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)
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 13, Number 17
[ Page 9677 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to welcome 27 students from Prince of Wales Minischool to the Legislature today. Recently I had the opportunity to visit the Prince of Wales Minischool and speak to some of the students about government in British Columbia and the issues that they were concerned about. I'm very pleased to see that they're now able to come and watch the Legislature in session and democracy at work. I'd like the House to give them a welcome.
J. Sawicki: I'm very pleased to introduce two special guests with whom I had the great pleasure of spending last evening: the consul general of France, Yves Dutriaux, who is stationed in Ontario, and the press secretary, Carine van Zuylen, who is stationed in Vancouver. They are here for a meeting at UVic, but I convinced them to make a very short visit to our Legislature, and I hope the members will make them welcome.
U. Dosanjh: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming the bridge program students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, with Mr. Campbell, their teacher. I've had the occasion to visit Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my constituency, and it's one of the greatest schools around.
D. Mitchell: I would like to welcome two guests in the gallery: Mr. Mike Hillman, a good friend of mine, and also Mr. Lorne Scheffer, a new friend of mine. I would also like to introduce my two most important constituents, my two daughters, Madi and Jane, who are here today for the first time together.
MANUFACTURED HOME AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Manufactured Home Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. E. Cull: This bill proposes a number of amendments to the Manufactured Home Act. For the most part, these amendments provide authority to the manufactured-home registry to automate by putting its paper records into computer format.
Bill 3 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.
Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Accountants (Management) Act.
Hon. D. Miller: Bill 8 repeals and replaces the Accountants (Management) Act with new legislation for certified management accountants that is consistent with the legislation governing chartered accountants and certified general accountants. The significant changes are: changing the name of the society to the Certified Management Accountants' Society of British Columbia, increasing the number of lay members on the board of directors and incorporating practice-review and disciplinary procedures in the act.
Bill 8 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.
PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS
G. Campbell: The Liberal opposition has learned that another personal friend of the Premier has been parachuted into the bureaucracy. Gerry Scott -- the Premier's former campaign manager, a provincial secretary for the NDP, a two-time loser in NDP campaigns and the manager of that incredibly successful 1986 NDP campaign -- has now been hired as the manager of special projects in the Ministry of Environment. Can the Premier tell the taxpayers of British Columbia whether or not this job was advertised publicly, who hired Mr. Scott, what he is being paid, and what special projects this NDP hack is doing?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Environment.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: We won't let him get off the hook that easily.
The Speaker: Hon. member, the question was taken on notice. Will this be a new question?
G. Farrell-Collins: Of course.
The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: We can ask him a new question and still not let him off the hook, hon. Speaker. He is the Premier, after all -- if he needs reminding.
The Liberal opposition is aware of another patronage appointment of an NDP special friend. Mr. Jas Manak has also been parachuted into the bureaucracy, as the manager of special projects in the ministry of multiculturalism. He was a former executive to the current Minister of Environment. Can the Premier tell us if this job was advertised, what this gentleman is being paid, who hired him and what special projects he is doing for the Premier's special friends?
The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?
B.C. HYDRO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
G. Farrell-Collins: In keeping with the line of patronage appointments and nice packages that are being given to friends, this is to the Premier. Over the last two weeks the people of B.C. have been shocked and outraged by revelations of huge pay and pension packages for people at B.C. Hydro. The Liberal opposition has learned of yet another scam. It appears that Mr. Ken Peterson left Hydro in 1991 and received a severance package of $169,000, only to be rehired as a consultant weeks later at $90 per hour. How can the Premier continue to justify this constant abuse of the taxpayers by B.C. Hydro?
[ Page 9678 ]
Hon. G. Clark: As the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, I'm delighted to answer. Interestingly, the Opposition House Leader mentioned that Mr. Peterson left B.C. Hydro in 1991. If he's interested in the severance packages of anybody who left B.C. Hydro in 1991, I suggest that he ask the people who made that decision at the Leader of the Opposition's next fundraising dinner.
As I recall, Mr. Peterson worked for B.C. Hydro for 14 years and left their employ in 1991. On behalf of the government, I am delighted that he has come to work on the negotiations for downstream benefits, which are very important negotiations for the government of British Columbia. He reports to Marvin Shaffer, assistant deputy minister, and to the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Employment and Investment. The downstream benefits negotiations will mean over a billion dollars in assets returned to the people of British Columbia. We're delighted that Mr. Peterson is working on this important project.
The Speaker: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove with a supplementary.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will just advise the minister that he left and received $169,000 in severance pay, and within weeks he was rehired by B.C. Hydro at $90 an hour.
My supplementary question is to the same Premier -- we hope we'll get one of them. The Liberal opposition has learned of a second instance of this type of abuse. Mr. John Mausser, an ex-employee on a fully enhanced pension -- whatever that is -- has been paid $500 per day to advise the manager of strategic planning at B.C. Hydro on minor financial matters. Last year he received $60,000 working part-time in a job that's normally done by a budget clerk. Will the Premier please justify this type of continued outrageous expense by B.C. Hydro? Will he call B.C. Hydro before the Crown corporations committee of this Legislature so that we can get to the bottom of the mismanagement that has been going on under this administration?
Hon. G. Clark: It's important to note that there are thousands of employees at B.C. Hydro who work and pay significant amounts into a pension plan there. Those individuals, when they retire with a pension, still have legal rights to work in British Columbia. I think that the Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition should be very careful in precluding individuals who have something to contribute to British Columbia's success from continuing to work on projects related to their expertise.
COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier. On the first day of the legislative session the Premier advised this House that he alone authorized expenditures for the puffball advertising being done on behalf of the government. Since the buck stops with the Premier and the ads are continuing on television and in print, can the Premier tell us how much taxpayers' money has gone into this frivolous advertising campaign as of today?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: I assume that the member is talking about the campaign to advise British Columbians of how we are dealing with their tax dollars, to tell them about the tax freeze, to tell them that the deficit is down, to tell them that jobs are up and soon to tell them how first-time homebuyers can go about applying for the exemption to the property purchase tax. The total cost of this campaign is less than $500,000.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, it is very difficult to assess what is fair and unfair when members are disobeying the rules in the manner that we're experiencing this afternoon. I would ask members to please ask their questions and permit the answerer to respond.
The hon. member has a supplementary?
[2:15]
W. Hurd: Surely this is the most blatant advertising campaign that this province has ever seen. The best guesstimates are that the taxpayers of B.C. have now shelled out over $500,000 to promote a budget which digs into their pockets for a further $1.7 billion. The pages of Hansard are littered with examples of this government castigating the previous administration for this same hucksterism. How can the Premier stand up today and defend this blatant advertising hypocrisy which he attacked with such gusto when he was in opposition?
Hon. E. Cull: What the members on the other side are saying is that they don't want people to know about the property purchase tax, and they don't want people to know about the budget. In fact, we're not at all apologetic about taking this good budget message out to the people in this province. We're taking it out not only in the major newspapers but also in newspapers that deal with nine different languages in this province, so people can be aware and can judge for themselves how this budget is serving them.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Again to the Premier. According to information at the governing party's convention on the weekend, the NDP spent $400,000 propping up the ill-fated campaign of federal leader Audrey McLaughlin last November. Can the Premier assure the people of this province that the money that his party spent is not being recovered now with this thinly veiled advertising campaign?
COST OF NATIVE LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. The government has projected expenditures of $20 billion in the 1996-97 fiscal year, the year the government is supposedly going to balance its budget. Can the Premier tell us how much he has projected for cash settlement costs for native land claims in the year 1996-97?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member, as an experienced member of this House, understands that those kinds of questions and details will be fully explored during the estimates by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Those questions would be quite appropriate at that time.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplementary.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps, as is the Premier's wont, he misunderstands the question. The question is: in the budget of 1996-97 -- that's being advertised on radio as the year the
[ Page 9679 ]
government balances its budget -- is there an allowance for the cash costs for land claims settlements? That's not to deal with this year's budget. That's to deal with the promises being made by the government in its advertising program.
Hon. M. Harcourt: For a former member of a party -- or possibly a member of two parties; we're not quite sure of the member for Peace River South right now.... I thought he was in favour of the direction our government's going, of finally starting to settle in a just and honourable way with the aboriginal people. He was part of a party that for 40 years refused to deal with this issue.
Our government has negotiated a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government, where for $4 that the taxpayers of Canada put up there is $1 in kind put up by the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's a good, fair, negotiated cost-sharing agreement. There is now a Treaty Commission that can carry out these negotiations, so that we can move beyond the days of conflict, blockades, lawsuits and litigation by the aboriginal people and see that their rights are before the people of British Columbia. I think it's about time that the member for Peace River South got his head out of the past and into a far better future that's being created.
The Speaker: Final supplementary by the member for Peace River South, followed by the member for Comox Valley.
J. Weisgerber: I expect the short interpretation of that is no, the government simply hasn't planned for any costs associated with land claims in the future. Will the Premier tell us what efforts his government has made to evaluate the land and resources that the province will contribute to land claim settlements? What process has he used to evaluate those assets?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Once again, the member can fully explore these during the estimates. Yes, there has been a provision for the settlements for the next few years; yes, they are within the means of the people of British Columbia. They will bring a great benefit to the people of British Columbia: they will finally resolve the outstanding injustices that have happened for far too long to the aboriginal people. It will also be of tremendous benefit to the business community to have stability and predictability in their investments, and to the non-aboriginal people, who can see that a more peaceful, orderly and just British Columbia is going to be of benefit to everybody.
ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT CONTRACT
M. Lord: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Investment. The Opposition House Leader has clearly stated the Liberal Party's opposition to the local hiring requirements for the construction of the Island Highway project that were announced by the ministry last week. Can the minister assure the people of British Columbia, and indeed the people of the Comox Valley, that this government is committed to ensuring that this project provides local jobs for local communities like mine?
Hon. G. Clark: The main purposes of the Island Highway project agreement are to build the project on time and on budget, with no strikes or lockouts...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: ...and, most importantly, to provide some 15,000 person-years of employment to the people who live on Vancouver Island.
I can assure the member that those unemployed young people in the Comox region will have first opportunity to work on the Island Highway, before Alberta residents and before other people in British Columbia. I invite the Opposition House Leader to come with me to Campbell River, Comox and Nanaimo and tell those young people that he is opposed to local hire on the Island Highway.
Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the report of the commission of inquiry into the incident which occurred in the Vancouver city jail on November 16, 1983, conducted by the Hon. Lloyd G. McKenzie.
Hon. E. Cull tabled the seventeenth annual report of the business done pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year ended March 31, 1993.
(continued)
C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, recently the new Minister of Finance introduced her budget. We call her the Minister of Finance. I prefer to call her the B.C. minister of revenue, because all her budget illustrates is the fact that this government and this minister, like her predecessor, are going to collect money. It was notable that in a recent publication called "Two-Year Progress Report," the updated "A Better Way for British Columbia, 1991," the Premier had the audacity to say that we have significantly slowed government spending, brought the budget deficit down and implemented a plan to manage provincial debt. That has got to be one of the most audacious statements ever made in this House or at a political convention. This Minister of Finance has just followed the dictates of her predecessor. She's running on the proposition that we should stick it to business, because that's all she has done in this budget. All she has managed to do is continue what her predecessor started.
The Premier went on to say that there will be no more taxes. What a joke! Who needs any more taxes when you put everything in place in the first two years? You've got all the uncomfortable stuff out of the way. You've stuck it to every possible person and every possible business in the province. You've squeezed every possible cent out of them, and now we're going to have no more taxes. This government has already done that dirty work, and as soon as the dirty work was done, they got rid of that Finance minister and put in a new one. Why should there be any more taxes?
Under the inept management of the previous Minister of Finance, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.... He raised taxes to the point where they chased investment away in this province. Investment has deteriorated in the last two years, since this government came in -- simply because they don't understand that they don't create jobs. Business creates jobs, and they've made it difficult for business to carry on in this province.
F. Garden: Why are they all coming here, then?
[ Page 9680 ]
C. Tanner: They aren't all coming here, as one of the members says. They might be coming to your part of the country, but they certainly aren't coming to mine.
This previous Minister of Finance, that paragon of economic wonderment, wanted to charge householders with property worth over $400,000 an extra surtax on the simple premise, which his party believes, that anyone who's got a house worth $400,000 is rich, and we should tax them. He did such a good job as Minister of Finance that he withdrew that tax.
That same minister put a tax on the sale of automobiles and did not allow depreciation on trade-in vehicles, and this new minister took it out again. It took a mere six or eight months to finally understand what we'd been telling them in the debate at this time last year: what they were doing was impracticable and would actually deplete taxes, not increase them. This is the same minister who is now the minister of whatever -- what is it called? Investment? It's hard to tell; they change so quickly.
