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)
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 13, Number 15
[ Page 9641 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery today, accompanied by my wife, Gayle Ballard, is my nephew Wade Bartram. He's here -- as perhaps we all are -- to learn more about how our parliamentary system of government actually works. Would the House please make him welcome.
F. Garden: Accompanying my wife Margaret in the gallery today is my son Willy Garden from Bogota, Colombia. He's down there selling good Canadian technology to the Colombians. Accompanying him is Christina Cardona, a native of Bogota, Colombia. Will you make them welcome, please.
V. Anderson: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Aileen and Keith Gilbert from Regina Beach, Saskatchewan. They're here enjoying some of our nice weather.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like the House to welcome some visitors to our precinct from Dallas, Texas. Would the House kindly welcome Jeff and Lisa Ryan.
F. Randall: In the House today we have Jean Fillis, who's a resident of Burnaby-Edmonds. With her is a young friend of hers, Lana Tillyer, from Surrey-White Rock. They're here today to visit the museum and the Legislature. Will the House please make them welcome.
D. Symons: I notice in the gallery today we have Wayne McGrath, the mayor of Vernon. I wish the House would make him welcome.
K. Jones: I'd like to have the House recognize the presence of Gord Zeilstra from Trinity Western University. He's over here doing research for a debate that's coming up at Trinity Western, and I'd like to wish him the very best in all of the debate.
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1994.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1994-95 have been debated and voted upon by this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for the initial three months of the 1994-95 fiscal year, and this will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. As 1993-94 supply will expire on March 31, 1994, interim supply is required so that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, schools, universities and social agencies, as well as the government payroll, can be maintained uninterrupted.
Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled Railway Amendment Act, 1994.
D. Mitchell: This bill amends the British Columbia Railway Act by removing B.C. Rail's municipal property tax exemption. This tax exemption was first introduced in the early years of this century when the pioneer railway was struggling to open up the interior of the province. The exemption is now a historical anomaly which can no longer be justified. More important, it is costing many communities a loss of needed revenue and therefore must be rescinded.
At least $6 million in tax revenues is currently denied to almost 20 municipalities along the B.C. Rail main line. Furthermore, B.C. Rail is the only provincial Crown corporation which does not pay municipal property taxes or grants in lieu of taxes to offset the loss to municipal tax rolls. This bill eliminates B.C. Rail's tax exemption and establishes a structure for the payment of taxes or grants in lieu of taxes to all municipalities where the Crown corporation has landholdings or rights-of-way.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to make B.C. Rail a better corporate citizen. Communities all along the rail line stand to benefit from B.C. Rail paying its fair share of property taxes. The Railway Amendment Act, 1994, is one small step in the direction of ensuring that all provincial Crown corporations become more accountable to the communities in which they operate.
Bill M213 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
TRANSPORT 2021 PROTOCOL
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. As the Premier knows, this government introduced a program called Transport 2021, which established a protocol for decision-making on transportation in greater Vancouver. That protocol suggested that there would be no major transportation decisions without full consultation with the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the municipalities. My question to the Premier is: has the government decided to renege on that protocol or does it still stand behind it?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, the time for talking has ended, and the time for action and building has started. This government is building transit that has been needed for a long time in the regional districts. These endless planning processes that lead nowhere, like the van plan that just keeps going around and around in circles, have to come to an end. People want to see those three SkyTrain stations open today, and people want to see commuter rail built, not talked about.
G. Campbell: I'm surprised at the response from the Premier. It was the government that established this process and this protocol. The time for decisions was firmly established with the government, and March 31 is the deadline for those decisions. That process has not been completed, yet for some reason the government feels it's necessary to pre-empt that decision-making process and move back to the kind of political decision-making that the Premier railed against when he was in local government, which has led to the transportation chaos we have in greater
[ Page 9642 ]
Vancouver today. My supplementary question to the Premier is: has the Premier decided that there is no need for consultation with the Greater Vancouver Regional District and that his government will renege on the protocol that they established?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The consultations with the regional district are thorough, are ongoing and will continue. If the Leader of the Opposition is saying that we should have left the three new rapid transit stations in Surrey sitting vacant and not being utilized by the people of Surrey.... No way are we going to do that. We opened them today on time and on budget.
G. Campbell: I understand that the Premier is having a great deal of difficulty with his memory today. My question to the Premier is simply this: his minister responsible for transit announced today that $150 million would be invested in commuter rail. There has been no discussion about that decision with the Greater Vancouver Regional District; there has been no discussion with the municipalities, as was laid out in their protocol. Again, I ask the Premier if he is going to renege on the process, which he established, and if he is going to cut it short once again for political benefit, as opposed to transportation planning.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I find it incredible that the Leader of the Opposition is criticizing the government for keeping its promises and building transit, not talking about it. I find it incredible that he's laying himself down in front of the LRT tracks we want to build, laying himself down in front of the commuter rail we want to build and laying himself down in front of the highways we want to build. I'll tell you what the people of the Greater Vancouver Regional District aren't going to do: they're not going to stop for the Leader of the Opposition, lying down there squalling away.
[2:15]
JOB SECURITY FOR FOREST WORKERS
W. Hurd: A question for the Premier. From all reports on the weekend, the Premier and the governing party have cut a backroom deal that the Premier claims will guarantee the job of every forestry worker in this province. In the spirit of honest and open government, will the Premier now share this deal with the rest of the people in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I thought I did that on Saturday. Maybe the opposition's caucus are boycotting BCTV, CBC, U.TV or CHEK, or maybe they're not reading the newspapers or listening to the radios. I made it very clear that the workers of this province are going to be able to continue to work in a sunrise industry that has a great future -- that's the number one industry in this province -- the forest industry -- and it will be sustainable for many generations.
The Speaker: A supplementary.
W. Hurd: Perhaps the Premier can explain why he chose to deliver that message to a friendly audience in Richmond instead of to the 20,000 forestry workers who had gathered outside the Legislative Assembly. Why won't he tell them what this deal is? Why won't he come clean?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Obviously the member is clearly cutting to the major issue here: forestry is the major industry in this province. Our government sat down with forest workers, environmental activists, companies and truck loggers, and we made it very clear that this is the number one industry in the province. We have, in a cooperative way, openly made it abundantly clear to forest workers, their families and their communities that forest workers are going to be able to continue to work in the forests. I said that last Monday at the rally here at the Legislature, and I said it on Saturday before forest workers and environmentalists in open convention. For years I have been saying that that's the commitment I have.
FEDERAL ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION
C. Serwa: My question today is to the Premier. In view of the federal government's plan to scrap the electoral redistribution process, a move that would deny British Columbia two additional seats in the House of Commons -- seats that we're entitled to according to the 1991 census figures -- has the Premier decided to challenge the move in court, should the federal government proceed with their plans?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will have something to say about this matter after question period.
The Speaker: The member has a further question on a different matter?
C. Serwa: Yes, it's a different question.
KAON PROJECT
C. Serwa: The federal government has virtually killed the KAON project. Recognizing the commitment of the government of British Columbia to the UBC KAON project and recognizing the expressed concerns of the former B.C. Liberal leader and president, and current Minister of National Revenue, David Anderson, that British Columbia is being punished by Ottawa for not voting Liberal, what steps is the Premier taking to ensure an end to the Liberals' systematic discrimination against British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, those are questions that are usually lobbed by government backbenchers. I would be pleased to answer the question from the member for Okanagan West. He's absolutely right: this Liberal federal government's behaviour in the cancellation of KAON is unfair to British Columbia. All the dubious projects across this country are going ahead, from Hibernia to the P.E.I. causeway to the space station. But what gets cancelled? KAON. In the Liberal government's budget we have seen an acceleration of the Tory tax dump, with another $200 million of extra deficit loaded onto the taxpayers of British Columbia. We see further action against British Columbia -- they are depriving us of representation by population. I'll have more to say about that after question period, hon. member.
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
D. Symons: When the Social Services minister stuck the taxpayers with the bill for her ministry's weekend, the Premier demanded that she pay for it. Yet last weekend every NDP delegate received a slick brochure that was paid for by the B.C. taxpayer. In the name of integrity, will the Premier do as he demanded of his shamed minister and immediately reimburse the taxpayer for the cost of this propaganda?
[ Page 9643 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: "B.C. Leads The Way" is a document that has been available to every MLA through every government agent. If the hon. member finds it as useful as most British Columbians whom I have talked to do, and if he has run out of them, we'd be prepared to send more for him to distribute to British Columbians.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
D. Symons: Well, one hasn't arrived in my office yet. If they're available for the MLAs, you've neglected to send them to us.
I have a supplementary question. This government has produced a grade-yourself report card of the 1991 election platform. This document is better known as a bitter pill for British Columbia. It's clearly NDP propaganda. It makes repeated reference to the New Democratic Party...
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
D. Symons: ...and yet the return address given is right here in the Legislature. My question to the Premier is: who paid for this fluff, the taxpayer or your party membership? If the party paid for it, since when is the NDP headquarters located in the parliament buildings?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This document was prepared by the New Democrat caucus for distribution to their constituents to let them know the progress that's been made in this province over the last two years on the 48 platform commitments that were made by this government. There's tremendous progress taking place with jobs up, the deficit down and taxes frozen and cut, and British Columbia is leading the way in this country. If the hon. member would like a copy of that to distribute to his constituents so they can see the tremendous progress that's been made here in British Columbia in job creation, in getting rid of our deficit and...
The Speaker: Premier, please conclude your remarks.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...making sure that British Columbians have the services they need, I'll send him more copies.
The Speaker: The member has a final supplementary.
D. Symons: That was an entertaining response from the Premier.
The Premier recently celebrated the Whalley SkyTrain extension by putting out a glossy pinup of NDP members and backbenchers, courtesy of the taxpayer. In the dying days of the Socred empire, the now Premier and his comrades turned blue over this sort of blatant abuse. Will the Premier show some consistency and promise to stop cramming this propaganda down everybody's throats?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The sisters and brothers of this side of the House are very proud of the fact that we carried out a commitment to build three new light rapid transit stations in that great, growing city of Surrey. I even noticed that the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale was there begging for an extension out to Cloverdale.
DISCREPANCIES IN VOTERS LISTS
G. Wilson: My question is to Brother Premier -- excuse me, to the Premier. There have been some serious allegations brought forward by residents in the municipality of Surrey that there were both abuses and inconsistencies with respect to the municipal voters list in that municipality in the last election. Similar kinds of discrepancies have been reported from a number of other municipalities. My question to the Premier is: will the Premier undertake today to set up an independent commission to review the authenticity of names on the current municipal and provincial voters lists, and undertake to have that commission review the authenticity of those who have voted in the last municipal election in the municipality of Surrey?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and she will get an answer back to the hon. member.
The Speaker: Hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, before I recognize you, you can appreciate that you should not stand until the other member has taken his place; it makes it very difficult for us to proceed.
MEETING WITH FORMER SPEAKER
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a difficult time telling when the Premier is actually answering a question or what he's doing.
My question is to the Premier. Last Thursday the Premier stated that he had sent the Government House Leader and the Minister of Environment to a meeting with the former Speaker regarding an upcoming election, yet the Government House Leader denied that that meeting took place. Can the Premier tell us who is telling the truth with regard to that meeting?
The Speaker: The member has a further question?
G. Farrell-Collins: I find it very curious that the Premier won't answer these questions. He wasn't here the other day to answer. Now that he is here, I would hope he would answer them.
The Speaker: Hon. member, you can state your question but you certainly cannot insist on a response.
G. Farrell-Collins: I may not insist on a response, but I think the public does.
At a press conference later the same day in the Premier's office, he said: "The previous House Leader last year let the Speaker know that one of the reforms that will be brought forward in this session of the Legislature would be the election of a Speaker, along with a number of others." Later that day, the former Speaker denied any knowledge of that meeting taking place. Can the Premier tell us who is telling the truth in this case, the Premier or the former Speaker?
The Speaker: Before recognizing the Premier, I must point out to all hon. members that the matter the member is speaking of is germane to a matter I ruled on last week. As such, I have to advise all members that unless you are prepared to present a substantive motion with respect to any improprieties or suggestions of same.... That course of action is open to the hon. member. With that, I would ask the member to consider the avenue that is available to him. If he has further information that would add to the matter I ruled on last week, then he can do that.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's difficult to find out what the information and the truth actually are in this case. My question to the Premier is: who has been telling the truth for
[ Page 9644 ]
the last two weeks? Is it the members of his caucus, or is it the Premier?
The Speaker: Hon. member, the bell ends question period. The Chair is attempting to allow the member an opportunity to make the points which he is entitled to make, but he should follow the process available to him. The member seems to have ignored my suggestion that he consider a substantive motion if he has evidence he would like to present to the House.
FEDERAL ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I told the hon. member for Okanagan West, I am making a statement on the very serious matter of the taking away of British Columbians' representation by population by the Liberal federal government. I have written this day to the Prime Minister, and I would like to read that letter.
"Dear Prime Minister:
"I am writing to advise you of the government of British Columbia's opposition to your government's intention to enact Bill C-18, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act.
"I am appalled that your government, with the support of the six B.C. Liberal MPs, has betrayed the best interests of British Columbia by introducing this measure with closure. Your actions will deny B.C. its fair representation in the House of Commons.
"As you know, with the defeat of the Charlottetown accord, B.C. lost gains it made in that agreement which would have given this province five more seats even before the 2001 census. That was to build on scheduled redistribution for 1996 when B.C.'s representation in the House of Commons was to increase by two seats. This was a clear recognition of B.C.'s severe underrepresentation in the House of Commons.
"Your suspension of the 1996 redistribution will seriously deprive B.C. of fair representation and a stronger voice in Parliament following the next federal election.
"Narrow partisanship by Liberal MPs has subverted the well-established Canadian tradition of non-partisan redistribution of electoral boundaries. Your use of closure in the House of Commons has added insult to injury by denying Members of Parliament full opportunity to protect British Columbia's interests.
"I urge you not to proceed with Bill C-18, which now has the stigma of closure attached to it. The government of British Columbia is monitoring your actions and will be examining its options to ensure you respect B.C.'s interests and our right to fair representation."
G. Campbell: I agree with the Premier. It's very important for all of us in this House to point out our position and the position of British Columbians to the federal government. I too have written to the Prime Minister today, as well as to the leaders of the opposition parties, pointing out that this is simply the reiteration of an event that took place in the middle of the 1980s, when we in the city of Vancouver worked to maintain our representation. I'm sure the Premier will recall our fight to maintain the seat of Ian Waddell, whose seat at that time was Vancouver-Kingsway.
[2:30]
There is no question that when we look at Parliament, it is imperative that we establish and maintain the principle of one person, one vote. It was also imperative, at least on this side of the House, that we maintain the principle of the independence of the Speaker's chair. Political expedience does not work in parliament, whether it's in British Columbia or in Ontario.
