1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 12
[ Page 13179 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I want to make an introduction on your behalf of some guests who, I believe, dined with you this afternoon. We are being visited today by a group of young men and women from the province of Ontario, who happen to be legislative interns and are, I gather, comparing notes with the people doing that job here in B.C. The following young people are here in the precincts today: Mr. Graham Abbey, Mr. Nick Ametrano, Ms. Franca Gucciardi, Mr. Clare Halldorson, Ms. Catherine McKellar, Mr. Gregory Moore, Ms. Lesley Ruzicka and Ms. Ann Wales. Will my colleagues please join me in giving them a rousing welcome.
B. Copping: In the gallery today we have approximately 30 grade 11 students from Port Moody Senior Secondary school. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Devlin, and several adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Dalton: Visiting in the gallery today are Dr. Maureen McCann and a constituent of mine and a good friend, Mr. Les Strike. Would the House please make them both welcome.
F. Jackson: Visiting in the gallery today is a constituent of mine and a very good friend, Mr. David McGregor. David is in Victoria to visit friends and family, and I suggested he drop in here and see how good government works, and how easy it is to withstand the opposition when you are good government. I would ask that the good government and the opposition make David welcome.
M. de Jong: Many members, particularly those on the government side, will recognize Mrs. Patsy Hardigan and her daughter Michelle, who attended the convention held by the governing party on the weekend. They are not from Abbotsford, but they are here because their family faces an absolutely desperate situation involving a contaminated site in New Westminster. They have been trying for many, many months now to meet with the Minister of Environment. I will commend them to the minister and hope that those channels will be opened today.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: That's the welcome they require, hon. member: a meeting with the minister.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the member for Matsqui for remembering the courtesies of the House, because I rise to introduce some constituents of mine: Patsy Hardigan and her family. I would ask the House to make them welcome, as they are being assisted by the government.
MOUNTAIN RESORT ASSOCIATIONS ACT
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mountain Resort Associations Act.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce the Mountain Resort Associations Act. This act is another example of the government's ongoing commitment to promote investment and create long-term jobs in British Columbia. In particular, this bill will allow for the creation of strong resort associations in mountain resort communities, which in turn will serve to promote the resort and provide amenities for visitors. Mountain resort communities have the potential to be key economic engines, especially in regions outside major urban centres.
As part of this bill we're also introducing amendments to the Municipal Act, amendments which will also serve to foster mountain resort development in British Columbia by enhancing the ability of local government to more effectively handle the rapid growth of mountain resort communities. Local government will have the tools to better provide services to the larger community, while the business and resort sectors will be better able to promote themselves.
Bill 10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
JOB PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Job Protection Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 8 is one of the key instruments in support of the job preservation and economic development responsibilities of my ministry. Passage of the bill is needed to extend the application of the Job Protection Act and to continue the operation of the Job Protection Commission beyond April 12, 1995. The Job Protection Act was brought into force in April 1991 and amended in 1993. The act contains a sunset provision, and, without amendment, the Job Protection Act will expire on April 12.
There has been strong growth in many sectors of the B.C. economy. However, there are resource-based businesses and communities affected by structural problems faced by industry. The Job Protection Commission has been vital in protecting the jobs and livelihood of many British Columbians. It has worked with 181 firms employing 24,000 people. The commission continues to work on economic plans, mediation and counselling projects where jobs are at stake.
The work of the commission continues to be vital. The Job Protection Amendment Act will ensure that the commission's important contribution to regional stability can continue for two more years. This will allow the commission to complete its work so that businesses and workers in all regions of the province are able to participate in economic restructuring.
Bill 8 also extends the repeal date of certain sections of the Forest Act. Extension of these sections will be enacted as a consequential amendment under the Job Protection Act.