Anyway, this same minister had the brilliant idea of putting some taxes on airplane fuel, and no matter what the opposition told him, exactly what we said would happen did happen. Airplanes went down to the United States or to Alberta to get their fuel; they didn't come to B.C. anymore. They came here to drop off their passengers, and they bought their fuel somewhere else. I would guess that the brilliant fellow who came up with that idea -- and who now has another job because he made such a mess of the last one -- probably lost taxes in that case. We told him at the time that there would be a negative impact on the income of this province if he imposed those taxes, and he wouldn't believe us. I think you'll find, when the figures come out in the estimates later on, that we took less tax from that particular source than we did previously. This is the minister who, when we said, "You've got to cut expenses," said: "Which schools are you going close? Which hospitals are you going to close?" He left the impression that he would never close a hospital, and almost before the words were out of his mouth, this government closed a major hospital in Vancouver. I don't say that they shouldn't have closed that hospital, but I do most definitely say that they should be more straightforward about it. If they're going to stand up and make pious statements like, "Which schools or hospitals are you going close?" let them be honest about it in the first place. I hope there will be a difference with this Minister of Finance. The last one managed to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
[2:30]
This is the minister who, by a sleight of hand, moved spending from the government books and into the Crown corporations through the so-called B.C. 21 corporation. They build roads, hospitals and schools, but they don't let it be reflected anywhere on a government budget.
This is the minister who happily quotes the father of the Social Credit Party, who used to burn bonds in the Okanagan and push the debts of the province into what he called "contingent liabilities." He stands up and says: "That's good financing." Can you imagine? What other socialist government anywhere across the country quotes the father of conservatism as a paragon of how to finance a province. It's ridiculous for them to stand up and say that this is how you should do it. They criticized that party for 17 years, and now when they're stuck for an answer, they stand up and say that Mr. Bennett's way was the right way to do financing in this province. What a joke!
Why would this novice Finance minister need to raise any new taxes anyway? They've all been raised. That job was done by her predecessor. He stuck it to business, and when he did so, he made it more difficult to create jobs, not easier. The only jobs these people create are government jobs counting taxes that they keep raising from businesses that create the actual jobs.
In spite of this massive tax flow, this new minister wants to make her name. She's going to make her name in a different way. She's heard of some things called fees, licences and increased charges. This new Minister of Finance thinks that fees and licences are not an imposition on the public. Well, who pays them? Where do they come from? They come from the individuals and businesses in this province. No matter whether you call them taxes, licences or impositions, it's money out of the pocket of the business community in this province. It's the small business community in particular that finances these ridiculous impositions on the public.
If you're going to raise taxes in this province, Madam Finance Minister, you should say what they are. You shouldn't hide behind the skirts of a Premier who says: "We're not going to raise taxes for three years." That's already been done. By your own admission, you are going to raise $500 million through an imposition of fines, licences and fees. If I was the Premier of that party, I would be very careful. In his new portfolio, the Minister of Employment and Investment now has carte blanche to spend. He can spend money around this province in his so-called B.C. 21, a Crown corporation, out of the view of this House, the public and the Minister of Finance. It's not in the budget. He can spend money any time and anywhere he wants to, and don't you believe that he's not going to. He was a failure as a Minister of Finance, and he's going to be a disaster in his new portfolio. At the same time, he's still going to think that he's the leader of that party over there. Mr. Premier, if I was you, I'd keep a sharp eye on the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He's your biggest liability. He proved it for the first two years you were in government; he's going to prove it in the next two. He so eloquently illustrated in his last job that he can raise taxes. He wasn't very consistent; he sometimes brought them in and took them away again -- and if he didn't, she did. But he made a great job of raising taxes, and he's going to make a great job of spending the public's money.
This government claims some credit for having increased the income derived from the sale of forest products to the United States. You had nothing to do with it. If anything, you made it more difficult. The income that flows to our coffers from the forest industry is in no way a credit to this government. You've made it more difficult. The increased prices paid by American entrepreneurs were due to market forces, not socialism. That was business management, not NDP mismanagement. That was initiative and enterprise, not the poor excuse that passes for government in this province -- that party over there.
Saskatchewan and Ontario, provinces with governments that have the same philosophy, are having the same problems. This NDP government will be thrown out on its ear at the next election in the same way that their federal friends were. They are incompetent managers. They have not yet learned what any business knows: the curtailment of costs is as important as raising incomes. It's something that's completely beyond their ken. If you don't control your costs, you've got a problem that will never be solved by raising income. You have to do both. That's what's happening in business across North America, in Europe and even, would you believe, nowadays in Japan. It's happening across Canada in every province except this one.
They would have you believe that they're doing us some favour. The funds raised by selling lumber to the United States, primarily, and to other parts of the world are the only
[ Page 9681 ]
reason they have more business. It's no thanks to them that business has prospered in the last year. The price went up and the dollar went down. They can't take credit for that. They have no control over the Canadian dollar or the price of lumber. The only control they have is what they can charge to the lumber industry for stumpage. Other than that, they do nothing. And they sit here smug as you like, as if they've done something clever. They've been lucky. You happened to come into government at a time when the forest industry was successful. That's all you've done. That's no credit to you, my friends. The credit is to the industry that you thrive on. I have a suggestion for this government: if it's so proud of its record, it should call an election today and let the people of B.C. have their chance to express their opinion.
I would like to quote some very revealing figures published by the Business Council of B.C. that put the lie to what this government is saying in their advertisements, in this piece of nonsense, in what the Minister of Finance is saying and in what the members are proudly standing up and boasting about. These figures are taken from this budget and the two previous budgets. The direct debt in this province in 1991 was $4.72 billion, in 1994 it was $10.05 billion, and in 1995 their projection is $10.7 billion.
Crown corporations and agencies are very much part of this government. They don't like to admit it; they like to hide things in them. There are liabilities here that the people of this province eventually have to stand behind: $4.37 billion in 1991; $6.37 billion in 1992; and $7.8 billion in 1995. Other loans and guarantees also add up: in 1991 these were $0.68 billion; in 1994, $0.96 billion; and in 1995, $1.02 billion. Irrespective of what they say in the budget, the total debt taken from all figures -- the Crown corporations and other loans and guarantees that this government has, including those in B.C. Hydro -- in 1991 was $17.21 billion; in 1994 it's $25.4 billion; and in 1995, under their estimates, all debt in this province will be $27.42 billion.
This budget is a continuing attack on business in this province. It does nothing to create jobs, except government jobs counting the increased taxes that have been raised. This budget is step one of a two-step election strategy. That's all it is. It's blatantly partisan, financially incorrect and inadequate in its job creation.
A number of members on the other side of the House have suggested that we in the Liberal Party are spokespeople for big business, and that our leader represents the big business interests of this province. This morning we heard at least three members from the government side accuse the Liberals and our leader of being the mouthpiece for big business. I'll tell you something: he's the mouthpiece for something that is very large. I'll give you an illustration so you can stand up in the future and say: "The leader of the Liberal Party represents a fundraising effort which is huge." It's illustrated by a dinner I attended when the member for Vancouver-Quilchena was running for the leadership of my party. There were 2,114 people at that dinner -- 2,115 including me. Each one of those people spent $150.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
C. Tanner: Let me make it easy for them, because they're too simple-minded: 2,115 people paid $150. On top of that, they didn't get a receipt. That's $317,000 by my reckoning.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Who were they?
C. Tanner: Who cares?
Interjections.
C. Tanner: Listen to them. They're trying to tell us that people spending $150 is big business.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
C. Tanner: I was there. You should have been there; it would have been an education for you. You couldn't do that if you tried all day.
Interjections.
C. Tanner: You couldn't raise that sort of money in that way if you worked at it for a month. We did!
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member please take his seat.
All hon. members know that when the Chair calls the assembly to order, whoever is on his feet takes his seat until the House has come to order. Clearly, hon. members, this is stretching exuberance extremely, beyond the limits of reason. Let's try to get back in order.
Would the hon. member please proceed.
C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, excuse me. Maybe it was because I was shouting, but I didn't hear you ask me to sit down.
The member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the leader of the Liberal Party on this side of the House, is a leader whom I am justly proud of. I'm justly proud of the way he raised money for his leadership campaign, and I'm equally proud of the way he raised his money for the recent election. The reason I bring this up during the budget debate.... We didn't initiate it; they did, in their response to the budget debate. What happened at those two dinners? Those people put their money where their mouth was. They put their hands in their pockets to raise money for what they believed in, instead of putting their hands in somebody else's pockets, as you do, and calling it taxes.
G. Campbell: As I have both listened to and read the debate on this budget over the last few days, I have frankly been appalled and disgusted. Budgets like this give public life a bad name. The Premier pays hard-earned tax dollars to try to look like a leader on TV and succeeds only in reinforcing the stereotype of a politician who says one thing and then does another. He uses his big-money image consultants and spends over a thousand tax dollars a minute to tell us he is concerned about waste. The government caucus hoots and hollers right on cue. The government that claims to be against waste spends hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on ads that mislead.
[2:45]
What is this budget really about? It's about taxes, it's about borrowing and debt, and it's about spending taxpayers' hard-earned money. This budget is a testament to a government that is ethically bankrupt, that fixes the books to try to fool the taxpayers and that is consuming our future and eliminating the choices for the next generation. Most of all, this budget is a testament to incompetence: more taxes, more debt and more spending.
[ Page 9682 ]
Let's not forget who and what we're talking about. We're talking about B.C. families that are used to working hard and are willing to put in the work to get ahead. But this government has let down B.C.'s families. This government has imposed enough taxes on the average B.C. family to ensure that no matter how hard they work and no matter what they give up, they fall further and further behind. They have less and less of their own money to spend. After just two years of this government's assault on their work ethic and their pocketbooks, many of British Columbia's families have begun to conclude that the work ethic doesn't work in B.C. anymore.
This Premier goes to his NDP convention and jokes about the mining industry in this province. It's not funny when we know that literally billions of dollars have fled from this government's tax and regulatory regime. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs will not be there, because this government doesn't care. No new taxes indeed! What about the additional $105 million in surtaxes? What about the $63 million in additional fee increases? What about the government-driven hydro rate increases? What about the additional $60 million in tax revenue they will receive as a result of the federal government's broadening of the tax base? What about increases to workers' compensation? More taxes. More borrowing. More spending.
This government constantly compares its record to that of the rest of Canada. British Columbia is not in competition with the rest of Canada. We are not losing jobs to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. We are losing them to Whatcom County and to the Albertans next door. Our economy is different than the economy of the rest of Canada. Our prospects are different than the prospects of the rest of Canada. If only we had a government that understood leadership and competition!
This government has led the way in some areas. It has led the way in increased spending for all Canadian provinces. It has increased its borrowing and taxpayer debt faster than any of us could have imagined. B.C. has the highest marginal tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada. B.C. has the highest small business tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada. This budget does nothing to rectify those problems; it does nothing to stop these job-killing measures.
If every business in British Columbia hired just one more person, that would be 70,000 new jobs. This government cancels jobs with its policies. Let me make it very simple. Perhaps some of the members opposite will have heard of Petr Nedved -- he used to play for the Vancouver Canucks. They traded him and got a new player, Craig Janney, from St. Louis. Mr. Janney didn't want to come to British Columbia. He didn't want to come to Canada. Why didn't he want to come? It wasn't because he liked St. Louis better than Vancouver; it was because of the taxes. Because of the taxes, Canadian teams have a heck of a time competing to get the best players. It's the same in business. In B.C. we can win any fair competition, but the B.C. government works against competition, against jobs, against hard work and success.
Did you notice the budget document statement that self-employment rose by 7.3 percent compared to 0.5 percent for private sector paid employment? Did any of you stop to think why? People don't want to be employers any more. It costs too much. Do you think that helps jobs? We have to change that; we have to encourage investment in jobs. This government and this budget do the opposite.
In B.C. we're a trading economy. We're big in ideas and people skills; we're small in numbers. The Harcourt government kills investment when he says one thing to investors and then does another. See if you can see beyond the rhetoric and think about the corporate capital tax. The government sneers at the damage they've done with that tax. But the corporate capital tax kills investment and jobs. Since 1991, when this government took office, we have watched as capital investment by manufacturers in British Columbia dropped by 25 percent. Under this government's policies investment is not flowing into B.C.; it is flowing out of B.C.
Let's think for a minute about what that means. It means that our resource strategies will not work unless we can encourage real value-added manufacturing strategies for British Columbia. Seventy percent of all our manufacturing output in British Columbia comes from pulp and paper, wood products and primary metals. Only 30 percent of what we make is not directly related to our resource base. Yet this government's corporate capital tax works against investment in that resource base. More importantly, this government is so incompetent they do not know that their policies are driving investment from British Columbia.
