1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 13, Number 19
[ Page 9723 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Administrator is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.
His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Clerk of the House:
Supply Act (No. 1), 1994
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.
His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today is one of my staff, Lisa Cronk, who is a clerk in my office and has been there during the time that I've been Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, this is her last day, and I'd like the members to make her welcome and wish her good luck in her future as she moves to Nanaimo.
PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX CHANGES
M. de Jong: Two days ago we heard the Minister of Finance hint that the government has already spent $500,000 of taxpayers' money to promote its smoke-and-mirrors budget. In answering that question, the minister specifically referred to proposed amendments to the property purchase tax. Will the minister confirm that contrary to the propaganda being disseminated by this government, this budget in fact removes the tax relief that was formerly available to all individuals purchasing homes, with the assistance of high-ratio financing?
Hon. E. Cull: I guess the member wasn't listening very carefully during the budget speech. I made it very clear at that point that home relief to first-time buyers was replacing the high-ratio financing program. It's replacing it because it is a better program, it serves more British Columbians and it provides a higher level of support.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: The average young family in British Columbia will now have an extra $4,000 in their pockets when they buy their first home.
The Speaker: A supplementary, hon. member.
M. de Jong: In fact, far from representing a tax reduction, as alleged by this government, these proposed amendments to the property purchase tax will actually increase the taxes paid by a family to purchase a home in B.C. by an average of $1,000 to $2,000.
The Speaker: Question.
M. de Jong: Will the minister explain why this information isn't contained in the government's ads and why the government continues to spend public money on propaganda deliberately designed to mislead the public?
Hon. E. Cull: I know that we're going to have ample opportunity to debate this, because there is a bill before the House that makes this change. But I repeat: the program we have brought in will benefit more British Columbians. The change that's going to be made was clearly outlined in the budget speech. If the member is arguing that we should go back to the old program which provides lower benefits to fewer people in this province, I guess that's the policy of the Liberal Party.
The Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member on a new question or a supplementary, I remind all hon. members that when matters are on the order paper for discussion, such as the budget now, there has to be some discretion with respect to when it's appropriate to raise questions such as the member is raising now. Would the hon. member please proceed.
M. de Jong: The question pertains to the ad that ran several days ago. The ad states that amendments to the property purchase tax will save first-time homebuyers up to $4,000.
Some Hon. Members: False advertising!
M. de Jong: My question to the minister is: can she explain how this is possible, when the exemption is only available for homes priced below $250,000 and the tax is 1 percent on the first $200,000 and 2 percent on the remaining $50,000? What kind of math is this minister using?
Hon. E. Cull: I'd be happy to arrange for remedial math lessons for the member if necessary.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: It is absolutely clear from this line of questioning that the Liberal Party...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: ...does not support relief for first-time buyers and does not support putting money back into the hands of young families that are struggling to buy homes in the most expensive market in Canada.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, followed by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Please proceed, hon. member.
GRAHAM ISLAND SAWMILL LICENCE
W. Hurd: My question is for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister explain why the Abbott family sawmill on
[ Page 9724 ]
Graham Island -- which employs 40 people, including 20 first nations people from Masset -- has lost its timber licence and will have to close in a few months?
Hon. A. Petter: The licence in question was a non-replaceable licence, which expires as a matter of course. The company has competed for timber, as it's free to do, through the small business program. Unfortunately, to date, other bids have been more competitive in terms of the value and jobs they produce. Therefore, as that program dictates, the company has not yet succeeded. However, it will continue to compete and hopefully will get the timber it requires.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
W. Hurd: If the minister is not aware, that's the last sawmill available for jobs and economic stability in the Queen Charlottes.
Perhaps I can address my supplemental question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. What steps is he taking to preserve the jobs of 20 members of the Masset Indian band who work at this mill and who depend on it for their employment?
Hon. J. Cashore: The first element in the answer to that question was just given by the Minister of Forests. The second answer is that this ministry is working with line ministries in a wide variety of ways to ensure the place of first nations in the job market. Measures have been taken to set up the treaty negotiation process and interim measures negotiations. These are taking place throughout the province. I find it inappropriate for this member to suggest that we are not taking significant measures to address years of injustice with regard to the employment of aboriginal people.
[10:15]
The Speaker: Final supplementary for the member.
W. Hurd: We have injustice today on Graham Island, part of the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Will the Minister of Forests agree to meet with the principals of this sawmill? It's the opposition's understanding that he will not meet with Mr. Jim Abbott, who's in the precincts today. Will the Minister of Forests agree to meet the principals of the sawmill in person to explain why they are going to have to close in two months' time?
Hon. A. Petter: We have a system of criteria under the small business program that enables all small businesses in British Columbia to compete on a fair and level playing field. If the members over there suggest that I as minister should disrupt that fair and level playing field and play the old political games, then I guess that's their position, but I'm not prepared to do that. I'm prepared to evaluate each and every proposal according to the criteria of the program. Local employment is an important criterion, but so is adding value, and so is the opportunity for bonus bidding. That's the way the system works. If the member over there is suggesting that we should undermine that system and engage in political interference, I reject that solution.
VLC LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROPOSAL
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Housing. I'm trying to find somebody from the government who is concerned over the fact that the Vancouver Land Corporation was contracted by the city to supply low-income rental housing and failed in their bid to do that despite the fact that they had enormous public assets that they could raise money on. This government is the second-largest shareholder in that company, or a subsequent form of that company. Will the Minister of Housing tell us what steps she is taking to make sure that the original agreement for the provision of low-income rental housing is met before any more public money is expended into this private company to allow private profits to be made by its principals?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member has my commitment that this ministry is giving due diligence to the contract that was signed by the Social Credit government. When we were reviewing that contract -- and as the member hopefully knows.... Some of the provisions signed are no longer relevant to today's market.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
G. Wilson: The minister must also know that there was an agreement between the city of Vancouver and Vancouver Land Corporation for the provision of low-income housing that has not been fulfilled, and that public assets have been expended without the guaranteed return to that municipality. Can the minister tell us to what extent her ministry is now looking at further investments of public funds into a private company that has dismally failed to meet its commitment, and what recovery this government might insist on from that corporation to pay back what it has gained from public assets?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As I said, the agreement signed by the previous government is under close review. While VLC has provided a portion of the housing in that agreement, the outstanding units are currently under review and we will be discussing that contract with VLC. The member may not be aware that part of the agreement with the province dealt with interest rates that were significantly higher than they are currently. So the review that we have underway has to do with whether this government continues to rely on that company and that contract to provide affordable housing.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
G. Wilson: In light of the fact that VLC appears to be the frontrunner on the Woodward's redevelopment to provide low-income housing in East Vancouver, can the minister tell us to what extent this government is going to continue to do business with this company, insofar as its record has been so bad that one could argue that it should not continue to receive public funds?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The Woodward's development is not part of the original agreement. We have not entered into discussions with VLC for the Woodward's development.
G. Wilson: It's in their prospectus.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It may be in theirs, but it is not currently in ours.
CLOSURE OF ESQUIMALT WELLNESS CENTRE
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Seniors and Closer to Home. Today is the final day for the
[ Page 9725 ]
Esquimalt Wellness Centre. This is the same minister who just took a kick at seniors over the Pharmacare plan. Will this minister confirm today that seniors are an important part of the Closer to Home initiative by keeping the doors open at the Esquimalt Wellness Centre?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Officials from my ministry will be in contact with the Esquimalt Wellness Centre today to discuss funding with them.
BCNU CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
L. Reid: That warms my heart.
In the Closer to Home initiative, we hear about professionals being in a partnership. Yet today we have public service nurses in this province who have been without a contract for 26 months. These are the nurses who work in home care, long-term care and mental health. These are the nurses who you say are responsible for whether or not the Closer to Home initiative will succeed. Will this minister commit to his own Closer to Home initiative by ensuring that this conflict is resolved forthwith?
Hon. P. Ramsey: A fascinating supplemental, hon. Speaker.
Negotiations with the BCNU are ongoing and serious. This government is committed to negotiating fairly and reasonably with all public sector employees. We will continue to do that with the members of the British Columbia Nurses' Union.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: I take issue with the minister's comments. There have been seven days of negotiations in seven months. Is that how this government takes an issue seriously in the province of British Columbia? Public service nurses deserve attention from this Minister of Health.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The nurses of this province get attention from this Minister of Health. I believe their services are extremely valuable as a profession. I've met repeatedly with them and the union that represents them. We'll continue to negotiate seriously with the British Columbia Nurses' Union, and I hope that we will soon reach an agreement.
REFERENDUM ON FOREST LAND USE DECISIONS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Forests. The Premier has promised that not one forest worker will be left without the option to work in the forest as a result of land use decisions. Is the government so confident of its new make-work projects that it will put to referendum any land use decision affecting forest workers in British Columbia, starting with the CORE report for Vancouver Island?
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I find that an astounding question from a member who belonged to a government that oversaw sympathetic administration. Was that put to a referendum? Was the reduction of thousands and thousands of jobs in this province due to mechanization, which that government did nothing in response to, put to a referendum? Now that member stands up and suggests that this government, which is committed to creating more jobs, more value and more opportunity in the forests, and has a plan to do it that will soon be announced, should put that to referendum. It's an outrageous suggestion, and I reject it entirely.
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Weisgerber: Forest workers don't want McJobs; they want real, working jobs in the forest. If the government is confident that it has a plan that's acceptable to British Columbians, it wouldn't be afraid to put it to referendum. It wouldn't be afraid to give British Columbians an opportunity to speak on these issues. Instead, we get the loud rhetoric from a minister who's obviously scared of public opinion.
