1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 13, Number 12
[ Page 9591 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
H. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, from the great constituency of Abbotsford, where the sun rises before it shines on Matsqui, we have two very important people in our gallery today: Jake and Grace Kobes. They're a very busy couple, but they have found time to visit Victoria today. The first place they wanted to visit was the B.C. Legislature. I ask the House to welcome them here today.
(continued)
W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in my seat today to debate the third budget of this New Democratic Party administration. I think it's important for us in opposition to read into the record some of the fiscal realities in the province of British Columbia, some of the aspects of this budget and the performance of the B.C. economy. The opposition believes that these need to be put into Hansard, so that when this budget is assessed in the cold, hard light of economic reality, it can be properly gauged by British Columbians.
The fact is that the total debt in the province will rise by over $2 billion in the coming fiscal year. I dwell on that statistic, because we have heard for so long from members opposite that the way to protect the basic services of the province -- health care, education and social services -- is to incur more debt on behalf of the taxpayers and to increase the indebtedness not only today but for future generations of British Columbians. This side of the House has long sought to convince the government that the surest way to sacrifice those programs in the long term is to increase the long-term debt of this province.
I find it intriguing that some members opposite are choosing not to call it debt any longer. They are now calling it a mortgage, as if incurring higher debt on behalf of the taxpayers will somehow be more palatable to the people of the province if it's compared to a home mortgage, which everybody has to pay. But when was the last time anyone in British Columbia went out and bought a new house every year? Obviously, people with mortgages are prudent individuals who balance their household accounts. I'm always intrigued when these euphemisms creep into our lexicon in this House to avoid dealing with debt for exactly what it is, which is sacrificing the options that future generations have in this province and reducing our choices. That's what this budget really does.
There's no commitment in the budget to cap or reduce the size of government; no commitment to reduce the continued growth in the size of government, which in itself will form the basis for future budgets and sap the strength of our economic growth in this province.
I think it's important for me to just indicate to the House some of the dynamics in the provincial economy over the past number of years. Measured on a per capita basis, real economic growth in British Columbia has in reality been only slightly stronger than the rest of Canada; but if you were to listen to the members opposite, they would tell you we've been wildly outperforming the rest of Canada. The facts just don't bear that out. B.C.'s industrial economy has been declining over the last two years, and the amount of capital investment in new plants and equipment in this province is down.
Surely, when we look at some of the leading economic generators that have created jobs in the past and we see them declining, we have to ask: where are these 22,000 jobs? Where is this economic growth? The sad reality is that in British Columbia growth is being fuelled by migration -- nothing more. That's the economic platform on which this government has based its last three budgets. The fact is that people are coming to the province, and that is perceived by the government to be real economic growth.
Real industrial output per capita in this province is declining. Industrial output now accounts for about 20 percent of B.C.'s gross domestic product, down from 23 percent in the late eighties. As we look at some of the realities in British Columbia, we see that there has been unparalleled growth in the size of government. Spending by governments has mushroomed from about 42 percent of B.C.'s domestic product in '71-72 to 46 percent in the 1980s, and it is now over 54 percent.
What we've seen over the past three years in this province is a government that has made a decision to increase the size of government and the tax load on British Columbians. It has based those kinds of economic decisions on nothing more than migration to the province. The real economic indicators are down in British Columbia. If the government continues its insatiable demand for revenue and tax increases, they will decline further. The reality is that real capital investment is an accurate barometer of confidence in the province. When companies and individuals go to their banks to borrow, to increase their debt, in order to invest, surely that's a far better barometer of economic confidence than the government going to the bank to increase its debt. That's exactly what we see happening in British Columbia today: more debt.
I'm continually astonished when I hear members opposite tell us that their budget is dedicated to the common family, the common man, in British Columbia. They've said that many times.
B. Copping: Person.
W. Hurd: Common person.
The fact is that when we talk about real per capita income, the average family in British Columbia is poorer than they were three years ago. Their discretionary income has declined. If you're an average family in British Columbia headed by a person or persons, what hope is there for the future when we have a government that says to you: "We feel that your per capita income can decline and you can still maintain your standard of living"? This government is spending 3 percent more in the coming fiscal year.
I had an opportunity to travel this province a good deal when our party was engaged in a renewal of leadership. I had an opportunity to talk to many British Columbians from one end of this province to the other. They all told me there was no room for new taxes in the province; there was no room for the government to spend more money. They said: "There's no room for growth."
Interjections.
W. Hurd: Nobody is listening. I'm being heckled by members opposite who don't understand that while the public wants more highways and hospitals, as they indicate, they also want to see the size of the civil service capped -- fewer bureaucrats and more white lines in British Columbia.
[ Page 9592 ]
I think the opposition would be happy to see that, but you can't have both. You can't increase the size of bureaucracy as we've seen in this province. You can't take money out of the hands of the families in this province and expect them to stand aside and say: "We're all better off." I am continually amazed by a government that believes that more government investment and involvement translates into a higher standard of living, without understanding the impact of debt.
[10:15]
When I got home last night, I was intrigued to hear the debate on BCTV about the size of the deficit in British Columbia. Is it $900 million, $1.2 billion, or is it $1.8 billion, as the representative of the B.C. Central seemed to indicate? Pick a number and that's the kind of bookkeeping we're getting from British Columbia, where the people of this province don't even know how much debt has been incurred on their behalf. Yesterday in the House, the hon. member for New Westminster called it a transparent budget. Indeed, it is transparent. Pick any deficit number you want, plug it into the equation and everything will be explained. As the opposition Finance critic and member for Delta South has indicated, this is a do-nothing budget by a do-nothing government.
It's important for us to back up a few months to provide a backdrop for this current session of the B.C. Legislature and this third budget by the New Democratic Party. In September of last year, this government embarked upon the most cataclysmic shuffle of cabinet officers in the history of this assembly. They shuffled the deck from top to bottom. They shuffled the deckchairs, but the ship hasn't turned around; it's still heading to the bottom. Is that the reaction of a government in firm control of the agenda? They take a two-year barometer reading of the members of the executive council and decide right before the trading deadline that it's time for a mass trade of the entire team. That's exactly what happened before we came into this session of the B.C. Legislature. The government took stock of the whole team and decided that they would have to exercise a mass trade. That is the kind of confidence -- or lack of it -- that people have in the current government. It really is an admission of failure. Senior ministers of the executive council shuffling portfolios, or shuffling out altogether. That speaks volumes about the record of the government over the past two years.
We saw in this budget a desperate need to try to reverse the field from those two disastrous budgets of 1992-93 and 1993-94. There was some expectation that we would reverse the field in this province, but it just hasn't happened. Government spending continues to go up and debt continues to rise. Those barometers, those key realities, are having an impact. How long can an economy be sustained by the real estate market and migration to the province? Where are the underpinnings of a sound economy? Capital investments in new plant and equipment and business confidence are surely barometers of how well we're doing in this province. Sooner or later those migration figures are going to go down, and people who are coming to this province with discretionary income are going to use it up. Under this budget they are going to be using it up far faster.