More importantly, for a government that was supposed to be concerned about the ordinary British Columbian, this government doesn't even understand the impact that the corporate capital tax has on the average British Columbian. The average British Columbian who happens to be a renter -- and may well be a renter in a constituency of someone here -- in an apartment or home owned by a corporation has to pay that corporate capital tax. It flows right through to them; it increases their costs by $25 or $35 a unit. While corporations may be able to escape the corporate capital tax by not investing or by moving their investment out of the province, hon. Speaker, you and I know that renters cannot escape the corporate capital tax. Their rent has gone up.
One of the saddest taxes this government imposed on the people of British Columbia has been their enormous property tax grab. That property tax grab hurts small businesses and homeowners. It hurt in 1992 and 1993, and it hurts today. This year the minister has found a new way to hammer the property tax payer: she's decided to eliminate legislated contributions from the province to local taxpayers across British Columbia. Over one-quarter of a billion dollars which was legislated for the property tax payers of British Columbia has just been wiped out in this budget.
Tax, borrow, and spend on their friends: that's all this government understands. This government does not understand that more taxes do not necessarily generate more revenue. Let's look at last year's automobile tax: the super-tax on vehicles over $30,000, the double-tax policy on trade-ins and the provincial GST on repairs. What did all these new taxes mean? They meant less revenue. Did the government think of that? No. The result is fewer jobs, businesses moving out of Dawson Creek to Alberta and less revenue. Just think, if it hadn't been for that, it's estimated we would have had an additional $39 million to $42 million in British Columbia's coffers. What could we have done with that money? We could have paid down the debt by $39 million to $42 million. How much less could we have borrowed? More taxes, more borrowing and more spending.
This budget shows that the interest alone on public debt is outstripping the growth of the provincial economy. The growth of provincial debt has increased 48 percent per capita in the last five years -- that's four times the average growth of people's incomes in the province. This is the fourth-highest deficit in the history of British Columbia. It continues this government's unbroken string of deficits that add to the debt burden each British Columbian must carry. This government has presided over the second-largest, third-largest and fourth-largest deficits in the history of B.C., and they're breaking their arms patting themselves on the
[ Page 9683 ]
back while they cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, trying to pretend they're a success.
To be fair, even the economically illiterate Premier recognized the incredible damage his financial mismanagement had done to the province when he fired the former Finance minister. Since this government took office the standard of living for the average B.C. family has fallen. The NDP government passes on debt and discourages investment, job creation and expanding opportunities.
Do you know what $2 billion in debt is? First of all, it's $2 billion that we are going to have to pay back. To that, we have to add some $2 billion in surpluses to be able to pay it back eventually. It means we borrow $5.5 million a day -- $228,000 an hour. We're borrowing just over $3,800 a minute. What has happened to our debt? In just over two years this government has added $10 billion to the debt burden of British Columbians. In two and a half years this government has managed to accrue more than half the debt it took the previous administration to accrue in 16 years.
This growth in debt is not sustainable. It's time for a new era of openness and accountability; it's time to legislate balanced budgets. It's time that the auditor general and comptroller general worked with an outside accountant to design a new reporting system for government that is based on generally accepted accounting principles and will come forward with recommendations that should be enshrined in legislation. We need an accounting and reporting system that is transparent and open. People deserve to know what obligations are being incurred on their behalf. Governments must be accountable for their decisions; they should not be permitted to hide behind the screens of doubletalk and fancy financial footwork that jeopardize our future.
[3:00]
More taxes, more borrowing and more spending. Spending continues to grow faster than the provincial economy. Next year spending increases will be 75 percent greater than the rate of inflation. What does that mean? It means the government will dig deeper and deeper into taxpayers' pockets. The government is told that it must keep wage costs near the rate of inflation, and they expand the BCGEU's pay packet by 26.4 percent -- an increase that is four times faster than the rate of inflation. The dictated wage policies add millions of taxpayers' dollars. The NDP's backroom jackbooting on the Island Highway adds a couple of hundred million dollars to that project, but no one in the NDP government cares. They even try to justify it.
Let me sum up. This budget is about more taxes, more borrowing and more spending. More taxes. Since this government took office, they have taken more than $4,000 out of the pockets of the average B.C. family. There is $800 million in additional tax revenue projected for this budget alone. More borrowing. The NDP has increased debt by almost 50 percent in almost two and a half years. This year's budget alone increases the debt load for B.C.'s average family by $2,600. More spending. Spending is slated to increase 75 percent faster than the rate of inflation. This means less money for families to plan their own future, less jobs for British Columbians today and less choices for our children tomorrow. British Columbians are asking themselves: "Am I better off two and a half years into this government's mandate than I was when they started?" Their answer is a resounding no.
Let me close with a quote from John Ruskin, which is particularly apropos of this government's failed policies and financial mismanagement: "Borrowers are nearly always ill-spenders, and it is with lent money that all evil is mainly done...."
U. Dosanjh: The question the Leader of the Opposition posed at the end was whether British Columbians today are better off than they were in 1991. The answer, in loud terms, is yes. This government has protected and enhanced the social services, education and health care of British Columbians. This government has cut the deficit by 60 percent in the last two years. If members of the opposition can't understand that, obviously they need to go back to school and become literate about economics.
I was having some difficulty, because I was wondering what I was going to say. The Leader of the Opposition talked about a few issues, and it's important to respond to those first, before I speak about what I wanted to. He said that if every one of the 70,000 businesses in British Columbia could create one job, it would be 70,000 jobs in the province. Our government created 76,000 jobs in British Columbia in the last year. That's obviously more than one job per business.
The Leader of the Opposition is talking about cutting taxes. This government has promised a tax cut of $112 million in this budget. What would the Leader of the Opposition do? The Leader of the Opposition has promised to cut the corporation capital tax and school tax, which adds up to $1.5 billion. Then he promises to bring that money back into the public coffers in a revenue-neutral fashion. That is a non sequitur if I have ever heard one. How can you impose taxes on people and say that that's revenue-neutral? If you are going to take $1.5 billion from the public purse.... I have not heard one sentence from the Leader of the Opposition or the other esteemed members of the opposition on how they are going to recoup that $1.5 billion and put it back into the public purse. The question the Leader of the Opposition posed, was: what does a sum of $2 billion in taxes mean?
Interjection.
U. Dosanjh: Yes, $2 billion in borrowing.
It means schools, colleges, universities, bridges and roads. It means the Island Highway and the university of the north, and it means schools in places like Surrey, because the populations are growing. Are you going to deprive the children of British Columbia today -- decrease their debt, then tomorrow show a surplus in fiscal terms while you have a deficit in human terms? Is that the major plan and thrust of the opposition?
The Leader of the Opposition talks about increasing investment in the province. It was the same Leader of the Opposition who went to Hong Kong when he was mayor of the city of Vancouver and attempted to scare investment away from British Columbia. Maybe at that time he didn't know he was going to be sitting here as the Leader of the Opposition; maybe the plans changed midway. It's a matter of shame for any elected member of this House or a mayor of Vancouver -- the largest city in British Columbia -- to go to Hong Kong to scare away investors, while our Premier and our ministers visit those places to promote and encourage investment.
Interjections.
U. Dosanjh: I know that some members of the opposition are having difficulty hearing all of this. I would ask them to bear with me. I think it's important to take stock of where we stand on some of these fundamental issues.
I can talk a good line; all of us can. We are all literate enough to be able to do that. But the important issue is: what is your record? What have you done in the past? You always judge on what you have accomplished today. You can make
[ Page 9684 ]
all the promises in the world; nothing would turn on that. The most important issue would be: what have you accomplished?
If they have forgotten, let me recite some of the basic facts from the budget. This government has cut the deficit to $898 million. The deficit would be eliminated in 1996-97.
An Hon. Member: Not true, not true.
U. Dosanjh: The hon. member sitting opposite, heckling, is an astrologer. Maybe he's able to foretell that that's not going to be true. But this government has told you that that's going to be true, and that's the way it's been planned.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is not only speaking from his seat, but he's imputing improper motives to a member by using the expression "lied." I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw.
G. Farrell-Collins: I withdraw those comments, but the public knows the truth.
The Speaker: It is an unconditional requirement, hon. member. Does the member withdraw unconditionally?
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes.
U. Dosanjh: When you want to reduce the deficit it is important to remember to look at some of the initiatives you could wind down and save money on for the public purse. Obviously this government has looked at that, and it has indicated that four agencies -- Government Air and some of the other agencies, like the B.C. Energy Council and B.C. Petroleum Corporation -- will be wound down.
Interjection.
U. Dosanjh: I'm having some difficulty keeping up with this heckling. Opposition members obviously don't understand. We've attempted to give them the message, and they always want to object to our giving that message to the public. Hon. members of the opposition, the message is: the deficit is down, jobs are up and taxes are frozen. If these members have difficulty hearing that message and putting up with it, then maybe they're in the wrong place.
Some issues go back to the 48-point program that our party presented in 1991, such as the property transfer tax being eliminated for eligible first-time homebuyers. As a member of the bar who has practised law in this province for many years, I'm aware of how difficult it is for first-time homebuyers to come up with the property transfer tax in addition to the down payment, legal fees and any other taxes that might be involved in the purchase of a new home, like the GST. This initiative goes to aid the needy, those who are starting out and those who need to have a roof over their head to feel secure. The government agreed to implement this initiative this year, and I applaud that.
There are tax breaks for small businesses and $4 million worth of tax breaks for 500 cooperatives and family farm corporations. That also goes to show that we as a government have looked at the issues, and we understand where the help and the tax concessions are needed. We have also looked at the corporation capital tax, and we have exempted certain other businesses by raising the threshold to $1.5 million -- for some it's $1.75 million.
If I go back to the issue that I raised first, the opposition is fixated on the issue of debt. We have made the first attempt to pay down that debt by approximately $600 million by liquidating the assets of Government Air and the Endowment Fund. It's important to know that a beginning has been made. Perhaps for the first time in many years, we are conscious of the fact that debt has to be repaid, and a beginning has been made now.
But the opposition is obsessed with the debt. They don't understand that if we do not build capital projects at this time -- schools, colleges, roads, hospitals, community care facilities, and others -- we might have a fiscal surplus, but we would have a human deficit on our hands in years to come. We look forward to meeting today's needs and to planning to meet the needs of future generations of children by putting a network of infrastructure and capital investment in place.
[3:15]
One of the most important things in this budget, and something that is dear to my heart, is the promise that there will be $200 million spent on skills and training and jobs for young people -- training for those who need the training, and jobs for those who need to change their jobs or who, as young men and women coming into the workforce, need new jobs.
In the last two months I had the opportunity to visit my native place, where I was born and raised. Even relatively poorer countries like India are paying more attention to skills and training, to the requirements of the twenty-first century, when you're going to need a highly skilled workforce. The opposition stands here and says: "Cut and slash and burn." They say that we should be cutting spending in those areas, that we should not be spending money on skills and training, and that we should not be spending money to create 8,100 new places in the universities, colleges and training institutes of this province. It's a shame to hear that kind of logic from the opposition.
I live about a block and a half away from the Langara campus of Vancouver Community College. In the late sixties and early seventies I was one of the fortunate ones who was able to attend Vancouver Community College at the Langara campus and at its predecessor, the King Edward campus at Oak and 12th. At that time the spaces were available. In the last few years many students have been turned away from colleges and universities for lack of space. I'm delighted that the government has taken this initiative and promised that there will be 8,100 additional spaces in various institutions across this province, where people can be trained and get the skills that are required for the twenty-first century so that we, as a province, can be at the cutting edge of future job opportunities.
I know that we joke about car dealers all the time; at least we used to when the former government was in place. I want to applaud the government for taking the initiative of reversing itself on the trade-in allowance for cars. It shows one thing, contrary to what the opposition members say. It shows that we do listen, and that we do care. It shows that if we realize a mistake has been made, or that it's not useful to continue to eliminate the trade-in allowance, that we are able to stand here and say to the opposition and the province that we're going to reverse ourselves. There's nothing wrong with saying that.
To conclude, let me say that I'm proud of the government of which I'm a part. I'm proud of the budget that the Minister of Finance and this government has presented this year. I'm proud of the fact that for the next three years there will be no
[ Page 9685 ]
tax increases. I'm proud of the fact that we're going to be able to eliminate the deficit, and I'm most proud of the fact that we have jobs in British Columbia. Almost half the jobs in Canada are being created in British Columbia, our beautiful province.
The Speaker: Are there any further speakers? The question is being called.
J. Tyabji: On a point of order, I believe there's an agreed speaking order. Notwithstanding that, I think that there may be something from the Government House Leader for orders of the day if the speaking order can't be met.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. Minister of Social Services has the floor. Hon. minister, are you standing on a point of order?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As Government House Leader, I adjourn debate on the budget. Oh, I move adjournment.... Sorry.