Bill 8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE INCREASES
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Over the weekend the NDP has shown once again that if you're on the inside track you get a special deal. They struck two separate deals with public sector wage unions. After promising to restrain public sector wages, the government has folded like a
[ Page 13180 ]
cheap camp stool. Can the Premier tell us the details of the backroom deals that he cut at the convention on the weekend, and while he's at it, can he tell us who is running the province, the Premier or John Shields of the B.C. Government Employees' Union?
Hon. E. Cull: As the minister responsible for the Public Sector Employers' Council, I will answer this question.
As the members know full well, wage guidelines have been in place in this province now for over 12 months, and they are working. We saw last year that public sector wages increased 1.6 percent, compared to private sector wage increases of 2.2 percent. More importantly, they are working to ensure that the lowest-paid workers in our public sector -- mostly women, people who are providing vitally needed social and health services -- are getting paid decent wages. We take our responsibility very seriously, and when employers and workers bring concerns to me about the applications of the guidelines, I listen. We listened, and we are bringing in Judi Korbin again to take another look at the concerns that have been placed before our government by both employers and workers.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: The Finance minister has acknowledged she was persuaded by public sector unions to make wage guidelines more flexible. She has admitted she cut a deal with the unions at her own convention. How much will the taxpayers be stuck for this special deal? Will she today tell the people of the province what this backroom deal cut on the weekend will end up costing the taxpayers of this province?
[2:15]
Hon. E. Cull: It's always dangerous when the opposition does its research...
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member.
Hon. E. Cull: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
...from the morning's newspapers.
Judi Korbin is going to be looking at the structure of bargaining, she's going to be looking at the application of the guidelines, and she's going to look at the original recommendation that the Korbin commission made that there be a formal structure for public sector workers and public sector employers to talk together with the government.
What she will not be looking at is the amount of dollars available to pay for public sector wages, because the budget I tabled last week and the fiscal framework we have set remain in place.
B.C. HYDRO OFFICE EXPENDITURES
G. Farrell-Collins: At the same that the Premier was championing the interests of working families this weekend, his good friend and longtime NDP supporter John Laxton was lounging in his B.C. Hydro penthouse office, which he inherited from that grand pooh-bah of the NDP, Mr. Marc Eliesen. It turns out that Mr. Laxton had a different taste in furniture and art than Mr. Eliesen. Can the Premier tell us why, when working families are being hit with Hydro bill increases, his NDP buddy, his personal friend, is spending almost $80,000 to spruce up his penthouse office?
Hon. G. Clark: It's a totally irresponsible question, obviously, from the members opposite, because the members know that when Mr. Laxton became chair of B.C. Hydro, the former chair was a full-time position at about $195,000. Mr. Laxton is paid some $4,000. Therefore the chair's office was no longer needed for a single executive. Renovations made it usable as a multi-use facility for Hydro to use for corporate business and for corporate purposes.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: We can leave aside the outrageous $195,000 pay that they gave the last guy who was in that job. I'm sure the minister has seen and approved the list of things Mr. Laxton spent money on for his office, but to illustrate for his cabinet colleagues -- and the Premier, I suppose -- I'll list some of them: $34,000 in art, an $11,000 Lackawanna leather couch, marble flooring and a $300 bathroom mirror. The NDP and their patronage appointees just don't understand that taxpayers, hard-working families in this province, find that outrageous. Will the Premier finally stand up for real working families in British Columbia, and not NDP half-working families?
Hon. G. Clark: I recall that when the Leader of the Opposition became mayor, the first thing he did was renovate and put a bathroom in his office. I recall also that when he hired Peter Brown's son, they renovated a city hall office for that political friend of the opposition leader -- unlike this renovation, which makes this office usable for all of B.C. Hydro, at a time when a part-time chair is doing volunteer work for British Columbians. This renovation is for B.C. Hydro executives to use for their corporate business, not for the chair of B.C. Hydro -- unlike the precedents established by the Leader of the Opposition when he was mayor.