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I find it astounding that the member would say that a government which is prepared to act on behalf of working people by creating jobs should not act but should put the matter to referendum. That is an absolutely outrageous suggestion. The people of British Columbia expect governments to act and to create jobs and opportunities, not to preside over the downturn of the forest industry, which is what happened under the regime that member belonged to for so many years.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I wish to respond to a question taken on notice by the Premier on Tuesday. The question referred to Mr. Scott. I wish to advise the House that Mr. Scott's salary is $65,000 a year. He's a temporary auxiliary employee without pension or seniority rights. If the position is to be made permanent, it will be advertised. He is responsible for issues such as oil spills, clean air and park acquisitions.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I note that the opposition has not been critical of any of these initiatives on the part of the government; nor should they be critical of the people who are behind them.
PHARMACARE PROGRAM CHANGES
Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise to respond to a question taken on notice yesterday from the member for Prince George-Omineca. The question was regarding how section 30 of the Pharmacists Act applied under the low-cost alternative drug program. Section 30 relates to interchangeable drugs and says that a pharmacist cannot interchange a drug if a physician specifically indicates on a prescription form that he's requesting a drug from a specified manufacturer.
In relatively few circumstances, there may be medical or scientific reasons for using the higher-priced drug from a specified manufacturer. In those cases the physician may request a special authority form from Pharmacare and, if completed, Pharmacare will cover the cost of the higher-priced drug. If no special authority has been given, pharmacists will be required to contact the physician in order to amend the prescription, or the patient will be
[ Page 9726 ]
required to pay the additional cost of the high-cost alternative.
We have sent information packages to doctors and pharmacists explaining these changes in procedures. I assure you that every effort is being made to communicate and explain these changes to the Pharmacare program.
(continued)
The Speaker: Would the hon. members who are leaving the chamber please do so expeditiously so that we may proceed with the debate.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for being patient and waiting for the House to be quiet. I am proud to rise today to speak in favour of this budget. As I speak, I think I'll reiterate points that have been made in the debate, but I want to also reiterate the positive aspects of this budget to the people of the interior and those people I represent.
This budget sets out a positive path for the province. It provides some good news for agriculture and addresses the key issues that are of concern to the constituency of Cariboo South, which I represent. This budget is clear evidence that the government is managing our fiscal affairs in a responsible way. Careful fiscal management has helped British Columbia through a tough and challenging period, and now we're starting to see the benefits of that approach. The success of the government in managing British Columbia's affairs over the past two and a half years is heartening. It proves that this government really represents the ordinary people of British Columbia. We've been listening to them, and the budget is evidence of that.
[10:30]
Our economy is the strongest in Canada; we have been creating jobs like no other province or region in the country. The opposition has talked about jobs being lost and businesses being driven away, but the statistics tell another story: more than 200 new jobs were created each and every day last year; business bankruptcies were down 20 percent; and 63 new businesses were formed every day. In agriculture alone, the bankruptcies were down to a mere five. That's not failure; that's strength. This new budget builds further on that strength. It reduces the deficit by nearly $500 million, on top of the $1 billion that we've already cut over the past two budgets. It includes a plan to entirely wipe out the deficit by 1996-97 and to keep our total debt as a proportion of our economy the lowest of all Canadian provinces. As promised by the Premier and delivered by the Minister of Finance, we will do all this without tax increases for the next three years. This maintains British Columbia's position as the second-lowest-taxed province in the country.
With all the talk of freezing taxes, some people are forgetting that in some instances we are actually cutting them. There will be $112 million in tax cuts to help businesses create new jobs and to make our tax system more fair for ordinary British Columbians. For example, 2,000 small businesses will have their corporation capital tax reduced or completely eliminated as a result of an increase in the threshold to $1.5 million. Small business costs for collecting and remitting taxes have been reduced. The aviation fuel tax for international flights has been cut, thus benefiting our international business. The property purchase tax has been eliminated for first-time homebuyers, allowing more people to purchase a home who haven't been able to in the past. The trade-in allowances on car purchases has been restored and the luxury vehicle tax threshold has been increased. Both those items will assist people in the interior of this province who require a vehicle for their jobs.
Even with these tax cuts, the tax freeze, a reduced deficit and slowed spending growth, we still have maintained support for vital services to people. Other provinces, like our neighbours next door in Alberta, are cutting funds for health care; we're actually increasing the funding by 3.2 percent. Other provinces are chopping support for education, but we are protecting the education of B.C. children with a 3.9 percent increase that is targeted directly at children in the classroom.
We have rejected the drastic cutting and chopping that the opposition calls for and taken a more balanced and responsible approach. Cutting and chopping might score political points, but it does so at the expense of those who can least bear the attack. We're going to balance the budget without resorting to such a shortsighted approach, because the severe cuts that are wanted by the opposition would hurt people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and other regions of the province. We wouldn't have the hospitals, schools, justice facilities, health clinics and roads that British Columbians need, and our municipalities wouldn't get the funding they need. Instead, this government is taking a more responsible approach, and it has a debt management plan.
This plan will give the residents of British Columbia the assurance that their future will be secure. The province's debt is being managed within our means, at frozen tax rates. Next year's spending will grow by only 2 percent, as will the following year's -- considerably less than the combined growth in population and inflation. This will continue to reduce the size of government relative to the size of our economy. Another part of the plan calls for no money for public sector wage increases this year. To set an example, the cabinet has accepted a 5 percent cut to salaries for the second year in a row. If revenues are lower than we expect, the government will reduce spending to achieve our target of a balanced budget in two years. This debt management plan is in stark contrast to policies of the Liberal government in Ottawa. That government has maintained a record-high deficit.
Jobs are up, the deficit is down and taxes are frozen for three years. We have Canada's strongest economy, the second-lowest taxes and the lowest per capita debt. While the opposition doesn't want to admit the success of this government's fiscal management, they cannot deny the comments of unbiased observers. Wood Gundy said: "...B.C's debt-to-GDP ratio is still the lowest in Canada, and this budget will not alter the market's view of B.C. as a top-notch credit." Another quote from G.A. Pedersson and Associates: "B.C. is on its way to having the lowest tax burden in Canada, the lowest debt and debt-servicing burden in Canada and the highest quality of public service.... Right now B.C. is the place of choice to live in Canada; the reasons will become even more compelling in the future." The budget document is a clear explanation of the nature of government debt and should be read by anyone who wishes to better understand the need for some government debt and its legitimate uses. To my way of thinking, the government understands the benefits and pitfalls of using debt. Now who can argue with that recipe for success?
Let me turn now to some initiatives that matter to people in my constituency and to people in the agrifood business. People in my constituency are particularly pleased with some of the tax cuts I have mentioned. Young people will now find it easier to get into their first home, and the return
[ Page 9727 ]
of the trade-in allowance for automobile purchases will make a big difference. But perhaps the most important initiatives are those that will contribute to the long-term stability of our communities.
For a long time I've been talking to people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin about the need to act now to ensure a healthy economy in the future. This is particularly pressing in theCariboo-Chilcotin because of the pressures of continued technological change in some parts of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, diminishing beetle-killed timber in a few years, low mineral prices, changes in world markets and land use concerns. I've called for action to address the future of the forest and mining industries in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and I have talked a lot about the need for job training to prepare people for the economic adjustments we are going through. I'm happy that this budget includes important initiatives in skills training, mining and forestry.
This budget provides for an ambitious skills initiative that is going to make a real difference. In the next few weeks the government will announce the details of this initiative. It will be a major announcement, as the program includes $90 million in new expenditures this year as part of a $200 million investment over the next two years. Among the benefits will be the increased relevance of high school programs to real-world job skills, new directions and new resources for apprenticeship programs, an upgraded role for several existing post-secondary institutions and the creation of more than 8,100 new full-time post-secondary spaces in the next year. I know that the Cariboo-Chilcotin area will get its fair share of those new spaces.
People in my constituency see the private sector as the key to job creation, but they want the government to make sure that workers and young people can get the skills they need to fill the new jobs being created in the economy. This budget addresses that need.
The mining industry is important to our economy in the interior. I'm pleased that the budget includes an $18 million package to improve the competitiveness of B.C.'s mining industry. This includes funding to continue the Canada-B.C. mineral development agreement, an enhanced allowance for capital expenditures on new and expanded mines and a new mining exploration program. These initiatives will improve the situation of mines now operating in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and they will encourage the development of new mines.
Cariboo South is one of the many constituencies in this province that depend heavily on the forest industry. Our forests and the communities that depend on them are facing some real challenges. Overcutting and bad management by the previous government have threatened this valuable resource, and disputes over the use of land remain heated and difficult. Employment in the forest sector has been declining due to mechanization and a limited resource. In the Cariboo alone, some 1,200 jobs were lost due to mechanization, and across the province tens of thousands of jobs were lost. Some of these jobs were added back through overcutting, and now we have to face the music of adjustments when that overcutting inevitably comes to an end.
Action on these problems has been a key priority for this government since our election. CORE has brought people together to give valuable input to land use planning. While they may not have achieved consensus, many more people now have knowledge about land use and forest management, and they are available and eager to take part in the development of regional forest sector strategies and economic development plans at the regional level. Prior to this budget, we had already taken many other important initiatives in addition to CORE. These include initiating a provincewide timber supply review, which will tell us the nature of the inventory out there and the basis of the resource on which we can make our plans for the next decades; launching the forest worker development program; and expanding the small business forest enterprise program.
This budget includes some important new steps to meet the needs of forestry and the communities that depend on it. These changes will help stabilize and enhance our investment in our forest base. We will make this industry a sunrise industry, not a sunset industry, as the previous Liberal-Socred coalition did almost a decade ago. These new steps include silviculture spending that has been maintained at $275 million. The Forest Resources Commission noted that 15 permanent silviculture programs were started up and cut, but I'm proud to say that this government has maintained and will enhance the spending for silviculture on a permanent basis, so we can invest in this vital industry. The small business forest enterprise program has received a funding increase of 28 percent -- to $140 million -- and a share of that will be invested in Cariboo South to bring onto the market the wood that requires development for that program. This is a positive step that will provide more wood to small manufacturers of labour-intensive, value-added products, and it will provide more forest-related jobs.