We had approximately 20,000 people, who are concerned about their future in this province, gathered on the lawn of the B.C. Legislature. If you look at public opinion polls in British Columbia carefully -- I'm sure the government does it all the time, and if they don't, they should -- unemployment is the key concern of most British Columbians. If the economy of the province is doing so well, why are people so concerned about unemployment? Because they know, better than the government that supposedly rules their lives, that it isn't happening on the capital investment front. Their businesses and industries are not in better shape than they were two years ago, and that translates into unemployment.
People who occupy positions in the private sector have a much better assessment of reality than those covered by a collective agreement in the public sector. They feel the effects of government budgets. They have to deal with them if those budgets undertake the kind of measures that this one does. They are the families that have to accept no wage increases if the plant or the organization that they work for is not able to sustain a level of return on investment. They are the ones who pay the price. They are telling the opposition that their lives are not better than they were two and a half years ago. This is almost a reverse trickle-down effect, where if we put more money into the hands of public sector employees and the government, somehow it will trickle down to those people who work in the private sector. It just doesn't happen.
In British Columbia today one in every four employees works for a public body, a government or an agency.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: The member makes a valid point. He says: "Me included." He's absolutely right. Certainly the opposition fully supports one initiative in this budget, which is to freeze the salaries of MLAs in this chamber. They can take some congratulations for that. But that's where the commitment ended: in this chamber. One of the interesting debates that will unfold in this assembly over the next few months is whether salaries for civil servants have really been frozen. Have they really made a commitment and told the B.C. Government Employees' Union that there will be no more money for the next three years? That will be an interesting debate indeed. I for one am convinced that no such commitment has been made.
As I travelled this province from one end to the other, I talked to people who have not had a raise in three years. Their security has gone down, their disposable income has gone down and their ability to purchase real goods and services has gone down. Then they tune in the television and have to be reminded by the Premier that despite all those economic indicators -- including the fact that they can't go to the grocery store and purchase as much as they could last year -- they are all better off. All I know is that families are telling the opposition that they have less money to spend now than they did last year.
While we're on the subject of taxation, I'm delighted that the official opposition's Finance critic called a tax a tax. What is a tax? Is it a tax when your ICBC premium goes up 30 percent, and there's no other game in town? Is it a tax when you turn your light switch on in the morning, and the only act in town is B.C. Hydro? Many government services in this province require that fees be paid. When those fees rise dramatically, out of proportion to the cost of providing those services, isn't that a tax? What is the government suggesting people do if they can't face the tax increases on car insurance -- pedal a bike? Is that what the government is asking us to do?
What we're rapidly seeing in this province is a parallel budget. We're seeing the one that's produced in here -- the one that the Premier goes on television and spends $140,000 to plug -- and we're seeing the hidden agenda, the hidden budget, which involves hydro increases, ICBC increases, increased fees for water and grazing rights, and the myriad fees for inspection and licence permits that this government hands out on a regular basis.
[ Page 9593 ]
I've been asked to read into the record a letter from an electric company that has received a reply from the Attorney General about a fee which increased from $84 to $275: "I can't believe that they can justify a fee increase like this. Just have a peek at the new fee schedule that they sent us. This will probably have the effect of driving more people into working without licences...."
That's another issue that I wanted to touch on during my remarks -- the fact that this government has acknowledged in the current budget that it has accomplished the impossible. In last year's budget it actually raised taxes and lost money. That is almost an impossible task to accomplish, but the government has managed it. They raised the jet fuel tax, they slapped a surtax on expensive cars, and they actually brought in less revenue.
Given the government's track record in revenue forecasting in those two taxes, what confidence can we have in the rest of it? How can a government raise taxes and find out a year later that it has to rescind the tax because it is costing them money? I can only say that if my friend who runs the small electrical firm operated his business the same way, he wouldn't have to worry about fee increases, because he'd be in the bankruptcy court. That is where the government is headed -- directly to bankruptcy, if we continue to see the kind of debt increase that we've seen in this province.
I ask the rhetorical question: when is the government going to make a commitment to cap or reduce the size of the civil service? How long will we have to wait for that to happen? How many companies in this province have the hiring track record that this government has had over the last three years? How many companies have been able to go out and hire thousands of employees in the name of restraint and budget control. It's absolutely impossible.
Again, it's important to talk about the relationship between taxes and fees, because they are rapidly becoming indivisible with the current government. If you add up the new taxes in the last two budgets, and if you add up the fee and licence increases for services the government provides, there is no question in my mind, and in the minds of British Columbians, that the average family in this province is much worse off than it was when this government took office three years ago. As I have said, this is a do-nothing budget by a do-nothing government. The government has simply failed British Columbians with this budget.
On our side of the House we have consistently called for an end to this onerous corporate capital tax. The government has been dragged kicking and screaming towards allowing higher limits. When they first introduced this tax, it was $1 million on paid-up capital. Then they tinkered with it and went to $1.2 million. Now they're up to $1.5 million, and they have the audacity to tell us that a few more businesses have been able to escape the tax ceiling. Why don't they just acknowledge that the corporate capital tax is like the jet fuel tax and the surtax on expensive cars, and scrap it altogether? What will the ceiling be next year? Three million dollars? Four million dollars? The fact that the ceiling is going up is surely an acknowledgment of failure and that this tax, more than any other, is robbing this province of the commitment from the business community that it needs to invest in capital expenditures. When you deal with some of the major industrial concerns in this province, $1 million in paid-up capital is really a minimal amount of money. As many members who live in pulp mill communities will know, it's not uncommon for a mill to spend $1 million a day on routine maintenance that will help that company compete. Why would any government that purports to understand the competitive enterprise system tax the capital that companies borrow to expand and improve their productivity? What sense does that make?
[10:30]
So when I say that real industrial output and capital investment have gone down, those are the hard realities. This tax has as much to do with it as anything else. The Minister of Finance seems to confirm that, when she consistently raises the ceiling for this tax. She's admitting that small companies -- supposedly the engine of the B.C. economy -- are being negatively impacted by this tax. So the government keeps tinkering with the ceiling. When you raise taxes and lose money, that pretty well says it all. And that's exactly what we've seen happen in this province.
I'd like to talk a minute again about the real rate of growth in the B.C. economy. What is really happening out there in British Columbia? The government throws out statistics that seem to bear no relation to the lives of average British Columbians, who are not more confident about their future than they were a year or two ago and who do not share, for whatever reason, the boundless optimism of the current government with this budget. When those of us on this side of the House talk to ranchers, small business people, forestry workers on the lawn of the B.C. Legislature, people running businesses in small towns, and small and medium-sized industries trying to attract capital investment and improve their balance sheet, the message we're getting loud and clear is that they and their employees are not better off than they were last year. They see a government that -- even after it's been repudiated in the polls, in a referendum and in sinking popularity -- cannot bring itself to reverse its fundamental philosophy in this budget, which is that bigger and more intrusive government is better, and that government makes better decisions when it comes to capital investment.