I would like to read into the record the letter I sent to the Prime Minister today with regard to Bill C-18.
"I understand that on April 12 the House of Commons is to pass third reading of Bill C-18, An Act to Suspend the Operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which delays the redistribution of seats in Parliament on the basis of the 1991 census.
"Mr. Prime Minister, this bill makes no sense. Parliament does not strengthen the country by disenfranchising its fastest-growing region, nor does Parliament strengthen its bond to the people it serves by further weakening the principle of one person, one vote.
"Mr. Prime Minster, the damage done by this piece of legislation will be significant. I urge you to withdraw it from third reading and, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, ask that your government and the Parliament of Canada proceed with the redistribution of seats to reflect the founding principle of democracy: one person, one vote."
The fact of the matter is that we will lose significant representation, as the Premier pointed out. We will be basing our representation on the census of 1981, and that is not satisfactory to the people of British Columbia. I have already submitted a notice of motion to the Clerk that would call on the federal government not to proceed with this bill and to get on with redistribution, which the people of British Columbia fully deserve.
The Speaker: Regrettably, hon. member for Peace River South, until there is a way in which I can recognize you as spokesman for a party, I cannot permit you to respond to the ministerial statement. Perhaps we can have a review of how you might wish to proceed. Until then, you can't be acknowledged on the ministerial statement.
J. Weisgerber: On a point of order, I believe every member of this assembly is entitled to respond to issues that are raised in this House. When the Premier makes a ministerial statement, I believe every member should have an opportunity to speak in response. Whether one member wishing to respond on behalf of a caucus should do so is a decision of the caucus.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I appreciate your point of order. However, the only avenue open to the Chair is if you seek leave and leave is granted; then you could proceed. Otherwise, the custom and practice in the past has been that only leaders of recognized parties have an opportunity to comment on ministerial statements.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: It's ironic indeed that the people of British Columbia should hear from a Premier who negotiated a deal in Charlottetown that denied British Columbia its fair representation. It's ironic that he should now come forward with his concerns. It is equally ironic to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, who said that Canada is made of special deals and who had no objection. On this particular issue let me say that the Charlottetown accord would have provided us with proportionately 19 percent less representation. The west in itself would have been be underrepresented.
What the government of Canada has done today is reprehensible indeed. I believe that had this House and the
[ Page 9645 ]
members who wore the Yes button so proudly -- which included both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition -- taken a forceful stand during the last Charlottetown accord round, the people of British Columbia would have the kind of representation they require in Ottawa. It is indeed regrettable that the Prime Minister of this country would give such short shrift to the people of British Columbia. It is consistent with the kind of position that we have seen from federal bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa. Not only should we be fighting for the two seats that are required, we should be making sure that it occurs in the 1996 round and, when it does occur, that British Columbia receives the full delegation of Members of Parliament that is to be accorded to this province on the basis of its population. Two just doesn't cut it.
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
J. Weisgerber: I think it is important for us to seek fair representation for British Columbia in Ottawa. As the previous speaker noted, the failure of this government to adequately negotiate representation at Charlottetown was one of the main reasons that British Columbia rejected the Charlottetown accord so overwhelmingly -- indeed, by the largest margin of any jurisdiction in the country. It was because of the failure of the Premier at Charlottetown that British Columbians were so dissatisfied with the Charlottetown accord.
Rather than seeking more seats for British Columbia in Ottawa, what we should be looking for is to reduce the representation of jurisdictions where the population is shrinking. We should be looking to reduce the size of government in Ottawa and the size of the government in British Columbia. British Columbians and Canadians want less government and less intrusion into their lives. One of the easy ways to deal with that would be to reduce representation from provinces like Prince Edward Island and other jurisdictions where the population is shrinking. That would be the responsible approach.
In closing, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was incorrect in stating that the Leader of the Official Opposition had a Yes button on. I think he took the political route and didn't wear a button at all.
Hon. R. Blencoe tabled the 1993 annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As is required by the Inquiry Act, I have the honour to table the report on the Cariboo-Chilcotin Justice Inquiry.
(continued)
On the amendment.
D. Jarvis: On Friday I adjourned debate on the amendment to the budget. Although members probably had all weekend to go over what I said on Friday, I will add a few more points.
An Hon. Member: It was stunning.
D. Jarvis: That's the problem with being an independent.
Mr. Speaker, the people of B.C. are no better off than they were when this government first came to power two and a half years ago. This budget only reinforces that aspect. Our deficit is over $1 billion. Our debt is over $27 billion. Our disposable income is down. Our family and personal debt has gone up. Our licensing fees have all gone up. And we as the taxpayers of this province have suffered through $1.6 billion in additional taxes by this government -- which only goes to support the fact that the government's patronage and spending policies have not been an asset to this province. The security of jobs has gone; more people are worried about their future and how they're going to work. Instead of reducing taxes and controlling spending, this government is out of control in its spending.
Our quality of life is being not only reduced, but misrepresented in the sense that this government is trying to deceive the people of the province that long-term financing is not a debt. It sounds as though we're into the funny money regime of the Socreds back in the fifties and sixties. They're trying to say it's like a mortgage and it's an asset. Well, a house mortgage is a security of a long-term debt. It's also an asset in the sense that you can sell it any time you want to -- but you can't sell a road. Very few hospitals are sold; very few roads are sold.
T. Perry: A hospital is an asset.
D. Jarvis: A mortgage on a house doesn't represent 100 percent financing; roads are 100 percent financed. And they are not for sale, as I said. It is not logical to assume they are debts, according to this government.
The deficit therefore is $1.2 billion, not $900 million as this government is saying. Now that I have cleared up this aspect, and they're all aware of it, I assume they will accordingly vote in favour of this amendment. I see my time is up, so I will sit down now.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am pleased today to be the second speaker to bring forward the news that this is a good budget for British Columbians. We should all celebrate the good news we have heard from our Minister of Finance. It is particularly good news for my constituency in Vancouver-Hastings. I'll share that good news with the members opposite so that they too can appreciate how it's going to affect British Columbians. There are a couple of reasons we need to support the budget that announced the deficit is down, jobs are up and taxes are frozen. I want to concentrate first of all on the aspect of jobs and training. Our government is going to be spending $200 million over the next two years on training for British Columbians. This has never been done in the history of British Columbia. Such an investment in training, with real jobs at the end of the training, is good news.
I have heard the members opposite talk about Generation X, or the lost generation. I believe that they are correct and that there is a Generation X out there. They are our children and, in some cases, our grandchildren. There are tens of thousands of young people between the ages of 20 and 29 who simply cannot get jobs even though they want to, they are committed and they try. Indeed, there are 100,000 young people between the ages of 20 and 29 on our social assistance rolls. They have to rely on the social safety net, because they are the first people to be let go in times of economic restructuring.
It is not, as some would have us believe, that our youth do not want to work. They want to work very much. They are
[ Page 9646 ]
willing to work and they have been working, but society, in the form of a partnership between business and past governments, has not created the jobs necessary for this generation of young people to work. Our skills training initiatives that were announced in this budget will give an excitement to this generation and, I think, to the business community, because now there truly is a partnership, with some investment that will allow our young people to actually get the training they need and have real jobs at the end of it, so that they can support themselves and their families. It will be a partnership between the business community, our training institutions, the people who require the training and our government. This is the first time that this has taken place in British Columbia.
[2:45]
Let me just give you a sample of the feedback that we've received regarding our budget announcement. John Watson, president of the B.C. Institute of Technology -- which is a world-class institution in the area of training -- has told us and the public that there is a possibility that a skills bottleneck will develop and that employers won't be able to find trained workers. He said: "You've got people unemployed and you've got jobs going begging because people don't have the right skills." The president of BCIT has come out in full support of the $200 million investment announced in our budget. He is very much looking forward to working with our Minister of Skills, Training and Labour on how we will actually make it a reality. He also goes on to tell us that we can get women into trades training and into real jobs, where they will no longer be at the bottom of the pay scale. He's looking forward to working with our government on that skills training initiative.
This isn't a training cycle that will lead nowhere. Previous governments have actually used the training cycle to get people off social assistance and on to unemployment insurance for a short period of time. This is a real training initiative, whereby we will work with the business community to have real jobs at the end of it so that these people will actually be able to support not only themselves but also their families. I must tell you that that is good news for the people of British Columbia who pay tax dollars to support the social safety net.
The other initiative that our government has taken to make this skills training program so effective is that we have actually understood what it means to be in a situation where you have to support children and other family members and what it means to actually be able to get back into the workforce in a meaningful fashion. And we have invested in child care. I must tell you that our government -- and our government alone -- recognizes the need for affordable, accessible child care for working people, so that they are not sacrificing the needs of their family in order to take a job in this tough economy. Families can't do it alone. They cannot leave their children without feeling comfortable and safe on behalf of their children. Our government understands that, and it is committed to continuing our program of investing in child care. Our government is responsible for having already created 6,000 spaces, and 7,500 new spaces were announced in our budget as well. That means that families will now have access to the child care initiatives they need in order to protect their children and, at the same time, earn a decent living.
The other aspect of child care instituted by our government, which I am particularly pleased about, is the fact that we are not asking child care workers to subsidize the economy by receiving low wages while they look after our children. In the past, previous administrations and certainly other levels of government have said that child care workers can be paid at one of the lowest rates ever. Our government refuses to accept that. During the first two years of our administration, we have invested in child care workers to try to bring their wages up to a decent level. There is a ways to go, and our government is working on that with child care workers. But I am pleased to say that more so than ever before, child care workers are on the road to being paid what they deserve for looking after our children. That's good news for British Columbians.
However, our initiative in the area of skills training will be a struggle because our provincial government can't do it alone. Because of our federal system, governments have to work together. We need the cooperation of the Liberal government in Ottawa. I have doubts about that cooperation and about how sincerely committed the federal Liberal government is to training and the creation of jobs. In my conversations with that level of government and with what I have seen in their budget initiatives, my concerns and doubts have not at all been alleviated.
Is the federal government saying that they want to train workers? Yes, they are saying that. Are they saying that they want to create jobs? No, they're not saying that. Are they saying that they're committed to a child care program that is accessible and affordable? They're saying no to that. Are they saying that they want to protect and enhance the social safety net? They're saying no to that as well. Are they saying that they'll work in cooperation with the provinces in renewing the social safety net? I think not. I have grave doubts about their commitment to cooperating with the provinces on enhancing and renewing the social safety net.
Here's why I have grave doubts. The previous federal government -- the Mulroney government -- instituted the off-loading of their responsibilities onto British Columbians like we've never seen before. In the Canada Assistance Plan alone, where it was their responsibility to equally support the program, the Mulroney government decided to off-load its responsibility onto our province to the tune of $1.6 billion. Over five years the people of British Columbia will have been denied access to $1.6 billion of their own tax dollars that should have been coming to them. But the Mulroney government said: "Sorry, we're just not going to work with you anymore in this area. It's your responsibility." That was the first giant hole punched in the social safety net by the federal government.
To continue to pull away and rip apart the social safety net, the Mulroney government decided to attack the unemployment insurance program. Under Mulroney, the Conservative government cut back the unemployment insurance safety net during one of the highest periods of unemployment this country has ever seen. Each year, their off-loading onto the provincial government and British Columbia taxpayers who pay for that government cost an extra $50 million to our income assistance system.
What did the new federal Liberal government do to reverse the actions of the Mulroney government? Did they say: "You're right, the social safety net has too many holes in it. The vulnerable, the needy and children are falling through that social safety net"? Did they say that they wanted to maintain a support system for people who are on unemployment insurance? No, they continued the attack on the social safety net that was started by the Mulroney government. The recent actions of the federal Liberal government in Ottawa mean that there will be more burdens on the B.C. taxpayer.
Let me give you an example. The cutback of and continued attack on the unemployment insurance program by the Chretien government will cost a minimum of $10
[ Page 9647 ]
million more per year to our income assistance system, for which we are totally responsible. And that's in addition to the $50 million per year that has already been off-loaded onto us.
Who will be most affected by these cutbacks to the unemployment insurance system? It will be those young people -- our children and grandchildren, our sons and daughters -- who are the first people to enter the workforce and who will need the support of the unemployment insurance system. They now will have less access to the unemployment insurance system. They will have to pay more for less, and they will get access for a very short period of time. That's extremely bad news for young people in British Columbia.
Did the federal Liberal government take the cap off the Canada Assistance Plan and start paying their fair share into that program? Did they reverse that downward trend by the Mulroney government, a trend that they promised to reverse in the last election? No, they didn't. They perpetuated the off-loading onto British Columbia in the areas of income assistance and the Canada Assistance Plan.
I can reassure British Columbians that our approach is not to destroy the social safety net, but to renew it and enhance it for those most in need. It won't be like the provincial Liberals across the way. It won't be without compassion and sympathy. It won't be to slash and cut programs for those most vulnerable, as those across the way would have it. We will protect social programs. We will enhance training opportunities. We will work with the business community to create jobs, and we will have programs that are efficient, effective and fair. But we will have programs, not like the opposition that would have us slash and cut regardless of what it means to those most in need.
Some may ask: "How are you going to do all of that when you are also committed to wiping out the deficit?" And we are committed to wiping out the deficit. By 1996, British Columbians will have a balanced budget, and that is good news for every single person in my riding of Vancouver-Hastings. It will require our government to walk a very straight and narrow path, but it's one in which we have the fullest of confidence. We will protect those most in need. We will protect programs, and we will balance the budget.
I must tell you that outside these hallowed halls others have the greatest of confidence in us to do this. The news from the business community and the international investment community is that we are on the right track, and we will be able to achieve that. Let me just read to you the analysis of our budget by the well-respected international firm of Wood Gundy. It will be very short, but it's good news and I think British Columbians need to hear this:
"B.C. finds itself in the enviable position of strong economic growth and job creation, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any of the provinces, the lowest debt-servicing-to-spending ratio of any of the provinces, and the highest credit rating."
These are the words of a neutral investment firm.
"Last year we took B.C. to task for defining spending restraint as lowering the growth rate of total government spending from 12 percent to 6 percent.... This year they have cut spending growth once again, but this time around the restraint measures look more credible and are more in line with other provincial budgets presented to date.... B.C. took pains to contrast their plans for achieving a balanced budget with Alberta's more radical fiscal surgery. The commitment to balancing the budget by 1996-97 by holding the line on taxation and further reducing the growth rate of spending to 2 percent is a positive development."
That's good news for British Columbians, I must tell you.
To conclude, they say:
"Total debt has risen by 60 percent over three years. But B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio is still the lowest in Canada, and this budget will not alter the market's view of B.C. as a top-notch credit...."