Also, $20 million has been provided for the implementation of the Forest Practices Code. This new code will improve forest management and address the concerns of international customers for British Columbia's products, proving that the industry really has changed for the better. Perhaps most importantly, the government will soon be announcing a comprehensive forest sector strategy. This will make a big difference to regions like the Cariboo-Chilcotin by promoting increased value-added manufacturing, more investment in forest lands, protection of the forest environment and assistance for workers and their communities in the face of inevitable industrial change.
Our government has had to deal with years of overcutting and bad management of the forest resource by a previous government. The transition that our forest sector is going through is difficult, but with forward-looking action we can protect the province from the kind of resource disaster that has devastated the east coast cod fishery. Implementing a forest sector strategy is sound economics, and it will have a positive impact on families and communities that depend on that industry.
Skills training, a forest sector strategy and mining initiatives: these three are key aspects of the government's economic strategy. But last week the member for Delta South said: "This government has no economic strategy." Either he didn't listen to the budget or he just didn't understand the budget. People in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and everywhere else in British Columbia will be pleased with this government for its economic plan -- a plan to meet the long-term needs for skills training and to address the future of the mining and forest industries.
As the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I'm pleased that this budget also contains some good news for our agrifood industry. This industry saw improving times during 1993. Even with decreased program payments, farmers achieved record-high levels of farm cash receipts and net operating incomes, and operating expenses actually decreased. In 1993 farm cash receipts were up 5.1 percent from 1992 and up 14 percent since the year this government took office. Operating cash expenses were down 1 percent. The net total income -- not just cash receipts -- was up 40
[ Page 9728 ]
percent to $437 million. That's an 87.4 percent increase in net income to farmers since 1991.
[10:45]
This budget will allow us to continue to pursue our objectives of fostering a competitive industry in the new global markets. This budget will also strengthen the rural and coastal communities that depend on farming, in large part, for their income. There will be some new budget initiatives in green programs which are trade-compatible. We have moved from individual income support to more stabilizing whole-farm safety nets and crop insurance, giving a more secure future for farm income. We have increased research and technology, which is absolutely essential to remain competitive, to produce new products in a way that is effective environmentally and for the marketplace.
One budget initiative I'm especially proud of is the important tax cut that I didn't mention earlier in these comments: the exemption of cooperatives and incorporated family farms from the corporation capital tax. This will put $4 million a year back into the hands of farm families and cooperatives all over the province. It makes family farms more viable and recognizes the special contribution of farming families to the British Columbia economy and our society. The industry pushed for this change, and I worked hard to bring it about. This tax cut is proof that the government is listening and that when industry and government work together constructively, good things can happen.
In the field of fisheries, years of federal mismanagement and declining world prices have left us in an almost desperate situation. There have been calls for legislation to require that the processing of B.C. fish take place in British Columbia. We have lost a GATT case on this, but we haven't given up.
We've brought the parties together to examine the fish processing industry. This industry-led fish processing task force, which I appointed, is now working on plans for the future of that sector. That task force will identify ways to sustain the future growth of the industry, to strengthen and diversify fish harvesting and processing, and to provide options geared towards improving our ability to compete. This includes looking at possible legislative options to ensure that we process as much of our resource here in British Columbia as possible, or legislative options to curb the export of unprocessed fish to the United States. That task force has brought together employers and labour, and I hope they will come forth with many positive recommendations by June 30, when they report.
I would be remiss if I didn't remind members of the House that we have added $100 million to the Buy B.C. program this year. We've wrapped up this program in order to build on the successes. I'll mention a few of those. Last year I announced in the centre of cattle country, in Williams Lake, that we would be promoting Buy B.C. in the stores. That resulted in a 300 percent increase in the sales of B.C. beef over the period of the campaign. Finally, people can identify the food products that are raised in British Columbia, and use their loyalty to British Columbia farmers in making their purchasing decisions. In the blueberry promotion alone, we boosted sales by 100 percent. In the grape promotion, we increased sales of fresh grapes by more than 100 percent. Government working strategically with the industry to promote sales definitely pays off.
If we can increase the sales of B.C. products by 5 percent we will create 4,000 new jobs in the farming and farm-related sectors. And our objective should be to create the maximum amount of purchasing for people here. When touring food processing facilities and talking to people at trade shows, I asked them whether they can buy the inputs to their processed foods competitively. They say that if it's available in British Columbia it's usually available at a competitive price, and they have no problems buying from B.C. producers. That's the attitude we have to take. We have to convince the public of British Columbia that if we are loyal we will see a healthy industry, and that will help us to preserve the agricultural land that's so dear to us in British Columbia.
In conclusion, I have to say that this budget is good for agriculture, it's good for the Cariboo-Chilcotin and it's good for the province. By reducing spending growth to the lowest level in nine years, we are responding to public priorities. When you account for inflation and population growth, we actually cut real spending by 1.3 percent. This represents a challenge to those of us who work in the public sector. But it's what the people of British Columbia want us to do, and it's a challenge we can meet. Our economy is stronger and getting stronger. The deficit is under control and will be eliminated within two years. We have a debt management plan to ensure that we can pay off the province's accumulated debt in an orderly way without hurting vital services to people.
Compare this success with the blunderings of Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit governments in B.C. and Ottawa. Taxes haven't just been frozen; they have actually been cut for thousands of families and businesses in B.C. We have been listening, and we have been making good progress over the past two and a half years. When this progress is combined with the major initiatives related to our forest sector, mining and skills training, we've got a budget that all British Columbians can be proud of.
J. Pullinger: I am very pleased to stand with my colleagues and speak in favour of this budget. It's a good budget and one that will benefit all the people of this province. I am also pleased to support this budget because it shows very clearly that B.C. has turned the corner. We have cleaned up the fiscal mess left by 20 years of free enterprise coalition in this province, and by every indicator B.C. is now leading the way in economic recovery.
It hasn't been an easy two years. When we were elected in 1991, we discovered that B.C. had a deficit of $2.4 billion -- $2 billion more than the previous free enterprise government told the people of British Columbia. That $2.4 billion was the biggest deficit in the history of British Columbia. We also discovered bad debts of $316 million from the free enterprise coalition. We found enormous amounts of waste, duplication, mismanagement and an awful lot of things that had been left undone, like the kinds of changes to our forests and forest industry that this government is undertaking. So it hasn't been an easy two years.
We have been at the bottom of the business cycle. We have a structural deficit for the first time, high unemployment and a fiscal mess -- the worst we've seen in the history of this province. But in two years this government has been able to get B.C.'s fiscal house in order, and we have turned the corner by taking a balanced approach to the problem.
Let's have a look at where we are. In two years we have reduced the deficit over $1 billion, and this budget says that we're going to reduce it by 60 percent by the end of this year, and within two years we'll have balanced B.C.'s books. The first two years of spending have been right on our projected target. That's a tremendous record. And we've dropped spending. The average increase in spending for the last three years of the free-enterprisers' government was 12 percent.
[ Page 9729 ]
We've dropped that to a net decrease for the last two years, and this year we will have the lowest spending increase that this province has seen in nine years.
[11:00]
In doing that we have managed to protect the services that our society and our province have come to depend on. These are the things that make our society something that we're all proud of; they make this country one of the best places to live. Unlike the other provinces, we have been able to protect education and health care spending. At the same time we've brought about some very positive changes, which will ensure that those programs continue to benefit British Columbians.
In addition to that balanced approach, we've managed to actually create jobs. B.C.'s net jobs went up just over 2 percent, while jobs in the rest of the country declined. It's interesting, though, that in spite of this incredible record of success over the last two years, the opposition doesn't see fit to find anything positive to say. They've got all sorts of wild and wacko criticisms.
It's really interesting that because we have the best deficit-reduction rating in the country, they suddenly start talking about the debt. I find it just fascinating. It wasn't even an agenda item two years ago, but it's the common agenda item now. Let's not forget that we have the deficit on the one hand, and income on the other. We have expenditures and income, and the difference is the deficit; we have assets and liabilities, and the liabilities are the debt. The problem with the free-enterprisers and the other great fiscal people on the opposite benches is that they forget about the assets when they talk about the debt. In my view, and in the view of anybody who understands how finances work, that is simply misleading.
B.C.'s economy is in excellent shape. We've got the best record of deficit reduction in the country, and our credit rating remains the highest in the country. We are going to put $600 million directly against the debt this year by eliminating the B.C. Endowment Fund. Our debt-servicing costs are one-third the average. B.C.'s net government direct debt is only 28 percent of the gross domestic product; it's the lowest in Canada. Let's not forget, too, that we would have been in a surplus position last year and this year if it were not for continued federal off-loading. We've turned the corner in British Columbia. We're dealing with the deficit; it's going to be down 60 percent. We have a debt management plan in this budget, and we're paying off some of the direct debt. It's good news for British Columbia.
The fact that it's a good budget and is praiseworthy indeed is reflected by some of the comments we're seeing. Wood Gundy, for instance, acknowledges that B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio is still the lowest in Canada. They say that "this budget will not alter the market's view of B.C. as a top-notch credit risk." I'd like to remind everybody that the credit rating of the federal Liberal government just dropped a bit. Similarly, in their analysis of this year's budget, G.A. Pedersson and Associates make it very clear: "B.C. is on its way to having the lowest tax burden in Canada, the lowest debt and debt-servicing burden in Canada, and the highest quality of public services in Canada. Right now B.C. is the place of choice to live in Canada; the reasons will become even more compelling in the future." That is clearly some loud applause about the way we're going in British Columbia and about this budget.