What we see in this budget and this province is a continuation of government as a burden on society and people, not a government that provides for economic opportunity and that rewards thrift and success by the people it's designed to serve. When you really get down to the bottom line, this government does not believe in individual thrift and initiative. This government is determined to take more out of the economy, not less, and has continued to do so in this budget. This government continues to believe that the civil service and the number of government employees needs to be expanded -- and it is expanding. This government does not recognize that return on capital investment and real industrial output are accurate barometers of where the province's economy is going.
This government seems intent on building a government based on the quicksand of migration to this province and a booming real estate market, because that's all that's happening out there. When you take that away from the total economic equation in this province, we have barely outperformed the rest of the country. That should give rise to sober reflection about the increase in long-term debt in this province. In our view, it is based on an economy which is not multifaceted at the present time; it is based on property and migration.
I am obviously speaking against the budget and against the philosophy it represents. I know that when this session is over and the opposition goes forth -- as they do every summer to talk to British Columbians, they will not feel better off with this budget. They will not be comforted by the Premier's glowing remarks on television -- almost a prebudget speech. They will not be comforted by anything in this budget. Despite the cabinet shuffle and the disarray of the government benches, it appears obvious that this budget represents a continuation of more capital spending and
[ Page 9594 ]
investment by government, and less by the private sector -- more money out of the pockets of British Columbians, and a bigger government civil service.
This budget is about more government, not less. It's about more debt, not less. It's about more government employment, not more private sector employment. And it's about some fundamental flaws in the forecasting of a government which simply does not understand that the only security for the future is a multifaceted economy.
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, I cannot support the budget. I rise to debate the third dismal budget of this NDP government. Since 1991, each budget prepared by this NDP government has got progressively worse. This 1994 budget is deplorable and deceitful. The Premier proved that he and this government have no regard for democracy and this Legislature.
This session began by the Premier breaking democratic procedure. He interfered in the neutrality of the Speaker, and changed Speakers. Why? To have a Speaker who answers to the Premier instead of the Legislature. The Premier broke democratic procedure by leaking the contents of this budget on television, prior to the budget being presented to this Legislature. This is inexcusable. In a democracy, the budget is to be presented and debated in the Legislature. The Premier has undermined the whole process of accountability and insulted the Legislature with his grandstanding and political manoeuvres.
This 1994 budget is an atrocity. It is robbing British Columbians blind while claiming no tax increases. It is a very regressive budget that features uncontrollable waste, taxes excessively and disregards British Columbians. First, let's discuss government waste. This budget does not address the shopping spree of the government and civil servants in the last few months to ensure that allotments were spent before the March 31 deadline. Departments fear that money unused this year will be lost next year. A system must be devised to ensure that this last-minute expenditure frenzy, which results in unnecessary spending, ceases.
Another area of government waste not adequately addressed in this budget is the excessive perks to favoured civil servants. The Times-Colonist of March 21, 1994, reports that, before he was fired in 1992, Gordon Austin, former head of the Health Labour Relations Association, was granted: (1) a five-year $1 million contract with a termination clause worth half a million dollars, signed when the Health Labour Relations Association board of directors was looking for his replacement; and (2) $143,000 worth of computer equipment, with about $80,000 of it located in his house. Comptroller general Alan Barnard reports that a continuing audit of the B.C. Health Association, largely made up of hospital administrators, is showing spending practices that do not meet the tests of prudence and economy. Ken Dye, chief executive of the Workers' Compensation Board, whose salary was $170,000 a year, received $250,000 upon his dismissal last year. For almost two years British Columbia taxpayers were paying $1,500 per month rent on a luxury Vancouver apartment for B.C. Transit boss Eric Denhoff. B.C. Hydro chairman Marc Eliesen, hired in 1992, has a five-year contract with pay of $195,000 a year and a $1.2 million tax-funded pension plan, as we all heard. The Premier has once again used secret deals and special favours for political friends.
In its 1991 election platform, this government promised a better way. Now we know that it meant a better deal for NDP insiders. The Premier says that all senior executives in every public sector will have their pay and perks frozen. They may have their pay level frozen, but that doesn't mean they won't get a pay increase. Civil servants have indicated to me that a pay freeze means they will get promoted to a different pay level earlier. Hiring at lower levels will stay empty in order to ensure hiring at the next step. Civil servants, especially in the senior levels, get a larger pay increase than if there were no freeze. They are all promoted. Why hasn't this budget addressed this? Nine months ago, the Korbin report on the B.C. public service stated: "A few executives have more generous benefits, such as club memberships, non-vouchered expense accounts, credit cards, deluxe cars, allowances, interest-free loans and housing loans. The provision of benefits, particulary to senior staff, is inconsistent across sectors. This needs careful review. Where does it indicate in this budget that this review will happen? This budget says it will freeze the pay and perks. In other words it will continue with the same conflict-of-interest, flouting of guidelines and questionable perks. Imagine how drastically our deficit would drop of we did away with government waste and resorted to reasonable compensation for senior bureaucrats. A freeze means the status quo, and that means disaster.
This government claims no increase in salaries and benefits for public servants in 1994-95. Yet in the Agriculture estimates of this budget, total salaries and benefits in ministry operations increased $841,000 for the coming year, while the total budget for Agriculture has been decreased by $3.3 million. In the Agricultural Land Commission, salaries and benefits have also been increased, yet there was no budget increase for the commission.
This raises the question: are public servants' wages really frozen? They're not, according to this budget. Salaries have been increased throughout the budget. For example, for the auditor general's office they're up $125,000. For the Commission on Resources and Environment they're up $300,000 -- a 19 percent increase. For the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Commission they're up $626,000 -- a whopping 92 percent. In the ombudsman's office they're up $107,000 -- a 3 percent increase. In the office of the Premier, salaries are up $113,000 -- a 7 percent increase. In the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, salaries are up by 2.3 percent. In the Ministry of Attorney General, administration and support services, salaries are up $1.6 million -- with the minister's office, an increase of 29 percent. In the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, ministry operations, salaries will increase by $2.6 million -- an increase of 12 percent. Are wages frozen? I think we had better have a second look. That's right in your budget, hon. members.
This trend of large increases in salaries occurs throughout the budget, especially in the ministers' offices and ministry operations. This is unacceptable at a time when British Columbians are being taxed excessively and when we have such a high unemployment rate and so many on social services. This government is not cutting back where it is needed. Public servants have a higher travel budget in 1994: a $3.2 million increase on what is already $68.1 million. I think that increase could be well used elsewhere. Professional services contracts are up $11.5 million, and information systems operations have increased by $4 million. There has been an increase of about 12,000 civil servants since the NDP came to power in 1991. That represents more than $361 million in salaries since the NDP's first budget. I urge this government to freeze high salary and benefit increases in the public service, especially when the debt service has increased by 53 percent and the tax load of every British Columbia family has increased by $2,000.
[10:45]
[ Page 9595 ]
Truth, justice and open government are absent in this budget. All were promised in the 48 promises, if I recall. This budget has increased spending by $675 million. That's $771 per family in new government spending in just one year. Since 1991, spending has increased by 16 percent. What is needed are cutbacks. This budget's claim of no tax increases for three years is deceitful. Over the last two years this government has increased taxes more than any government in the history of British Columbia. Now you will rob us with hidden tax increases.