The people of Vancouver-Hastings will feel great comfort in that news from those commenting on our budget initiatives. We are not going to keep that good news, though, at the expense of children and families who need the social safety net. We are going to protect the almost 120,000 children who rely on income assistance. We are not going to slash and cut their programs, as some on the opposite side of the House would have us do; we are not going to treat them as criminals, as some on the opposite side of the House would have us do; and we are not going to do an across-the-board slash-and-burn exercise, such as our colleagues to the east of us -- that Tory government in Alberta -- would have us do. We are going to protect the social safety net. In fact, we are going to continue to enhance the services, programs and money to those most in need.
How are we going to do that in the context of also balancing the budget? It can be done with an efficient, effective and fair system, and this is how we do it. We make sure that confidence in the income assistance system is restored and that people feel confident about how the money is spent. We make sure that every single dollar goes to those most in need. We make sure that welfare fraud is brought to a stop; we have zero tolerance for welfare fraud and abuse. That will make the system efficient, effective and fair, and will give money to those most in need. At the same time, we will also be training people for jobs and creating jobs for those who do not want to rely on the income assistance system and want to get back into the workforce in a meaningful way.
[3:00]
I will take a couple of minutes to explain to the members of the House how this is such good news for my constituents in Vancouver-Hastings. The initiatives our government has taken over the past year will be meaningful and good news for my constituents. There's good news around the fact that for the first time in years, in many cases, working people in my riding have had their taxes cut; their homeowner's grant is protected; they know that the dollars they give to our government are going toward programs and reducing the deficit, and that in two years they will no longer be responsible for the deficit created by the previous government. My neighbours will appreciate that good news.
In my riding in the city of Vancouver, it's very important that we also understand that there is a need for more affordable housing and social housing. Even though many people on the opposite side of the House didn't take time to read the budget, there's good news for housing. Our government will be investing millions of dollars in social housing. I expect that will be good news for those who live in Vancouver and have trouble affording the very high housing costs there.
The last item of good news for those of us on the east side of Vancouver is that finally -- thanks to the Premier of this province and to government MLAs working with the leadership of the city of Vancouver -- there will be peace in Hastings Park. We are well on our path to restoring Hastings Park to viable green space, where jobs are protected but where the park is open and accessible to the community. It will be an exciting place for East Vancouverites -- and indeed, all people in the lower mainland -- to use with their families. I must give full credit to the Premier for putting his stamp on that and working with the city of Vancouver to finally get the very contentious issues of the future use of
[ Page 9648 ]
that park settled and to bring about a wonderful community area for East Vancouverites to use.
I think it's time that we accept the good news in this budget, that we get on with restoring -- working with, or perhaps in contrast to, the federal government -- rebuilding and renewing the social safety net. I hope all members of the House will join our government in that exercise and not turn it into partisan slash-and-cut. That won't help British Columbia at all. It's time for us to get on with the real issues facing our economy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of this House in achieving that.
R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the budget. In preparing the budget, the Minister of Finance and the Premier consulted with British Columbians in every walk of life and in all regions of the province. The message was clear: taxpayers and working British Columbians had reached their limit on taxes; they simply wanted no more tax increases. The 1994 budget freezes provincial taxes for the next three years. There will be no increase in personal income tax rates, no increase in corporate income tax rates or capital tax rates, no increase in sales tax rates, and no increase in average school and rural area property taxes, or property transfer taxes. The freeze also applies to Medical Services and insurance premiums, and fuel, tobacco, hotel room and horse-racing tax rates.
In addition to freezing taxes, the budget also introduces a number of tax cuts to increase the fairness of the tax system. These tax cuts total $112 million -- half for ordinary British Columbians and half for B.C. businesses.
The property transfer tax is eliminated for eligible first-time home buyers. This will help the dream ofhome-ownership become a reality for thousands of young B.C. families.
We are extending the full homeowner grant to more British Columbians. Homes valued up to $450,000 are eligible for the full grant. This is up from the previous $400,000 ceiling. The grant will be phased out for homes over $450,000. This will ensure that 95 percent of B.C. homeowners will receive the full grant.
We are restoring the trade-in allowance for automobile purchases, and we are raising the threshold for the tax on vehicles to $33,000. This came in response to concerns raised by the automotive retail industry. This government listened and responded to those concerns.
The 1994 budget introduces tax breaks for businesses to encourage investment and help the private sector create jobs. In prebudget consultations, businesses made it clear that they are not looking for handouts; they want easier access to capital, less red tape and a fair tax system. We are introducing a number of changes to reduce the costs that small businesses face in collecting and remitting taxes to government. The government will be introducing a three-month amnesty period, from the date of the budget to June 30, 1994, during which businesses can pay overdue taxes without penalty. This is good news for the business community.
Last year we lowered or eliminated the corporation capital tax for 3,500 small businesses. This year we are introducing tax breaks for small businesses. One thousand small businesses will be exempted from the corporation capital tax and another 1,000 will pay less tax. The threshold where financial institutions pay the higher 3 percent corporation capital tax is raised from $500 million to $750 million of worldwide paid-up capital. This increases fairness and encourages the growth of B.C.-based financial institutions.
We're also exempting 500 cooperatives and family farm corporations from the corporation capital tax, which will reduce their tax bill by $4 million.
A reduction in the jet fuel tax rate of 1 cent a litre on international flights will enhance the Vancouver International Airport as a major North American gateway to the Pacific Rim. Again, it's good news for the business community.
I feel it's also important to speak on our debt management plan for the future. B.C.'s strong performance is expected to continue this year. Our economy is forecast to grow by 3.4 percent in 1994. This means that provincial government revenues will grow to $18.73 billion, an increase of 5.9 percent. Expenditures will grow by only 3.5 percent to $19.63 billion. The resulting deficit will be $898 million, down from the $1.28 billion in 1993 and the third significant drop in three years. By the end of the coming fiscal year, we will have cut the annual deficit by over $1.5 billion, a reduction of more than 60 percent since this government took office. This year's budget continues that progress and puts forward a plan to completely eliminate the deficit by 1996-97. We will bring it down to zero and achieve a balanced budget.
Instead of increasing our tab to the budget, we will be in the black. To achieve this goal we will require further reduction in spending growth to under 2 percent each year. This is well below inflation and population increase, and it means no new money for public sector wage increases. Some people ask: "Why not eliminate the deficit right now by making deeper cuts in spending? Why not freeze all government borrowing?" To do this without raising taxes, we would require heavy cutbacks to health, education and other essential services that British Columbians rely on. It would mean an immediate halt to all provincially funded construction projects for schools, hospitals, colleges, roads and other vital infrastructure. The radical restraint of the early 1980s showed British Columbians that slash-and-burn budgeting does not work. That approach does more harm than good. As well as undermining the quality of life, it makes our province less competitive in the global economy. It is in everyone's best interests for government to take a more moderate, patient approach. We will not raise taxes or cut essential services to achieve our fiscal goals. Instead, we are doing it by reducing costs and making government more efficient.
It's important for the public to know, and perhaps for the opposition to hear, that, thanks to the efforts of all British Columbians, our economy grew by 3.2 percent in 1993 -- the best performance in four years. Every aspect of our economy improved last year. Exports grew. Retail sales were up 7.8 percent. Capital investment was up 8.4 percent. Housing starts reached record levels. Most importantly, 76,000 new jobs were created in B.C. over the past 12 months. We're creating jobs three times as fast as the rest of Canada. We now have one of the strongest economies and best job creation records in North America.
B.C.'s strong performance is expected to continue this year. Our economy is forecast to grow by 3.4 percent in 1994. Business drives our economy and creates jobs. The provincial government has done its part in establishing a stable and positive business climate. B.C. has the lowest government debt in Canada in relation to its economy, one of the best deficit reduction records and the highest credit rating of any province.
I would like to touch on some areas of the budget that affect my constituents in Malahat-Juan de Fuca. My constituents have been concerned about improvements to our transportation system in the area covering rehabilitation
[ Page 9649 ]
work administered through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
This budget will help us accomplish these types of projects for Malahat-Juan de Fuca: design and move hydro poles to accommodate extra lanes in the Saseenos Ludlow Road area, estimated cost $10,000; miscellaneous paving in the Sooke area, approximately $20,000; realign Muir Creek Road on the West Coast Highway, $32,000; clearing and grubbing to the ocean park out at Botanical Beach, approximately $100,000; realign the section of road at Impala to Twin Creek on Highway 14, $50,000; construct improvements on Otter Point and in the Church Road area, $10,000; upgrade Otter Point Road from Helgesen to Laronde Road, $50,000; improve site delineation at Veitch Creek at Manzer, $15,000; improve the Grant Road shoulder, which would make it safer for our youth to go to school, approximately $10,000; upgrade the Cobble Hill rest area on the Trans-Canada Highway, some $10,000; replace one of 140 bridges between Duncan and Port Renfrew, at Shawyer Bridge, over Veitch Creek, approximately $750,000. This is one of two bridges on Vancouver Island that will be replaced, and I'm proud to say that with efforts by the ministry staff and my constituents we're confident we can get this valuable, needed project underway this year.
[3:15]
There will be improvements in the Koksilah Road area to realign that road, some $250,000; improvements to the Joyce Road area by acquisition of right-of-way, some $10,000; improvements on Deloume Road in the Mill Bay area, to widen and pave that area, some $10,000; improvements to the Shawnigan-Malahat area to improve the sight distance in order to improve safety, some $30,000; improvements on the Trans-Canada Highway at Hutchinson and Telegraph Roads by a right-of-way acquisition, some $20,000; improvements in Sooke in the Saseenos area at Cooper's Cove, some $30,000; improvements on the East Sooke Road at Copper Mine Road, to remove some rock so that vehicles can travel safely along that road, some $10,000.
In total it is approximately $1.5 million in expenditures that perhaps will occur through this budget. These are projects that have been identified by the community on behalf of the residents. Ministry staff have rated these as priorities, and I'm proud to say that this budget is a way to accomplish those goals to make the quality of life better for people in the Malahat-Juan de Fuca area.
Not only does this budget accommodate valuable rehabilitation work that needs to be done, but it is also a significant start on the Island Highway in the Western Communities area. Announcements in October last year earmarked over $150 million being spent between Goldstream Park and the Helmcken Road area. This budget will allow for much of that work to start by way of acquisition of rights-of-way and completion of designs in order for that work to go out to tender. With this budget and with the direction that the government has taken, we will have local hire for this work, and we will ensure that small business will be part of that construction project by ensuring that local businesses will be able to supply goods and services. I note that the Liberal members opposite don't seem to be in favour of local hire and local jobs for Vancouver Island Highway people. It's intolerable in this day and age that the Liberal caucus cannot stand up and support this valuable project for the people of Vancouver Island and, furthermore, support local hire for people on Vancouver Island.
In closing, I think it's important to restate what this government has accomplished. After two and a half years of sound fiscal management, ordinary British Columbians benefit the most from this year's provincial budget. The deficit is down, jobs are up and taxes will be frozen for three years. When this government was elected, our province had the worst deficit in its history, thanks to the previous government's double-digit spending increases. We rolled up our sleeves and got our financial house in order. The results speak for themselves: B.C.'s deficit has been reduced to $898 million -- a cut of $1.5 billion, or 60 percent, since 1991; the spending growth rate has been reduced to 3.5 percent -- its lowest level in nine years; and the budget will be balanced by 1996.
Most importantly, for ordinary British Columbians there will be a three-year tax freeze and tax cuts totalling $112 million this year. For example, the homeowner grant is extended. First-time homebuyers can save up to $3,000 due to the elimination of the property transfer tax. The automobile trade-in allowance has been restored. By cutting waste and duplication, our government has worked hard to ensure that tax dollars are used efficiently. The 5 percent cut in salaries for the Premier and cabinet ministers and the salary freeze for MLAs and senior public servants will be continued. Management salaries in the public sector are being reviewed. The $600 million B.C. Endowment Fund and four major government agencies will be eliminated to pay down B.C.'s deficit and debt.
While we are making progress in reducing the deficit, we will remain committed to protecting programs for people. Spending for health care and education has been increased by over 3 percent -- higher than in any other province. This year's budget puts a priority on increasing job training opportunities for British Columbians. To create jobs, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority will invest in new capital projects that will benefit British Columbians today and in the future. We will pay for these projects by borrowing over a long term, like having a mortgage on a house. Unlike the deficit, this long-term debt will be backed up by the value of assets such as schools, hospitals and highways. The value of those assets, owned by the people of British Columbia, is some $60 billion.
I'd like to repeat what the Minister of Social Services stated with regard to Wood Gundy, in case members opposite didn't hear it. They've said that B.C. finds itself in the enviable position of having strong economic growth and job creation. It has the lowest ratio of debt in terms of GDP, the lowest debt-servicing-to-spending ratio and the highest credit rating of any of the provinces. G.A. Pedersson and Associates gave the budget a B plus, calling it a "worthy effort." While we welcome the recognition of our efforts by analysts like Wood Gundy and G.A. Pedersson, our government represents ordinary people. That's why this budget is more than numbers on a page to us; it's about people and a better future for all British Columbians.
R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me to rise. Although I am not as enthusiastic as the last two government members who spoke about this budget, I am going to deal with it in what I think is a fair way, and give credit where credit is due and give it to you where it's not. I understand now why the member forMalahat-Juan de Fuca was front, right and centre in the last B.C. 21 newsletter, by the amount of work that was done in his constituency. I saw all the other members from the NDP cabinet and the backbenchers starting to add it up, and they were raising their eyebrows and saying: "That's where all the money went." I was along with them, because it didn't come to my constituency either. So obviously, you and the Minister of Environment are in that newsletter for a reason.
[ Page 9650 ]
Just before I speak about the budget, I want to bring forward another thing that the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca stated. It's consistent with what this government always talks about -- it's smoke and mirrors. I'm not going to say it's not the truth, but it's basically not what's there. They do not state it as it really is, because they want to feather it over a bit and make it look good. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca mentioned salary cuts of 5 percent for the cabinet. That took place last year and it continues, but it's not a further 5 percent cut. If you really want to put it in there as a 5 percent cut this year like you did last year, then cut your pay again. Be honest with the people. Tell them what you mean. It's typical of this government to continue on that road of false numbers and misleading information.
This budget again incorporates a deficit of about $900 million. It's unbelievable. They just continue to spend British Columbia taxpayers' money like it's going out of style.
F. Garden: Not as fast as you did.
R. Neufeld: The member opposite says not as fast as I did. I wasn't here. I came here in the last election in 1991; I wasn't part of spending the money. Another reason that party can't get their facts straight is that they're not even sure when they were elected or when other people were elected.