RIGAUX APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL
J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Social Services. In testimony before the Gove inquiry last November, Joyce Rigaux admitted that she was hired as superintendent of child services without any experience in child protection. Can the minister tell us why in heaven's name Joyce Rigaux was hired, given that she had no special expertise in child protection? And can the minister tell us how much the ministry paid to fire her predecessor, Leslie Arnold, who had been there since 1987, with a fine record as a public servant in that position?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Ms. Rigaux did have much experience in the area of child welfare prior to being hired by the ministry -- a wide range of experience. On the second part of the question, I can provide that information; I don't have it with me.
J. Weisgerber: Don't spend a lot of time: you paid $126,000 to get rid of Leslie Arnold, who was doing quite an outstanding job at the time.
Can the minister tell us how much her ministry has spent to date defending her decision to fire Joyce Rigaux, and can she tell us also: is the province picking up the legal tab for Joyce Rigaux in her claim for unfair or unwarranted dismissal?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Ms. Rigaux was terminated for abuse of office in a private dispute with an airline. The wrongful dismissal suit brought forward by Ms. Rigaux is.... Her legal costs were assumed by herself.
[ Page 13181 ]
LAWSUIT OVER ENERGY COUNCIL LEVIES
D. Jarvis: The bill that the taxpayers must pay for the now defunct Energy Council just keeps growing and growing. We now learn that the B.C. government is suing Westcoast Energy and Trans Mountain Pipe to recover the levies, as the companies refuse to pay for the operating costs of the Energy Council. Can the Minister of Energy tell us on whose authority the government decided to sue?
Hon. A. Edwards: If you've been following this, you will know that two of the companies that were assessed a levy to cover the Energy Council's activities decided that they need not pay because they were regulated by the National Energy Board. Our legal advice is that that's not the case whatsoever. As they continue not to pay their bill, we have taken the issue to court.
D. Jarvis: The government has apparently known from the very beginning that it might not have the constitutional authority to levy the provincial charges for the Energy Council. Now the taxpayers are being stuck twice: once for the remainder of Dick Gathercole's lucrative contract and now for an expensive lawsuit. At $4 million and rising, can the minister tell us now how much more the taxpayers should be forced to pay to reward another failed NDP candidate, whose only claim to fame is the fact that he wrote the energy policy for the NDP?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm surprised the member assumes whose side is the right side in a law case when it's before the courts. We have advice that indicates we are doing the correct thing. We will continue to do the correct thing, as our legal advisers tell us.
I would also like to make a very clear statement that I don't think maligning the reputation of a man who has served this province extremely well and has been very well qualified to do so is worthwhile for the opposition to do. We have settled with Mr. Gathercole as far as his severance is concerned, and it is, of course, a matter of public record.
TRADE MISSION TO MYANMAR
V. Anderson: The B.C. Liberal opposition has learned that a member of the Premier's staff, the president of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, is about to embark on a trade mission to Burma, known as Myanmar. The Myanmar democratic opposition leader, Nobel laureate Aung San, has been held under house arrest since 1989. The Burmese military dictatorship is routinely involved in the forced relocation of aboriginals, political murders, arbitrary detention, torture and rape. How can the Premier allow a member of his staff to visit this military dictatorship officially on behalf of British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll find out the information about this question, and I'll take it on notice.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
M. de Jong: One of the attendees at the weekend convention of the New Democratic Party was NDPer Dave Stupich himself, who refuses to cooperate with the forensic audit that Mr. Parks is conducting. My question to the Premier is: will he now show some leadership as leader of the New Democratic Party and tell his colleague Mr. Stupich to stop his stonewalling immediately and cooperate with the forensic audit being conducted by Mr. Parks?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If the member had been listening for once in his life instead of speaking, he would have heard me say at least twice over the last week, and many times before this, that Mr. Stupich has a responsibility to New Democrats to assist in getting at the truth of what happened to the bingo funds NCHS received. He would have heard me say that Mr. Stupich has an obligation to the people of British Columbia to cooperate with Mr. Parks and to make sure we can get at the truth of where these funds went.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North.... Hon. member, I'm sorry, the hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental. My mistake.