Why not cut back the excessive taxes you have imposed on us in the last two years? Instead, you will continue to increase ferry fees. You will still make us pay increased medical fees, ICBC rates, WCB rates and grazing fees, and you will increase subdivision fees by 400 percent. This budget hasn't stopped the increases in water licence fees, in fishing fees, in commercial transport fees, in vehicle infraction fees, such as speeding tickets, in birth and death certificates and marriage licence fees, and in vehicle registration fees. Why hasn't this budget discussed the increase in tuition fees and the newly implemented parking fees on campuses such as Fraser Valley College? These students can ill afford these fees. There are hundreds of increases in licences and permits; those are tax increases in disguise. Yet this government thinks it can fool the people with rhetoric about no tax increases. These fees and licences are the government's cash cow and are milking British Columbians dry. We are paying $332 million more in fees than we did when this government took office two years ago. The 1994-95 increase in fees alone is $63 million.
What about the increased gas tax, the increased personal income tax and the increased provincial sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent? What about the October 1, 1993, increase in PST, which now taxes labour and services such as car repairs, house repairs, legal fees, parking and haircuts? What about the new flat tax of $1.50 per rental vehicle, as of April 1, 1993? We are still paying the March 31, 1993, tax increase on tobacco and the 30 percent tax increase on alcohol. The Medical Services Plan premium increase of October 1, 1993, is still being collected. How can this government claim no tax increases for the next three years? It has just imposed taxes to ensure that we pay increased taxes for three years.
Hon. Speaker, for the last year so many taxes and fees were increased that the government's new red herrings -- auto trade-ins and the corporation capital tax on farms -- could be deleted in the hope of appeasing the taxpayer. But the people see the trickery; they know they are still being taxed much more than when this government took office two years ago.
This budget shows that the tax increase will be $800 million. The average family of four will pay $3,600 more in taxes due to NDP increases since 1991 -- the biggest tax grab in the history of British Columbia. British Columbians know that this government has been misleading them about government spending and the deficit. The budget speech indicated reductions in spending and the deficit, but the numbers just don't add up. This is a tax-and-spend budget.
Capital spending is up by $1.5 billion. Rather than balancing the budget in an election year, this government should be balancing its budget this year. We should not be spending more than we receive. We receive $17.7 billion, but we're spending $19.3 billion. We should not be adding to our provincial debt. The Premier is counting on a strong provincial economy, which is an unrealistic approach. A solid approach is to take a hard line on frivolous spending.
The B.C. 21 fund was invented by the NDP as a vehicle to disguise debt without reporting the details in the budget. So much for the NDP's election promise of open and honest government. The bureaucracy is growing; spending and taxes are out of control. Crown corporations are not accountable to the government. Their debt is not considered. Their fee hikes are not controlled. Our debt is $27.4 billion; it needs to be said. This budget means that since the NDP took office, the provincial debt has increased by 50 percent. The debt has increased by more than twice the rate of inflation.
The Minister of Finance did not mention agriculture and fisheries in the budget, because those are not priorities with this government. Every year since this NDP government has taken office, agriculture and fisheries have been omitted from both the throne speech and the budget speech. Just when our farmers are faced with NAFTA and GATT uncertainties, this government decides to chop programs and give low priority to farming -- even though the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture are farmers. This is deplorable, and when analyzing the budget, we find things that are even more deplorable.
This budget has no economic strategy, no plan; there is nothing in this budget to lure investment to British Columbia or to allay concern about capital formation in British Columbia. A rollback of the high taxes this NDP government implemented is required. The corporate capital tax should have been eliminated immediately to attract investment. World factors and the fact that we are paying so much tax are the reasons for British Columbia's position.
This budget does not reward success. It is very regressive; it's tax-and-spend. Because we do not reward success, there is no investment. This government has not had sound fiscal management. For instance, the Transportation and Highways ministry is budgeted for close to $700 million this year; yet there is another $300 million in what used to be called highways spending tucked away in a wholly-owned government agency, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. If that were in the budget, as it would have been until recently, the deficit for 1994-95 would be $1.2 billion, not the bogus figure of $900 million given by the Minister of Finance. This is but one example of the Minister of Finance hiding government spending by removing it from ministry budgets and parking it with other government-owned entities.
Not mentioned anywhere in this budget is one of the biggest and most expensive new programs on the government's agenda: the forest industry adjustment strategy. This will cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it raised through increased timber royalties. Coupled with the off-budget spending on highways, the forest strategy could push this year's spending increase to 6 percent, not the deliberately understated 3.5 percent cited by the Minister of Finance.
We find deceit on the part of this government everywhere. The budget speech indicated that universities and colleges will receive an increase of 3.4 percent in operating costs and that 8,100 new full-time post-secondary education spaces will be created. That sounds great, but unfortunately, reality indicates otherwise. Post-secondary tuition fees are increasing drastically. The University of Victoria upped its tuition fees by 10 percent the day before the budget, because the government asked the university to take more students without receiving additional funding. You should be proud of that one, hon. members. Even with the tuition increase, the University of Victoria indicates there will be cuts across the campus.
[ Page 9596 ]
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: I must have hit a nerve; I hear the cackling rising.
The yearly fee hikes are making universities increasingly inaccessible and elitist at a time when our workforce needs more education. This government's claim of supporting post-secondary education is obviously all talk and no action.
The Minister of Finance indicated in her budget speech that increased funding for education would flow directly to children in classrooms, with no new funds for salary increases. Well, the Education ministry's operations salaries for administration and support services are up by 8 percent; educational policy and information salaries increased by 33 percent; student service program salaries increased by 7 percent; and school funding salaries will increase by 24 percent, from $2.2 million to $2.7 million according to the 1994-95 budget figures. How is this helping the student? Obviously this government does not do as it says. Stop conning the public. Parents will see that the educational system has not improved. As a matter of fact, our graduates are down to 69 percent now; when this government took over, it was 74 percent. It is deteriorating. We are getting an increase in education costs with less education.
The same goes for health care. The minister claims there will be an increase of 3.3 percent, otherwise $200 million, in health care for 1994-95. Where is it going? The budget figure shows a 4 percent increase in expenses in the Health minister's office -- that's a fine spot for it -- and a whopping $28.6 million increase in salaries and benefits in Health ministry operations. I thought wages were frozen. At a time when the Health minister is supposedly cutting back on services, this is appalling.
For instance, the Chilliwack hospital recently sent letters to cancer patients telling them to mail their prescriptions to the cancer clinic in Vancouver. The hospital could no longer dispense these drugs due to cost. How many other hospitals in B.C. are inconveniencing the sick and elderly? What happens when the mail doesn't deliver it? The sick can't afford expensive couriers from Vancouver.
This is only one of many examples of the deceit and lack of compassion of this "new debt" party. This begs the question: why, when the rest of the country is coming out of a recession which we didn't feel in British Columbia, are we struggling with our debt problem? This should not be happening.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. [Applause.]