They have also added $2 billion to the long-term debt. That's debt for future generations, and it will be the young people of today who will be after you tomorrow because of the debt you have incurred for this province. What you have done is absolutely shameful. You have increased the net government debt by $7.5 billion in two years. Absolutely ridiculous! The young people of tomorrow are going to have to pay that bill, and they are going to be very upset.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The other part where they don't tell the truth is that they haven't added the $300 million they conveniently moved out of the Highways budget into B.C. 21. If you add that to the $900 million, you have a $1.2 billion deficit. Again smoke and mirrors, and just kind of fuzzily not telling people, just working the numbers. I read Hansard from a number of years ago, and this government was chastising the last government for doing this kind of thing. What do they do? They fell right into the trap, and they're trying to make it sound good.
They are also increasing the long-term debt by $2 billion when we have the best economy of any province in Canada. British Columbia is creating the most jobs of any province in Canada; the indications are that we're the fastest-growing province across Canada. Yet we still cannot quit adding to the long-term debt in huge numbers. With that kind of revenue and growth in this province, I would think the government should be looking at the long-term debt and trying to pay some of that back. But oh no.
I guess it's obvious, when you read the polls, that they know they're only going to be here for another term. It was 20 years ago when they were here before. I doubt they'll ever be back again. If the federal election was any indication of what's going to happen to the NDP government, it's good riddance. I'm sure that all people in British Columbia feel that way -- or at least the 60 to 70 percent who didn't vote for a socialist government.
I'm going to bring forward some parts of the budget and, as I said, deal with them fairly. Some good points in the budget should be brought out; I should not just talk about the negative parts. Once again, I want to preface my statement by saying that the government of the day stands up and says they've cut all these taxes, and it's just great for the province. They fail to tell the people that that government instituted the majority of these taxes in the last two years. They're just waking up, and it has taken them almost three years to wake up. Maybe next year they'll wake up a little bit more, but I doubt it. The fallacy, the number-crunching and the little moves here and there will continue, and we'll end up further in debt for the young people of British Columbia.
[3:30]
The corporation capital tax yields a saving of $18 million, apparently, by the budget manual. That tax wasn't there until this government came in in 1991-92; they initiated that tax. I guess they should not only change it a little but they should get rid of it. They've been told by everyone around the province that the corporation capital tax is one of the issues stopping investment in British Columbia. That's what we need: investment in British Columbia, investment in our future.
Social Service Tax Act: the change in the luxury tax for passenger vehicles, trade-in allowance.... That was the last Minister of Finance. Maybe that's why that minister is now in a different portfolio: he introduced it. He stood in the House, along with all those members over there, smiling and saying: "Hey, we're going to tax the rich. Those people who can buy a vehicle worth more than $30,000 have got to be rich." They've never been out of the lower mainland and don't know what happens in the rest of the province. They woke up finally, but it's a year later, and now they're the great people reducing taxation. Well, it was their tax to start with.
The tax on jet fuel. Who stood in this House and told the minister, time and time again when we dealt with that bill, that this was a regressive tax and was going to do nothing...? Finally, they woke up. Maybe this different minister gets the message easier; the last one certainly didn't.
The homeowner grant was another absolutely terrible fumble by this government and the last Minister of Finance. He was told by people all over the province -- I remember it well -- that that was a dumb move. But the government of the day initiated it, and today they say: "Oh, my goodness, we've seen the light, and we're going to reduce taxation." But it is their own stupid taxation that they're reducing.
We talked about how negative the taxation in the rural areas was, and about how negative the School Act was. They're seeing the light. I agree with the Water Act, because that is going to do something for the economy of British Columbia. I don't have any problem with it. In fact, another one here is the Property Purchase Tax Act. That's a good move for first-time homebuyers, and I commend the government on that. I wonder who had to tell them to do it, though.
The "fairness package" includes measures introduced to assist small business, improve enforcement and improve fairness. That's really a taker, isn't it. "Fairness package" is quite a way to put it. Small business has been complaining of the unfair taxation placed on them since this government took office. Now they call it a fairness package. My goodness!
Then we go to "Assistance for the Mining Industry," and we see the Income Tax Act and the Mineral Tax Act changed. As I remember, it says in the budget manual that it's going to mean about $14 million in savings. If I remember correctly, the minister stated that it was going to mean $18 million in savings. It's another sleight of hand. I don't know. I can't quite figure it out. It says one number in the book, and the minister stands up and talks about another one.
But it's interesting to note a letter I have from the Mining Association of British Columbia talking about the throne
[ Page 9651 ]
speech, not about the budget. I want to read a bit out of this letter of March 15, 1994. It's a news release from Gary Livingstone of the Mining Association of British Columbia. It says:
"'Considering the amount of time and effort we have put into the Premier's forum on mining, we were anticipating at least some mention of our industry in the Speech from the Throne. The fact that there wasn't even a single word about B.C.'s second-largest industry has left thousands of men and women working in the mining industry with no evidence that this government cares about their future,' says Mr. Livingstone.
"The government's decision on Windy Craggy sent a signal around the world that new mine development wasn't welcome in B.C.
"The creation of new jobs in the mining industry depends on positive signals from government. To that end, the industry's priorities for this legislative session include: amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act...."
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Yes, part of it is in there, but not all of it. Your refusal to allow land for them to develop on is not in here. For an industry as large as the mining industry.... I thought that the $18 million that the minister first stood up and talked about was all going to be for air fares to bring those people back from Chile so that they could try to mine here again or just visit and see what's happening. Those are some issues that were talked about -- about which the government seems so upbeat and is puffing its chest out.
But we go on to "Other Revenue," which happens to be $25 million. That's revenue? "No more new taxes. Read my lips. Not a penny more than you can afford."
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Frozen taxes for three years, the member next to me says. Twenty-five million dollars in revenue. That's frozen taxes? That's about how much British Columbians can expect from this government. They slide in another $25 million in fees.
That's represented by quite a number of things. Licence fees have doubled. You have no problem increasing fees by 50 percent or 100 percent. Hunting and angling fees are up, as are fees for commercial and recreational docks on Crown land. People are already having trouble operating tourist facilities because of the fees that this government jacked onto them in the last two years, and now you're going to do it some more. It continues with all kinds of increases in fees.
They're doubling Motor Carrier Commission fees. The fee for a taxi used to be $85 a year, and now it will go to $170 a year. To put that in perspective, there are about 280 cabs in Victoria alone. If they each pay $85 a year extra, that's $23,800. It means that at an average of $8 for a round trip, they have to make 2,975 more trips just to pay for this minimal increase that they talk about. Hon. Speaker, that's the problem with this government; that's why you're not credible. I'm sorry, hon. Speaker; I wasn't talking about you. We've had enough trouble with the Speaker's chair. Excuse me. I mean the government is not credible.
The past Minister of Education spoke last Thursday. I listened to her as she talked about this being a transparent budget. By golly, I believe her. It's transparent; you can see right through it, and most British Columbians will see right through it, too.
Let's look a bit at revenue by source and see what happens there. Personal income is going to be up 8.3 percent. Corporation income is up 23 percent. That's why there's no investment in this province, and that's why people are nervous about investing here in new, large corporations that will employ lots of people.
The list goes on and on. There's an increase in everything. There's an increase of 7.2 percent in that revenue part. Natural resource revenue is up. If you look at it, in 1991-92 the forest industry was $600 million, and in 1994-95 it's estimated to be $1.153 billion. So obviously there are going to be some increases in the Forests ministry.
The one that is the real eye-opener -- this is where I talk about smoke and mirrors with this government, which they're very good at -- is the increase in contributions from government enterprises. When is a tax a tax, and when isn't a tax a tax? Hydro rates are increasing constantly just to give government more money. That is the smoke and mirrors that this government is using. In 1991-92 contributions from government enterprises amounted to $538 million; today it amounts to $1.051 billion. That's the dishonest part of this government. They talk about not increasing taxes, but they increase fees for services -- for Hydro and for B.C. Rail. All those entities start having to pay more and more to government so that this government can spend it in some frivolous manner, which they feel is justified.
An Hon. Member: Friends and insiders.
R. Neufeld: Yes, friends and insiders -- and pensions; I guess that's part of it.
British Columbians have reached the maximum. The Member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca said that. They've reached the maximum taxation that they can afford. I didn't say it; I'm just reiterating what he said. He's part of a government that has increased taxes $4 billion over the last two years. Obviously the government is starting to catch on.
Let's go into the expenditure side of the budget and look quickly at some expenditures that have increased. In 1991-92 Aboriginal Affairs was $11 million; today it's $32.2 million. [Applause.]
They clap the table because nobody is really sure where all that money is going. In fact, it will be interesting to see where it is going.
An Hon. Member: You'll see.
R. Neufeld: Yes, and every British Columbian will see where it's going: into long-term debt and waste, and maybe for the Minister of Social Services to have another little function at a resort somewhere.
I want to go on to Health; it's up by 2.3 percent. I appreciate that, but I understand that the Premier recently announced that he's going to dramatically reduce funding to Pharmacare for seniors -- something that member, when he was in opposition, swore he would never do. Yet today we see him doing it. That is smoke and mirrors, and what I call -- I won't use the word dishonest -- not telling the people exactly how it is.
Taxes and fees are up by $4 billion since this NDP government took over, and the debt is up by $7.4 billion on top of that. It's absolutely incredible. They started out at less than $20 billion in net debt for the whole province -- a legacy. We're getting more than a legacy now; we're getting the whole foot, because it's now at $27.5 billion. What a legacy! The NDP member says that this as a great legacy for the province of British Columbia. I tell you, hon. Speaker, it is no legacy for the province. A province that's growing as fast as we are should be paying down its debt, not increasing it for future generations to look after. It ought to be pretty
[ Page 9652 ]
obvious, but maybe some of these members haven't been watching.
[3:45]
The Minister of Social Services talked about how terrible it was that the federal government isn't paying its fair share of the Canada Assistance Plan and that it should be paying more to the province of British Columbia. Well, it would be nice if we could get more, but they still don't catch on. We have a $500 billion federal debt around the necks of everyone, and all of us have to pay that at some time. But they live in a fairyland world in which debt means nothing, and they just continue to add to it. I wonder if they run their own households that way The cost of servicing the debt is up by 53 percent since the NDP took office That's almost $400 million -- almost double -- of direct government debt. That's shameful! That's what young people of today have to look at when they reach their mid-thirties or forties. Those are the people who are going to have to pay back that bill.
Part of the problem the government has is that they have increased public sector costs by $1.6 billion since coming to office. I understand that you need competent people to run a government and that you need people in government who can provide good services. I have no problem with that at all, but to put us $7.5 billion further in debt when they're adding to the wage costs of $1.6 billion in two years is absolutely ridiculous. The bureaucracy is being increased by 10 percent. They've hired some 4,500 employees over the past two years. The budget for salaries and benefits this year is increased by $160 million, or 9 percent. That's four times the average increase in the rate of inflation. All the NDP members stand up and say: "That's good government; we're really doing our thing." Well, I don't think people of British Columbia really believe that anymore. They know that this is a tax-and-spend government, and it always will be.
I want to say a few things about how I feel we could balance the budget. On top of the list -- and it was mentioned by one of the members before -- is to get rid of all those NDP patronage posts and redundant agencies through a comprehensive review of all agencies, boards and commissions by the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. The official opposition has brought to light some of the sweetheart deals that have been made with people at B.C. Hydro and other Crown corporations. It's so unpalatable to people in British Columbia when the Minister of Social Services stands up and says that we have to get money into the hands of the people who need it. And what did they do? They gave Marc Eliesen a million-dollar pension. That's what's wrong with this government. That's why they're not really telling the people what they're doing.
An. Hon. Member: He needs it; he came from Ontario.
R. Neufeld: There we are. He's making $195,000 a year and a pension worth about $1.2 million, or about $10,000 a month. Isn't that great? That was negotiated by this government. It is absolutely shameful for the Minister of Social Services, who is part of the cabinet that agreed to this, to stand up in the House and say that we have to get the money into the hands of the people who need it.
The CEO of B.C. Rail has a reported salary of $229,000, but he refused to reveal details on pension and perks. Bill McCourt, president of ICBC, gets a salary of $175,000 a year and a $7,800 car allowance. Is that getting money into the hands of the people who need it? Hardly. Jim Dorsey of the Workers' Compensation Board makes $144,000; Michael Martin, B.C. Ferries....
The list is so long, and these are all NDP hacks and patronage appointments. I wish I had an hour, because I'd like to read out every one of them. This list isn't even up to date; it's about a year old. There are pages of them. This government spends hundreds of millions of dollars, and it talks about spending wisely. Why don't they tackle wages and welfare expenditures in order to reduce the debt, and pass a law to limit the amount of severance pay to any public sector employee or contractor? There are all kinds of ways that this government could reduce debt and reduce spending, but they know they're here for only four years. They know they have to fill their pockets, and they've all got their snouts in the trough.
We should adopt a zero-based budgeting process that would force all program spending to be justified each and every year. We should get rid of the fair wage policy. Some people are already receiving high wages. Why do we force them to keep it? Why don't we start paying the people at the lower end of the wage scale a few more dollars, so that they can afford to do some of the things that other people, who make $250,000 a year and pensions of $10,000 a month, take for granted? That's what we should be doing. We should be a little more fair. That government is losing all kinds of support from average British Columbians, because they see this government as being absolutely corrupt. With some of the things that have happened in the last two and a half years, people just will not accept any more.
Reduce the number of government agencies. I'm glad to see they finally got rid of Government Air. There we are: "Do you travel on government business? Important bulletin regarding our improved coordinated regional travel schedule." It reads like a Time Air or Air Canada schedule. We're flying Citation jets around the province with eight people in them, and it's great, isn't it? Well, I guess it's about time we got rid of that. It's about time we got rid of the Energy Council. All the Energy Council did was put down the IPPs. And all we do is export the natural gas to the U.S., to the Lower 48. They produce the electricity down there. It was a heck of a move, a really good one.
We should start looking at ways to encourage growth and investment in this province. We should quit spending money for the sake of spending money. I can take you into my constituency and show you buildings built by this government that weren't needed. I can take you into other constituencies in the north and show you the same thing. Is this good for the people of British Columbia? I can tell you that they weren't even British Columbian firms that did a lot of those contracts. But we spent the money, because it looks good and because we can kind of hide it over in the corner. It doesn't show up in the total operating budget. Those are the things British Columbians are tired of and would like to see changed.
Interjections.
R. Neufeld: The members ask me what buildings. I'll tell them later, because I don't have time. I see the lights are starting to change, and...
An Hon. Member: We'll see the lights at last.
An Hon. Member: Too bad this government wouldn't see the light.
