal Party and the Social Credit Party. It's a good thing they didn't have valet parking at those tax protests; there would have been a lot more people there.
Hon. Speaker, this is a fair and balanced approach to dealing with our fiscal problems. Twenty-eight percent of British Columbians received a tax cut.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, 95 percent of homeowners received an increase in the homeowner grant. The deficit reduction has been dramatic: from $2.4 billion to $1.5 billion. The taxes are fair. We have cut spending to the lowest rate of spending growth in British Columbia since 1987 -- in real dollar terms, a minus 1 percent in per-capita expenditure. British Columbians expect governments to cut spending; we have done that. We have brought the deficit down, and we have a fair tax package. At the same time we have a major, new investment initiative to lay the foundation for strong economic growth, particularly in the regions of British Columbia. I'm proud of this budget, and I ask all members to support it.
Hon. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Women's Equality, that the hon. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor will be in the precincts shortly. I would ask members to stand by until we have further word as to when he will arrive.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk:
Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to wish everyone in the chamber a restful long Easter weekend. The House will resume at 2:00 o'clock on Tuesday.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:44 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]