Hon. A. Edwards: Thank you very much. I'm sure that's applause for the Kootenays. The Speaker is not allowed to use my name; he could have used my riding. Of course, he used the proper designation. But I'm here today to say a lot about what will happen in the Kootenays as a result of this budget.
This is a budget that the Kootenay people will like. It is a good budget; it has good messages in it. It has the response to the things that people in the Kootenays told the Minister of Finance when she circulated the province and asked: "What do you want me to put in the budget?" They said exactly what she has done. They said: "Keep the deficit going down. Build jobs, keep the number of jobs going up." But they also said: "Please freeze taxes." The only possible way we could do that was for our province to be in as healthy a situation as it is, and this budget recognizes that. It also works further to see that it continues to be a province with a healthy economy. This budget is good for the Kootenays; it's good for all resource communities across the province. It's good for working British Columbians everywhere, not just the ones who have had rain in their lunchbuckets but also the ones who have had snow go down the heels of their steel-toed boots. Those people know that this is a good budget. It's good for the interior; it's good for the north; and it's even good for those urban regions that we in the Kootenays and other parts of the province support.
[11:00]
I am not going to take very long to deliver this address. Therefore I'm not going to take as much time as I would like to deal with some of the good things in this budget that are general -- things like no provincial sales tax on trade-ins anymore and an increase in the surtax up to $32,000. Believe me, the people in our area will appreciate that measure, and it will make a difference to working people in the Kootenays who have to use their vehicles to get to work. No transfer tax on properties for first-time homebuyers is going to make a big difference to people in the Kootenays, because there is beginning to be a housing shortage. The number of houses being built is up, and more first-time homebuyers are going to be able to buy their first home without paying a property transfer tax.
I would like to talk for a while about no corporate capital tax on farm corporations. That's going to make a difference and relieve some anxieties expressed by the livestock and other farm people in our area; that will be a very popular move. There is going to be a very good reception from about 2,000 small businesses in British Columbia, and the people in our area will share in that as the level for applying the corporate capital tax is raised. I'd like to talk more about the fact that there will be $112 million less taxes on individuals and businesses in B.C., because that will affect our area.
I know that we'll get our share of 8,100 new post-secondary seats in the province. That is needed in our area. We've looked at it; we've talked about it; we're ready for it. We've got the place to put the money, so that we can have the programs and we can work. If we don't have it, I know that the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour will come in with some other ideas -- things we've also talked about. He's going to have a program of about $200 million for training the workforce of British Columbia, to make sure they are able to cope with the employment situation as we enter a period of serious change for this province and country.
I would like to talk about the kind of investment this province is going to make through $1 billion in the B.C. 21 project. This is already building a school in Cranbrook and doing other projects. And it will continue to allow the public infrastructure we need in this province.
As announced in the budget, there will be 7,500 day care spaces. That will make a difference in our area; that's another place where we need an increase. We needed some support to increase the day care spaces, and we've had some help already.
It would be tempting to talk about the fact that there will be no increases in Medical Services premiums, the provincial sales tax and the personal income tax. These are all good things. We would like to know there's going to be a cultural investment of approximately $1.8 million across the province, in various agreements that will be signed by ministers. I know that the cultural part of our heritage in the Kootenays is important to our economy, as well as to our souls.
I would be remiss if I didn't remind people that we are fortunate in this budget to be able to remove the provincial sales tax on solar, wind and small hydro projects. In the
[ Page 9597 ]
sunniest city in Canada, Cranbrook, that will make a big difference. I won't talk about where the windiest city in Canada is, but I know Cranbrook is the sunniest.
This budget is about jobs -- all sorts of jobs. Almost every move in this budget will contribute to the creation of jobs for the people in British Columbia -- not just the people currently here, but the 60,000-plus people who are moving into British Columbia this year. We want to create jobs for them. We want to be sure we can deal with the change to the new kinds of jobs that have to come because of a structural change in the way our economy is working. How do we do that? Well, we do it by providing firm fiscal ground for an economy to stand on, and we have provided that in this budget.
We've done it, by the way, without giving up our life. If the official opposition had their way we wouldn't have anything. We wouldn't spend any money on anything. The people of British Columbia told us they want basic services. They want health care; they want education at the primary, secondary and post-secondary levels; and they want a social network which is safe for British Columbians. I tell you that if the Liberals had their way, they would have a sign out saying: "Share Your Schools." You know, 60,000 people would come in and just push the walls out. I'll tell you that in a Liberal hospital the song of the day would be "Move Over," because they would not be building anymore. They would not be putting any money into the social services that British Columbians consider to be basically important.
Besides providing that firm fiscal ground, we are providing strong training for people in British Columbia who will be ready for the new age in Canada and in the world, and without that kind of training we would have people incapable of doing the kinds of jobs that need to be done. It's no longer good enough to be a welder; you have to be a welder who knows how to work a computer, or you're not going to be able to get the new jobs and the good jobs.
We have done for small business what is necessary for them to be able to continue to create jobs in British Columbia. That's crucial to what's going on, and we're dealing with the big industries -- the Big Three, you might call them.
First of all, in the forest sector we continue to do the work on land use strategies, and this budget allows for silviculture to continue at the rate it was before or even at a greater rate than before. It puts more money into the small business forest enterprise program, and it allows us to continue with the work that has to be done with an industry facing severe and major change for everybody who is involved in it.
Tourism and small business get an increase. There will be more help, more partnership with the people who are involved with tourism in this province. That's good, and it's good for the Kootenays.
I have hurried along because I want to talk about what is most dear to my heart, and that is the package in this budget of $18 million this year for the mining sector. That will without doubt create jobs, and it will create jobs across the whole spectrum of mining activity in the province. It will start with people who explore for the resource, and we will begin with money for assistance for prospectors. Those are the people who come into the rural areas of the province every summer to join those who already live there and comb the hills to see whether they can find a mineral deposit. It doesn't limit itself to any particular area. It affects towns, communities, retailers -- people right across the whole province. So prospectors will be able to have assistance under this budget.
We will go beyond prospectors to junior companies. A lot of those companies are centred in rural British Columbia, and they will be working to do exploration projects for which they will have initiatives from this government. There are companies that already operate a mine and know the ore body that they have begun with. They may want to find out how much further it goes; they'll want to define the body they're working on and go out and do development. There will be money involved in that, so we will help to find the next new resources for mining in this province. Besides that, we will allow companies to pool their exploration proposals for tax purposes. When they have to define where they're going to do their explorations, they can pool their budgets, which will give them far more flexibility.
The best part of this whole parcel for the people in the Kootenays is that coalmines will have equity. I am personally very pleased to have been able to finally persuade this province's Treasury Board that coalmines should have equity in taxation with metal mines under the Mineral Tax Act. That will make a huge difference to the coal people in this province, who are dealing with a coking coal market that is becoming more and more difficult. Coking coal is the major part of these mines. They are facing commodity constraints that cause real problems. Our promise to put coalmines on the same basis as metal mines will give them the room to do the kind of work they have to do to keep this important, significant industry working and providing communities with an economic base.