The Speaker: Is the minister now withdrawing her motion to permit the...?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I am.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, there appears to have been a misunderstanding with regard to the speaking order today, but I'm glad to take my place and participate in this debate.
I've been sitting here throughout the debate over the last few days. I was quite interested in hearing the comments from the NDP back bench and the odd cabinet minister who has participated in the debate, and I must say that I've been quite disappointed.
Prior to the last election, the Premier went on television numerous times during his campaign -- and shortly after the campaign, in particular -- and said that there would be no new taxes in this province, that that was the end of it and that they could balance the budget. I recall reading in Hansard a comment by the former Minister of Finance, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. As the Finance critic for the New Democrats before the last election, he said that as far as he was concerned, balancing the budget was absolutely the easiest thing he could ever imagine doing.
The Premier was on television with his little piggy bank and his penny. He was leaning over the piggy bank and saying in his low-toned, compassionate voice: "If we don't have it, we won't spend it." Well, today, yesterday and all last week we've had members of the NDP standing up and saying: "We don't have it, but we're going to borrow it, and then we're going to spend it for you."
We heard the Leader of the Opposition talking earlier about the billions and billions of dollars of added deficit that the NDP has created -- has borrowed on the behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia -- to do the types of things that they want to do.
L. Boone: To provide services to the taxpayers.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, it's interesting that they say that. The former Minister of Government Services, who's now on the back benches, says: "To provide services to the taxpayers." If that's what the government was really doing and that's all the government was really doing, the public would say: "We don't agree with them borrowing the money, but at least it's going to a good cause and at least we're getting some value out of it."
But what the government, the NDP backbenchers and the cabinet ministers won't tell you is that not all the money they're borrowing is going to pay for schools, hospitals, roads and the types of things that people value. It's going to places like the fair-wage policy, which has increased the cost of all those projects that they've been talking about by well over $200 million. That's where the dollars have actually gone. They are spending money to hire their friends and insiders. If you look at the budget estimates, we just saw a dramatic increase over the last few years in the Government Services ministry, of which that member used to be the minister. There's a dramatic increase in the cost of government information services. A communications budget would fall within that ministry, and she presided over two of those budgets, so she knows where the dollars are hidden, where the NDP bodies are buried -- where these people have been brought in and hired because they're NDP hacks, not because they're providing a service to the public. She understands, and that's why she's quiet now: she's to blame for part of it.
We have a new example of government, inflating the costs that the taxpayers have to pay in order to pay off their friends. This government has set out to build the Island Highway, something that everybody in this province, and particularly on Vancouver Island, knows is a necessity. That's fine. What I and members of the Liberal caucus are opposing is a backroom, browbeating, threatening deal that blackmailed the roadbuilders of this province to sign a contract that has no benefit to this province other than increasing the pay packets of the friends of this government so they can collect the union dues. Under this contract, 25 cents every hour from every one of these workers goes to pay for the union expenses. How much of that money...?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: The real question, though, is: how much of that money makes its way back into the NDP election campaigns?
Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!
G. Farrell-Collins: You know, it's funny. We just had a bit of a mini-debate here a while ago. The member from somewhere up on the Island and the Minister of Social Services -- who we all know had a senior position with the B.C. Fed and still holds that position to some extent -- were complaining about campaign disclosure. Well, we had their Premier stand up at their convention this weekend and complain about campaign disclosure. He put on the white knight's jacket. Then, after he got off the stage, when asked if he was going to disclose where his money was coming from -- who was donating to his personal campaign, who was paying for the New Democrat campaign -- he said no, he couldn't and wouldn't do that.
When taking over the leadership of our party, one of the first things the Leader of the Opposition did was instruct the executive to put forward amendments to the constitution, at the next annual general meeting, to require full disclosure of all campaign donations not just for elections but for leadership also.
Interjections.
[ Page 9686 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I know we're likely to hear from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on that issue, but I'm still waiting for his disclosure from his campaign.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's going to be interesting to see how that all pans out.
This comes back to the Island Highway, because yes, the government is building a project that's a priority for all the people on Vancouver Island. But the real trick is how they're doing it. They were approached by virtually every major business or construction group that would end up having anything to do with the Island Highway. They were approached with a package and an offer that would have done the types of things the New Democrats wanted to do. It would have provided for...
L. Boone: No strikes.
G. Farrell-Collins: There has been no strike in highway construction in 25 years, so I don't know what she's been dreaming about, hon. Speaker.
...the type of training and apprenticeship program, the hiring requirements and the minority-hiring provisions that this government has talked about. It would have allowed for all of those things. It wouldn't have done one thing: it wouldn't guarantee that union-only workers were working on the project.
J. Pullinger: Dishonest, Gary, dishonest.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, it is true. I'll be glad to get a copy of the proposal for the member. I know she's not a member of cabinet, and it probably hasn't been passed down to her. But it is in existence. The only difference between one offer and the other is that it was going to be union-only workers. That forces working British Columbians who want to participate on that project and who should have a right to work on that project of their own free will to join a trade union. They're being forced to join a trade union despite their free will, whether they want to or not.
[3:30]
All of that adds additional cost to the construction of the Island Highway, which means one of two things: either we're paying more for the same project, and we're paying too much; or we're paying exactly the same amount and getting less product for it. I don't know what school any of these guys went to, but I know a number of them are economists. I know the Minister of Social Services spent some time at a fairly esteemed school of economics, so I know that she understands how this process works. I know that when she goes home at night she really knows that she's ripping off the taxpayers, who are not getting good value for their money on this project. That's one example of what has been taking place.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think unions are fine. I just don't think it's up to the government to force somebody to join a union. It's up to employees to decide whether they want to be part of a trade union, and it's up to employees to decide which trade union they want to belong to. It's not up to that minister or that member, who spent his whole life trying to browbeat people into it. It's not up to the government to decide who is and isn't a member of a trade union; it's up to the workers to decide.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: No, it's not up to the employer; it's up to the employee.
The Minister of Employment and Investment, who negotiated this deal that is costing us an additional who knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars.... He sat in a back room, and we've had written accounts of the discussions that went on. Hon. Speaker, do you know the worst thing that he did? Despite increased costs, despite threats of removing the provisions for highway maintenance, despite all of those coercive threats that took place, do you know the worst thing that he did? He sold out the non-union workers in British Columbia. He did. This government called a special sitting of the Legislature and sat for eight weeks to pass a bill that would give whatever it was that the organized workers of this province wanted. But when it comes to employment standards -- those provisions which guide the non-union workers in this province -- the government not only waits two years, but then when they get the report, they're going to wait another year in order for the Minister of Employment and Investment to sell his deal on the Island Highway.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
We know what the list of priorities is in British Columbia; we know what the NDP hierarchy is. First of all, you get to be the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Employment and Investment, because they are the most powerful ones. Somewhere down the line is the Premier. We don't know exactly where he falls within the hierarchy; we're still trying to figure it out. Then you get the other cabinet members, the backbenchers, the NDP hacks, the union workers, and then right at the bottom, after everybody else is taken care of, you get the rest of the workers in the province.
These guys get up and act so sanctimonious when they're talking about the workers of this province. They say they're representing the workers of this province. We know the workers they're talking about: members of the union. The rest can just forget it. We even had the Minister of Health confronted last fall about money going out to health care and day care facilities that offered increased salaries to those who were members of a trade union but not to the non-union organizations. He was asked: "Why is that fair? What are you telling the workers of this province?" Do you know what his answer was? They should join a union. The government is not only using threats and intimidation in the back rooms and all sorts of other means to try to force the workers in this province to join a union against their will but it's also using public tax dollars. Is that a good use of public dollars? The government gets awfully quiet when I mention that, because they know it's true. They have been using public dollars to advance their own personal interests and the interests of their big union bosses. That's where the money goes. It's not so bad if somebody tells us that we're going to borrow money to pay for schools, training and improvement in the forestry sector. People can understand those things. They don't necessarily agree with it; they say, "I don't like the way they're spending my dollars, and I'm still going to end up paying for it somewhere down the road," but at least they know they're getting something out of it. But when they're paying money for nothing, or paying money and getting less service, or paying more money for the same amount of service or paying more money for this government to give its friends and insiders jobs within the government ministries....
[ Page 9687 ]
They've run out of so many jobs at the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister levels that they're down to the directors. Today we discovered they're down to the managerial level in the government for hiring their political appointees and NDP hacks. We had the Premier out in the hallway afterwards saying that Gerry Scott, who has been hired for some time, has a wealth of information about British Columbia. He's a scholar; he went back and got a master's degree and therefore he's the right kind of guy for us to hire as a special projects manager within the ministry.
We don't know if there was anybody better for that job. We don't know if the dollars that are going to pay for his manager's salary, which could be anywhere from about $38,000 a year up to $88,000 a year.... We don't know if he's the best person for the job. How do we know if he is? They're going out and hiring civil servants in this province, and they're not posting the jobs. They're not inviting people to apply; they're not offering them to all British Columbians.
It's interesting that they go and put what they call this collective agreement, this blackmail agreement, on the Island Highway into place and they talk about local hiring, yet they'll go right across this country to find NDP hacks from every other province to put in the government, and they'll give them a paid government job before they even open it up to applications from the regular British Columbians who already live here.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, we have hired.... It's interesting, hon. Speaker....
M. Farnworth: How many Ottawa hacks are in your leader's office?
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I would just ask the House to be a little more respectful of the member's right to speak and to be heard, and a little less raucous, if we might. Please continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the transformation that takes place when you sit in the chair is always amazing, because I know how good you are at it yourself -- with all due respect.
Hon. Speaker, the question from the government side was: how many Liberals are working in our caucus offices?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no. How many have you fired recently?
G. Farrell-Collins: No, the question was how many people. The reality, hon. Speaker....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: We're working on that too, Len.
Our point of view on this side is that if you're a Canadian citizen, you have a right to work in any province that you want. You should not take the sanctimonious position of this government and say that we're going to divide this province into little regions where only those people in those regions can work, and only those with union tickets can work and only the people in another region can work in that region. Pretty soon we're all going to have identification passes that we will have to show to some NDP hack at the border crossings or when we get off the ferry from Vancouver Island in order to prove that we're allowed to work in the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island. This is exactly what the government is doing.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would be glad to go up to Courtenay and tell them that. I'd also be glad to go to other regions of this province and tell the workers there that they have to take out a union card if they want to work on the Island Highway and that they have to move to Vancouver Island because they're second-class citizens if they don't live on Vancouver Island.
The reality is that if you're a British Columbian in this province or a Canadian in this country, you should be allowed to work in any province, anywhere, anytime -- union or non-union. That's what the Liberal Party stands for. I don't know what these guys stand for, but it sounds awfully closed, pretty back-room and pretty negative. I would be glad to go anywhere and give that same message to anybody in this province -- not just on Vancouver Island.
Before I get back to the budget, I have to comment on a poll that was done. It showed that in households where there were one or more members of a trade union, they would vote Liberal two to one over the NDP any day. And do you know why that is, hon. Speaker? It's something that this government doesn't get: people are a lot smarter than the NDP gives them credit for. People don't vote because they're members of a trade union. They're not going to be told by the union bosses how they have to vote. They're smarter than that member thinks, and they're smarter than the other members think. They know that when they vote, they have to vote for a government that's going to manage their finances well and properly, and that's not going to sink them into debt by spending money on projects that are inefficient and not cost-effective. They know that there are a lot of reasons why they should be looking at the various parties and candidates in an election and that they should be making their decision on a rational basis, not some sort of NDP dictate that is given out by this government and browbeaten into the members.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, please. I appreciate the stimulating capacity of the speaker, and of course some partisan heckling is entirely legitimate and indeed desirable in this chamber. But let us at least hear what the member has to say. Please continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm enjoying your time in the chair more and more.
I want to come back to the budget itself, because that is the real issue The fact is that when these people campaigned in the last election, they said that there would be no new taxes. We then saw two budgets from this government that raised taxes at an astronomical rate. That's the complete opposite of what the Premier said. Those members campaigned on exactly the same policies. Those same members stood in this House year after year and voted in favour of those tax increases.
They may think the public is going to buy their cute little ads that they're spending taxpayers' money on to put out, but the taxpayers know the truth. The taxpayers know that the last time the Premier told them that taxes would be frozen, that wasn't what happened. They know that, so why on earth should they believe the Premier today -- or two weeks ago or last week? They don't believe the Premier, and they don't believe the members of the New Democratic
[ Page 9688 ]
caucus. That's why this party was wiped out in the last federal election, and that's why the same party will be wiped out in the next provincial election.
If they thought the Socred self-destruction in the last election was bad, they haven't seen anything yet. It's just starting. This government was not forthright with the public before the last election. It was not forthright in the last two budgets, and it is not being forthright today. The things that the members are so proud of....