I think it's interesting to note, too, that G. A. Pedersson and Associates, whom I just quoted, also point out in their comments about this budget that the document is a very clear explanation about the nature of government debt and ought to be read by anyone who is interested in debt and deficit. I would suggest that the people on the opposition benches read it, because they clearly don't understand the difference.
It's interesting to note, too, that we continue to hear cries from the opposition benches that we should be slashing spending. They say we're spending too much. They continue to say that we should be cutting spending and we have a budget that overspends. That's really interesting. I don't find that surprising from the right-wingers opposite, quite frankly, because the ideological divide in this House shows up most clearly in issues surrounding working conditions, labour issues and financial issues. We're hearing the ideological divide among all the bafflegab from the opposition benches, because they can't find any real criticism of this budget. The neo-conservatives across the House would like to see us take the approach we see in Alberta. They would like to see us slash spending so we could balance the budget right now. They've made that very clear. We are hearing an agenda from the other side of the House that says we should be supporting, promoting and applying budgetary support to the very wealthiest among us and to the big corporations, at the expense of the people that are most vulnerable in our society. There is a clear ideological difference. I hope that all of the people of British Columbia are listening, because this is an important debate.
We have chosen, as social democrats, to reject the Klein approach. We have chosen to reject the drastic slashing in the name of balancing the budget tomorrow, because we believe -- and it's now clearly proving to be true -- that by taking a balanced approach that looks after people first, protects our social programs and includes a very clear, even-handed deficit reduction plan and debt management plan, we can boost the economy, have the strongest economy and become the best place to live in the country.
My colleagues the Minister of Finance and the Premier have said very clearly that, obviously, we as government can't take all of the credit for the good shape that we're in. I agree with that; clearly that's true. We have all of the private sector's skills, talents and efforts; we have the entire business community and the world economy. All of those hard-working women and men out there are creating jobs and helping make the economy as strong as it is in British Columbia. But I would offer that it's very clear that government policies do make a difference. We can't pretend that governments are neutral players in the economy or in our society. They make a very clear difference.
I want to make a couple of comparisons to make the point. I have already alluded to the Klein government in Alberta; they have chosen to take the slash-and-burn approach and make enormous spending cuts to things like education and health care. We see the beginnings of privatization of the education system in Alberta. We see a whole lot of very vulnerable people in that society who are paying the price for Klein's ideological drive to balance the budget tomorrow morning. It's not working, and we're hearing the voices of dissent clearly. Let's compare it to the federal Conservative government's record. They were in a restraint mode -- until they got tossed out -- for nine years. At the end of nine years the deficit was not appreciably different from what it was at the beginning, which makes it very clear that that kind of approach doesn't work.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
But the best evidence is right here in British Columbia. Our last recession of significance was in the early 1980s. We had the free enterprise coalition under the Socred banner
[ Page 9730 ]
then. During that time, we saw some of the most severe restraint economics in this province that we've ever seen. Here's where the difference shows up: we saw people marching on the lawns of the Legislature; we saw hundreds of people thrown out of work under the guise of downsizing government; we saw good jobs contracted out at more expense, so that it looked as though government was downsizing the number of people employed.
Let's have a look at what happened and at the effect of that severe restraint, which the free enterprise members opposite are advocating. By every indicator, B.C. is leading the way out of this recession. In the early 1980s, B.C.'s economy performed worse than any other province in Canada. We have been very careful to protect social programs. We haven't been able to give them the money we would like to, especially in this time of change -- change that was neglected for 20 years by the last government. We haven't been able to put the money we would like to put in to make those changes easier, but we have protected social programs. In the early 1980s, we saw social programs slashed, families hurt, children hurt and the poor hurt. Those most vulnerable among us paid the price for Social Credit restraint. Let's not forget, too, that in 1983 and 1984 we saw economic recovery elsewhere in the country. B.C. didn't lead the way; B.C. was dead last coming out of the recession. We had one of the worst unemployment rates. It continued to increase while other provinces were gaining jobs. Business bankruptcies continued to increase, while in other provinces bankruptcies were decreasing and businesses were starting to recover. Retail sales at that time dropped for four straight years. In British Columbia right now, we're seeing one of the highest increases in retail sales.
The restraint policies of the free enterprise coalition in British Columbia in the early and mid-1980s slowed British Columbia's recovery and hurt people, particularly the most vulnerable. I would like to offer that we continue to pay the price for that misguided fiscal policy today. We have an enormous backlog of children in portables; we have an enormous backlog of highway construction that needs to be done. A number of changes that needed to be made were just simply never undertaken in a number of areas, such as health and forest policy.
There's a very clear ideological difference between the sides of this House. We have chosen the balanced approach; our balanced approach is working. We are looking after people. B.C. is leading the way out of the recession, and that's precisely opposite to what happened in the eighties with the right-wing approach.
It's not surprising that we hear the Liberals advocating that kind of drastic, neo-conservative agenda, because we have seen ample evidence in just about every debate -- not just the budget debate -- about who the Liberals represent. While we're looking after working people, the average family and making sure those supports stay in place, and making the tax system fairer -- because it was demonstrably unfair under the previous government -- we see the people on the benches opposite advocating for the wealthiest among us and the large corporations on every issue. The opposition leader has made it very clear that if they are government -- and I hope all of my constituents are listening -- they will gut the new Labour Code that was arrived at by a consensus of business and labour. They're going to return to something very much like Bill 19, which was internationally condemned by the International Labour Organization of the United Nations. The Liberals are going to take us back to that shameful time.
They've made it very clear that they want to entirely remove the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers like teachers and nurses. They want to simply take away their democratic right to collectively bargain for wages and benefits. They want to eliminate the corporate capital tax. They'd like to get rid of it right now. That's $300 million. If the corporations don't pay, who will?
D. Jarvis: Why do you think we're losing investment?
J. Pullinger: We're not losing investment. The members opposite continue to rant that we're losing investment. Kindly read the figures. Investment is up in B.C., retail sales are up, housing starts are at an all-time high, jobs are up in B.C. and the deficit's down -- and B.C. is leading the way.
The members opposite also want to eliminate over $1 billion in school taxes on property. They say that they would eliminate these taxes and pick up the difference in a revenue-neutral way. When you interpret it, that means that they're going to make cuts to social programs and make the most vulnerable among us pay. In short, the people opposite want to return to the misguided policies of the 1980s and balance the budget -- if they could; the last government couldn't -- on the backs of the most vulnerable among us.
Considering who they represent, I'm interested to hear that they object to what they call a $2,000-a-year tax increase for the average family. That statement is only true if the average family earns $125,000 a year. In my view, and certainly in my riding, that is not the average family.... That is one of the very highest incomes in the province. That's who these people represent. They object to people who earn $120,000 or more per year paying $2,000 more a year in taxes to support education, colleges and health care. Quite frankly, I don't think most of those people mind. A family of four with a $55,000 income has been asked to pay $450 over the last two years to protect health care and education, and while none of us like taxes, I'm sure everybody would agree that it's not too much to pay for the benefits they're receiving. The bottom line is that the Liberals want to give their wealthy and powerful friends a great big tax break and make the ordinary working people of this province pay the price. That is the Liberal agenda, and it's very clear to anybody who cares to listen.
Apart from the economic and fiscal record of this government, which is being praised, let's have a look at what we have done in terms of budgeting and fairness. As I said very clearly, we've reduced the budget by 60 percent -- over $1 billion. That's the best record in Canada. We have reduced spending from the free enterprise 12 percent average down to roughly 3.5 percent, which is a net decrease per capita for the second year in a row.
We've cut waste. The free-enterprisers used Government Air as a taxi service for cabinet members. We made a number of changes and saved $1.5 million in the first year. Now we're going to sell it, because we have ascertained that government members and government staff can travel more affordably by different means. So we're going to sell that off and save money. We have saved an enormous amount of waste in Crown corporations by eliminating different bureaucracies.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: The member opposite doesn't believe that, but I would like to suggest that he pick up the very short but very interesting report of the Crown corporations secretariat that shows the amazing mess left by the free-enterprisers, which has been cleaned up and has saved the people of this
[ Page 9731 ]
province hundreds of millions of dollars over the last two years. We've eliminated a tremendous amount of waste and will continue to look for waste in every corner of government and clean it up.
We've increased taxes for the wealthiest and for corporations, as we said we would. We said we would bring in a surtax for 8 percent of British Columbians, the highest-income earners. We said we would ask them to pay a little more, and we've done that. We said we would bring in a minimum tax for corporations, and we have done that. But we have also held the line on income taxes for 92 percent of British Columbians, and we have reduced the tax burden for those at the lower end of the income scale. In short, we have made the tax system fairer; we've jacked up taxes for those most able to pay and lowered taxes for those least able to pay. I think that's laudable, and I'm very proud of this budget, which continues that trend.
We have, for instance, eliminated or reduced Medical Services Plan premiums for 500,000 of the lowest-income earners in the province. We've provided for a sales tax rebate that more than compensates for changes in the sales tax. We've increased the homeowner grant to the average person twice, and more for seniors. In this budget we're eliminating the property purchase tax, and in doing so we fulfil another campaign commitment for first-time homebuyers. They no longer have to pay the property purchase tax, with certain conditions. There's $4 million worth of tax breaks for family farms and cooperatives in this budget, and I'm most pleased with that.
Social democrats, unlike the free-enterprisers who argue that everything should be done by competition and everything should be free enterprise, say that there is a very important place for free enterprise. We support and embrace that, as we have done in this budget, through all sorts of programs and tax breaks to small businesses. But we also say that there is a role to play for public enterprise, such as in health care and education. We disagree with the right-wing governments that say we should privatize those things. We also say that there is a third part of the economy that's very important in community development -- it's one that we've historically supported; in fact, we have our roots in the movement -- and that is the cooperative sector. I am pleased to see that we're beginning to make changes. We have designated a minister, some funds and some staff, and we have acknowledged that sector and have begun the work of promoting that sector through this budget. I'm very pleased about that.