Coalmine and metal mine operators will also enjoy being able to credit their mineral tax payments against their corporate income tax payments. All mines that are currently operating face bad commodity prices and other problems in the global market, and this will give them more room to continue their excellent mining.
Those are two steps, along with the help we are giving with the exploration step to see that mines that already exist can continue to exist and give stability to their communities and jobs.
We also want to encourage other companies to come in and invest in mines in B.C. So we are making another move. We will allow new capital investment to be deducted at 133 percent for the first five years. That gives a step up to anybody who wants to come. Becoming a feasible operation slides a little lower on the scale than it used to be. You don't have to climb quite so high up the mountain to get to where it makes sense to invest in a mine in British Columbia.
Besides that, we'll put $1.6 million into mineral development agreement work. That's work that we do as a province. We've done it in agreement with the federal government; the federal government puts in an equal amount. We agree on a program of our work and their work, so it will all add up to more than the sum of its parts -- we hope. We are going to put $1.6 million into that this year.
[11:15]
This really says jobs, jobs, jobs. The mining industry currently has 45,000 people working in it -- in the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the Toodoggone in the northwest and the Okanagan. It also has people in the urban regions of Vancouver and Victoria, which I was talking about before. Approximately half of the people who work in the mining industry are those who do the grunt work: accounting and paperwork and the kind of support work that resource providers need. People in the further reaches of the province, those places from which Vancouver is fairly remote, nevertheless get at least half of the jobs in this industry. So it's jobs, jobs, jobs for people in every part of this province.
[ Page 9598 ]
This program is so good that even the Liberals like it; that is something I can say without fear of being contradicted. I know that even some of the other members on the other side of the House like it. That's how good it is. We are pleased that it will do a lot of good in this province. It will provide stability for workers across the province, for communities that are based on mining and for those that may have to change their economic base.
As we look at the resources of this province and see that we may have to change from dependence on one resource to another resource, we want to be sure that our mining industry is one of those resources that is solid, reliable and stable when others come in to invest in our province. That is a significant part of the budget this year which is of great benefit to the people in the Kootenays, as well as to the people in the rest of the province. I'm pleased and delighted to have been able to elaborate on it for everyone in the House and, I hope, for a number of people across the province who will be hearing further from me later.
H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, it has been about eight months since I rose in this House. A number of things have changed since then. I thought I would start by paying tribute to a member who was here in the last session -- partly because I grew up in his constituency and partly because some of my family still live in his constituency. I have some understanding of how highly he was regarded in that riding. I want to extend my best wishes to the former member for Matsqui, Mr. Peter Dueck. I wish him well. He was truly an honourable member. I sometimes wonder whether he misses this place.
It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this budget. It's a good budget; it's a budget for ordinary British Columbians -- the vast majority of British Columbians who are not in that six-figure income category. I have absolutely no difficulty with people who make six-figure incomes; I don't begrudge them their wealth or their quality of life. But that doesn't mean that they should determine government policy. When the Leader of the Official Opposition made his comments on the Speech from the Throne, I started thinking that there were probably enough people in the six-figure income category in this province that they really deserve representation in this House, and that maybe that voice should be the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the Leader of the Official Opposition. But I have some difficulty appreciating that it should be the entire official opposition.
This is a budget for average British Columbians. I'm surprised that the members of the opposition, who claim to represent ordinary British Columbians when it suits them, would speak against this budget. Then, again, why should I really be surprised? If we had listened to them two years ago -- it was the same line -- and had done what they said, we'd be mired in a recession right now.
Two years ago, when this government took over -- and I've said this before -- we faced 17 years of past neglect. We were left with a deficit of $2.4 billion, total direct and guaranteed debt was $20 billion, and spending increases were at 12 percent and 13 percent. There was neglect in addressing the need for schools, hospitals and roads. The fastest-growing capital assets were school portables. There was neglect in addressing the crises in forestry, mining and health care, and the issues of federal off-loading. That was the reality this government faced. Some tough decisions had to be made.
If you listen to the official opposition, the province's finances began the day they took office; anything that happened before is irrelevant. They would have just carried on and there would be no tough decisions. The deficit -- at least, if you believe them -- would have been wiped out in one year, and they would have built all the roads, schools and hospitals without raising a single tax. I can't find very many of my constituents who believe that, but the official opposition does. If you listen to the Liberal opposition, they believe that anything that happened before October 1991 -- the end of that fiscal year, anyway -- doesn't count. According to them, if anything good happens it is in spite of this government. There's another line they use: if anything good happens, then it's probably because the opposition really proposed it in the first place and we're just caving in to their demands. That's a really desperate ploy.
The opposition thinks that all is gloom and doom, that the primary concern of people everywhere in the province when they go to bed each night is the debt and the deficit, and that they worry about facing the next day because they have this debt burden and deficit over their heads. That's not what I'm hearing. I have news for the opposition: people are much more interested in the economy, jobs and the future and what it means for their children.
This is a good budget. It's important to remember the situation as it is today. Here's what's happening: we have the best job creation record in the country, the second-lowest overall taxes in Canada and the highest credit rating. That tells you something. The people who borrow money aren't fools; they know when they see a good thing. We have the best deficit reduction record and the lowest per capita capital debt. B.C.'s economy grew by 3.2 percent last year. That's the best growth in four years, not two and a half years. This is only our third budget in the two and a half years we've been here. New capital investment was up last year by 8.4 percent, 1993 housing starts increased by 5.4 percent, and there were an average of 63 new businesses per day last year in this province. That tells you something.
But of course, I'm not supposed to mention any of this stuff, because the opposition likes to claim that it all happened in spite of the government. What utter nonsense from the Liberal opposition! The Leader of the Official Opposition suggested the other day that the day he got elected to this House, the province moved away from the politics of extremism; yet day after day we hear from the Liberal opposition -- and the rest of the opposition crowd -- that we should be more like Alberta, where their Premier has the province in decline. Alberta's in decline, and it's all because of the same politics of extremism that the Liberal opposition would have us engage in. The irony, of course, is that it's all because Ralph Klein is afraid to let those Albertans who have the economic power share in some of the pain. That's scandalous. It's a shame that the opposition would suggest that this government should do the same.
This morning the member for Surrey-White Rock drew comparisons between how well off British Columbians are today and how they were a few years ago. What the member failed to say, and what is worth noting, is that everywhere in this country -- indeed, in an awful lot of countries in the world -- people are worse off today than they were half a dozen years ago. Of course, the point is that B.C. is a darned sight better off than any other province, as all the indicators prove time and again. The Leader of the Official Opposition said in his address some days ago that when the NDP took power, the graduation rate in B.C. was 74 percent and that in two years we've seen the graduation rate drop to 69 percent. Notwithstanding that the figures are inaccurate, it occurred to me as I sat here listening to him that we should probably draw some conclusions about the crime rate on the streets of
[ Page 9599 ]
Vancouver and the former mayor's failure to address those issues; it would be just as relevant.