I heard the member for Vancouver-Kensington get up and say: "Well, we've done some things. We are winding down those things that aren't operating properly or have seen the extent of their life." He talked about the Energy Council. Dick Gathercole -- the defeated NDP candidate from the last election, or the election before, or the election before that, or all three of them; I don't know -- got $2 million to set up a commission every year to do exactly what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is supposed to do, which is to plan for the energy requirements for this province. Two years later, after constant demands from the Liberal opposition, the NDP government says: "We have decided to wind down the Energy Council, and we're going to save people $2 million a year." Well, they are the ones who put it in place in the first place. Should we send the bill for the mistakes of the last two years to the NDP caucus and get them to pay for it? They are the ones who voted for it. They are the ones who established it. They are the ones who defended it in question period. They are the ones who defended it in estimates debates. They are the ones who defended it year after year in this House, and finally they stand up and say that it's not doing anything and they should get rid of it. Who is going to pay those bills? The taxpayer has to pay for them -- the average working British Columbian. The average non-union worker in British Columbia -- sold out by these guys on another issue -- is going to have to pay those bills, too.
[3:45]
We've given the most incompetent administration -- maybe the second-most incompetent administration in the history of this province -- an $18 billion budget to experiment with. They experimented with the fair-wage policy. A year later, their own Minister of Labour stood up and said it was an absolute disaster.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: He said it right here in Victoria. Check your clippings. Read the newspaper. He said it was an absolute disaster.
We now have the new Minister of Finance telling us that the last Minister of Finance was an absolute disaster: we have to get rid of the automobile tax because it hurts British Columbians; we have to get rid of the luxury tax on vehicles priced at $30,000, because in reality, a lot of working vehicles in many parts of this province cost well over $30,000. If you want to get around a lot of parts of this province -- not everybody has a government jet to fly around in....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Neither do you now. Thanks to the Liberal opposition asking for that time after time, they are finally getting rid of it.
It's interesting to note that in all the time those jets have been there, with the exception of one member one time who was with one of your cabinet ministers and was travelling, I don't think one Liberal member used those aircraft.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's just an interesting aside for the members opposite to note. We'll wait until things die down a little bit.
The reality is that schools are good, highways are good, job training is good and all of those wonderful things that we on all sides of the House would like to do are good. The question is twofold. First of all, are you getting good value for your money? This government clearly is not. They're not committed to their pre-election campaign promise of full public tendering. They're not doing that. Second, while we all may have a wish list of things we would like to do and things we would like to be able to pay for and provide for the citizens of British Columbia and for our own constituents, the reality is that if you spend it now, somebody has got to pay for it later. There's no free lunch.
They can talk about schools, hospitals and highways all they want, and they can talk about all the wonderful things they're doing, but they're not doing them with their own money. They're doing it with the money of people who are going have to pay for it next year, the year after and the year after.
This year alone at least $300 million of the deficit has been removed and put aside for capital expenditures. They say it's self-funding because it has designated revenues attached to it. What the heck are designated revenues? All they are are taxes that the government has set aside. They've said they're going to raise taxes on gas and on all these other things in order to pay for that $300 million. It's still taxes; it's still the same people who pay them. It's still paying, it's still deficit, it's still financing, it's still borrowing, and they still have to pay for it.
The reality is that somebody has to pay for it. No matter how good the government thinks it's doing, no matter how many things they're going to promise us in the next little while, no matter how many schools they'd like to see, no matter how many hospitals they'd like to build, the reality is that somebody has got to pay for it.
I just wish that they would be honest with the public and with their constituents. I wish they would tell them, when they say, "I'm going to go fight for your hospital," or "I'm going to go fight for this highway," or "I'm going to go fight for this school," that they're going to have to pay for it and that this is what it's going to cost.
I think the general public knows that they're going to have to pay for it and that this government is not getting good value for their money, that they're wasting the taxpayers' money, that they're experimenting with an $18 billion budget every year, and that they're making mistakes constantly. They've made them in the past, and they're going to continue making them in the future.
J. Tyabji: The first thing that comes to mind when I follow the previous speaker is that although the Liberals are prepared to take credit for abolishing the Energy Council and for any good decisions they think the government might make, they forgot to take credit for the good weather. I just think the House should recognize that if they're going to take credit for all the other things they can't control and have had no input into, they should also take credit for the good weather.
Today in particular I've heard a lot of very interesting comments in response to the budget, and I'd like to cover some of that ground before going into what I personally would like to bring to the debate. I want to preface this by saying that there are a couple of members of the Liberal
[ Page 9689 ]
caucus that I still have a great deal of respect for, so I don't want them to think they are being painted with the same brush.
We had the new Leader of the Opposition standing up, trying to take the government to task on their record with regard to decisions in the mining industry, yet we haven't heard anything from that new Leader of the Opposition with regard to the Windy Craggy project.
We know that the very member who resigned to provide a seat for that person was good friends with the fellow who was advocating the park in that area. So if we're talking about honesty in this House, I think the first thing we want to recognize is that the Leader of the Opposition should come clean on his position of supporting the preservation of that area.
Having said that, I would like to confirm for the record that I'm in support of environmental review and in favour of investigating the possibility of a mine. I'm prepared to put my position on record in this House, which the Leader of the Opposition didn't do. I think his comments were slightly misleading with regard to their advocacy for the mining industry, which I don't see any evidence of.
There was a lot of talk by previous Liberal speakers about why the government isn't disclosing. I really don't know what relevance that has to the budget debate. I'm not sure if the previous speaker or the Leader of the Opposition actually spent any time talking about the budget books and the allocation of money that the government has chosen. But since disclosure has been entered into the record on the budget debate, I'd like to respond to it. When we talk about disclosure, we know, for example, that the new Leader of the Opposition got his position as leader of the party by refusing disclosure, when all of the other six candidates disclosed their funding. We know that the disclosure that was provided for a by-election campaign....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear the member for Saanich North and the Islands saying that that's not true. I have yet to see any disclosure by the new leader of the Liberal Party on the leadership campaign. The other six candidates all disclosed publicly. The only disclosure made by that individual was with regard to alleged by-election financing. When we review the disclosure statement that comes forward, we will see that it is probably for the ticket prices of a dinner held during the leadership campaign. So I'm not sure how accountable that statement will be with regard to proper disclosure for election financing.
Since the issues of disclosure, secret ballots and tax increases have been brought up by the Liberal caucus, I think we should put on the record that the Leader of the Opposition, who tried to take the government to task with regard to tax increases, in his previous elected capacities as mayor of Vancouver and chair of the GVRD, presided over some of the most controversial and highest tax increases that this province has ever seen in local government jurisdictions. Not only did he preside over the highest recorded tax increases as chair of the GVRD in that jurisdiction but as mayor of Vancouver, when his decisions on tax increases affected the small businesses of that area, the small business people....
Deputy Speaker: The member for Langley on a point of order?
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, members, I must hear what the point of order is.
Please proceed, member.
L. Stephens: On a point of order, I would remind the Speaker that we are in budget debate, and I would ask the Speaker to remind all members of that fact.
Deputy Speaker: On the same point of order, member?
M. Farnworth: Yes.
Deputy Speaker: Proceed, please.
M. Farnworth: I think that the hon. member has been quite germane to the budget and budgeting, and I think that she should continue in this vein of her discussion. It's related directly to the budget.
Deputy Speaker: I note that nobody rose specifically on standing order 40 which, as far as I can see, is the only rule of the House that might in any way be transgressed: the relevancy rule. I would simply remind members that budget debates, almost by definition, are wide-ranging, and it is seldom that the Chair ever brings anybody to order on relevancy. I would recommend that we don't jump up and down too regularly on points of order on that particular section. But I would caution all members to please try to focus their remarks on the issue before us, the budget.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to say that in this budget debate there has been a lot of talk about credibility with regard to the record of elected representatives, and I'm addressing tax increases in that regard. Because we heard the new Leader of the Opposition trying to take the government to task on the issue of tax increases today, I think it is only fair to say that in his elected capacity as mayor of Vancouver.... I was getting to the point with regard to small businesses. Small businesses in Vancouver were so overwhelmed by the level of tax increases passed on to them for a number of years in a row that last year they finally went to that individual in his capacity as mayor of Vancouver and pleaded with him for a tax cap. They said: "Some of us are third-generation Vancouver residents. Some of us were born in the very neighbourhoods that we are running our small businesses in, and we are being taxed out of our businesses. We would like a tax cap or, at the very least, a tax review by the assessment authority so that we can have a fair disbursement of tax increases."
They were prepared for tax increases, recognizing the rate of inflation, but not the level of tax increases brought in by that mayor now sitting as the Leader of the Opposition, now trying to pretend that it's okay for him to stand up in this House and talk about tax increases. When that then-mayor of Vancouver was approached by the small businesses and pleaded with to stop the tax increases, he refused; he said no. A lot of those businesses have closed down since, and I think it's shameful to stand in this House and try to pretend that that record doesn't exist when we're talking about the budget.
We have heard a lot from the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove with regard to the government's record on the budget. He seemed to focus a lot on what I refer to as union-bashing. A very disturbing trend coming out of the Liberal caucus is this ultra-right-wing agenda, the sort of urban Howe Street agenda. When he talked about the budget, a lot of comments came out of that member's mouth
[ Page 9690 ]
in the last couple of months that upset me, as someone who used to be a member of the Liberal Party. Philosophically I'm a Liberal, and I listen to things like the assault on the potential increase in the minimum wage and the assault against a policy that might allow for unionization. Whether we want to have the debate about whether they should unionize or not is a separate issue.
What I'm hearing from the Liberal caucus is an assault on not only the unions but also on the ability to strike, because that very member has repeatedly been calling for essential services for education and repeatedly calling for legislating unions back to work when they exercise their right to strike. This House was convened for an emergency vote with regard to the education sector when the teachers were legislated back to work. The Alliance leader was the only one who voted against that bill and voted in favour of the right to strike for teachers. I am disturbed that the Liberal caucus is going even further than that. Not only are they moving against the right to strike, but in response to the budget, they are also repeatedly union-bashing. That's a very disturbing trend.
When you take that trend and add it to the assault against the potential increase in minimum wage.... The minimum wage is $6 an hour. We know there are a couple of members of the Liberal caucus who support an increase in the minimum wage, yet they are silent in this House. They have been silent in front of the media. The reason, I would expect, is because the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is wielding a very big stick that says no increase in the minimum wage. He, of course, is doing that in his capacity of support for the new Leader of the Opposition, who was hostile to small business in his term as mayor of Vancouver.
[4:00]
We have a very disturbing right-wing agenda coming out of the Liberal caucus in response to the budget. It's unfortunate, because I have heard those members talking about mandate, and this is what I would like to talk about. Putting aside their assault on the poor, their opposition to the minimum wage, the union-bashing and the inflated statistics with regard to welfare abuse, which the Liberals have brought up repeatedly -- and I see the Minister of Social Services nodding.... In my riding of Okanagan East there are many people -- and I would say the vast majority, if not all of them -- who, through no fault of their own, are availing themselves of the very safety net that we set up for people in those circumstances. I have seen statistics coming out of the Liberal caucus that inflate the statistics for welfare abuse. That's unfortunate, because it's an assault on the poor. It's an assault on those people in our society who are least able to defend themselves.
I get contacted by single mothers on welfare in my riding who are constantly feeling put upon. Because of their capacity, in their only efforts to try to provide for their family, they are on social services. They want a hand up, but in the interim they have the social safety net. They are feeling guilty, they are feeling scared to admit it, and they are feeling ashamed. I say shame on anyone who makes someone feel embarrassed for making use of the very social safety net that we set up in recognition of our commitment to our fellow neighbours in British Columbia -- the individuals in our ridings and communities who need help. That's what it's for. It doesn't do anyone any good to start bashing the poor, and that's what I see coming out of the right-wing agenda of the new Liberal caucus and the new Liberal leadership, and it's really unfortunate.
H. Giesbrecht: They're not Liberals; they're Socreds now.
J. Tyabji: I hear the comment that they're not Liberals, they're Socreds now. I actually take issue with that, because the Social Credit Party had a lot more compassion than the Liberal caucus leadership as it stands right now.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: I see the Liberal back bench yelling that I should join the NDP. As a member of the Alliance, I am proud to stand here and say, as I did in the response to the Speech from the Throne, that I am staying true to the mandate that I took into the last general election. I have not sold out. I will not bash the poor, as the Liberal caucus does. I will not come out against raising the minimum wage, and I will not sell out to Howe Street. I will sit in a two-member caucus if that's what it takes.
I see that we're joined by the member for Peace River South, who is a very respected member of the House. I'd like to say for the record that I'm happy to see him here, because he will acknowledge that the Social Credit Party, in their term of office, had a fair amount of compassion for those who were in need -- more than is being demonstrated by the Liberal caucus currently in opposition.