R. Neufeld: We should review all programs on a regular basis to ascertain whether they're needed anymore. Those are just a few ways -- and I see the light is on -- that I think
[ Page 9653 ]
governments in British Columbia could change, specifically this one.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to take my place in the debate on the budget speech today. I would like to reiterate the arguments of the member for Peace River North. I thought his presentation and arguments very convincing -- arguments that I also endorse.
I think it is appropriate to reiterate the amendment. It says:
"Be it resolved that the motion 'that the Speaker do now leave the chair' for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following, 'but the House regrets that the government has seen fit to take an additional $1.2 billion out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia, further impairing the fragile economic recovery of the province; and furthermore, that the budget continues to hamper the development of a healthy, diversified provincial economy through its interventionist, ideologically driven spending measures.'"
The official opposition has put forward this amendment. It is one I support; it is an important amendment.
People in every corner of this province are looking for hope and opportunity. But instead, under this government, hope has been replaced by hopelessness and opportunity by despair. When the NDP campaigned for office, it told voters it was time for a change, time to do things differently. Things certainly have been done differently. Taxes are increasing like never before, government debt is higher than ever, the education system is under seige, individual rights are being eroded, patronage is out of control, and loggers and environmentalists have been forced by this government to battle each other over the preservation of jobs and the judicious use of our resources. This is not the change British Columbians expected when they put their faith and trust in this government in the last election. This government's legacy is one of betrayal of public trust.
It's easy to understand how British Columbians have lost trust in their government. The NDP promised one thing before the election and gave us something quite different once they were in office. In the last election they issued a 48-point election platform with all sorts of wild promises. They knew at that time -- and everyone in the province knows now -- that it was merely an enticement to get people to vote for them. It wasn't a road map the NDP planned to follow. Every member of this House recalls the Premier's comment that this province deserves a government as honest and hard-working as the people who pay for it. Wasn't it this Premier who promised that a government under his leadership would only do what we can afford? Nothing violates the public trust more than the gross mismanagement of government and of every British Columbian's hard-earned tax dollars.
Government members opposite call this a good-news budget, but let's take a closer look at this budget and the tax-borrow-and-spend policies of this government. This NDP 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. The total debt of the province will rise by $2 billion in the upcoming fiscal year alone. Total government debt at the end of this fiscal year will reach over $27.4 billion. It represents an increase of nearly 50 percent since the NDP was elected. That is shameful.
Since this government took office in 1991, debt for strictly government purposes has increased by 85 percent. Even the Certified General Accountants' Association is expressing concern. Their president said: "We need to keep in mind that the province still plans to spend nearly $900 million more than it will collect in revenue during the next fiscal year." By the Finance minister's own admission, debt interest now accounts for the entire deficit. Since the NDP took power, fees and licences -- issues that my friend who represents Peace River North talked about -- have increased by $332 million. This year's increase alone is $63 million.
The NDP have taxed the people of British Columbia, businesses and investment like no other government. B.C. has the highest marginal tax rate in Canada. The NDP has grabbed more than $4,000 in additional taxes from every B.C. family since they promised no new taxes in their election campaign. They continue to betray the public trust of British Columbians. The sooner there's an election in British Columbia, the better.
[4:00]
Why should people in British Columbia believe the Premier's promises of no new taxes in this budget speech? The budget speech also talks about long-term job creation and economic growth. Tell that to the thousands of small and medium-sized businesses who have never faced a higher tax burden than they have under this government. Tell that to those British Columbians who feel they have no choice but to join the largest-growing sector of our economy: the underground economy. British Columbians were told there would be no tax increases. The trust they put in those comments from the Premier have been betrayed with nearly $1.5 billion in tax hikes.
Let me put that in perspective. If all of the $1.5 billion in tax increases that the NDP has taken from the pockets of British Columbians were put in this legislative chamber, and the Premier were allowed to take out $10,000 a day, it would take him over 400 years to empty this chamber. That is tax unfairnessNDP-style. Instead of growth, in the two and a half years of this government small business was hit with new taxes, increased property taxes, new regulations, Workers' Compensation Board increases, hidden taxes through BC Hydro increases and more labour laws -- tax, borrow and spend NDP-style.
Ask small businesses if they're better off today than they were two years ago. Small business is not better off under an NDP government. They promised fair and practical laws to improve labour-management relations. What's fair and practical about secondary boycotts or removing the secret ballot from certification votes? The Minister of Labour at the time -- the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, whom the Premier affectionately describes as "impetuous" -- said the Labour Code is a springboard to economic development. Nothing could be further from the truth. Capital investment has actually decreased since this government came to power, and the Labour Code is part of the reason.
This government has a responsibility to explain and defend its actions to the people of this province, and the people have a right to hold this government accountable for the decisions it makes. Mayors and councillors from Vancouver Island were outside protesting against the policies of this government. Ask them if they were involved to any great degree in the forest policy decisions that will affect their communities. Those people are directly affected by these decisions and should be the ones who are consulted and brought into the process. Their communities will be affected. Their friends and families will feel the impact of decisions made in Victoria.
The budget speech also talks about skills, training and education. Election promise No. 41 from 1991 says: "Education is key to everyone's future, yet we're falling behind." That's true; we are falling behind. As the Leader of the Opposition stated in his reply to the throne speech,
[ Page 9654 ]
under this government the high school dropout rate is even higher than under the previous administration. The graduation rate when this government took office was 74 percent. It has already dropped to 69 percent under the NDP government. That is a record of failure.
Three years ago, in his reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Premier said: "We need to end the battles, wars and demoralization in the education system and allow teachers to teach, students to learn and parents to be satisfied that their kids are receiving high-quality education. We need to have some stability, some peace in the education system." Peace is the last thing this government has brought to the education system. Statistics from the B.C. School Trustees' Association show that in the last round of contract negotiations nearly two million student-days were lost due to labour disruptions. That's a 20 percent increase over the previous round. Never before have so many learning days been lost by students and work days lost by teachers than there have been under the failed leadership of this current government. What happened to the Premier's promise of peace in the education system? Maybe he took to heart the comments of the former Minister of Education, who astounded the province when she said: "Students might in fact, by virtue of knowing that they are on their own, do better in exams than if they were in school." This may be the true philosophy of this government, but I can assure you that it's not the philosophy of British Columbians. This government's education policy has been a dismal failure. It has failed to keep the students and teachers in the classroom. British Columbians overwhelmingly support education being made an essential service, but this government again turns its back on the people of the province and ignores their wishes, and it does so at its own peril.
People in every corner of this province are feeling a growing sense of betrayal. People are tired of politicians telling them one thing and doing another. The province needs strong, capable leadership. What is leadership? With this government, we definitely know what leadership is not. History is there for all of us to review. It is astounding that with this government, history continues to repeat itself. What the Premier meant to say during the election of 1991 was that we will spend every penny you cannot afford. What the Premier meant to say was that we will hire every friend and supporter across this country who may be in need of work. What the Premier meant to say was that we will impose the most onerous and unproductive level of taxation this province has ever experienced, and we will introduce the most ideological and self-serving legislation in the history of British Columbia.
This government has betrayed the public trust with its legacy of broken promises. Our entire system of government is being undermined by the broken promises of NDP politicians. People today are demanding three things from their political leaders: leadership, hope and accountability. None are characteristics of this government. This is the third budget speech this government has brought forward, yet British Columbians still have a sense of despair and hopelessness. This government's legacy is one of failed leadership, failed policies and failed opportunities for British Columbians. If there is one phrase that will be written on the tombstone of this government's political grave, it is: "Here lies a government that knowingly betrayed the public trust."
The official opposition cannot support this budget speech, just as the people of this province no longer support this government, and I urge all members to support this amendment.
H. Lali: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Lali: I would like to introduce to the House 20 grades 4 to 6 students from the Nkwala aboriginal school in my riding, and their teacher, Ms. Carol Michel. Some adults came along with them as well. Will the House please give them a warm welcome.
Deputy Speaker: On the amendment to the budget resolution.
V. Anderson: If I heard you right, I think I heard you say "amendment to the budget revolution." If so, that may be truer than you intended at this point.
I rise to speak to the amendment, which was to amend the motion with:
"but the House regrets that the government has seen fit to take an additional $1.2 billion out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia, further impairing the fragile economic recovery of the province; and furthermore, that the budget continues to hamper the development of a healthy, diversified provincial economy through its interventionist, ideologically driven spending measures."
Today we've heard discussion from both sides of the House. We hear quite different versions of what the budget seems to be saying to the people of British Columbia. From the government members we hear that it's nothing but good news. To listen to the government you'd think we had entered into nirvana, a heaven on earth, and that all was well with the people of B.C. It would be great if this were true. But all is not well with the people of British Columbia. I've also noticed that we cannot condemn the New Democratic Party members for having too much humility, because they are so proud of what they have accomplished and put forth in this budget. It comes to my mind that pride cometh before a fall. Humility is a very worthy attribute to anybody in government or opposition. If we come to the point where we think we alone have all the solutions to all the problems, then very quickly the citizens of this province will know they have elected the wrong people.
We must look at this budget in the context of what we're here for and what we're about. There are three reasons for government that I want to highlight at this point. One is to pass legislation to enable us to work more cooperatively with each other in our province and enable us to do those things which we need to do together. Another is to collect taxes in order to share financial resources so that they may be of benefit to all the people of the province in the joint undertakings that we have legislated. The third is to assist the people, municipalities and organizations of the province to undertake together the services that this province is in need of, to cooperate with the provinces across Canada and with the federal government and to participate in international affairs with the United Nations and other countries around the world.
We sit in a very large context. Sometimes we forget that we're just one player on the world scene. We have to take into account the forces that are around us, and we have to respond to them and interact with them. We must be aware that provincial governments interact very much with the federal government and its proposals and undertakings. Therefore we need to be in a close cooperative mode with them at all times, so that as we cooperate interprovincially not only our province but all the provinces and all the citizens of Canada might have a greater and healthier well-being.
[ Page 9655 ]
When we look at the history of our own province over the last 50 years, we could see that for a good deal of that time we were led by one whom we might call in a warm and friendly fashion a benevolent dictator: W.A.C. Bennett. That period was a time of growth and development in this province. It wasn't necessarily because of what the government was doing but because there was growth and development -- not only in Canada but also around the world. Following that, when things became more difficult and W.A.C. Bennett was no longer the benevolent dictator, the party that followed him had not had the opportunity to develop a meaningful philosophy of their own. Along with the rest of the country, we began to go into grave, difficult circumstances. Twice in this period there were governments led by the New Democratic Party. Incidentally, from what we read and hear, the NDP is apparently in the process of changing their name to recognize that they're no longer new. They're the Old Democratic Party; they are recycled again within our time.
[4:15]
We find that they have a bias, as we all do from time to time. Their bias is concern for all of the people, but they have a special focus upon unionized workers. That's a very important but incomplete view of the population. There are many others who get overlooked in that particular process. We find that we have a vacuum of leadership in our society. It's a challenge for those parties who would replace either the New Democratic Party or the Social Credit Party to fill that vacuum in a meaningful and purposeful way. The challenge that has been thrown to the members of the Liberal Party is to undertake to provide a balanced, caring government that has respect for each and every person's dignity and which will cooperate to fulfil the purposes that people of the community have in mind.
We must always remember that power does not lie in the hands of the members of this Legislative Assembly. In our democratic system, power lies finally in the hands of the people of the community -- the voters. If we are able to fulfil their expectations, they will continue to share that power with us. If we no longer fulfil their expectations and we go our own biased way, whatever that might be, then they will simply take that mandate from us and pass it on to others.
We know that the electorate is restless at this moment. Over the last many years they have not felt that the power they have entrusted to the legislative members has been well used. They're struggling to find a body of people, by whatever name, that they can trust and work with and that will give them some hope that the wishes of the people will be followed. I'm sure that people feel, over these last number of years, that Social Credit and the NDP have failed them. The question is in their minds, and properly so, whether the Liberals can do any better than these others have done. Regardless of the names of those who have sat here in this Legislature, we need to ask: why have we failed the people of our communities? Why have we lost their trust and support? Why are they are so suspicious of us when we come here to speak and to pass legislation?
Over the last many years, we have come to acknowledge the great variety within our communities. We have a new awareness of the cultural contributions of the people of our land, a new awareness of the ethnic vitality that has been brought from around the world and a new awareness of gender equality and the contributions of men and women in every capacity within our society. In the recognition of the dignity and rights of minorities and of all people in our society, we have been led by the charter and covenants of the United Nations and by their communications to try to bring stability and peace to all parts of the world. Even though we have their charters and covenants to follow, we must acknowledge that we have not treated the first nations of this land fairly or justly, nor have we have always been fair and just to others who have come to live among us.
As we look at the budget, there is a fundamental question that we must ask. Why have we failed in the mandate that the people have given us? Hopefully the budget should reflect an answer to that question and reflect the new mandate that we have undertaken and the new direction in which we might be going. Of course, there is no simple or straightforward answer, but all of us must now work together in this place at the task of discovering that answer.
If we focus our attention on the budget, we're talking about dollars and cents. Perhaps we should be looking first of all at the social and community planning behind the budget. It seems to us that when we talk about financial statements, we're so often talking about dollars rather than people. What kind of social and community planning does the budget reflect? As we look at the budget that has been presented to us, our difficulty is that we cannot discover the social and community planning behind it. In a way, it seems to be a campaign budget leading up to an election. The budget is trying to say that one side in this House has done more for people than others are willing to do. That's not the reason for having a budget; the reason is to explain to us how the community and social plan is going to be fulfilled and be of benefit to all people. How are the members of this Legislature and the people of this province collectively going to support all people in achieving and maintaining the quality of life that each and every one of us deserves as we live together in this creative universe? If the budget does not reflect a social and community plan so that each and every person can live in dignity, then it is failing in its purpose.
What about the group not reflected in this budget, the economically poor of this province? Every day, week and month a growing number -- some 25 percent of our population -- fall into that category. This crucial part of our population is ignored by this budget. One of the realities is that the increases in fees impinge directly upon this economically deprived group within our community. Those tax breaks, which by and large are mentioned in this budget, are not tax breaks that affect most of these people in any way. They are tax breaks for the other 75 percent of the population, not for this particular group that is fundamental and important to us. The weakness of ignoring this 25 percent is our Achilles heel.
Every religious group and body across the world has a common understanding that men and women are to be concerned with those who have needs. In the older terminology, it was described as the needs of the widow, the orphan, the lame and those who had difficulties of whatever kind. A society that does not take responsibility for and feel strongly its obligations to these people is a society that is irresponsible and, I might say, rotten at its very core. With all our wealth and bragging to the world about how wonderful it is to live in British Columbia, with all its beauty, its climate and its prosperity over the years, the fact that we continue to neglect a very significant proportion of our population and overlook their needs in this picture is the greatest condemnation that can come upon us. I would like to strongly suggest that if we do not collectively change our ways, we will perish as a society because we will be rotten from within. We need humility to be honest with ourselves. The budgets that we have been presenting and considering do not tackle the real problems of our society, of those who have the least and yet have so much to offer the rest of us.