We will hear more about the graduation rates from the Minister of Education when he responds to the throne speech, and I am looking forward to that. At least this government has increased funding in education and health for the past three budgets. The opposition would have us cut more and more, just like Alberta -- again, the politics of extremism.
This is a good budget, but the opposition is opposed. I know that's their job, and they do it so well I'll be happy to provide a letter of reference for each one of them so they can continue doing that for the next decade. This budget puts people first. Health care gets another 3.3 percent -- up to $6.4 billion -- with emphasis on community health and prevention. They are opposed to that? Education gets another $130 million -- all of it going to students in the classroom. They're opposed to that? Universities and colleges get an increase of 3.4 percent for more spaces for training and skills development. And they're opposed to that? Funding for income assistance gets an increase of 2.2 percent, with programs for training and getting people off income assistance and into long-term, secure employment. And they're opposed to that? These are investments in the future of the province and the Liberal opposition will be voting against them. Shame, hon. Speaker!
This budget puts people first by also providing some tax relief. Tough decisions had to be made initially. The government clearly rejected the radical restraint measures of the Bennett administration back in the mid-eighties, and we reject the extremism of Ralph Klein's measures in Alberta. We took a balanced course of deficit reduction, while investing in the future and sharing in the pain that was necessary. The opposition would have us return to the politics of extremism. Now that we've turned the corner and this budget provides some relief, they're opposed again.
I'm pleased to see the property transfer tax eliminated for first-time home buyers, to address the needs of young families just starting out. But they're going to be opposed to that. We've got tax breaks for cooperatives and farm corporations; they're going to be opposed to that. We have a tax break for another 2,000 small businesses; they're opposed to that. Eighteen million dollars in tax incentives have been provided for the B.C. mining industry; they're opposed to that. For the 17 years that they were in office, they added tax burden after tax burden onto the mining industry.
I'm pleased to see that the trade-in allowance for automobiles has been restored. I'm pleased to see that the Minister of Finance, in consultation with the industry, came to the conclusion that it should go. I hope to see more tax reductions as we get the deficit under control. My constituents will also be pleased that taxes are frozen for the next three years. They'll be pleased to hear that we've reduced the provincial deficit from $1.28 billion last year to $900 million in this budget. This year's budget represents a cut in real per capita spending of 1.3 percent. We'll do it carefully by managing and controlling government expenditures, and we'll do it without severe cuts to services. We'll do it without the politics of the extreme.
The opposition is really hard-pressed to find anything convincingly bad to say about this budget. They're trying to blur the difference between a budget deficit and the debt, and between borrowing to acquire a valuable, needed asset and spending more on operating costs than there is incoming revenue. I'm reminded of a report I once read that said: "Scientists now claim that fog can be made to order." That would hardly be news to the opposition. They've been doing it for the past two and a half years. British Columbians can see through the fog that they're trying to create.
[11:30]
What the Liberal opposition is asking the government to do is to postpone projects which meet community needs; postpone investment in the future of B.C.; postpone social capital investment in schools; put off the $300 million in roads, ferries and other transportation facilities. I'm supposed to tell the people of Kitimat to forget about their new health centre: "It ain't going to happen for a while because they're occupied with balancing the deficit tomorrow." I'm supposed to tell the people of Kitimaat Village that there will be no more improvements to their road. I'm supposed to tell the people in my constituency that all projects are on hold because the Liberals are still trying to understand the basic principle behind the mortgage on a house. I'm supposed to tell my municipal leaders: "No, we can't capitalize on the federal-provincial infrastructure agreement. That's all on hold, because the opposition doesn't believe in borrowing to build capital assets." Shame!
The forest industry is critical to the economy of most northern communities, and it's also critical to the economy of Skeena. This budget increases funding for the small business forest enterprise program by $31 million. It allows increased access to timber for small firms and small value-added manufacturers, which will result in good long-term jobs and higher revenue for the province. That's good stuff, and yet we have the opposition opposed. This budget also maintains the $275 million for silviculture work. That's important stuff in my riding. The Liberals are opposed; they want cuts instead. Shame!
My constituents still remember the drastic restraint measures of the early eighties. They still remember the effect restraint had on deepening the recession, and most of them still remember the bankruptcies, the retail store closures and the soup kitchens. They still remember how the southern urban centres seemed relatively isolated from the recession that took hold and lasted longer in most northern communities. We didn't have the six-figure incomes up there; we were in resource-dependent towns, and they got hit hard. Nobody up there forgets the impact of adding to the recession with drastic and severe cuts to some of the spending. They know, even if the official opposition doesn't -- because they don't have any seats beyond Chilliwack. They know who would bear the brunt of Alberta-like measures in B.C. It sure wouldn't be the southern urban centres.
In conclusion....
Interjection.
H. Giesbrecht: I could drag this out, hon. member.
This is a budget for people. It gives a vision for the future. It strengthens B.C. as the best-managed province. Our fiscal situation, while still challenging in some respects, is the envy of every other province. You only need to look at our neighbours east of the Rockies to understand the difference. As the ad that they're complaining about says, in trying to get the message to British Columbians: "The deficit is down, jobs are up and taxes are frozen for three years." I'd like to add a fourth line: "But the opposition is opposed." Shame! This is a good budget, and the opposition should support it.
L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to stand here today and support this budget, which is a good budget. It may come as a surprise to the opposition that I am supporting it, but I don't see how they cannot support it. It's a tremendous one that we should all be proud of. We have seen, over the
[ Page 9600 ]
past few years, that we have turned the corner. We have managed to put our economic house in order, much like the rest of us try to do with our own budgets. It's a budget that we can really be proud of.
Over the past few years we've seen some problems and some difficult times in this province. But when we came into this Legislature with our first budget two years ago, we were facing an incredible deficit that had been brought in by the previous government -- some of whom have now abandoned that government and moved over to the Reform Party. They are now saying: "I have nothing to do with the former deficit; I have nothing to do with the former government." It's amazing. They change their name, and suddenly they think they have nothing to do with those things.
Yes, we inherited an incredible deficit, and we had to do tremendous things to try to get our house in order so that we could provide the services we had. It has been a tough time. We had to make some tough choices and some tough decisions. Those decisions did include tax increases. We had to have tax increases, and we did cut spending -- an incredible amount of spending cuts. I'm always amazed when I hear people saying: "Cut more! Cut more!" Yet at every opportunity they stand in this House in question period and demand more money for various services. How do they expect to provide those services without cutting them? We had to cut, and we did. Today we've shown the results. The deficit is down, and jobs are up. No taxes will be increased for three years, and that's something that we in this province can be proud of.
We've looked at and rejected some of the radical approaches of the past. We've taken a moderate approach to those things. Everyone has to share the pain, and we did so by increasing some taxes. It's nothing I wanted. I had to pay the taxes as well as did my colleagues here, but certainly it was something we recognized that we had to do. We did not want to take the radical approach of the fellow to the east, Mr. Klein, who is next door and doing everything he can to destroy that economy.