I have read the budget -- unlike some who have debated in this House with regard to unions and the Island Highway. In reading the budget, I have to give some credit where credit is due. I will say to the new Minister of Finance that when we look at the history of budgets in B.C. over the last five years, this one does stand out as having been very carefully put together. Within current constraints, and the agenda of the NDP, which I do take issue with, it is a good budget.
What do I take issue with? I take issue with the agenda, not necessarily some of the short-term goals. When I ran in the last election under the leadership of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, a very defined platform came forward. It included a 60-year plan for forestry regeneration, a comprehensive land use strategy with accountability to the members of this Legislature, integration of government ministries so we could downsize cabinet, regional representation in the debates in the Legislature, free votes and the reform of this institution. It is that mandate that I would like to speak to for the rest of the budget debate, from which the Liberal caucus has so dramatically and unfortunately departed as a result of their new leadership structure.
When I speak to the budget, I have to recognize that I have constituents whose needs I greatly respect. When we ran in the last general election -- if we can think back to that -- the governments of British Columbia and Canada had encountered some serious difficulties concerning whether they were fulfilling the interests of the public or not. Those interests are in a state of flux. The reason for that state of flux -- as the leader of the Alliance, then leader of the Liberal Party, defined it -- is that we are on the verge of a new paradigm. This new paradigm is not unique to British Columbia, and it is not unique to Canada. In fact, the new paradigm is almost being brought upon us by the constraints we're experiencing as a global community.
We started to recognize and acknowledge these constraints as early as the late sixties, when we started to really focus on global population growth and migration and the consumption of our resources. Those issues need to be addressed not only because it's an important and intelligent thing to do but because we could be addressing the fate of the planet. When we talked about the new paradigm, these were things that we brought forward in the last general election. It's very important to specify that, so that when we
[ Page 9691 ]
stand in this House and talk about our mandate and accountability to our constituents, we remember what we campaigned on under the former leader of the Liberal Party, now the Alliance leader.
The things that were brought forward included a land use strategy redefining how we use our resources, how we close the loop with regard to waste and how we generate wealth. Recognizing that the primary industries of this province are where we should be looking for wealth generation, we should accord a special importance and respect for agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mining and energy. Those are the five main primary resources that are the basis through which we generate wealth. We move that wealth through the system through secondary industry. That secondary industry should be built on the basis of small business. The small businesses of this province are assisted by government getting off their backs, lowering taxes and deregulating them to the extent that they are free to operate. That's true free enterprise in the small business sense.
There's a lot of community investment in this budget, which may be a good thing in terms of infrastructure investment. However, I take issue with it when it starts to compete with the private sector. Rather than the government using tax dollars to invest in public sector works, there could be private contracts to small businesses. In that way we have free enterprise at work.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I look forward to the contribution to the debate by the member for Mission-Kent, because he obviously has some interesting information.
The idea of wealth generation from our primary industries was what we put forward to the people of this province not just in 1991, but also in 1987 when the then leader of the Liberal Party was acclaimed. We repeatedly went through the province on tours. There was a campaign against Meech Lake on the basis of the fundamental rights of the individual. There was a campaign against the GST and consumption taxes. We have to move away from the consumption tax model toward a fair model of income tax assessments. Those were the kinds of platforms and mandates that the then leader of the Liberal Party and now leader of the Alliance put out as a reform package.
When we stand here after election as legislators, we have to recognize that the platform we put out through in the years leading up to the election, and most particularly in the election of 1991, is the very contract that we have with our voters. That is the contract we have with our constituents, and that is the contract that I am honouring by standing here as a member of the Alliance. What we laid out there was that the primary industries are the wealth generators. We must allow small business to take those primary industries and develop the wealth they generate into something of a manufactured nature. Then, of course, we have job creation. When we recognize that small and medium-sized businesses are the major creators of jobs and that the private sector is the most cost-efficient way of doing that, then we can move away from the more expensive administrative models that we have when the public sector delivers the same services.
In the last election I ran as a Liberal on this platform, but could not stay as a Liberal with this platform, so I'm now sitting as an Alliance member. At that time we spoke very clearly about the integration of government ministries, the downsizing of cabinet and the distribution of seats in this House to allow for regional representation. We recognize that there's only so much money to go around in terms of the tax revenue generated. Interestingly enough, the long-term debt financing that this government is pursuing is consistent with the Liberal platform brought out in the last election. However, we take issue with the agenda on a philosophical basis. Rather than a....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I'm just waiting for the dilithium crystal comment.
We talked about the integration of ministries and changing the financing structure. You can have long-term financing of debt acquired by infrastructure investments such as schools, hospitals, bridges and roads, but only by reducing the demand on the taxpayer. The only way we can reduce the demand on the taxpayer is by making government more efficient. The administration of government is not something that we really have to be concerned about preserving. Although we have to have effective administration of government, right now it is much too big. The reason it's too big is because we have too diverse a base through which things are administered.
The Alliance leader, then Liberal leader, talked at great length about a ministry of community services that would integrate the Ministries of Social Services, Health and Education. Bringing the administration together into one ministry would allow for more money to be released for the delivery of services at the community level. That's where we take issue with the plan to allow for greater administration through the health councils. The Ministry of Health's health councils are, in effect, another layer of administration which uses up tax dollars that should be used for the delivery of services.
G. Wilson: The same as B.C. 21.
J. Tyabji: As the Alliance leader is saying, B.C. 21 is very similar in effect. We have many levels of administration that could be streamlined. Of course, Environment, Forests, and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are also ministries that we committed to have streamlined and integrated so that we would have more money for delivery of services.
So when we stand up and critique this budget.... Never mind the rhetoric and the name-calling that has gone on in this House before; let's read the document. In reading the document, we can evaluate it on a philosophical basis, based on the mandate delivered to us by the voters in the last general election. When we look at the budget, we can say that for an NDP socialist government, this budget is consistent with their agenda and with the mandate that was delivered in the last general election. Whether that mandate will be delivered again remains to be seen.
I don't think we can quote Angus Reid polls in this House and expect that, de facto, it will be the Liberal opposition. We've heard nothing from the Liberal opposition about what they would do -- not a word. We haven't heard anything about how they would invest the money, and we only have the record of the new Leader of the Opposition -- his record of tax increases, assault on the poor, assault against the increase in the minimum wage and assault on small business. That's all we have to gauge what they would do. But we do have a mandate, a platform and an obligation to our voters to evaluate the budget on that basis. On that basis, as I said in my response to the Speech from the Throne, there is not enough emphasis on our primary industries in the budget. Although there is greater interest in mining in this budget -- I see the minister is in the chamber -- it is still not
[ Page 9692 ]
nearly enough to make up for the last couple of years and some of the hysteria that has been created in that industry by several layers of government scaring off investment. We know that in the Cariboo there is a high level of anxiety -- though, no doubt, the member for Cariboo North reassures his voters all the time -- in some of the mining and forestry associations, and some of that anxiety is about how we're going to allocate our land base. What are we going to do with the land base?
We see no solutions coming out of the Liberal caucus, but we do have a solution in the Alliance. It's the same solution that was brought forward in the 1991 general election: for a comprehensive land use strategy to prioritize our primary industries; to recognize the need to protect agriculture; to deregulate so that it can be effective; and to remove the corporation capital tax from the corporations that are paying it. As the Alliance leader has said repeatedly, the corporation capital tax is a theft of assets, and it should be removed. That's something we've been consistent about since it came out.
[4:15]
I believe the strongest commitment made to the voters of the province, and the one that really struck a chord, was that this House would be a more constructive House for debate and that the debates in this House would be elevated to a higher level. So far, unfortunately, I have not seen that from the official opposition in terms of the elevation of debate.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: I hope that some of the commentary and the heckling that is coming forth will be on the record.
I would urge some members of this House, if the Liberal caucus would like to redefine their mandate and move away, officially.... Some would say they have, and I agree. There's no question that there's no resemblance between the official positions being taken by the Liberal caucus now and the position taken in the last general election. I believe it's incumbent on every member of that caucus to stand up and define their mandate in this Legislature and then, based on that mandate, to critique the bills, the budget, the throne speech and whatever comes before this House on the basis of that mandate -- without the partisan name-calling and the really emotional debate that doesn't lend anything to the records of this House and is really, I think, a disservice to their constituents.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
In this speech and in my reply to the throne speech, I have explained to this Legislature why I now sit in the Alliance party and why I had to do that in order to be accountable to my constituents and to stay true to what I committed to them in the last general election. I will stay true to that mandate until my voters either support that mandate again or choose a different one, which they are free to do. Obviously, I would accept that; that is democracy. But if democracy is to work, every member of this House must stay true to the mandate by which they were elected.
Unfortunately, we have seen a change in the Liberal leadership through a partisan process. The democratic institution is not being honoured; there is a departure from the mandate brought forward in the last general election. If that is the wish of those Liberal members, then they have a responsibility to put on record in this House why they have departed from it, why there is the urban Howe Street agenda and why there is a move to the ultra right wing. Why are we seeing that? Why have they chosen to do that? In choosing to depart from what they took to the voters in 1991, they are doing a disservice to the democratic process. By standing up in this Legislature and taking issue with this government without defining their platform, they moved away from the platform that they defined in 1991. We are only gleaning little pieces of what they stand for now.
When someone chooses to offer oneself for election, or as the new leader of the Liberal Party or the new Liberal Party House Leader, it is not enough to stand up and repeatedly criticize the government for what it is doing, if that's what they choose to do. They must also define for the people of this province what they would do in those circumstances, take that forward and be prepared to stand for office on the basis of that platform. If we're going to talk about accountability, as they have done repeatedly in this House -- they talk about it for the government, yet they don't put on the record where they stand.... Without their own platform before the people, there's no accountability for the Liberal leadership before this House and, therefore, no accountability to their voters. That's a disservice to democracy.
So on the basis of my mandate, I would conclude that although I believe that this government has done its best with this budget given their mandate and their agenda, my mandate and philosophical basis are different. I believe there is not enough focus on the primary sectors or on small business through the private sector. There's a good deal of community investment through the public sector, which I think should be commended, but as this budget debate develops, and as we move into the estimates debate, I look forward to some constructive debate on the details of the budget so that we can see where our mandates differ and where they overlap.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 24.
SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1994
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I'm speaking now to Bill 24, Supply Act (No. 1), 1994. This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills, as required by the Financial Administration Act. Special warrants are included in the bill. Schedule 1 lists those that have been approved for the 1993-94 fiscal year. The first section of the bill requests one-quarter of the tabled estimates to provide for the general programs of government. The second section requests the disbursement amount required for the government's voted financing transactions which appear in schedule C of the estimates. The third section requests an amount for $28 million and the statutory authority for the Purchasing Commission working capital account to permit an increase in the delivery of goods and services provided through the account.
It's a very straightforward bill. It allows the government to have enough money to carry on the day-to-day operations of government while we continue to debate the budget and pass the estimates in the House. I would now like to move second reading of Bill 24.
J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, I rise to make some comments on the overruns in the Attorney General's budget, in particular. If I may refer to the schedule attached to Bill 24, there are a
[ Page 9693 ]
few things in there which I think all members should note. There are overruns dealing with legal services, overcrowding in adult and youth correctional facilities, security upgrades -- I'll make some comments about that a little later -- and some changes in corrections branch food and residential contracts. I think this one is of particular note, and I will be commenting on it in a little more detail. It says: "...funding to the Legal Services Society to address the anticipated current year deficit...." Well, I can assure the House that this so-called anticipated current deficit is rather frightening, to say the least.
The expansion of disclosure courts is one thing, by the way, that I would like to compliment the Attorney General and the government on. I think these disclosure courts -- there are two pilot projects underway -- are worthy of merit. I'm not up here just to take shots at the government; that's too easy to do. I think it's also worthwhile to give them praise when.... It's difficult to find, but now and then you can do so.
In particular, I would like to comment on the anticipated current-year deficit of the Legal Services Society. I think it's important that we look not just at the current year, which, of course, will be ending on Thursday, and the next year, because that will be a question for estimates, but it's also of some interest to the members to examine the track record of the Legal Services Society over the years, and perhaps we can put into perspective what has happened to this budget and why it's in deficit at the moment. Hopefully things will be addressed in a meaningful manner so that we can avoid these problems in the future.
The Legal Services Society was started in 1979. At that time it had a budget of $3 million. The current budget is $85 million, and in fact that budget is over. I want to fill in some other details before we move from the 1979 figure of $3 million to the budgeted figure of $85 million, which is probably closer to $100 million in actual fact. On August 28, 1992, the government commissioned Mr. Timothy Agg to prepare a report on Legal Services. I have that report, and I have some excerpts from it that I think are of interest.