In short, what we've done in this budget is lower taxes for those least able to pay and hold the line for everybody else. We are in a position now where jobs are increasing and the deficit is down. The Premier was able to announce a three-year tax freeze. I think that's exemplary; I'm very pleased with that.
[11:15]
I want to talk for a minute about some of the more specific things in this budget. The budget clearly reflects the focus of this government, the economic and strategic plan that this government has laid out; it's a government for people. This budget shows that we are going to create 8,100 new post-secondary spaces this year. We're going to provide, as announced in the throne speech, more degree-granting status for colleges around the province, and there's $200 million for skills training. That's a significant initiative, and there will be a package of initiatives announced down the road shortly. We have a clear focus on skills training and post-secondary education, and that's enormously important, not only to the people but to the economy of this province. If we're going to be ready for the twenty-first century and the changes that that will bring, if we're going to deal with unemployment, if we're going to get people back to work, then education in all its forms is a critical link.
As well as training we have to deal with the reality of people's lives. Women are entering the workforce and are creating small businesses in unprecedented numbers and still remain largely responsible for home and family. So we have created a large number of child care spaces in this province, and we have announced that there will be 7,500 more child care spaces created over the term of this government. That is a tremendous step ahead for women; it will offer them the choices that they need and want to have.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: I hear the Liberals objecting to child care spaces. I find that amazing. They're probably like the rest of the free-enterprisers over there that think women should still be at home or that children should be put in a closet. Turn around and talk to your colleague behind you. Have a look.
This government is proud that we have taken on what previous governments would not. We are actually putting our money where our mouth is. We've created 5,000 new spaces, and there will be 7,500 more. In my riding I've seen money for a teen learning centre, a cooperative learning centre where young women can go to school and have their children with them. I applaud that. That begins to address the inherent dichotomy in women's lives as soon as they become mothers. So I'm very pleased to see this, as well as the other initiatives to assist women in dealing with their children -- and to assist young families. Happily, it's starting to shift, so that now it's young men and women.
We see a lot of support for training and support for families to help them get the training they need to get back into the job market. But all the training in the world is worth nothing unless there's a job to go to. So one of the other focal points in this budget is jobs. Canadians and British Columbians have made it clear that they want to see jobs, and they want to see a lot more of them, so we're rebuilding the infrastructure of this province. We've got the Island Highway going. We have schools being built. We have health care facilities being built, such as in Chemainus.
Interjections.
J. Pullinger: I find it amazing that the members opposite want to balance the budget instead of doing that. Similarly, I found it amazing yesterday to hear the Liberals enunciating their position, which is against local hire, against the education, apprenticeship and skills training opportunities and against the umbrella -- the project agreement which ensures fair wages to support the people and the small businesses on Vancouver Island. They're against local supply and against the project agreement. And they said very clearly that they think people from Alberta and from other parts of the country should be able to come into this province and take those jobs. I reject that, and I'm pleased our government has done the same.
We have a focus on education, a focus on jobs and, thirdly and most important, a focus on forestry. A huge portion of the population in my area -- the small businesses and individual families -- depend on forestry. We have seen neglect of our forests. We have seen catering to the forest industry by a sympathetic administration, and we have seen overcutting. I am pleased that this government has addressed those issues in the CORE process, in the protected
[ Page 9732 ]
areas process and in the sustainability studies. We see a new Forest Practices Code, and we see the beginnings of a land use plan.
What I'm pleased with most -- and I know most of my constituents will applaud this -- is the fact that we are not going to do what the free-enterprisers would do. We're not going to desert the working people in making the changes that we all know have to happen and that are reflected in PPWC policy, in IWA policy, in our policy and in B.C. environmental policy. In making those changes we're going to look after working people first. That will be announced later, and I'm looking forward to it. I'm pleased to support this budget and all that it does for the working women and men of British Columbia.
F. Randall: I have just a few comments before I start, so I don't forget. I would like to mention the fact that there was no tax on the home-brews. I know there was a bill introduced regarding that matter, but I'm certainly pleased that that was not done.
The other comment I want to make is that the House Leader of the official opposition made certain statements yesterday referring to union officials as union bosses. Over the years I've learned that when anybody uses the phrase "union bosses," you find that they are very much anti-union. The word "boss" is usually not accepted as being a good word, and it's used by people who are normally strongly opposed to unions. I just wanted to make that comment.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. The member for Richmond East on a point of order?
L. Reid: I am somewhat offended by the member's ability to impute some motive to the Opposition House Leader in terms of his comment yesterday. I would ask the member to withdraw.
Deputy Speaker: I listened carefully, but I did not hear any imputing of motive. I would caution all members, however, that standing order 40 makes very clear what is acceptable and what isn't. It seems to me that our debate this morning has gone on with the usual banter back and forth. I haven't heard any personal attacks on members. But I would caution the member to be mindful of the sensitivity of all members of this chamber when proceeding.
F. Randall: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
At the outset, I also want to also mention this report from G.A. Pedersson and Associates. I have just a couple of quick comments on it. I know that it was mentioned previously. The report states: "We are...pleased with the budget. The government deserves credit for reducing the deficit to $898 million in 1994-95, making a commitment to balance the budget by 1996...." Another comment in that report: "...unless the economy underperforms for some inexplicable reason, B.C. taxpayers can look forward to lower taxes, a balanced budget, and a high quality of education, health and government services in the years ahead -- a position to be envied in this troubled Confederation." I thought that was important.
I would like to take a moment to talk about how the government is going to help most British Columbians with this budget. I would also add that when we came to power our province was faced with a substantial debt and deficit. The deficit has now been reduced, as I mentioned earlier in that quote, to $898 million -- a cut of $1.5 billion since this government was elected in 1991. As I mentioned earlier, we're going to strive to establish a balanced budget by 1996.
I also want to mention the fact that jobs are up in British Columbia. Last month one-third of all new jobs created in Canada were in British Columbia. Taxes will be frozen for the next three years, and there are tax cuts in this budget amounting to $112 million. In this budget we have once again proven this government's commitment to reducing the deficit and the substantial debt. We will eliminate four government agencies that are redundant or whose work can be done much better by ministry staff or people in the private sector. With the elimination of the B.C. Endowment Fund, $600 million in assets will be sold and used to pay down the government debt over the next 15 months. All savings from the elimination of these programs will be directed to eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt. Shares of Mac-Blo and the VLC, which has been talked about a lot in this House, are all part of the Endowment Fund that will certainly be sold.
All capital projects will be financed through the revenue of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. The TFA builds infrastructure and facilities that benefit all British Columbians, today and in future generations. We're all aware that there is approximately $55 million each year in revenue in that fund, which comes from the 1-cent-a-litre gas tax and the $1.50-a-day tax on car rentals. In effect, TFA borrowing is like taking out a mortgage on your home. There are people who feel strongly that there should be no borrowing to build bridges or that kind of thing. I certainly support the idea of borrowing and don't know why I, as a taxpayer, should have to pay out $200 million or $300 million for a structure today when it's going to be used for the next 30 or 40 or 50 years. My kids can help pay for it; I don't think I should have to pay it all from this year's budget. As mentioned previously, there's certainly revenue to take care of those kinds of loans.
For the record, I certainly support tolls on new structures. It's a good way to pay for them. I support the idea of the user paying in that particular case. Tolls are in a lot of places in the United States. I've been to Florida a few times and probably paid tolls five or six times a day. Every causeway has a small toll and most people accept it. In effect, those who use it pay for it.
The matter of welfare has certainly been a major problem. I'm pleased that the minister responsible is making some moves to try to cut fraud in that particular area. Anybody who is endeavouring to receive money without properly qualifying for it.... We're expecting a savings of at least $20 million in that ministry this year. There is also a lot of debate in this House over the matter of spending money and reducing the deficit. We hear comments about reducing the deficit, yet we hear comments about spend, spend, spend.
I want to make a couple of quotes here. I have pages of them, but I just want to mention a few. In an address to the UBCM, the Leader of the Official Opposition said: "We need better roads; everywhere people need more investment in their transportation system." The member for Matsqui said: "Matsqui is a rapidly growing community. There is a great need for services to meet our changing needs. The new MSA General Hospital and the Mount Lehman interchange remain stalled. These issues need immediate attention." There is more and more on that particular matter.
The member for Surrey-White Rock said: "Both myself and the member for Surrey-Cloverdale will be pressing for immediate improvement to King George Highway and 24th Avenue, in addition to a third access to the 499 freeway to the border." The member for North Vancouver-Seymour said: "I
[ Page 9733 ]
want to ask the minister about the Lions Gate Bridge. If there is to be a new bridge, there has got to be a minimum requirement of four lanes." The member for North Vancouver-Seymour also said: "Are there any definite plans for improvement of the interchange down by the Coach House area in the near future?" The member for Surrey-Cloverdale said: "Please indicate your plans for some immediate improvement on the intersection of 24th Avenue and King George." And this goes on and on -- there are pages of it here.
[11:30]
I find it very interesting. I am not knocking the comments by these members; they are endeavouring to do a job for their constituents. I just want to make the point that you can't be hollering all the time about not spending, and on the other hand saying: "We need, we need, we need, and when are you going to do something?" They are doing their jobs by raising these matters in this Legislature, but I want to make people aware that every MLA is continually pushing to get projects in their area. So you can't be saying you want this built and save money.
Working British Columbians will benefit from the tax measures contained in this year's budget. For example, the tax freeze includes Medical Services Plan premiums and the sales tax. We are extending the full homeowner grant to more British Columbians: homes valued up to $450,000 are eligible for the full grant, which means that up to 95 percent of British Columbians will receive the full grant.