We have taken a positive approach, a responsible approach, and that has paid off. B.C.'s economy grew by 3.2 percent -- the best in four years, and that includes two years of the previous Social Credit government. We've had four years of the best economy around, with more jobs than any other province -- 76,000 in one year. That's an incredible amount.
Retail sales are up by 7.8 percent, and I know that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs does her fair share to prompt those retail sales as well. If you've ever gone into any community with that member, you'll have seen that she does a tremendous job of supporting retail sales in all communities, as do most of my colleagues around.
New capital investment is up by 8.4 percent. Exports grew 16.2 percent. Bankruptcies fell. They actually fell during a New Democratic government, and by 20 percent. Isn't that incredible? It's something that the opposition never talks about -- bankruptcies falling. All in all, it's a record that we can be proud of. It's one that we can take to the bank, along with the highest credit rating in any province in Canada.
I hear my colleagues down the road -- I won't say opposite, because they're just down the lane from me -- talking about increasing the debt as if that were something terrible. I find it hard to think that they would criticize a government that wants to invest in infrastructure to help our province grow. We've got a growing population; you cannot exist with the status quo and not provide the required infrastructure. That infrastructure was neglected by the previous government to such an extent that we now have to invest a tremendous amount of money just to keep up with the population growth.
I am pleased to say that a major portion of the debt has actually been spent in my community. In fact, it's been spent to service the north. I'm sure that the members for Peace River North and Peace River South and all of those areas would be, and are, very happy to see the millions of dollars that are being spent on UNBC and that are going into an institution that was hard-fought-for and won by northerners. That institution has brought a renewed spirit, construction dollars and an anticipated population increase to the north. Even more importantly, it has brought a belief that we count, that there is hope beyond Hope and that people look beyond the lower mainland to invest money. I'm proud that we're investing in the infrastructure and in UNBC. I'm sure that nobody in this Legislature would ever say that the infrastructure money shouldn't be there or that this debt shouldn't be there.
Lately there has been a strong push by the Prince George residents for a courthouse that was promised by a previous government. We're waiting for an announcement on this project. Hopefully it will be really soon. It is being pushed for by all the residents in the region. Again, that is a debt -- it's incredible -- but it's not a debt that is there without anything. It's an asset that is coming into our community. When I'm in my community shopping in Overwaitea or in any of those places, nobody says to me: "Lois, we don't want the debt increased; therefore we don't want you to build the courthouse." In fact, I've had some Liberals phone me and say: "Why aren't we proceeding with that courthouse?" They've actually said that to me -- Liberals, hon. Speaker. You know what I said to them? I said: "Well, jeez. You know, your leader Gordon Campbell is saying we shouldn't increase the debt. Maybe you should talk to Gordon Campbell about whether we need this courthouse in Prince George."
We need that courthouse in Prince George for our justice system. We need it there to meet our commitment to the city that has invested a tremendous amount of money there. The people recognize that it's important, that it's going to be a development of the downtown area, and that it's an asset that, again, we can all be proud of.
This budget shows that we've turned the corner. Our house is in order -- not totally in order, and I.... Let's say it's not. We've still got some cutting to do and will continue to do that. But because we're on the road to recovery, we can take some of the heat off you and the rest of the taxpayers out there in the province. We have brought in -- incredible! -- a three-year tax freeze in this province.
The property transfer tax for first-time homeowners has been eliminated. That's something we talked about when you were in opposition, hon. Speaker. We used to talk about taking the heat off the first-time homeowners, and making it so that young people have an opportunity to participate in the growth of this province and actually have a home.
One thousand small businesses are exempted from the corporation tax, and the automobile trade-in has been removed. Yes, even those stalwarts and supporters of the car industry in the Social Credit Party recognize that we have taken that off.
We've got tax incentives worth $18 million for the mining industry. That's an incredible amount of money, and one I'm sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can be proud of. She ought to be commended for doing such a great job in support of the industry there.
[11:45]
[ Page 9601 ]
We're setting our priorities. We have put people first. We've increased health care by 3.3 percent. Money to schools is 4 percent; universities and colleges, 3.4 percent. As I said, we've rejected the radical approach of Alberta and other provinces. We've rejected the Liberal idea that we would see these services cut even more, as they demand further cuts -- and further cuts in jobs. We have the highest level of funding in Canada. I don't want anybody to jump to the conclusion that everything is going to be hunky-dory. All of the institutions involved out there -- school districts, universities, colleges and hospitals -- are going to have to tighten their belts, and they're all going to have to look very carefully at their budgets to find out what's important. But we also know that we are committed to those services and to providing them better than any other province.
I want to talk a little bit about provincewide bargaining. I know that the district that I represent -- School District 57 -- and the teachers are unhappy, and I understand why. The system in Prince George was working. It was non-confrontational, it was a collaborative approach, and it was a progressive way of labour management. Perhaps it was ahead of its time, because it was working. But while it was working in Prince George, it was broken elsewhere in the province, causing disruptions that were clearly unacceptable to the public. It's unfortunate that Prince George has been penalized because of problems elsewhere, and I wish that it was otherwise. I want to pay tribute to the School District 57 trustees, teachers, parents and all the people who worked so hard to make that system work and who had a vision for a better way. It was a very good section.
The people of Prince George-Mount Robson are hard-working, down-to-earth people. They speak their minds. My colleagues will be surprised to find that those people know that what happens in our economy drives what happens in Vancouver. We are a resource-based economy, and we will continue to be one. We know there will be restructuring, and we know that business as usual will not be acceptable. Times are changing, industry is changing, and we want everyone to know it.
There are companies that are doing some really progressive things. If you talk to some of them, you will find that they are doing smaller cuts; they are doing landscape logging; and in some areas they're not using any herbicides. In many areas they're doing things by consensus -- they're working with the native population and the environmentalists -- and they're changing the way they do business.
We need our economy to survive if we are to provide the standard of living we are used to, if we are to provide the health care, education and social safety nets required in this province. All the budgets in the world won't help us at all if our economy goes down the tube. I want to urge anybody out there who is part of a movement to boycott and disrupt our economy to take a second look around and to go out into the areas where the work is actually being done. I want to urge them to go to the resource communities to find out what's actually happening and to talk to the families and workers out there. I don't want them to believe everything they hear; I want them to recognize that things are changing. There have been some problems in the past, but those won't be solved overnight. We're looking for a long-term solution, which needs the cooperation and the work of all British Columbians if we are to get ahead of these things.
We live in a great province that we can all be proud of. I happen to have been raised in the Delta area of the lower mainland, but I have spent a good portion of my life in the north. That's where my heart belongs and where my family lives. Those of us who come from resource communities acknowledge that things are changing, but we want people from other areas to understand that we have to make a living, that our communities have to survive and that we need to work together. Together we can make some wonderful things happen in this province. Together we can turn the corner, go towards the finish line, make our economy thrive and be really successful. We can't afford to be working against each other, and we can't afford to have communities pitted against each other. We need to all pull together to make sure that this province goes ahead and survives as it should.
With that, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]