M. de Jong: We've heard the Premier say he'll eliminate the corporate capital tax and that he'll protect jobs in the outlying communities of British Columbia, and he wonders why we don't believe him when he says that he's going to take action that will compel members of his caucus to cooperate with Mr. Parks. My question to the Premier is: in light of what Mr. Stupich has done and said -- the continued stonewalling -- will the Premier now categorically commit his government to a full, open and completely public inquiry into this sordid Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal that just won't go away?
Hon. M. Harcourt: For an opposition that maligns people's character and is involved in the politics of smear over and over again in this House, to not allow Mr. Parks to complete his investigation, to look at the documents that I asked be seized and held for Mr. Parks, for a New Democratic Party that has completed a review of the books of the New Democratic Party and passed that information on to Mr. Parks -- a review of 130,000 financial transactions that show there is no evidence of any of those funds going to the B.C. New Democratic Party.... If the opposition was as interested in getting at the truth as I and this government are, they would stop the politics of smear they have been doing over and over again, which is going to come back to haunt them.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark tabled the following reports: Science Council of British Columbia Activity Report, 1993-1994; B.C. Hydro and Power Authority annual reports, 1993 and 1994; B.C. Buildings Corporation annual report, 1993-94; and Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade annual report, 1992-93.
Hon. B. Barlee tabled the 1993-94 annual report of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.
Hon. G. Clark: I call continuation of the budget debate.
(continued)
L. Fox: It's a privilege for me to stand in my place and represent the people from Prince George-Omineca and their views on this government's budget. We've come to expect
[ Page 13182 ]
certain things from this NDP government, one of which is that it says all the right things but its actions are totally different. At the outset, the budget is a group of very skilfully crafted and carefully selected words, but what's in this budget is one of the finest examples of a set of cooked books that we've seen in the history of British Columbia.
[2:30]
This government has the gall to suggest in the budget speech that the budget predicts a surplus of $114 million this year. Well, in fact, it continues to increase the tax-supported debt by $750 million. The debt has increased under this government since it took office from $12.5 billion to $19.5 billion -- $7 billion over the course of the last three and a half years.
Instead of respecting the wishes of British Columbians and downsizing government and reducing the demand on taxpayers, we see an increase this year alone in the spending of this government by almost $1 billion. At this time in our economic upturn, we should be setting aside dollars for future needs. When we know there will be a downturn in the economy, we should be paying down the debt at a time when the economy is strong. Instead, this government chooses not to plan for the future and to continue to spend, and -- what's very unfortunate -- in doing so, it tries to put forward the fact that it has controlled spending and brought its fiscal house into order.
Nothing could be more false. Last year the budget estimates were $19.6 billion. Yet this government had to bring in warrants to cover overspending of $200 million. Much of this was spent not on the welfare of British Columbians, not on what was in the best interests of British Columbians, but on what was thought by this government to be in its best political interests. It is extremely unfortunate that this government should choose to snub its nose at the taxpayers of British Columbia and to try to buy favours from the taxpayers for the upcoming election. That was tried in the past, and the voters told that government of the past that they didn't respect it, that they didn't like it, and that in fact they wanted more credibility. This government didn't learn from the lessons of the past. They are going to be told by the electorate that should and when they call an election, the people of British Columbia are going to turn thumbs down on them.
At a time when many provinces are realistically balancing their budget, why do we see a net increase of 445 civil servants in this budget? In prior years of this government, we saw an increase of 3,600 civil servants. In the last four budgets, there has been an overall increase in the size of government of 4,100 people. That is disgusting, and it certainly will not be supported by the taxpayers in British Columbia.
We have seen an increase in government spending, yet we haven't seen it produce the products and needs that British Columbians want. I recall many backbenchers standing up over the course of the last three years, and some over the course of these budget debates, saying that they were going to reduce portables in the province; they were going to keep health care whole in the province. On those two items alone I mark a big F, because this government has failed in both of those areas.