Just to comment on that personally, I feel that it is a step in the right direction. I would have liked the Minister of Finance to move more. I know that assessments on a lot of homes in some areas -- Richmond particularly -- have jumped drastically. I hope the minister's listening, because I really don't think we caught everybody with this adjustment. I support it -- it shows that the minister is listening -- but I would have liked to have seen a larger number in that case.
First-time homebuyers will be assisted in attaining their dream of home-ownership. That relates to previous comments concerning the elimination of the property transfer tax for eligible first-time homebuyers. Certain rules apply, and there are caps on it.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Burnaby City Council for joining the provincial government in doing its share to make housing a priority. Over the years the council has made great gains in increasing the number of non-market housing units, which provides quality housing for many seniors and low-income people in my area of Burnaby. I daresay we probably have more cooperatives and seniors' facilities for our population than any other area in the lower mainland -- or in the province, for that matter.
Automobile sales is an important part of the local economy in Burnaby-Edmonds. There are a lot of car dealerships in Burnaby, so it's good news to many working people in my region that the automobile trade-in allowance has been restored. A lot of people were concerned about that matter. I have to give full credit to the Minister of Finance for looking at that and for listening. It's also important to note that the cap on the automobile surtax has been increased from $30,000 to $32,000, before the automobile surtax, in effect, comes in. Furthermore, the jet fuel tax rate for international flights is reduced by 1 cent per litre. This will assist the Vancouver International Airport's development as a major North American gateway to the Pacific Rim.
This budget is being cut while continuing to provide the essential public services ordinary British Columbians depend upon, like health and education. We've increased the budget for those ministries to ensure that our children receive a first-rate education to prepare for the future and to ensure that the sick and elderly receive quality medical care. To that end, health care spending will increase by 3.3 percent. I would ask the opposition to take note of what is happening across this country. Many other provinces are having substantial cutbacks in health care, whereas we have increased the money for that very necessary and important service. Operating grants to elementary and secondary education will rise by 4 percent. Grant increases will flow directly to the children in the classroom, with no new funds for salaries or administrative costs.
British Columbia's economy is the strongest in Canada, but we still face challenges as we strive to compete in the new global economy. To help working British Columbians prepare for that challenge, we have provided $200 million for a major skills training initiative over the next two years. The government is preserving current levels of revenue supplements to local government. Municipal and basic regional grants will remain at $136.9 million for the next year.
This year, 47,000 more jobs will be created in British Columbia. In addition, this government will launch a new forest strategy that focuses on long-term supply of timber, value-added manufacturing and helping forest-based workers and communities deal with this change. Jobs in the forest industry are a very important issue. I'm certainly pleased with the Premier's comments that they will not be implementing land use decisions until it is determined what is going to happen with the workers whose jobs would be affected by those decisions.
B.C. 21 and job creation. This budget invests in infrastructure: public transit, ferries, schools, hospitals and highways. This will create construction work in the short run and in the long run will make B.C. a better and more productive place to do business. That means more jobs for British Columbians.
I want to make a comment about the Island Highway. This agreement was tabled in the Legislature by a member of the opposition, and that was the first time I had a chance to have a look at it. I just want to say that this particular agreement has to be a winner for the taxpayers of British Columbia. In my opinion, looking at this agreement, the government has probably saved anywhere from $80 million to $100 million of a standard collective agreement. This agreement is nowhere near a standard construction agreement. It has obviously been negotiated by the government, and they have done an excellent job from an employer's point of view. This agreement has items in it that I have never seen before. It states:
"The employer shall cooperate with the council and affiliated unions in giving employment first preference to their members who are residents in British Columbia.
"To provide economic benefits to local communities in the development areas, the parties agree that the employer, council and affiliated unions agree to provide employment preference to qualified local community residents, and for the Vancouver Island Highway project, to residents of Vancouver Island, including the Gulf Islands" -- and Powell River.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
It also states a couple of other things. A local resident is defined as "a person who resides within 100 kilometres of the applicable contract job site." There are employment equity initiatives, which I have not seen in construction contracts before. It states:
[ Page 9734 ]
The parties agree to:
"Set out employment objectives, following upon joint investigation and consultation by the employer and the council, for employment of first nations people who are residents in the province of British Columbia. To meet these objectives, qualified first nations people shall be name-requested by the employer, and the affiliated union(s) shall clear such employees. The council and employer also agree to establish bridging and outreach programs to facilitate training of first nations people to assist in qualifying for employment.
"Set out employment objectives for the employment of persons who are disabled, as well as women in non-traditional job classifications, visible minorities and other identified groups. To meet these objectives, qualified local residents in these groups shall be name-requested by the employer, and the affiliated union(s) shall clear such employees. The council and employer also agree to establish bridging and outreach programs to facilitate the training of these groups to assist in qualifying for employment."
There are scores of other things in here. I want to thank the member from the Liberal Party who submitted this to the Legislature, because I was able to get a copy. It's the first time I've had a look at such an agreement. It's an excellent agreement. I hope the government is capable of negotiating more such agreements, because it will certainly help the taxpayers in British Columbia.
Also, last year we created the B.C. 21 initiative to ensure public investment creates private sector jobs. Over the next two years the province will spend $225 million as part of a $675 million cost-sharing agreement with the federal government. This will help municipal governments across B.C. meet the costs of sewer, water and local transportation needs -- not to mention create more jobs in every community in this province.
Quality child care is essential in order for parents to get training and jobs to support their families. That's why we've responded to the growing need of B.C. families by expanding child care services by 7,500 new child care spaces over the next three years. I might add that in Burnaby-Edmonds there certainly has been a lot of assistance with child care spaces, and providing new facilities in that constituency.
We understand that government alone cannot build a stronger, more stable economy. That's why this year's budget includes measures to ensure that the private sector continues to grow. The B.C. Focus program will provide an additional $10 million to help small businesses expand. There will be tax breaks for small businesses: a thousand small businesses will be exempted from the corporation capital tax, and another one thousand will pay less taxes.
In general, I agree that the corporation capital tax is not a good tax. People are paying taxes on capital that they put up to start a business, and they may be losing money. I hope that as time goes on the government will be in a financial position to continually make changes to that tax. That's very difficult, because over $300 million comes from that tax. The minister has certainly done a good job in making adjustments so that more and more small businesses are exempt. Hopefully in the long term we'll see that vanish. The elimination of the corporation capital tax for co-ops and family farms will certainly help the many cooperatives and incorporated family farms in Burnaby-Edmonds. I might add that we have a fair number of them in the constituency.
Eighteen million dollars will be available to improve the competitiveness of the B.C. mining industry. Many people in Burnaby-Edmonds and throughout the lower mainland depend on the success of this sector for employment and for their future. The mining industry is a very important industry in this province, and I certainly congratulate the minister responsible for providing some assistance to this important industry.
I would just like to mention a couple of monetary items in this budget that I disagree with. I do not support the freezing of MLAs' salaries. I know it has been talked about a lot. But it has probably been four years since there has been any adjustment in pay, and it will probably end up being six or seven years. I think the freeze on MLAs' salaries is inappropriate. I know the kind of work that MLAs perform in this House, the number of hours they put in and the costs that are involved. In principle, I just don't agree with a freeze on the salaries of MLAs. I thought I should mention that, because that's how I feel. It's very difficult for an MLA to live on the $32,800-a-year salary that's paid in this particular job.
[11:45]
Another area that I hope all members of this House would address and work on together is the matter of community offices. I've spent the last two and a half years struggling and fighting over various problems with an office in the community. There has to be a better way to operate community offices for MLAs to serve the public. A great deal of my time and that of my assistant is spent worrying about office problems that we should not have to worry about. I don't want to go into detail, but I would hope that all members in this House would try and find some way....
Interjection.
F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, a member on the Liberal benches is making a comment about this matter. Members of the opposition do not pay their people a decent living wage, and that certainly causes the problem.
I have concerns about the Liberal Party's big swing to the right. The Leader of the Official Opposition made it clear that he wants to go back to Social Credit days with regard to labour legislation. He was talking about allowing scabs to come in and strike break. They will be back to the unfair labour practices and intimidation we experienced with regard to certification. He would also make it illegal for union workers to refuse to handle products from a strike-bound company; they would have to handle them. He also made it clear that he would eliminate the fair wage, like he did in Vancouver. I'm surprised he's making these statement so early in his term of leadership.
I listened to the member for Surrey-White Rock, I think it is, making statements about how standards of living and wages are dropping -- they don't have the income. Then we hear people saying that we should cancel fair wages. There is no consistency between saying people are poor and then saying we will abolish fair wages. It doesn't make sense.
I've got the funny feeling that it's time for me to wind up.
Interjections.
F. Randall: It's not time.
I also want to mention that new capital investment in British Columbia is up five times the national average. A lot of people love coming to this province. It's a good economy, and I think it's going to continue to get better. I strongly support the budget -- even though I have some concerns -- but I've learned in life that you never get everything you want. In looking at the budget, it has certainly come a long way toward making changes that are going to help a lot of British Columbians and help to stimulate this economy.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak on the budget, a budget that is a concern for all British Columbians. Part of the concern
[ Page 9735 ]
was expressed very well by Steve Weatherbe in his column the other day. He began by telling the joke that a young man was beating his head against the wall, and he was asked: "Why are you doing this?" The reply was: "Because it feels so good when I stop." That's somewhat like this budget. The government says that they are no longer increasing taxes, and they're going to leave taxes the way they are. But they have increased them so rapidly over the last two and a half years that they are like the young man. It feels so good when they stop, but the pain is still very much there.
First of all, I must make a couple of comments in response to our previous speakers. One of the previous speakers from the government side commented that B.C. is leading the way in every indication....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I was just checking our speaking list. It may be incorrect, but it appears as though you have had your place in the budget debate.