[ Page 9656 ]
All around us in society we can see the signs that should warn us to be careful. We're fighting over our resources, our forests, our minerals and our water. What are we fighting about? In reality, who shall benefit from them, and who will suffer because they have to do without. We've squandered our prosperity over the last 30 years, and now we're into recession that follows recession. We count them in years: the small recession beginning in the seventies, the medium recession beginning in the eighties and the large recession beginning again in the nineties. We fight over who will get to use the prosperity that's around us, and we take it for granted that some will have and others will not.
In times of prosperity, we're proud of talking about building and maintaining social safety nets to protect the poor, the elderly, the sick and the infirm in a way that will maintain them in their current status but will not enable them to improve themselves. Those same people we try to classify in this way speak out against us and say: "No, we are not the lame and the elderly and those with difficulties; we are people, and we intend to be respected and valued." These are the voters who, in the final analysis, will make the major decisions about who comes to sit in this parliament in the future.
[4:30]
One of the advances that has come to our society is that more and more people around the world are taking the opportunity to vote at the ballet box and thus decide their own futures. They elect those they can trust to lead them. We speak on behalf of these persons. What does this budget say to them? Where are they to be found in the budget? We honestly have to say that they are not found there. There is nothing in this budget to meet the needs of the people who line up in the food lines each week, each month and each year. There are young people who live on the streets of our communities because they've had to leave home for one reason or another, and now they are disconnected. There is nothing in this budget that will meet their needs. There are voices crying in the wilderness. Who will listen? Who will hear?
T. Perry: Your voice is droning in the wilderness.
V. Anderson: Government members say that we're groaning when we talk about the poor and the disadvantaged. I agree with them. Our society is groaning with the pain of these people. We stand up here in this Legislature and say: "All is well. This is good news. Everybody is doing well." That's a lie, and it should not be repeated by this government, because not everybody is doing well, and not everybody is happy and prosperous. The government should be aware of that and should be speaking out. To say that all is well is a lie and a contradiction in terms.
An Hon. Member: They don't care.
V. Anderson: I would not want to say "they," because we're all in the same boat together. If the boat goes down, we'll all sink, and no one will be protected. It's not just the budget that we need to examine; we also need to examine the very form of our governments.
I want to raise two concerns that we need to examine clearly. Be aware that the current minimum wage policy, which we've had for a number of years, becomes not a floor but a ceiling, regardless of the amount. We talk about capping the fees of administrators and professionals and doctors, but what we have really done is capped the income of the poorest people of this province. That which was supposed to be a minimum wage has, in effect, become a maximum wage. It has even prevented other benefits from being added to it. It has become a hardship imposed by government action upon the people of the province. It is indeed enforced poverty by government decree. I can agree, as was argued, that this was not the intention or the purpose of the minimum wage, but in reality it is what has taken place. In a responsible, caring society this has to change. We have to have a different way of doing these things and being concerned with our people than this outmoded method of capping the income of those who need it most.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Likewise, the current social services programs enforce deprivation, dependency and despair. The very programs that we collectively say are for the benefit of people are the ones that drive them down, hem them in and deprive them of the opportunity to express themselves in the fullness of life.
We have asked again and again in this Legislature to review the whole social services program that we have and that we've put together over this last number of years. The program is outdated; it is no longer viable. It no longer serves the needs of the people within our community, even if it might have been a valid program at one time.
There have been many piecework studies -- and even this budget suggests there will be more of them -- but piecework studies taken one by one, disconnected from each other, will never solve the problems that are before us. We need to make a total review of the organization and structure of our government, beginning at the municipal to the provincial to the federal.
Unfortunately, since that's not being done at the grass-roots level, the federal government is trying to do it from their perspective: from the top down. Try as they might, that will not work, because reform has to come from the people out. The majority of businesses around the world have discovered that. They go to their front-line people and ask: "How can we do a better job?" The front-line people who deal with the circumstances can tell them how to do it, and then they can respond accordingly.
We're on the verge of a catastrophe within our communities, and we need to be aware of it. The signs of uncertainty and disconnectedness in people are around the world. They're here among us as well, and we dare not neglect them. Some of us lived through the Depression of the thirties, and we are concerned that our children might have to go through that again -- or even worse if it comes again.
This is an urgent concern, and that concern is not reflected in this good-news budget of the present Legislature. It is not a budget which sets out to re-evaluate the kind of services that we are providing on behalf of the people of the province. It's not a budget which sets out to ask the basic question of what adjustments need to be made in our whole government process.
We have over the years built a system of ministries whereby we divide our process into categories. It's something like a specialist who looks at your foot but never talks to the doctor who looks at your head, and they never discuss with the doctor who looks at your stomach. Each one of them gives a diagnosis completely unrelated to the other. That's what's happening in the ministries of our government at the present time. Each one is giving a diagnosis unrelated to the other parts of that process. This budget does not give a holistic -- that's the word today -- view of the circumstances in which we're living. In that sense, it is not honest. It is not fair to the people of our province to say that this is a
[ Page 9657 ]
good-news budget, because it is not good news, particularly to the 25 percent of our population who are ignored by it, who are overlooked by it and who in the long run will be punished and deprived even more because of it.
The amendment we are speaking to says that through its "interventionist, ideologically driven spending measures," the budget "continues to hamper the development of a healthy, diversified provincial economy." That's the summary of why I speak for the amendment and against the budget at this time.
G. Brewin: In spite of the comments we've had from other members of this Legislature, their doom and gloom and their disastrous analysis of what's happening here, I am pleased to speak in favour of the budget that was introduced just last week. I am astonished at the Liberal opposition. They seem to want to say that in the question of whether the glass is half full or half empty, it is very clearly a quarter empty. There's nothing there at all as far as they are concerned. I haven't heard anything quite so negatively exaggerated in my life as what's in this budget. It's just extraordinary.
Sure we're living in difficult times, and it's very problematic for a lot of people in our community, but I would suggest that in spite of all those difficulties and abounding problems, we have come up with a very positive budget in these grave economic times. It responds to community needs across this whole province in almost every sector of our economy and every sector of our social fabric. I am really proud of that.
This is one of the most positive budgets that we've seen in a long time here. I find myself contrasting it to some of the things that happened in Ottawa recently. I believe it is a Liberal government in Ottawa. What happened to some of the promises they made? What happened to jobs? What happened to all those big promises in the last election about jobs? Gosh, nothing happened about jobs, except that they work only if the provinces cooperate. Well done. Good for the feds. Pass it off to somebody else. Are we surprised that jobs didn't emerge from Ottawa? No, we're not surprised that they didn't appear.
There are two other equally important issues, though they perhaps reflect less in terms of provincial issues. What about NAFTA? What about the cruise missiles? The public spoke. We have heard our Liberal colleagues say that it's important to listen to what the public is saying. The public spoke out on NAFTA and cruise missiles, and what did the federal government do? My goodness, they didn't follow through on their promises. This is not exactly what we had been led to expect would happen with a Liberal government. So I have my grave doubts, and I think this throws some of the comments they have chosen to make about our budget proposals into limbo -- if not into some negative world out there. I see that this budget is indeed fairer to all British Columbians than any we have seen in many years. I see it as much more balanced between the enormous and heavily competing interests in this province; it is more between the difficulties of our economic needs and social needs. I see this budget as very open and honest.
I must say that I have also been pleasantly surprised -- and I've really enjoyed the sense of surprise that others have had about how good this budget really is. We've heard some of the observations. The Finance minister has already read out some of them, and I've come across some of them myself. I have talked to several taxi drivers who, as we all know, are very tuned in to what the community and the public are saying. They were uniformly saying that this is a really wonderful budget; it's putting money in the pockets of people who can then take taxis. Isn't that an important thing for small business in our community?
I also cite the example of a very prominent businessman in the Victoria area who is attached to a provincial business body. He sat in this chamber on the day of the budget, and he confessed later that he nearly burst into applause at the end of the budget speech. Well, that says something. This is a very astute and successful businessman in our community, and he saw this budget as an extraordinarily important, useful, far-reaching and helpful budget. I'm also very conscious of the phone-ins to our local radio stations that have come forward in response to the budget and to our Premier discussing this budget on the radio. They have been uniformly very supportive of what's happening.
We know some of the very positive reactions to the budget from the financial experts in the community, and others have said that this sure is a budget to die for. We've had all kinds of provincial groups that came to do that.
[4:45]
I really like this budget because it speaks to many of the people I represent in Victoria-Beacon Hill. It speaks to and works for working men and women in my constituency. It works for and speaks to women, children and families in my community. It works for seniors, for business and even for the odd car dealer in my constituency of Victoria-Beacon Hill. I like its overall concepts, its economic framework and its very specific points. The highlights of this budget will continue putting our financial house in order, as we started to years ago, given the pressures we were under. It will continue cutting waste and duplication in order that we may continue to reduce our debt. It freezes many taxes for three years and actually cuts some other taxes. It puts people first, and it focuses on jobs. We and our Finance minister have been out talking to people across the province, and we know that one of the very important things is to build our communities for the future.
Let's look at some of the specifics in this budget. The 1994 budget is not just about numbers; it is, indeed, about people. It's for people who care about their communities and their way of life. It's for working men and women who want jobs that support their families. This budget advances the government's plan to build a secure and prosperous British Columbia. It's based on clear, realistic goals, and it puts the priorities of ordinary people first. It focuses on areas where government can make a real difference and protects what is special about our province. As I said earlier, we consulted widely on this budget so that we would know and reflect in the budget the messages we heard. We heard those messages loud and clear, and they said no more taxes, cut the deficit and get tough on spending. That's exactly what this budget does.
At the same time, British Columbians want government -- in spite of our friends saying "interventionist" -- to protect essential services and make investments that build for the future. Where does the private sector get involved in protecting essential services? Government plays that kind of role. The province must continue to make investments in roads, schools and health care, and it's only us here who can do that. We must invest in people to ensure that B.C. workers have the skills to get jobs in the changing economy, which we all know is happening right in front of us and underneath us.
This budget delivers what British Columbians have asked for. It freezes taxes for three years: no new taxes, no tax increases and a freeze on personal income taxes, sales taxes and school taxes. That puts money in people's pockets. That helps build communities. That helps the women, children, families and seniors in my community of Victoria-Beacon
[ Page 9658 ]
Hill to keep going and to keep that sense of hope that this budget provides. This budget provides tax cuts totalling $112 million for individuals and businesses. Those who say that we're a government that doesn't understand where business is going and its concerns are just not reading the message right.
This budget reduces the provincial deficit very significantly from $1.2 billion this year to $898 million in the next year. By the end of the coming year we will have reduced that deficit by $1.5 billion or, the number I like, a reduction of 60 percent since we took office. That is significant; that's what's in this budget. That's why this is a good budget for British Columbia. Over the next two years our economic plan calls for the deficit to be eliminated entirely and a balanced budget to be achieved in 1996-97. We're going to do this by carefully managing and controlling government expenditures -- not slash-and-burn, not cutting everything that comes in sight, but managing and controlling expenditures. No new taxes; no severe cuts to services. B.C.'s economic growth is expected to continue, allowing the province to achieve some of these fiscal imperatives.
It's interesting to see what's happened to our economy. A lot of doom-and-gloom people, the naysayers, suggest that we're not doing very well. It's true that not every single person is achieving the goals they have set for themselves and their families. We're trying to produce the kind of stable economy in which individual and personal goals and vision can indeed be satisfied and achieved. And we're getting some international support for this. When international organizations look at B.C., they see something really good happening here. International bond-rating agencies confirm that our fiscal position is the best in Canada. Do these bond-rating agencies come out of nowhere? Have they no experience in this? Have they no statistics for comparison? They say we're the best in Canada, and that surely has to do with our careful management of public finances and with getting our financial house in order.
We have brought government spending under control -- to a fraction of the 12 percent growth rate that we inherited just two and a half years ago. This year's budget represents a cut in real per capita spending of 1.3 percent. That doesn't seem like much, but it's an enormous amount in actual dollars. One of the ways we will achieve some of these other goals is by looking at some of our agencies. It's hard to do this, because some of these agencies have been doing good work for us. But we're saying that we can find other ways to do that. We have to make some cuts and reductions, and this is what we'll do. We've talked about this before. Four government agencies have been declared redundant. There is another one that we believe can be more cost-effectively handled by the private sector.
We continue to look for new ways to make government more efficient and accountable, particularly in the areas of health and education. Some would like us to eliminate the deficit immediately. We've heard this from many people: "Cut it immediately. Stop borrowing to finance investments in essential facilities such as schools and hospitals." They say we should slash services no matter who gets hurt.
I remember when another government did that sort of thing back in the eighties. I was in municipal politics in Victoria. We saw what happened when the provincial government of that day was really thoughtless and careless and just cut it away and created some real problems in this province. One of the ways that that happened had to do with the problems in our school system. Over five years they spent only $25 million on school construction in this province. We have estimated that if we were to do marginal catch-up in all that, we would have to spend $800 million for each year for ten years to make up for that loss. I don't think that was very sensible spending or sensible policy in those days.
We certainly know the effect of not carrying through with some of these important investments in our communities -- the social capital that we must put into our communities as they grow. We know of Surrey and other parts of this province that need these kinds of services. We've said it is possible to do that. It is possible to balance budgets in the next couple of years; it's possible to bring down deficits; it's possible to reduce the debt. And it is possible to know we can provide for the needs of our seniors, our poor and our children and families. That's what this budget does, and that's why I'm so proud to support this budget and to see it here in front of us today.
I see that my time is running short, and I would like to close with some brief remarks that perhaps pull together some of the ways, as I look at it, in which women and children in my community will find benefits from this budget. We see that taxes are frozen. Their income tax will not go up. We see that Medical Services Plan premiums are frozen -- again, it's money staying in their pockets. Personal income tax stays in place; there is no increase in sales tax or in school tax. These are actual cuts in some expenditures that will help them.
Those who live in co-ops are getting a tax break; there are homeowner grants; and 8,100 jobs are to be created in the next number of years. That's part of what we're trying to do here. There will be 7,400 child care spaces in the next couple of years. That helps the people of my community and the people of British Columbia.
We're looking at the two clear goals of this budget. One is clearly financial -- eliminating the annual deficit and controlling the growth of government debt. We know how we're going to do that: by eliminating the B.C. Endowment Fund and putting all the proceeds from that into debt reduction. That message is a very important one that we cannot ignore. It is a significant commitment by this government to look at that long-term.... What am I trying to say? I'm running out of steam at this point.