This government has had its priorities in the wrong spot. Perhaps it hasn't even gone through a planning process which has created priorities. It seems to spend on an ad hoc basis based on the political interests of that party, rather than creating priorities for the needs of British Columbians.
We have a situation right now in Richmond, one of the fastest-growing areas of British Columbia, where this government -- believe it or not -- has announced the Garry Street school three times over the course of the last three years. But because of the bureaucracy and the fact that the Minister of Education has changed the approval process to 21 approvals versus the seven steps it took in the past, there is still nothing but a pile of sand on that street. In fact, that district is being told that the school will not be contained in this year's funding envelope. That school district has 23,000 students, of whom over 5,500, or 24 percent, are in portables. If this government had designed its funding priorities based on the needs of British Columbia, we would not see that school board and that district with a shortage of classrooms -- very old classrooms -- and 24 percent of the school population going to portables, with no change in the foreseeable future.
An Hon. Member: You just want to spend more money.
L. Fox: Typically, we get the backbenchers shouting out: "You just want to spend money." It's not a case of spending money; it's a case of setting priorities for what is in the best interests of British Columbia, and not what is in the best interests of this NDP government. That's the problem.
What we've seen is that this government has continued to spend. In fact, it has increased spending by over $3 billion a year since it took office. Beyond that, as I said earlier, it has incurred an additional $7 billion in debt. What does that do, hon. Speaker? Let me tell you what that does: that increases the debt service from $560 million in the first budget of this government in 1992 to about $1 billion today. That's $435 million that could have been spent on providing schools.
Richmond's total need is only $60 million. You know, we could go into many government policies and find that $60 million, whether it's the fixed-wage policy, which has cost British Columbia an additional $200 million.... All they would have had to do was not put that policy in place, and they could have met three demands like the demands in Richmond. They could have negotiated, upfront and aboveboard, with the nurses and health care workers and not created the backdoor deal in the health care accord, which is going to cost British Columbians up to another $300 million. Those are just some of the little areas where we could have had a shift in priorities. We could have dealt with what was in British Columbia's best interests, rather than what was in the NDP's best interests.
We saw more of that over the course of the weekend. Once again we saw who controlled the NDP party, who controlled the Finance minister: backroom deals in the middle of the night between the NDP and union leaders so they wouldn't have to face a resolution that was put on the floor by their membership, which basically was non-confidence in the government. So what do they do? They negotiate a deal in the back room. Mr. Shields comes out and says: "It's okay, friends; we've got a deal. We don't have to address that resolution any longer."
One thing I will congratulate this government on is the discipline of its members at that convention. I know that within my party -- and I think I could say the same of the Liberal Party -- there are a bunch of freethinkers that wouldn't accept that kind of backroom deal and would want to make their statement in spite of what a union leader said. We know who controls this party, and we certainly know who controls the priorities of the spending of the NDP government.
The general approach that we should take to fiscal planning is a zero-base budget. Every year we should be reevaluating our programs from a zero-base approach. We should involve the public, in a realistic way, in achieving that.
I remember very clearly my first throne speech reply, which I gave in this Legislature in the spring of 1992. I made a
[ Page 13183 ]
statement that the first government that really deals with what's in the best interests of the people over what they perceive is in their best political interests is going to be a government that stays in power for a long time. Obviously my words fell on deaf ears. I wouldn't expect that this government would even listen to that kind of good, solid common sense. I know from my municipal experience that if we derive our policies and budgetary considerations, and set our priorities, in a consultative way -- in a consensus mode -- that system is respected. It's very unfortunate that this government doesn't understand that.