V. Anderson: I spoke on the amendment. I didn't think I spoke on the budget itself.
The Speaker: I'm just not certain. It appeared as though you spoke on the main motion. Proceed until we are sure.
V. Anderson: The hon. member from the government side indicated that they have protected social programs. That will come as a surprise to the people on the food lines, to many senior citizens whose income and situation is far more desperate than it has been any time in recent years and to the young people who are on the streets because they cannot find support in their homes and communities or opportunities for education. There is no way that the social programs of this province have been protected.
Also, I appreciate the honesty of the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds in putting forth his opinions, even when members of his own party may not agree with them; I want to commend him for that. I also want to commend him for being honest in his presentation by saying that this budget is to help most British Columbians. That is a very honest statement, because there are many British Columbians who will, no doubt, be helped by certain aspects of this budget. We've never denied that. But I stress again that there are many British Columbians who are not being helped by this budget, particularly those in dire financial difficulties. That's the concern I bring to this budget; it has not dealt fairly or justly with the people who are in greatest need.
We need only to listen members of the government to hear that again and again, for they talked about helping and supporting the middle class. In each item of this budget, we find that that is certainly their aim and their purpose. We're reminded in a recent report of Statistics Canada that 32 percent of our senior citizens -- that includes those who live in British Columbia -- live below the poverty line. The changes in this budget do not affect the majority of those senior citizens who live below the poverty line. Also, it was brought out in those same statistics that those who are under age 65 are also in that same difficulty. This is not a balanced budget in that it does not meet the needs of all the people in the community.
Government members who quote the budget speech talk about the 60,000 new jobs that have been created in British Columbia, but they do not tell us how many jobs have been lost. They tell us about the new businesses that have been opened, but they do not tell us about the businesses that have gone into bankruptcy.
Hon. E. Cull: Down 20 percent.
V. Anderson: They're down 20 percent, but what about the other 80 percent?
We have to be honest. We were asking about their ads earlier. Their ads are not presenting the whole truth; they're only presenting part of the truth. When you present part of the truth, you lose the confidence and the respect of the people who are listening to you. Again and again you have to ask: what is the government not saying, and what is the government not doing in this budget? The crunch on some 30 percent of our population comes because of what the government is not doing and not saying in this budget, and we need to be aware of that. When they give us figures about new jobs and new businesses opening up, they have to be honest and balance those figures with the number of jobs that have been lost and the number of businesses that have gone bankrupt. It's that honesty in government that we have not seen in this budget.
They say that the total replacement value of British Columbia's public assets is $60 billion, but what they do not tell us is that these are not assets that you can sell and recover your funds from. They're not assets in the same sense that an ordinary business person could sell his assets, take the money and retire to another part of the country. Again, they're misleading us in the picture they are presenting.
One statement, though, is very true, accurate and straightforward, and I commend them for their honesty: "But taxpayers have done enough to help the government put our province's fiscal house in order." Yes, the taxpayers have paid for it again and again and again -- not the government.
This government has talked about protecting our heritage and making a balance in preparing us for the future. One of the things they are promising to do is sell off the British Columbia Endowment Fund, which was built up for a rainy day, if you like. There may be certain advantages to doing that, but we have to realize that they're selling off the present on the back of the heritage they were given when they came into power. It's not on the basis of what they've earned or made; it's on the basis of what they were given in trust. It would be like selling your own personal heritage that you've received and then leaving nothing for the next generation. That's a concern: we should speak not only to the present but also to the future.
I have another simple illustration. They've raised the threshold for the tax on luxury automobiles to $32,000 -- a very admirable point for those who buy those kinds of cars. Many business people need that kind of car for their businesses. But not many people who live below the poverty line are buying automobiles for $32,000. What has been done to help those who are below the poverty line?
As we go through it, we find only one reference in the whole budget to those who are in poor economic circumstances. It says that they will be doing things to combat welfare fraud and improve accountability. We applaud them for making sure the system runs in a balanced and effective way, and that they do away with the fraud, incompetence and mismanagement within the system, because that is what is primarily involved. It is not primarily because of criminal fraud that the system is in difficulty; the system and the people who have to use it are in difficulty primarily because of the management of the system itself. Nothing in this budget says that the internal management and operation of the system is going to be affected or changed. So we call them to account for this understatement, if you like.
[12:00]
[ Page 9736 ]
The phrase that has begun to describe the approach found in this budget is: tax, borrow and spend. The government has been telling us how they are reducing the deficit and saving the taxpayers money. But as you read through the budget you discover -- and we are going to discover in the next few weeks and months, because they have promised us this will happen -- that they are going to spend, spend, spend on program after program. If they are going to spend on program after program, then we know who's going to pay for those programs -- not the members of the government but the people of the province. It is not that some of those programs are not valid and should not be undertaken. I am concerned that they tell us one thing and do another. They are going to reduce spending, and then they promise all the increased spending to come.
They say they are going to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to lead the transition to a new economy. I have seen nothing in this budget that will help the small corner-store owner, the independent one-person business operator, the family- operated business. No, they're talking about the middle-class business people, not those who are struggling to barely survive as a family-owned business. There is not the opportunity within this budget to be concerned with those particular needs of this community.
I advise people to look at "B.C. 21 -- Building B.C. for the 21st Century," because this is where they have hidden most of the finances that they're going to borrow and spend, leaving us with a debt heritage in generations to come. For the most part, these are not self-financing projects. They are not like B.C. Hydro, which can up its income in order to balance it off. Once they have done the new hospitals and the new schools, then the clients who use those -- the patients and the students -- will be finding that they and Hydro are alike in paying increased fees and increased operating costs. This will make it less available to them, less possible for them to attend. The concern we hear down the road is that they are going to increase the daily costs of those who have to live in this province.
The seniors have a concern, and the seniors are beginning once again to mobilize to deal with that concern. The one we have heard of which takes effect tomorrow is the increased cost for seniors in Pharmacare. The members of the government are taking their steps forward, as they would call it, on the backs of low-income people, seniors and youth of this province. We need to be very concerned about what this government is undertaking, because it is not going to lead the way for us.
Finally, I would express dismay and concern that this has happened within this particular government. Those who should be most able to understand this are those who live in the midst of this community where the pressures on the economically deprived are the greatest. We find that the Minister of Employment and Investment, the former Finance minister, who comes from the Vancouver-Kingsway riding, lives in the midst of these socioeconomic situations, but he has not reflected that when supporting the budget. We find that the Premier, who lives in the midst of this, in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, is not reflecting the needs of the economically deprived who are his own constituents. When defending this budget, the Minister of Social Services has not pointed out the needs of her constituents in Vancouver-Hastings, who are also among the most deprived within this province. We find that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. John Cashore, who worked in the Vancouver inner-city core and knows full well the needs of these people, has not been speaking out in this House on their behalf. We find that the needs of young people on the street in the Victoria-Hillside riding of the Government Services minister, the Hon. Mr. Blencoe, are not reflected in this budget. Lastly, the Minister of Finance comes from the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head in the city of Victoria, where, again, these conditions are rife and have been for many years. She herself is not speaking out on behalf of those who are economically deprived. I'm concerned about what the budget does not say, the people for whom it is not written and the concern that is not expressed on their behalf.
D. Jarvis: I believe I'm entitled to speak for the next half hour, on the sixth day of the budget debate, so set your clocks.
Tomorrow is April Fools' Day. I just want to tell the people of this province that this budget is certainly no joke. Five months ago this government directed B.C. Hydro to hit the taxpayers for another 3.9 percent increase in hydroelectric rates. This brought a little bit more than $400 million into the general coffers. Tomorrow is April Fools' Day and, for those who aren't aware of it, it is the date on which, five months later, B.C. Hydro is going to increase people's bills by another 2.8 percent. That's not a joke, because without question it's going to hurt people throughout this province who are on fixed incomes.
The people of B.C. should be aware that this budget is not an April Fools' Day joke. This is a tax-and-spend, borrowing government. Now it's going to give us the fourth-largest deficit in the history of this province. I'm not in favour of this budget, and on that basis I will be voting against it.
The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.
Hon. E. Cull: I am pleased to be able to close debate on the 1994 budget.
This budget has put B.C.'s financial house in order. It builds on the foundation for a secure and prosperous future. It brings the deficit down for the third year in a row, this year to under $900 million. It puts forward a plan to eliminate the deficit entirely by 1996. It reduces spending growth to the lowest rate of increase in nine years, to a quarter of the 12 percent increase in spending seen in the last three years of the previous government, and it freezes taxes for the next three years. In fact it goes beyond that, because it makes $112 million in tax cuts that benefit ordinary individuals and B.C. businesses. On top of that, this budget continues to safeguard the essential public services that British Columbians depend on. With this financial responsibility, we are still able to give the highest increases in the country to education and health care. It also makes key investments in physical assets and in people, who are necessary to ensure a prosperous future for our province.
During the debate of the last six days, the members opposite have made a number of specific criticisms of this budget. I believe that the debate has illustrated the differences between this government and the members on the other side of the House. These differences are very important, and I'd like to take a minute to review them in closing the debate.
First, there is a clear difference....
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East rises on a point of order.
L. Reid: It seems to me that in something as important as the closure of the budget debate there would be a quorum present in the House.
[ Page 9737 ]
The Speaker: The member's point is well taken.
There appears to be a quorum, and the hon. minister may proceed.
Hon. E. Cull: I was saying that some clear differences between the government and the opposition members have been made very evident during the course of the debate. I'd like to review those as I close debate today.
Let's begin with the clear difference we can see between the government and opposition members when it comes to our confidence in B.C.'s economy. During my budget address, I noted that the efforts of all British Columbians have turned our economy around. I summarized the measures that we, as a government, have taken to support and participate in those efforts. I cited a number of Statistics Canada's indicators that show we have the best economy in Canada. And I referred to forecasts by private sector organizations that show our strong economic performance is likely to continue.