The budget continues our progress by cutting the deficit. It freezes taxes. It cuts taxes by $112 million for ordinary British Columbians and businesses and strengthens our position as the best-managed province in the country.
Our second goal is clearly to invest in our future. The budget recognizes that the biggest challenge facing all of us is our changing economy. We all have that sense of living on shifting sands. It's a very difficult time we're living in. In fact, this budget takes -- if you'll excuse the pun -- concrete action to meet that challenge by revitalizing our forest sector, by investing in people, by building our infrastructure, by creating jobs and by putting new skills in the hands of British Columbians as we make this transition to the new economy.
This budget lays a very solid foundation to build a healthy and secure future for everyone in British Columbia.
T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I haven't had a chance to welcome you to your new role, and I'd like to pay tribute to you. I was both a great admirer of your predecessor and of yourself. I must say that you're looking particularly magisterial in your new costume. I can't help but reflect on the photograph of you out in the corridor that shows you in the original costume you wore when you came to this chamber and sat on the benches opposite, I believe. You looked pretty
[ Page 9659 ]
magisterial in your dashiki in those days, but you look even more so in your new robes.
I don't think it will come as a surprise to you -- perhaps it will -- that I'm rising in opposition to the specious amendment proposed by the opposition. There is certainly a tradition of proposing a contrary amendment, but there is no tradition of such a specious one. For example, I quote from the amendment: "the budget continues to hamper the development of a healthy, diversified provincial economy through its interventionist, ideologically driven spending measures." If that isn't specious, it's certainly funny, and that's more than I can say for most of what the opposition forces us to listen to in this chamber.
I would like to use this chance to speak directly to those people who are watching us, in the event that there are some. We never know whether anyone is watching. If any of you are out there, let me tell you that I welcome the chance to speak to you directly, without the filter of the media, so that you can hear us unedited and make up your own minds as to whether the arguments make sense or not.
[5:00]
I'd like to begin by responding briefly to some remarks of the member for Vancouver-Langara, who, although he was gloomy -- I agree with the previous speaker -- was at least more thoughtful than some of what we've heard in the past.
Interjection.
T. Perry: He was lachrymose, as the member for Nanaimo says.
He did represent something profoundly different, I believe, from the rest of his ranks. I couldn't help remarking that when he observed that ministries are sometimes disconnected from each other like doctors, as he put it, who examine the foot and think not of the head, or examine the head and think not of some other part of the anatomy and do not take a holistic view of the whole patient, it struck me that he's a little out of date. He doesn't realize how much progress doctors have made in the last decade or so towards holistic medicine. He was really more appropriately describing his own caucus. His remarks about poor people, the state of society and its ability to address the problems of people living in poverty were so out of keeping with everything else that I have ever heard from any other member of his caucus that it made me wonder how he could find himself comfortable within the Liberal Party.
Hon. Speaker, speaking through you to the public -- as the only member in the entire history of this assembly who has ever attempted to live on a social assistance income....
K. Jones: I think the hon. Speaker has had that experience.
T. Perry: The hon. Speaker is exactly whom I'm referring to. He is the only member who, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to live on a social assistance income for a month and has personal knowledge of what it is like.
It would be particularly poignant for you to realize that the member from the opposition who spoke a few moments ago hardly represented the concerns of his own party, which, in general, has taken every opportunity to question raises to the minimum wage and inflationary adjustments to social assistance allowances that have only barely allowed people to keep up with inflation -- if that. I welcome it, but I have to observe that if that represented the views of his party, I would feel more comfortable about the future of our province.
Let me come back to the basic message of this budget. Although it does not, in a stroke, alleviate the problems of poor people any more than any budget or legislation possibly could, I think it's good for all people in B.C., including the least fortunate in our society, because it is carefully crafted to enable us to protect the basic services that Canadians and British Columbians treasure. Health care is publicly available, accessible, universal and affordable -- equal for all citizens regardless of their economic status. Public education in public schools, colleges and universities is equal and affordable throughout the province and is accessible to people regardless of their economic status, social background, race, economic class or any other consideration. Few other governments in Canada are trying as hard as this government to protect those values that Canadians have come to take for granted.
This government is fiscally responsible. It characterizes a record that the public sometimes fails to recognize. In fact, the New Democrats in power have been the most fiscally responsible of all governments. It's not perfect by any means; we don't pretend to the perfection that the opposition sometimes alleges. But our record speaks for itself. We have been more fiscally responsible than any government in this province's history. New Democratic governments across the country, starting with Tommy Douglas's in Saskatchewan, have always been more fiscally responsible than their Liberal or Conservative counterparts.
Look at the record in the budget and briefing document available to British Columbians through the Minister of Finance. The deficit is down from $2.4 billion when we took office to $898 million this year. It's heading for zero, and the government is committed to a zero deficit in 1996. The deficit for the 1993 fiscal year came in well under budget. Revenues, fortunately for all of us, were better than predicted, and spending was held tightly within the limits.
Interjection.
T. Perry: I hear the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove warbling again. He doesn't seem to understand that taxes actually buy necessary services for people. Hospitals do not grow out of the ground for free; they are paid for by everyone's taxes. Public education comes out of public taxes. The members opposite somehow seem to think that taxes are inherently bad and that they don't provide services. They've followed that American neoconservative doctrine that taxes are an inherent evil. They are deviating from the long-established bipartisan Canadian policy that taxes well-spent and levied at an affordable and fair rate are an inherent part of having a society that is different from the barbarian societies from which we evolved.
I note the three-year tax freeze on income tax rates and sales tax rates. There will be no increase in Medical Services Plan premiums. I personally wish that we could eliminate such premiums, but I recognize that in the present fiscal climate, that's impossible. At least they are frozen this year. There will be no increase in the corporation income or capital tax rates, and there will be a reduction in the corporation capital tax for those in British Columbia who are most affected by it: small businesses. I note that there will be tax cuts totalling $112 million for low-income people.
There are other measures -- for example, the elimination of the property purchase tax for people buying their first house. This is a tax that the Social Credit government brought in a number of years ago, and now people struggling to make a down payment and get an affordable mortgage will have the relief of not having to pay an additional tax on their first purchase, while those who are flipping properties will not be spared from a fair tax.
[ Page 9660 ]
I would like to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance, who is sitting in the chamber now, for having undertaken the most extensive prebudget consultation in B.C. history and for clearly listening to the input she received from around the province -- and there were too. She has made some healthy changes in this year's budget which reflect a change from past policy. I think they show that the government is listening to people, that we're prepared to admit that we're not always right, we don't think that we're perfect and we're prepared to learn from experience. That's a valuable quality in a government, and one which the public respects. The public does not expect us to always be perfect; they do expect us not to make the same mistakes twice, and we have shown in this budget that we are prepared to listen.
Let me talk further about some highlights I found personally very exciting. The skills training initiative referred to in the budget and the throne speech provides an additional $200 million in real new money over the next two years for skills training to adapt our young people and people who are affected by changes in the global economy and the British Columbia economy. The creation of 8,100 new full-time places in the college and university system is a dramatic increase in accessibility. For those people who are out there listening, I urge them to think about this. I note that the Canadian Federation of Students criticized the budget for not providing a significant increase in access. No government in British Columbia history has ever come close to that increase in access in the public post-secondary education system.
Interjection.
T. Perry: I note the member opposite says that it didn't happen under my tenure as minister. I regret that it didn't, but I'm darned glad that it's happening under the new minister and under this Minister of Finance. It's great news for the people of B.C. Perhaps I flatter myself in thinking that I had a small role -- and I had a hell of a lot bigger role than that member did! I can't remember him once genuinely advocating for students.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
T. Perry: He refers to the Fraser Valley. I note with great pleasure that the new University College of the Fraser Valley will now be able to offer four-year degrees autonomously. It will break the monopoly of the existing universities. It will have innovative programs. It will offer as high -- or perhaps even higher -- a quality of education and training as our current universities do, as will the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Malaspina College in Nanaimo, Okanagan University College and the University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops, and elsewhere, and perhaps in the near future the Emily Carr College of Art and Design in my riding, as well as Capilano College and others. I think that's a very exciting development for this province. We will have innovative new degree programs matched to the needs of industry and business, like the BCIT program, from which students will no longer have to graduate from an existing university and then go to BCIT to get some real hands-on skills. They'll be able to go straight to BCIT and get their skills and their degrees. That will provide extremely useful competition for the existing universities, driving them to not only pursue their current standard of excellence, which is world recognized, but to become even better. That's healthy competition from a New Democratic government that believes we can make our province even better than it already is.
I am delighted to see the new emphasis on apprenticeship and the resources to follow it -- skills training. The new relations between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour have broken down decades of poor communication between those two ministries. I think the member for Vancouver-Langara perhaps had a germ of truth in referring to imperfect relations between ministries. Those are rapidly being improved, thanks to the planning function of the government. The deputy minister to the Premier is owed a considerable debt for having succeeded in obliging that cooperation between ministries, which is going to be very productive.
Just before I turn to Health, I want to pay tribute to someone who was not mentioned in the throne speech. I noticed that there has been a tradition to mention people in the throne speech who are no longer with us. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to someone who contributed greatly to the public post-secondary system of this province: Mr. Gerry Schwartz. Gerry was a member of the board of governors of Vancouver Community College from 1992 until his premature death last September. Before that he was the executive director of the Universities Council of B.C. and a prominent executive of the Montreal Children's Hospital. He was a very prominent chartered accountant, who devoted an enormous amount of volunteer services to the Vancouver Community College. He literally hauled himself out of a hospital bed to attend meetings of the board with me while I was the minister and when he was only a few months away from his death from leukemia. Gerry is greatly missed. I'm very pleased that the government has seen fit to contribute to a scholarship and bursary fund in his honour at the Vancouver Community College. I'd like to invite members of the House to note his passing and pay tribute with me to that kind of dedication, which is characteristic of the volunteer boards in our post-secondary system.
Having spoken of Gerry Schwartz, I want to pay tribute to two other people. Justice Peter Seaton, chair of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, died prematurely and very suddenly last December. Justice Seaton was an extraordinary individual who was farsighted not only in his role in the health care field but also as the judge who ruled in the Meares Island case, which recognized the traditional rights of aboriginal people in Clayoquot Sound. The tributes paid to him at his memorial service were remarkable, because of his common sense, his wisdom, his sense of humour and his common humanity -- something I noticed as an audience member at the hearings of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. He was a very level-headed man. He stood for the average citizen and enabled them to put their voices before that commission. He always regarded himself with a wonderful, wry, self-deprecating sense of humour -- something we see very infrequently in this chamber. He is a great loss to our province and is greatly missed by hundreds of people.
I also want to pay tribute to Sue Rodriguez, who was, I believe, a genuine British Columbia hero. She drew not only national but international attention for her valiant struggle with her own illness. She loved her life right up to the last minute. Contrary to some of the depictions of her in the media and in commentaries, she fought her illness, ALS, right up to the time she died. She loved every minute of her life while it was productive, and she managed to die in her own home and in a dignified way, with the support of tremendous community-health resources -- wonderful
[ Page 9661 ]
health workers and laypeople, who helped her cope with her illness at home.
[5:15]
I think it's relevant to mention that, because following the leadership of the former Minister of Health, I'm very pleased that the government has continued to expand resources in this budget for community health. Not only is health spending increased to keep up with population growth and inflation, but there's also a significant increase of over $40 million for the community-health sector. That will allow specific funding for such programs as new outpatient clinics, home-based intravenous therapy and palliative care of the kind that Sue Rodriguez received in her own home prior to her death. Many of those programs are long overdue. Home-intravenous treatment began in Manitoba as early as the 1970s. We're rather late following that lead, but it's a very significant step forward and one I'm very glad to see in this budget.
I want to speak briefly about Pharmacare reform. I notice that the Vancouver Sun has a lead editorial today criticizing the government's reform of Pharmacare, suggesting that the reforms "may well result in higher costs for other medical services," and later on that "the working poor, seniors at the low end of the income scale and those with high drug expenses, such as patients with cancer or AIDS, who do not have access to private extended health care insurance," would be hurt. I think nothing could be further from the truth. It's important for the public to understand that a great deal of thought went into these reforms.
The Pharmacare budget was grossly out of control for the last five years. The former government did nothing to address it. Our government was saddled with sufficient other problems that were even more pressing that we were not able to attend to it in our first two years, but we have now taken the matter in hand. Those cost increases -- which for the sake of time I won't deal with now -- are dramatic and have amounted to an increase of 151 percent in the ingredient costs for drugs over the last six years. That's completely out of control and had to be dealt with.
The government has taken some very positive steps. The basic aim of Pharmacare is to ensure that sick people who need a good drug which can help their health will get it, regardless of their economic or social status or where they live in the province. That will continue to be the case; let there be no doubt about it. These reforms are very carefully designed to ensure that that remains the case.
The Pharmacare report prepared by Dr. Petch, the former president of the University of Victoria, was flawed in one fundamental way: it would have led us away from universality. It would have put drugs on a different footing from other services, be they medical services, physiotherapy, podiatry or hospital services. A good drug for the appropriate medical condition is every bit as important in therapy as any other kind of therapy. This policy ensures that that principle will remain. It also ensures that we will no longer squander our scarce public resources paying for expensive drugs when cheaper alternatives are available.
I read from a report prepared by the British Columbia Pharmacists' Society for the review panel on Pharmacare. For the top 25 substitutable drugs in B.C., simply using a generic or non-brand-name drug -- like simply taking the label off the Coca-Cola bottle, where drinking it tastes the same whether the label is on or not, these are the identical drugs with the identical therapeutic effect -- gives a saving in price difference of 37.2 percent, 51.3 percent, 23.2 percent, 33.7 percent, 42.7 percent, 74.1 percent, 93.2 percent, 44.3 percent, and similarly.
The current policies -- explained in a beautiful, easy-to-read, simple pamphlet now available in doctors' offices for patients, entitled "Low-Cost Alternative Drug Program" -- are intended to save the taxpayer money in a rational way. Again, this is something long overdue in our province; it's about time we did it. I hope the editorial writers at the Vancouver Sun will take a second look themselves and think through the options. I think they'll agree we made the most sensible, best designed option among the available options to protect the public interest.
I have a few brief notes about items in the budget which particularly encourage me as an individual and as the MLA for Vancouver-Little Mountain. The science and technology fund will be increased this year. I believe one of the mistakes of our government was reduction in those funds in the last two years. This year they are increased by at least 11 percent and perhaps more. I think that's good news for B.C., for young scientists and engineers who will be hired through these new funds, and for small business in this province. I regret that the opposition doesn't seem interested in that area, because that's the future of our province. It's not only in the lower mainland, and not only in southern Vancouver Island, where high technology companies are booming; it's the future of our province throughout B.C. The new University of Northern British Columbia will do its share to ensure that those benefits are achieved throughout our province.