Mr. Agg goes into some detail in examining the budget process of the Legal Services Society over the years, and he makes some comments. For example, there's a heading from his report: "Cash Flow Issues, 1992-93." Of course, Mr. Agg was addressing the budget year of 1992-93. He comments that the voted allocation to the society by the province was $71.5 million for 1992-93. "The society is spending at an annualized rate of $98 million." Again, those are 1992-93 figures. "Cash is provided monthly on the basis of the voted allocation." I enjoy this comment in particular: "A cash flow crisis is looming, likely by early fall, 1992."
Well, hon. Speaker, we're in a much more serious cash flow situation right now, given the interim supply that we are debating at this moment. The government is not the only revenue source for the Legal Services Society, but it provides the majority of the funds, by far. Also, the Law Foundation of British Columbia supplies some, there is funding from the notaries' trust, there are client contributions, and they even generate some money from publications and miscellaneous revenues. But this government, which is now inviting us to pass Bill 24, is the major contributor to the Legal Services Society. We should always keep that in mind as we debate budgetary issues.
Let me go back and examine some other things that Mr. Agg had to tell us about the Legal Services Society, and the reaction of the current Attorney General to that report, which, as I say, was filed in August 1992. When the report was released, the Attorney General said: "British Columbia's legal aid budget was out of control, following a doubling of tariffs by the Socred government last year." That was in 1991. Perhaps we should not lay blame just at the doorstep of this government, because it does go back in time. It's noteworthy to consider that the budget started at $3 million in 1979 and has now ballooned into a massive budget of $85 million on paper and is projected to go over $100 million in actual fact. The deficit is also blamed on poor management of the Legal Services Society. These are comments published in the newspaper at the time, which gave a summary of some observations in the report that Tim Agg filed.
I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that the opposition will be examining the Legal Services Society in more detail in the estimates, where, of course, some of these issues are more appropriate to bring forward. But it is important that this House recognize that a major proportion of the Attorney General's vote in this schedule is based on the very large overrun of the Legal Services Society. That's a very important issue that we all must address. We are going to have to get a handle on it, because we cannot allow such cost overruns to continue. It's important that we provide legal services and legal aid to the people of British Columbia who need it. But it's equally important, if not more important, that we address cost overruns of this magnitude, which the people of this province certainly should be concerned about.
I did comment that there are other things in the warrants. Warrants 1, 2 and 3 all deal with the Attorney General. As I've indicated, we cannot criticize some of these. I've already commented about disclosure courts and the expansion that is stated in here. That's something that we should certainly encourage, if indeed these things prove to be as worthy as I believe they will be.
The "overcrowding in adult and youth correctional facilities...." It would not be fair for me to stand in this House and fault this government -- singly, that is -- for the rise in crime and the problems of overcrowding. That's a well-documented issue not just in this province but in this country, unfortunately. However, this government has to be held to account for its management of correctional facilities. I know this because the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and myself visited four lower mainland institutions to see firsthand the crowding problems -- for example, the double-bunking that is happening at the Vancouver pretrial and Surrey pretrial centres. These things, of course, are now reflected in this supply bill that we are debating. Again, I don't wish to take issue with the overcrowding issues. We can more properly address those in the estimates that will be coming up. What it does reflect is that the cost of the Attorney General's ministry -- the cost of legal services and correctional facilities -- is one that all members of this House, both government and opposition, must be fully conversant with and be prepared to address and meet head on.
[4:30]
There are two other warrants contained in this bill that I'll just make passing reference to. Warrant 2 deals with the judiciary. Provincial court judges' salaries, of course, must be paid, because they have been approved by this Legislature. We don't take issue with those, but I do point out that there's $2.5 million worth of warrants in that particular vote. To supplement vote 22, emergency assistance, there's another $250,000. Emergency assistance is certainly something that is worthy of expansion, if indeed we get full value for our money. That's an item that we will look at in more detail when the estimates come up for the 1994-95 budget year.
My main concern is to address the Legal Services Society cost overruns. Without question, this government must address that issue head on, and certainly be prepared to be
[ Page 9694 ]
held accountable for, quite frankly, a rather disgraceful record with the massive overruns in that particular budget. There will probably be other speakers who have comments to make on that. That's what I wish to draw to the attention of this House on this bill.
The Speaker: Before recognizing the next speaker, I want to remind the members that we are in second reading of the interim supply bill, which should be considered in principle, as opposed to the matters that were discussed by the previous speaker, although he did indicate that he would be raising them in committee. If you would address your remarks to the principle of the bill and save the more exacting details for committee, it would assist us in carrying out the debate.
A. Warnke: As with my colleague for West Vancouver-Capilano, I will look at this bill in more detail at the committee stage. It is that kind of bill. The reason for speaking on second reading is that the flavour of the very short introduction by the Minister of Finance was that this is business as usual. It is just one of those housekeeping bills at the end of the fiscal year to tidy up a few overruns here and there. Some we can understand. There are six warrants altogether, some of which are in fact justified. In the case of the student financial assistance program, having been an educator myself I know of some of the difficulties in preparing that budget accordingly. Certainly warrant 6 could be commendable.
One difficulty in an omnibus or miscellaneous bill such as this is that there are a number of features about it, some that could be approved of, others that we really have to question. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano put his finger on a couple of areas where extreme concern has to be expressed from this side at second reading. While some warrants are justified, there are some warrants here that demand more than close scrutiny at the committee stage. We have to point out for the benefit of the ministers involved, whether it's the Minister of Finance or the Attorney General -- particularly for the Attorney General -- that we see certain problems in this bill, just as we saw them a year ago when a similar bill was introduced in this House. I would like to join my colleague the member for West Vancouver-Capilano regarding some concerns he expressed about some of the very serious overruns in the Ministry of Attorney General, specifically with regard to the Legal Services Society's deficit. There are problems here that really need some closer examination.
As well, the Ministry of Health has asked for an extra $62.5 million in warrant 5. That's not a small or modest amount, and it really signals two things to us, not only in terms of the finances that are needed.... It's obvious that we would respond by saying that when $62.5 million is involved, somewhere along the line the ministry doesn't have as much control of the finances as we would have hoped.
That brings me back to some remarks made earlier, when we talked about budgets in general, and I think it's necessary to raise them here as well. There is a general problem with the big three: Health, Education and Social Services. When the problem is as evident as it is in the case warrant 5, it's really important, in principle, to point out how this bill must demand the attention of the public. We will certainly raise that in detail later on. I would suggest that warrant 3 is pretty straightforward, but we will have more on that when we get to committee stage. But warrants 1 and 5, I think, must command some extra attention on our part. Therefore it's very difficult to respond in second reading of Bill 24, as the minister has done, by saying that essentially everything is business as usual.
As a matter of fact, having gone through a similar experience with regard to the Ministry of Attorney General last year, I would have thought that this year they would have been more aware of some of the very serious problems. I suppose one rationale for the tax on legal services was to in some way counterbalance some of the problems regarding the expenditures in the Ministry of Attorney General. I understand, as well, that the tax on legal services goes into general revenue. But I would have thought that one would have outweighed the other. Now, all of a sudden, we see some of these problems re-emerge in Bill 24. A year after we explained to the government that there were some very serious problems, it is surprising that we are once again faced with similar problems.
As the opposition, what we have to get across to the government when it presents bills such as this is that we can proceed on the basis of business as normal if we do not have outrageous overruns. The way to avoid that is to gain control of those specific items that are really getting us into serious problems. As a matter of fact, total expenditures by the six warrants of over $107 million must give us cause for concern. As much as is possible, we have to remind government members not to do this again. If a similar bill comes forward a year from now -- it's quite possible that such supply acts are necessary -- hopefully we will not see these huge amounts of money on specific items. I hope the government will identify some of these items -- such as the Legal Services Society deficit or the problems with expenditures as outlined under warrant 5 -- and will get control of them so that we're not broadsided one year from now -- or, if the government hangs around, two years from now. This has to be avoided.
I really do not have much to add, although I will join my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano and take a look at this bill in more detail at committee stage.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to take a couple of minutes to rise and speak to Bill 24, the Supply Act. Essentially the bill has two sections, one that deals with interim supply and one that deals with special warrants. The temptation might be to go back to 1987 or 1988 or 1989 or 1990 and dig out a bunch of quotes to repeat to the government that are full of righteous indignation, which they puffed themselves up for each time we went through this process, but I'm not going to do that. Quite honestly, I think interim supply is a fairly common practice in most jurisdictions.
The only thing I've always been a bit uncomfortable with is that interim supply extends 25 percent of supply -- three or four months -- at a new estimated figure that has not been approved by the House. It has always seemed to me that it would be more appropriate for the government, before moving forward, to continue at the rate approved in the previous budget for the number of months that it takes to approve the next budget. It's a rather fine point and not one that I'm going to allow myself to get puffed up or outraged about. It happens here; it happens in most jurisdictions. Nor am I going to get myself particularly carried away with special warrants. They have been very much the practice of this House.
[4:45]
However, we do have special warrants in front of us that cover about $107 million of spending in excess of that approved during estimates last year. If there is one practice that could be and should be reformed, it's special warrants as practised by this and former governments. It's not a
[ Page 9695 ]
particularly good practice to say to ministers and ministries: spend the additional money -- which you may need or think you need, or which you may have spent and then realized that you've overspent -- and then come back to the Legislature and ask for forgiveness rather than permission, as it were. This is not a large amount this year, and again I will compliment the government on the fact that these warrants are not a lot. Although one always runs a risk at saying $100 million is not a lot of money, compared with a budget that's nearly $20 billion, it's not a huge overexpenditure.
I believe there is a better way to deal with this issue. I would like to suggest that this House look at the practice of supplementary supply rather than special warrants, which would essentially say to ministers and the government that if during the course of the year you determine that there are going to be legitimate and genuine needs for additional expenditures, reconvene the House -- perhaps for a short period of time -- and bring in warrants or supply bills that would deal with those additional expenditures. Give members an opportunity to talk about the need for them. Give ministers an opportunity to justify and rationalize these additional expenditures. I think that would be useful for a couple of reasons.
First of all, I believe that ministers and governments might think just a little bit harder about whether it was critical to overspend the allotted and approved budget. It may force those people at the ministry level to decide if they really want to bring these issues forward midyear to cover unanticipated expenditures. Secondly, it might bring more discipline to the budgetary process itself. Ministries, their staff and the Minister of Finance may well look just a little bit harder at the expenditures they are going to forecast, if overexpenditures would have to be brought back to the Legislature for approval before they were expended.
A review of the special warrants suggests that none of these were considered until March 3, 1994, and they were all considered that day. It is unusual that on March 3 six different ministries would all decide they needed some additional money. It's fair to assume that most of them knew well before March 3 that they were going to overspend their budgets. I suggest most of them had received permission in one way or another, and that most of the money had probably been expended or committed before March 3, 1994, and on that date, cabinet simply got around to dealing with the special warrants and wanted to get them done before the House reconvened. There is nothing new about that. I have a pretty good idea that is what happened, because I have been there and I know the process. But that's not to suggest that it's right.
As we look at reforms and at the way we change our approach to government, I really do believe that there is a practice in place in other jurisdictions that should be considered by members on all sides of the House -- because we do change sides from time to time, and we expect to be back over there again in the not too distant future. But what's good for one is good for all, and these things should not be looked at as partisan and on the basis of whether the government protects its power base or whether you somehow deprive the opposition of an opportunity to partake in decision-making.
With those few words, and having heard your advice to members, I would like to make those brief comments and perhaps pursue in committee stage the importance or relevance of the individual expenditures.
G. Wilson: With respect to Bill 24, the Supply Act, I think it's important for those who may be following this debate in the House to know precisely what this government is doing. When we deal with the philosophical question in front of us -- the principle of this bill, which this second reading debate must focus on -- it is important that they know where we stand with respect to what the government is asking for.
In a sense, there are two parts to this. On the one hand, we are talking about an advance to the government in order for them to carry on spending as we debate this year's proposed budget and go through an accurate accounting of the estimates in a more detailed way. It's not unreasonable in any jurisdiction for people to assume that a government needs money to continue its expenditures. On the principle of the first question, it's hard to deny the government the advance it requires. I don't take issue with the fact that the government requires an advance in order to continue to do business.
But the Alliance is categorically opposed to special warrant spending, because the $107.5 million that is being asked for here is money that this government has expended already on our behalf. It is now, at the end of that year, accounting for expenditures over and above that which it brought before this House and went through the estimates debate to have. This $107 million is money that this government has spent over and above what it contracted for with the people in the last provincial budget. The only reason it has to be done through a special warrant is that, in the province of British Columbia, the House sits so few days that it cannot keep an ongoing account of what the government is doing on behalf of the people throughout the year.
If we were to have proper reform of this institution -- which is needed so that this House can sit in the spring and the fall, and be properly apprised of what the government is doing with the taxpayers' money on an ongoing basis -- we would not require special warrant spending. Through the standing orders and processes of this House, we could bring in an act that would require this government, when it has to overspend, to come back to the House to get the approval of the elected members and to explain to the people when those overexpenditures are occurring why the government is spending more than it contracted for.