But members opposite have painted a much gloomier picture. The member for Delta South said investment is drying up, when the truth is that investment has increased by over 8 percent in the last year, due to strong investment in non-residential construction, new machinery and equipment.
The member for Surrey-White Rock said: "Well, where are all the jobs?" The member for West Vancouver-Capilano went a bit further and said he wants us to stop talking about the jobs. I presume he also wants Statistics Canada to stop talking about the 76,000 new jobs created in this province in the last 12 months.
The member for North Vancouver-Seymour said that all major economic indicators show the economy is on the verge of big trouble. I have to ask where this member is getting his information from. It's certainly not from any of the statistics that have been released by Statistics Canada, which show that jobs are up, investment is up, exports are up, retail sales are up, last year was a record year for housing starts, business creation is up and business bankruptcies are down.
The member for Delta South said that we're "facing a debt crisis and a spending crisis." I know that the people over there think they're the financial experts, but let's hear what the real experts are saying about British Columbia's economy and this budget. The Business Council of B.C. concludes: "Based on the new budget, British Columbia's solid credit rating, the highest among the provinces, should be maintained." Wood Gundy concludes: "B.C. finds itself in the enviable position of strong economic growth and job creation, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any of the provinces, the lowest debt-servicing-to-spending ratio of any of the provinces and the highest credit rating." They conclude by saying: "...this budget will not alter the market's view of B.C. as a top-notch credit risk." An analysis by G.A. Pedersson and Associates of Vancouver concludes: "...B.C. taxpayers can look forward to lower taxes, a balanced budget and a high quality of education, health and government services in the years ahead -- a position to be envied in this troubled Confederation." The analysis goes on to say: "B.C. is on its way to having the lowest tax burden in Canada, the lowest debt and debt-servicing burden in Canada and the highest quality of public services in Canada. Right now B.C. is the place of choice to live in Canada, and the reasons will become even more compelling in the future."
It's hard to believe that these private sector analysts and the members opposite are talking about the same province. We on this side of the House believe that British Columbians should be proud of our economic progress, and this budget builds on that progress.
[12:15]
The second major difference is between our government's and the opposition's stand on federal government off-loading. Last year we commissioned the accounting firm of Ernst and Young to estimate the magnitude of off-loading by the federal government onto the province of British Columbia. They concluded without doubt that we would have had a budget surplus last year and this year if the federal government had lived up to its commitments. The members opposite refuse to even acknowledge this.
The member for Richmond-Steveston said: "There is no off-loading at all." He said: "It's not all that clear to me that the present federal government is necessarily off-loading." Let me repeat: an independent analysis has shown that we would be in the black, we would have a surplus, if the federal government was living up to its commitments. This government has opposed federal off-loading for the last two years with the Conservative government, and we will continue to oppose it with the Liberal government in Ottawa.
The third major difference is the priority that is given to protecting essential services for people and making key investments in B.C.'s future. The government has continued to reduce the deficit and cut the rate of spending growth while maintaining basic services that are the underpinning of our economic prosperity. During the debate, members opposite have claimed that the spending is somehow out of control. But our achievements in cutting spending growth are very clear. We've gone from 12 percent in the last three years of the former government to 3.5 percent this year. That effort has been very favourably received by private sector analysts. Wood Gundy Ltd. concludes that this year's spending growth is in line with other provincial budgets presented to date, particularly when adjusted for the province's rapidly growing population. G.A. Pedersson and Associates observes that the emphasis on cost control is laudable, particularly for an NDP government.
This government has explicitly rejected the slashing programs advocated by others -- balancing the budget overnight and freezing the debt no matter what impact it has on people in the province. Taking such a course when our population is growing as rapidly as it is -- 80,000 people moved here last year; almost that number are moving here again this year -- would entail major cuts in services to people and would ultimately undermine economic recovery in the province. We know that in B.C. the legacy of the restraint program for the 1980s is still with us in some places. We're still having to correct mistakes that were made over a decade ago, when this kind of draconian approach was the order of the day.
The debate has clearly indicated the opposition's position when it comes to this approach to government. The member for Chilliwack has said that there shouldn't have been any spending increase this year. Despite the fact that we have a rapidly growing population and economy, he would cut spending and balance the budget immediately. The opposition Finance critic said that he'd go even further: he'd cut spending until it was below 18 percent of the gross provincial product. He said: "It's a difficult task, but you'll never know if you can achieve it until you try."
But the member did not say that this would mean cutting $2 billion more off spending. That's equivalent to the entire budget for hospitals, half of the budget for public schools or double the grant for post-secondary education. Put it another way: if we were to maintain funding for health and education but do what the opposition Finance critic wanted us to do, we'd have to cut spending for all other areas of
[ Page 9738 ]
government by 30 percent. Another way of looking at it is that we could take it out of the pockets of the public sector -- and we'd have to implement a 20 percent across-the-board cut for all nurses, hospital workers, public school teachers, university professors and public servants. No matter how you look at it, the impacts that would come from an approach such as the opposition has recommended would dwarf the experience of radical restraint here in the 1980s and the approach now being tried in Alberta.
That's what the Liberals say in the budget debate, but they haven't been totally forthcoming on this one. In other settings, with other audiences, they say very different things. The Leader of the Opposition, in his first speech as leader to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, said: "We need better roads. Everywhere people need more investment in their transportation system." The new member for Matsqui, in the Matsqui by-election, said:
"My platform is simple, direct and to the point. The University College of the Fraser Valley must be given additional funds and land to expand. The new MSA General Hospital and Mount Lehman interchange remain stalled; these issues need immediate attention. In the longer term...options such as rapid transit, bridge and highway expansion and additional ramp facilities must be reviewed."
The opposition, time after time outside of this House have demanded that the government make additional investments in infrastructure. We on this side of the House agree with them. It is absolutely necessary that we invest in the future of this province -- the fastest-growing province in Canada. But we're not hypocrites. We do not on one hand say, "Spend more money in my riding," and then come in here and try to say that the government is spending too much.
The budget is not just about numbers. It's about people, our communities and a way of life. It's about working men and women in this province who want jobs and want to ensure that their families are provided for. Ensuring that that happens means getting our fiscal house in order. We have done that by cutting the deficit by over 60 percent and reducing the rate of spending growth. We must also continue to make investments in our future -- in roads, schools and health care. It means investing in people as well as physical assets and making sure they have the skills required for the jobs that will be there.
The members opposite have said over and over during this debate that the $898 million deficit isn't the point. They want to talk about debt. Well, let's talk about debt for a minute. It's true that the debt this year is going to increase by $2 billion. That includes all of the debt for direct government borrowing and all the Crown corporations, including the self-financing Crown corporations of B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail. Two-thirds of this $2 billion increase is for capital spending for long-lasting assets like schools, hospitals and roads. It's for investment in the physical assets we need to keep this rapidly growing province and economy going. The benefits of these assets are long-lasting, and it is entirely reasonable to finance them over time. It's the same thing we all do when we take out a mortgage to finance the asset of a house.
Interjections.
Hon. E. Cull: Debt is an issue, and there is certainly no question that we take that very seriously. But let's be clear about what we are borrowing for. When those members on the opposite side say that we should not have added a single cent to this year's debt, they are saying they don't want the schools in their communities to be upgraded to withstand earthquakes; they don't want long-term care facilities built for senior citizens; they don't want the cancer clinics expanded; they don't want new road construction; they don't want ferries improvement; and they don't want public transit.
The answer is not to stop investing in the future of our province. The answer is to eliminate the deficit as soon as possible, develop a solid debt-management plan and make sensible, careful spending decisions. That's exactly what we're doing in this budget.
During the budget debate members opposite said there wasn't any long-term economic plan. Clearly they have not read the budget. The budget puts forward a plan to eliminate the deficit and control debt; it continues initiatives to provide the public investments necessary for the private sector to get on with the job of creating jobs for people in this province; it makes long-term investments in our future by investing in people through a skills training initiative; and finally, it freezes taxes for three years and cuts taxes by $112 million, to improve fairness and help businesses grow.
In contrast, the opposition has put forward only one alternative: a tax break for large corporations. They've called for the elimination of the corporation capital tax.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members! It's getting a little bit too chatty. I can't hear the speaker.
Hon. E. Cull: They've refused to tell British Columbians how they're going to replace that $350 million in lost revenue. What taxes for ordinary British Columbians will the opposition raise to make up that $350 million? What public services will those members cut to provide that tax break to large corporations? They won't tell us what they're going to do.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. E. Cull: In summary, I think it's very clear that this budget offers a clear choice and a clear direction. Unlike the members opposite, we believe that British Columbians have the right to feel good about our economic future. We've created more jobs than any province in Canada, the deficit is down and taxes have been frozen.
In this budget we're taking action to build on the economic success of the past two years to ensure a prosperous future. We're bringing down spending growth in a planned and responsible way. We've rejected the drastic cuts that have been proposed by the opposition, which would make us less healthy, less well-educated and less well-off. We will not freeze long-term debt if that means failing to provide for the key economic investments needed for our future and failing to look after our children and sick people. Investments in roads, transit, schools, hospitals and universities are essential to a healthy, growing economy like British Columbia's, and we will continue to make key investments to be sure that they are there when needed by our people.
This budget puts forward a clear choice, clear goals and clear priorities. The deficit will be eliminated by 1996. We're making new investments in skills training and job creation and in the long-term future of our forest sector. In summary, this budget builds a healthy economy and a secure future for British Columbia.
[ Page 9739 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: I'd like to now move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Women's Equality, that the hon. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I wish everybody a healthy long weekend. Just before I move adjournment, I wish to advise all members that by agreement we'll be coming back on Tuesday at 2 p.m. -- Monday hours.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:29 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]