We should be realistically targeting the debt -- not in a cursory way, not saying all the right words contained within this document, but with real actions. What we have here is perhaps a budget which says it's balanced. It includes a onetime payment of $250 million from the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty; it contains a onetime payment of $400 million from the assets that were actually derived from the savings of the privatization of highways. Those are onetime payments, and because of that, happened to show that this government appeared to be balancing the budget. But what else do we see contained within this budget? We see borrowing of over $612 million by B.C. 21, which will increase the debt load, collectively with the other debt of the province of British Columbia, by $950 million this year. That will undoubtedly increase the debt service portion of the budget and reduce the flexibilities of government to meet the needs of British Columbians in the future, because every dollar we pay into debt servicing takes away a dollar from what we can spend on the needs of British Columbians.
Government spending should be reduced in real terms, not using the statistical approach as this government has done. The Minister of Finance suggested that she had reduced government spending, and then listed a number of savings contained within this document. In real fact, you can't claim to be saving one dollar when you're spending almost a billion dollars more in 1995-96 than what was spent in 1994-95. How can you claim to be saving anything? Absolutely not. We should be looking at reducing the spending in real terms.
An Hon. Member: What do you want to cut?
L. Fox: We still get the same argument: what do you want to cut? I remind that member very carefully that it comes back to setting priorities. It's dealing with what's in the best interests of British Columbians, not dealing with what's deemed to be in the best interests of a respective NDP party.
Interjection.
L. Fox: It's always energizing if we get a little bit of kibitzing that drives and lifts the adrenaline within the speaker. Unfortunately, the kind of kibitzing I'm getting doesn't lift any adrenaline, because obviously the members don't know what they're talking about.
[2:45]
Beginning this year, this government should have changed the B.C. Constitution Act to require by constitution a balanced budget. The only exceptions to that would be by unanimous consent of the Legislature or going back to the people for authority to spend beyond their revenues. The government's ability to borrow should be capped by 5 percent of the revenues, or roughly one-third of the currently planned amount. We've got to remember that we have to live within our means. We cannot finance our future for our children and grandchildren to have to deal with. We've got to stand up now and be counted, to protect the future for our children and grandchildren and provide them with the opportunity to have the quality of life that the members within this Legislature have enjoyed.
Tax-supported debt must be substantially reduced through a credible debt reduction program, not like what we see contained within this budget. The debt reduction program in this budget will take 14 years just to reach the point that we were at in 1991. That's not an honest approach to manage your debt. That's giving it lip service. That's not dealing with the realities. Borrowing for operating deficits should be outlawed altogether. That should not be allowed. Government should abandon its capitalization initiatives, which are aimed at pushing more operating costs of the annual budget under B.C. 21.
I want to speak about B.C. 21 for a moment. This government criticized the lottery funds substantially. I recall many, many of these members standing up and saying: "The lottery funds were used for political gain and were not used in the best interests of British Columbians. In fact, they were misused." But that's a small fraction, a very, very small fraction, of what we see B.C. 21 used.... B.C. 21 is blatant in its attempt to spend money in the right ridings. It's blatant in its attempt to finance away the future of British Columbians. As I said at the outset, this government says all the right things, but the actions prove differently. That is indeed going to come back to haunt them.
In B.C. 21 we have seen $500 million a year in highway construction buried in off-budget debt. It used to be that highway construction came out of the operating budget. In fact, it was done based on the ability to pay. That is no longer the case. It is now decided based on what is in the political best interests of the NDP rather than what's needed in the respective constituencies.
I have Highway 27, the road from Vanderhoof to Fort St. James. Over that road, well over $100 million a year in revenue comes in to Victoria. That road has had nothing done to it in about eight or nine years and is on the verge of falling apart. It should be on a priority basis because of infrastructure needs and because that road creates a large wealth for the province. And in the interest of saving our investment we should be dealing with it. But it's not in the political best interests of this government to do it, so we see very little hope for it to be saved.