The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture has succeeded this year in achieving modest new funds for cultural initiatives and significant new funds for tourism promotion. We will now be back with advertisements around the world promoting B.C. tourism, promoting the wonderful new parks and wilderness we've created -- like the Khutzeymateen, the Tatshenshini, the Ts'yl-os Provincial Park and many other new provincial parks to come. I think all of us will benefit, perhaps particularly those of us in the lower mainland for whom tourism is absolutely burgeoning now.
I am very pleased that the minister has been able to work with groups like Tourism Vancouver, and I look forward to participating in that and helping to do my bit to encourage more tourism -- the second industry in British Columbia.
The most important issue facing this government is the one to which the member for Vancouver-Langara alluded, but I disagree completely with his conclusions. He asked the question: "What adjustments need to be made to basic government processes to ensure that our society remains sustainable?" The single biggest issue that we must address is the revitalization and stabilization of the forest industry -- our number one industry in B.C.
This industry must become economically and environmentally sustainable to ensure that it is able to keep on exporting its products to sensitive markets like those in Europe and the United States so that we do not exceed the annual sustainable cut, so that we bring ourselves within ecological limits and so that jobs persist not only for the current generation of people employed in the forest industry but for their children, their children's children, and so on unto the seventh generation and further.
We have something to learn from the aboriginal people who thought that way throughout their history. We have not; we have relied on the frontier ethic. This is the first government in British Columbia history ever to try to deal with the long-term future of the forest industry and render it sustainable. I have full confidence that the present Minister of Forests, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, who has two years' experience in the Forests portfolio, the
[ Page 9662 ]
Premier and staff are going to achieve something that no other government in Canadian history has ever achieved -- a workable revitalization strategy. As the Minister of Forests termed it a couple of days ago, it will ensure that workers do not lose their jobs, that communities on Vancouver Island and elsewhere do not collapse and that we observe the fundamentals which Mr. Stephen Owen brought us in his Vancouver Island CORE report: to guarantee the preservation of representative ecosystems, the preservation of biological diversity, the preservation of recreational opportunities for our citizens and those of the rest of the world, the preservation of corridors between such protected areas and the preservation of the communities that depend on that industry.
I think that is the most exciting thing that has happened in British Columbia politics in this century. It's an incredibly difficult challenge to carry out. I think it bespeaks not only the hard work of this government but the courage of this government to be willing to tackle that issue and not simply reap the benefits of a very good log market, cream off the cash now -- as every other government before us would have done -- pay off the debt in one fell swoop and leave the problems for future governments and future British Columbians, particularly the young people of this province. Those young people have told me that they want to see a vision not just for the next few years and not just summer jobs. They want to know what life is going to be like for them when they're the age of most of us in this assembly. When they start realizing how farsighted that government policy actually is, they will realize that this is a historic achievement in British Columbia.
We're not there yet. We have to see the achievement, but I feel increasingly confident that we shall. I know one thing for darned sure: we would not see it from any other party. We don't hear the Liberal opposition, the Social Credit -- the fragmented Reform -- or the independents talking about it. In two and a half years in this assembly, I have not heard one intelligent, coherent reference to the future of the forest industry, to training needs or to conservation goals. Nor have I heard any coherent policy.... I've heard perhaps a coherent policy from the member for Okanagan East, who no longer speaks for anyone but herself. I have never heard anything coherent from the opposition benches, and if I'm wrong, I'd be delighted to hear it.
Interjections.
T. Perry: I hear members opposite braying that they disagree. If they've got something coherent to say, it will sure make it more interesting to sit in this chamber, rather than listening to the boring speeches they usually provide us.
Hon. Speaker, I've probably exceeded my time. I was just beginning to get on a roll, but I see there's only one minute to the proposed vote, and I will wind up now.
[5:30]
This budget is good common sense. I encourage the public to phone Enquiry B.C. if they want copies of it. I've got the number right here for those who'd like to have it. The lower mainland number is 660-2421; perhaps someone will get me the toll-free number. It's in the blue pages anywhere else in the province for those of you who are listening. If you want documents on the budget, if you want more information about the Pharmacare review, if you want to know more about the expansion of post-secondary services, Enquiry B.C. is a public service which you pay for with your taxes. Call and get yourself the information: I think you'll be impressed.
Thank you very much for your interest, hon. Speaker. I know that at least you were listening with rapt attention.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 20 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Dalton |
Campbell |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Hurd |
Gingell |
|
Stephens |
Weisgerber |
Hanson |
|
Serwa |
Wilson |
Tyabji |
|
H. De Jong |
Neufeld |
Fox |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
Warnke |
|
Anderson |
|
Jarvis |
|
NAYS -- 33 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Charbonneau |
Perry |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Cull |
Gabelmann |
|
MacPhail |
Ramsey |
Blencoe |
|
Lovick |
Pullinger |
Janssen |
|
Evans |
Randall |
Farnworth |
|
Doyle |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Kasper |
Brewin |
|
Copping |
Lali |
Hartley |
On the main motion.
D. Lovick: This is my first opportunity to rise in debate in the Legislature, and I'm delighted at the opportunity. I've already heard various comments from across the way suggesting that because I now hold the position of Deputy Speaker, I will thereupon magically be transformed into a non-partisan member. I want to assure members that I will not be non-partisan, but I will continue to be my delicate, gentle, reasonable and understanding self.
Let me begin, hon. Speaker, by offering my comments of congratulations to you and to two other members of this chamber. Congratulations to you on your ascension to the Chair, which I'm sure all of us in this House recognize as well deserved. We have every confidence you will do good things. I congratulate you on that appointment.
Interjections.
D. Lovick: That election. The annunciation, if you prefer.
I also want to welcome and congratulate the new member for Matsqui. I was most appreciative to observe that he has spent considerable time sitting in this chamber learning what actually goes on. How very nice that is to see, that somebody may indeed understand the rules. I also had a wonderful sensation of deja vu the other day when I heard the member for Matsqui warning our government, with great passion, that the day of reckoning is near. I thought: aha, it sounds to me like the 1935 version of Social Credit and Bible Bill Aberhart. I wondered if the member had figured out that he is now a Liberal rather than a Socred, or if the coalition is perhaps still confused in that regard.
May I also offer my welcome and congratulations to the new Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. [Applause.]
This is going to go to my head, Hon. Speaker. It seems that every time I make a comment in this House, I always get at
[ Page 9663 ]
least a few moments of sustained ovation from the benches opposite. I see that they are carrying on the old tradition.
I want to say how pleased I was to hear the Leader of the Opposition say in his first speech to the chamber that things were going to be different. Indeed, he made the point that what he wanted to stress above all was "the importance of moving beyond blame." The predicament was simply that for the next 15 minutes we heard nothing but blame. This government had all the sins of the world laid upon its doorstep. We were being blamed for everything from hemorrhoid to hormones and from not enough cheese on nacho chips to not enough chicken in TV dinners. Every conceivable sin that afflicts the species was somehow laid at the foot of this government. [Applause.]
I want to thank members opposite for being so marvellously predictable and doing precisely what they do on cue, which is to play the same old rather obsolete anachronistic games of opposition without substance, the rather ritualistic thumping of desks, yelling and bouncing around trying to show that indeed they are different. Sadly, they aren't very different. What we have is the same old gang.
We're now involved in a budget debate. For all those people who perhaps don't pay that much attention to what goes on in the chamber, a budget debate is simply the government's statement of what it wants to do and how it proposes to pay for what it is intending to do. My colleagues and I take some pride in the fact that we have accomplished a great deal in the last couple of years. It hasn't been easy; nobody would pretend it has been.
You've all heard the lines from the Premier in terms of what this budget is. I'm going to repeat them, because they're absolutely right and deserve to be repeated from every rooftop in the province. "Jobs up. Deficit down. Taxes frozen." Of course that by itself is only part of the story. The real part of the story that I want to articulate, if I might, is how we achieved it. This is a development; this is the culmination of a number of things we have set in motion. What that does is take us to what I would refer to, a little modestly, as the identifying features of this administration for the past two and a half years. I'm talking about the clear contrast between our approach to dealing with the fundamental problems facing all governments...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
D. Lovick: ...namely the allocation of scarce resources and the attempt to satisfy demands that are on a rising curve with a reducing supply of resources. That's the reality every government everywhere in the world is facing. What we have done in response to that is proceed cautiously and with what I think can fairly be described as balance and fairness.
An Hon. Member: You're on very thin ice.
D. Lovick: No, I'm not on very thin ice, my friend. I'll tell you who's on thin ice. The people who are on thin ice are the folks on the other side of the House who are still hiding behind the nostrums of the eighties, of neoconservatism, and pretending that stuff still has some validity. Members opposite are still arguing that the solutions to the problem are right there before us, and that all we have to do is grab them by -- you guessed it -- reducing taxes for business and the wealthiest members of our community. You're all still saying that, despite the demonstrable blatant failure of Brian Mulroney's Conservatives, who brought forward precisely that same ideology. You're all hiding behind the same stuff -- through you, Mr. Speaker, ere anybody thinks I have forgotten the rules of the chamber.
I want to suggest that if we are honest with each other -- and I would dearly hope we would be -- we will recognize that we are talking about an economy and a society throughout the world whose sustainability, environmental constraints, automation and mechanization are in question. All the old arguments about what you could do with an economy to give it a jolt, make it work and produce full employment -- all of those things most of us grew up with and believed in -- are now in question. We are suggesting that if you work at it slowly, gradually and, dare I say, with reverence, you might be able to make it. You don't do it with asinine comments from people opposite, who say that they want hospitals, schools, roads and municipal infrastructure, but they want to do it without raising taxes or going into debt. For goodness' sake, you can't say that. How can anybody have any credibility making that kind of claim? They simply can't do it. The evidence is overwhelming.
[5:45]
I don't dispute for a moment the fact that members opposite, just like members on this side, are bound and determined to provide the best service they can to their own constituents. But I have to wonder out loud: what do those members who say we should reduce the deficit say to their constituents. Those members say that we should reduce the deficit even more dramatically and rapidly than we have -- which is considerable -- that we should not increase the debt and that we should cut government spending. I want to ask those members what they say to their constituents when they meet with them.
What do they say, for example, when they're placed in a situation such as the one I found myself in a couple of weeks ago; namely, in a meeting with a delegation from the Nanaimo and district school board and the city of Nanaimo, in which those people were making a very coherent and legitimate case. They said: "Our community is growing very rapidly -- something like 6 percent per year. It's a frightening thought, and it puts a tremendous strain on things. We have a problem with it, because we don't have sufficient buildings, physical plants, to deal with our students." Those parents and their representatives are saying that portables aren't good enough for their students; we should build schools. We ask those people to recognize, please, that we don't have the money. We have to maintain a fine balance between how much we can borrow while still being responsible and building those vital services. I would love to ask any member on the opposite side to answer that question for me. I'd like to know what those people would say to their local hospital board, to their local school board, to the ratepayers associations and to others, because those demands are legitimate.
An Hon. Member: Tell them the truth.
D. Lovick: The member opposite says, "Tell them the truth," and that's precisely what we have done. We are saying that we are going to try to provide those services, but to do so you are going to have to acknowledge that a long-term debt is built in. It must be. Capital construction equals debt. There's no other way, and anybody here who doesn't acknowledge that is not telling the truth. We need to do that.
I also want to ask the members opposite what they feel about demands for highway construction or infrastructure. When the federal government came up with their municipal
[ Page 9664 ]
infrastructure program, I wonder if they think we should have said: "Take your money" -- our money, because ultimately it's all ours -- "and spend it somewhere else, because we don't want to put up our 33 percent in terms of building roads, hospitals, schools, sewer systems and sanitary systems." Would they say that? I don't think so. Instead, I think they would say, "Yes, it's a shame that this government can't listen to your needs and build more hospitals, schools and roads, etc.," and then come to this House and shamelessly stand up and say, "Let's not have any increase in debt; let's cut the deficit; let's lay off workers, etc."
I think, quite frankly, that there's a certain dimension of hypocrisy involved. I'm saddened by that, because what I fear is happening to this chamber and to politics everywhere is that we're all so involved in posturing that we fail to recognize what the cumulative effect of the posturing is. I, too -- and I'm certainly not going to pretend otherwise -- have been as guilty of that posturing, that showboating and that theatrical presentation as any other member of this House has been. But I want to suggest to members opposite that if we continue to do that and to make outrageous statements of the kind that we all get used to hearing.... For example, the member for Langley is looking at me now, mincing her words and saying things like "betrayal of trust," which is an outrageous accusation and ought not to be said except in front of a court of law. It's a serious accusation.
The Speaker: Please address the Chair, hon. member.
D. Lovick: It's a serious charge, Mr. Speaker. If we continue to exchange those sorts of insults back and forth, what possible credibility do we have as public representatives? I don't think we have any. If we continue to say -- as members opposite seem to be doing -- that we should not be going into debt and, at the same time, that we want to build all of these things as part of our infrastructure, what kind of credibility will we have? We continue to hear from members opposite -- as we heard some just the other day -- the suggestion that this government has failed the people because of the CORE process. There were 20,000 workers out on the steps of the Legislature, and they tried to use that as an illustration that this government is not doing what it should be doing. The reality is that the government has had the courage to grapple with the fundamental land use question in this province that has been left alone and unattended for lo these many years, and time was running out.
Members in the previous administration know that full well. To their credit, I think they were also closing in, recognizing that we had to do something about it. We couldn't leave it. And inevitably there will be protest. Just as there was protest over the Clayoquot decision, there will be protest over any significant land use question in this province. What should be said is that maybe we could do it differently; maybe we could come up with a better way, but don't suggest that the government is at fault, because we're grappling with the fundamental question that hasn't been addressed.
In our efforts to gain some kind of short-term advantage one over the other, which is a necessary condition of an adversarial system, my fear is that we lambaste and undermine and criticize one another to the point where nobody believes anybody anymore. I said to hon. members that I have been as guilty of that as most. However, I like to think it wasn't empty rhetoric. I like to think that I haven't made outrageous accusations, because I don't think I have. I think the point is that all of us ought to acquire a little humility. All of us ought to acquire a little more sense of responsibility because, friends, the world has changed. Our province has gone through a significant economic upheaval. The marvel is that we have done it so well with relatively minimal cost and impact. And if you don't believe that, members opposite, open your eyes and look at other jurisdictions in this country. Show me one other province in Canada that can compare favourably with British Columbia in terms of its economic performance record. There isn't one.
Mr. Speaker, I see that we are about at the end of the time allotted for this debate. I would therefore respectfully move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Hon. E. Cull moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]