We have heard from two of the opposition parties on this question, and they are prepared to spend three and a half days debating ad infinitum the reform on the election of a Speaker, which is a necessary reform. I find it incredible that they're prepared to slide through, virtually without any debate at all, the process of special warrant expenditures. It's strange indeed, especially if we look at the record.... I know that the House Leader of the Reform Party stood here and said that he wasn't going to enter into this debate and quote ad infinitum from members opposite when they were in opposition as to the inappropriateness of special warrant spending. Having already done that on not one but two occasions, when I stood in this House as Leader of the Opposition and now as leader of the Alliance party, I'm not going to go through that debate again, because the record in Hansard is quite clear. Special warrant spending is not an appropriate way for government to spend the taxpayers' money. We hear the rhetoric of balanced-budget legislation and of holding governments accountable. In fact, we hear from the Leader of the Official Opposition that he's going to personally hold his ministers accountable for overexpenditures in their ministries. So if the hon. Attorney General overspent his budget, according to the Leader of the Official Opposition, he would be responsible -- in this case for $28.7
[ Page 9696 ]
million plus $2.5 million plus an additional $250,000. That's a pretty tough expenditure for that minister to personally account for. That quote from the Leader of the Official Opposition is a totally absurd notion.
If this House is to reform itself -- and if all members were to come forward and say that we have to have a way for government to legitimately conduct the business of the people, recognize that expenditures will occur through no fault of the government because of cost overruns or because of unanticipated expenditures, because we need to have a system whereby government is flexible enough to be able to meet those demands on the budget, especially when those overruns are in the areas where we are statutorily obliged to continue those services, such as health care, education and social services -- then there has to be a process by which we can have that money made available. This is the time we should be talking about reforming this institution so that we can get away from a special warrant spending process. When the present government sat in opposition they were categorically opposed to it. I have gone through Hansard in the past to bring out endless numbers from their ranks who spoke against the proposition of special warrant spending. When we talk about why we are spending more, that is the second-largest concern.
As we enter into this debate, I would suggest that we have to look at the $28.7 million overexpenditure in the Ministry of the Attorney General now covered by special warrant. It is a sad commentary on what is going on when we look at overcrowding in adult and youth correctional facilities as one of the reasons and when we talk about the problems associated with the Legal Services Society with respect to year-end deficits. We are talking about a segment of the provincial community that is in trouble. We are not just talking about numbers here; we are talking about a major social problem. We are talking about people who are in trouble and in need. As legislators, in this debate on this special warrant, we cannot let that go without a comment. I don't blame the incumbent Attorney General for the problem, because it wasn't his creation. But as a society, we must collectively take responsibility if our courts are full of people who are then pushed into our correctional institutions that become overcrowded. The solution isn't simply to throw more money at the problem and build more institutions and incarcerate more people. The solution is to find out why this goes on in our society.
Now is the time for us to talk about the disclosure courts, two of which operate. It's a good idea, and I think the member for West Vancouver-Capilano correctly said that this was a good initiative of the government. But what happened in that experiment that the government didn't anticipate? We need to know, because if we are to make this a larger process -- in terms of what is available in the legal community and in those that require disclosure courts -- we need to know how we can address those cost overruns. Now is a good time, and when we get into detail on the estimates -- which I hope I will be here for tomorrow, and I will attempt to get back in time to participate -- I think we need to talk about that. I don't remember the Legislature approving increases in the salaries of court judges and masters. On a personal note, if it came before me right now it wouldn't get my vote, but that's another matter.
It's important for us to recognize that $62.5 million in the health care process tells us that there is a need to come together and collectively start to address the reason. What is going wrong here? When this government tabled its budget last year, and we went through the estimates, its plan was very clear. If we see that a fee-for-service physician is cited here as one of the reasons for a cost overrun, then we have to know why. We as an opposition have to ask, and as we get into third reading of this bill, we will ask and we will find out. When we get into estimates, we're going to find out in more detail what the situation is. The situation is similar with the anticipated Pharmacare expenditures.
[5:00]
Essentially we are saying in these special warrants that these are the areas where the government was forced to spend our money without the approval of this Legislature and without adequate debate as to why it needs the money. I can tell you that while the Alliance is absolutely, categorically opposed to special warrant spending and wants to reform this institution so that we no longer spend one penny without debating it in this Legislature -- which is where we should be and could be -- we are equally interested in debating why these expenditures were necessary. What went wrong?
We're not here to point a finger at any one of the ministers or the members of government, because I don't believe this is fiscal irresponsibility at work -- at least there's no evidence yet to suggest that. If people are in need or in trouble, and our system is not working in the most cost-effective and efficient way so that we cannot live within the means of our budget -- which was tabled, debated and accounted for during estimates in this House -- we have to know why, and we have to correct it.
We've heard a lot of rhetoric in the budget debate about balanced-budget legislation. We've heard a lot of rhetoric about how this government is going to balance the budget by 1996. Now they enter into $107 million worth of special warrant spending. We certainly heard a lot of rhetoric from members opposite when they sat in opposition as to why special warrants were not necessary.
In principle, I don't have a problem with the government requiring an advance, as this section of the voted expenditures appropriation asks for. It asks for $4.821 billion, which is one-quarter of the total amount of the votes in the main estimates for the year ending 1995, next year. They want $4.821 billion advanced from next year. I don't have a problem with offering an advance, because the government has to continue to do business. Our schools and hospitals need to be funded, and people involved with social services need adequate funds to look after the people who require them. Similarly, I don't have a problem with the recoverable disbursements of $319,435,000 under the financing transactions appropriation. But when we sit down and ask why the government needed a special warrant for $107 million on March 3, 1994, I have a real problem with it. If we are ever going to be able to stand before the people of this province and say that we are going to reform this institution and the manner by which government spends the people's money, making sure that not a penny is spent without adequate debate in this House, then we have to change the system to make it possible.
The House Leader of the Reform Party stood there and said that he's been there -- he was a Socred and stood in the government -- and he's not going to hold this government's feet to the fire, because he did the same thing, even though it wasn't right. He says that because there has been no process to allow us an opportunity to reform the institution and make sure that special warrant spending doesn't happen. What I and members of the Alliance are arguing is that now is the time for that debate to take place. We've heard three members from the opposition who did not even raise the prospect of reforming the institution to eliminate special warrant spending so that not a penny can be spent without debate in this Legislature, which is what our position is. I
[ Page 9697 ]
believe all elected members need to have this if we're to have any credibility with the electorate. The electorate doesn't want the government to have discretionary spending to the level of $107 million unless they know what it's being spent on. They don't want the debate to happen after the fact. They want to know before we spend that money why we're spending it. They want to know why our society is requiring that we spend it.
What is going wrong? Where we see people who are in need, are hurting and are incarcerated, and where we need to look after those who are our neighbours and who make up our communities in a compassionate way, we should do so in a manner that removes the institutional expenditures from government wherever possible, putting the onus on each citizen of this province to make sure that we look after our neighbours and members of our families, and those who deserve our support and encouragement.
With the question of principle in a supply act, I know that the tendency is for this debate to take place in the late hours of the day, and for it to be given short shrift. The Alliance proposition is that we should be changing this institution to introduce a single spending authority. That authority should bring together the Treasury Board, the Assessment Authority, the audit services, as well as the Ministry of Finance, with the opportunity for all expenditures to be reviewed and passed in this House. If we were to introduce those reforms, and we were to extend the number of sitting days of this Legislature so that members could properly do the business of the people of this province throughout the year -- and not simply for three months in the spring -- if we were to allow this Legislature and its elected members the opportunity to do that business with a single spending authority that would remove discretionary spending from line ministries, then special warrants wouldn't be necessary. We have stood up and said that special warrants are wrong. We campaigned against it. In fact, the Liberal opposition campaigned against it in the last election -- although they may not recall that. Therefore we have a hard time approving the special warrant now, even though we know that it's money already spent, and the best we can do at this point is account for it.
We are talking about real reform of this institution, and the only time we're going to get an opportunity to talk about this particular part of reforming this institution is now -- in this debate, in this second reading, when we can talk in principle about the proposition of special warrants and how we expend them.
Hon. Speaker, we also believe that there needs to be a reform of this institution, with respect to the removal of special warrants, in order to facilitate the people affected by that spending, and to have in this House a process which we in the Alliance call a direct delegation. We need to reform the institution to allow a direct delegation to come on the floor of this House and make a case when a proposition for expenditures of moneys exceeds the budget, either to have that case heard and advanced or to have that case heard and denied. Rather than simply going to referendum or pushing initiative and recall legislation -- three aspects of reform that are coming into this House for debate -- direct delegation does not put the proposition of a special interest group before the government and allow that group to move aspects that would tie the hands of government. What it does is empower the people in this province with a far greater say over how their tax money is spent.
Hon. Speaker, if the $107,581,895 that this government has spent over budget -- which we now have no choice but to approve because they've already spent the money -- is justified, then we can enter into the much more important debate by asking the question: why? Why are our correctional facilities overcrowded? What's going wrong in our society? Why is it that we find the legal services that we provide to the poor who have less ability to defend themselves in the courts of this province...? Why is it that they are finding that they have to litigate to the extent that they are? We have to ask ourselves far more about what's going on with respect to the Attorney General and the expenditures in the Attorney General's office. It's not that we have to try to push the button that says that we've got incompetent spending, or that we should be overly concerned with the fact that this minister has overspent the budget. That's not the issue. The issue is what is going wrong in our society. How can we better govern ourselves so that we do not require the amount of money that this special warrant suggests we require in order to be able to do the people's business?
I hope that as this moves into third reading....
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. It's getting difficult for the Chair to hear the member who has the floor because of the inordinate amount of conversation on the side. Would the members please keep in mind that we do have a speaker on his feet.
G. Wilson: As we move into the committee stage -- and I hope that I'll be back in time to participate -- we need to ask the Attorney General: what's gone wrong? What happened last year? What is being done, not to procure more money but to solve the problem? That's what we're supposed to be doing in this Legislature. We're trying to look after our citizens and not simply spend their money. We have to ask the same of the Minister of Health. How is it possible that $62.5 million is needed in special warrants when this government implemented its most rigidly structured health reform package, more rigid than the province has ever seen? What went wrong? What was the problem with the supplementary benefits, alternative payments, fee-for-service physicians and a higher-than-anticipated Pharmacare expenditure? That is an issue that we need to raise.
I can understand the whole problem with the student financial assistance program. The issue is that young people are finding that they have to go into debt to get a post-secondary education. It isn't that we need, as outlined here, an additional $3.5 million in special warrants. That's not the issue. The issue is why? Why do young people find that they cannot afford education, and that they have to indebt themselves with student loans to do it? That's the question.
The Buddhists have a saying: if you point a finger at the moon, for goodness' sake, study the moon and not the finger. In this special warrant debate two things are at issue. One is the reform of this institution to prohibit government from spending one nickel without proper and adequate debate. That's what we need to be debating. Secondly, what has gone wrong in our society that allows for the continued escalation of the expenditure of the taxpayers' money in order to allow government to operate from year to year? Those are the two issues at stake in this debate. I hope that we can have an intelligent response to those questions. We all have a stake in this province and in this country. Reform of this institution and our ability to look after our neighbours, friends and family needs to start here and now in this debate. That's what we're elected to do. I hope through third reading we can get answers to some of these questions.
[ Page 9698 ]
The Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not going to take very much time at all, because as the other members have already indicated, the real opportunity for questions and debate on this particular bill comes in committee stage.
I do want to respond, though, to some of the concerns that have been raised about not coming back before this Legislature to debate these overruns in the ministries that have caused us to come here for a special warrant. I accept a fair amount of what the member said, but I think it's really important for me to point out that one of the things that our government has done consistently every year is that, while there have been cases that have caused ministries to spend beyond their budgeted amount -- and in all cases they're very defensible and understandable, and they're in the best interests of the people in the province -- we have made sure that, overall, we have come in on budget or under budget. While these ministries have had overruns which we will debate in committee stage, the overall spending of government this year was managed in order to absorb those overruns. We reallocated, we reprioritized and we took money from other ministries that did not need all the voted allocation, and made sure that our budget this year was $30 million underbudget at the end of the day. I think it's important to keep that in mind, because when we go back over the history of this province with regard to special warrants -- and I haven't had time to look at it -- that wasn't the case. They were, in fact, true budget overruns, and they really were an insult to the members of this Legislature who had voted on a budget during the estimates debate. With that, hon. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 24.
Motion approved.
Bill 24, Supply Act (No. 1), 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, pursuant to standing orders, I'm advised that the House will sit tomorrow afternoon.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]