There are a number of issues that I want to speak on around the highlights of the budget. First of all, the one I like the best is that Ministry of Health spending will increase to $6.6 billion, an increase of 4 percent. As I said earlier, statistics are great fun. You can use them however you wish to use them, and tell the story that you wish to tell. But in real fact, last year's budget estimates were $6.4 billion. The ministry overspent that by $135 million. We just passed the warrant last week. So in real fact, we spent $6.6 billion on health care in the province of British Columbia last year.
An Hon. Member: What's a billion?
L. Fox: What's a billion?
The fact of the matter is that there's no increase in the health care budget over what was expended last year -- none whatsoever.
On top of that, what we see being spent on health care in the shift to the Closer to Home initiative is once again politically motivated rather than what's in the interests of British Columbians. We see $350,000 being spent just.... Well, the fact is that it's still in process. Perhaps you may have seen it on TV, where the Health minister spends about 22 seconds of the
[ Page 13184 ]
30-second ad giving government propaganda and spends the last eight seconds asking people to register for organ donation. It's a very important message, but I can think of many ways where that message for organ donations could get out, without all the rest of the rhetoric, at a whole lot less cost than $350,000. That whole program is an attempt to improve the Health minister's very bad ratings in the Prince George North riding; that's what it's designed to do.
We see here in the Highlights section $106 million for apprenticeship and work-related training in high schools. That's the one thing I will endorse; it's a good program. But what have we seen? Recently, because of this government's failure to act, we saw virtually all the apprenticeships at CNC lost because of a strike by the faculty. In fact, most of the apprentices lost a full year at CNC because the government was not prepared to act. There's no question in my mind, and I don't believe there's any question in the minds of the Prince George people who felt the impact of that strike, that it's time education was an essential service at all levels. In saying that, I recognize there's going to be a need to be a bit inventive in designing a dispute resolution mechanism, but that can and should be done.
What would a B.C. Reform government do? How would we address the concerns of British Columbians over the spending of government? What cuts and spending reduction measures should the budget include? I've already mentioned some of them. A B.C. Reform government would immediately cut spending. Apart from the measures already noted, there would be a number of immediate measures that the government would take.
We would immediately eliminate the MLAs' severance plan. That in itself would not be a great savings -- it's not a great cost -- but it would be a good message to British Columbians that government is prepared to deal with its own costs and to make sacrifices, so it would ask and state the principle that British Columbians should be prepared to do that as well.
We would restrict eligibility for the MLA pension to persons 60 years of age or older. We know that the government has the intention of bringing in legislation with respect to MLA pensions, but in fact that legislation is going to protect all the existing MLAs, and it will be a lot less stringent than what the Reform Party of B.C. would support.
Next, the government must reduce the real costs of public sector wages; that should be done by at least 15 percent in total cost. There's a whole host of ways whereby it could be achieved. This government has grown substantially, and we've got to see it reduced substantially. A reduction of cost to government by 15 percent would be a small step in the right direction. We can do that by attrition. It can be done by wage measures; it can be done by efficiency gains; it can be done by privatization initiatives.
We would put a legislative cap on severance packages for all civil servants. What we've seen over the course of the last ten years is the severance packages getting way out of whack. Just because an individual is hired for five years -- or whatever the case may be -- and is relieved two years prior.... We just saw such a case in Prince George Regional Hospital where the Health minister, acting through the board, had the administrator fired. It cost the Prince George Hospital $200,000, which is almost exactly what he would have earned had he worked for the full term of his contract. So those have to be curtailed and put in a more realistic policy. We would also impose an indefinite wage freeze on all civil servants earning $50,000 a year or more.
We would see welfare costs being reduced through the coordinating approach aimed at ensuring employable recipients accept work where work is available. I would see one more initiative that allows us to utilize the workforce -- there are 83,000 single, employable males today on welfare, a huge resource not being utilized in the province. I would see training them as a way of utilizing them in their respective communities so that they understand and, after a course of number of months become qualified to find work in the workplace. As well, they would learn, once again, the enjoyment that we have from going to work and earning a paycheque, the self-satisfaction that that provides the individual.
Many of the folks I've spoken to in my riding would like the opportunity to go out and earn their welfare cheques, but they're denied that. Hon. Speaker, we have to change that.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I must advise you that the time available has concluded.
L. Fox: Thank you for the opportunity.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to enter this budget debate today, and I'm pleased to enter, in particular, after the comments made by my colleague the member for Prince George-Omineca. I'd like to wish him and the members of the Reform caucus well tonight in Abbotsford in the historic nomination meeting for the equally historic by-election coming up in Abbotsford.
[3:00]
In this budget debate I'd also like to offer my congratulations to the hon. Minister of Finance for tabling in this Legislature her second budget speech. I can't agree with all aspects of her budget, and I would like to believe that this fourth budget brought in by the NDP administration will be the last one delivered in the life of this parliament. But sadly, there's no guarantee of that, and I fear that next year at this time we may be here again debating yet another, the fifth, NDP budget.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The Minister of Employment and Investment, the Government House Leader, looks forward to that prospect as well, but I'm not so sure that we can tolerate that or that we can afford any more of this kind of cruel and unusual punishment.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: The government hopes for another year, and we'll see.
The government takes delight in the strength of the British Columbia economy, but it can't take credit for it. No single budget of any government can have a decisive impact on a regional economy. It can help a little or it can hurt a little. It can offer hope or it can promise pain. It can chart a vision or it can proffer politics or ideology. I will leave it up to our constituents to decide how they, as taxpayers, should best assess and interpret this budget. But I think it's fair to ask how much better off our province would be without the cumulative effect of four consecutive NDP budgets.
Imagine, for instance, if we had an active mining industry in the province today. Imagine the jobs that would be generated if we had a mining industry engaged actively in exploration and development activities in our province. Imagine the new jobs and investment that would be generated in this sector alone.
Unfortunately, the budget did not do anything to attempt to revive the mining industry, nor did it do much to boost
[ Page 13185 ]
small business, the real driver of our diversifying economy. We need to unshackle the entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians who want to start new businesses, expand existing businesses and create jobs. This budget failed to hold out much hope or vision for independent business people.
Of course, the punitive corporate capital tax -- an unfair, repressive tax if ever there was one -- remains in spite of promises by both the Premier and the Minister of Finance that once the budget was balanced, the corporate capital tax would be gone. Perhaps that is the ultimate proof of what I consider to be the big lie in this budget introduced by the Minister of Finance. Could it be that the real reason the corporate capital tax has not been repealed is that the budget isn't truly balanced after all? Maybe this is the final proof that this is indeed a phony balanced budget.
Let me offer you a bit of perspective on this provincial budget for 1995-96. In 1972, when the province's first NDP government was elected, the province was debt-free. There was no direct debt. There were borrowings by Crown corporations, which were called "contingent liabilities" in the language of the day, but they were modest by today's standards. The province was in great shape then, and the government was very well managed. That was in 1972, and it was the legacy of a former Premier by the name of W.A.C. Bennett, who presided over 20 consecutive balanced budgets. Tax rates in British Columbia were then among the lowest in the country. Today the marginal tax rate in our province is the highest in Canada.
In the quarter of a century since then, sadly, the provincial government has run a deficit much more often than it has balanced the provincial budget. According to the hon. Minister of Finance, the total provincial debt will have grown to $28 billion by the end of this new budget period. When British Columbia's first NDP government came to office, provincial budgets were notable for having only recently surpassed the then-magical billion-dollar mark. Today our current Minister of Finance wants us to be proud of the fact that she has brought down a budget offering to spend more than $20 billion, and that is what she is indicating she wants to spend this year alone.
Can British Columbians feel good about this? Is it a cause for celebration that our provincial government is now spending more than $20 billion in a single year? Could we run the provincial government and deliver needed programs and services to taxpayers for less? These are some of the questions that are begged by this provincial budget, and they need more vigorous discussion and debate in this House and in this budget debate.
By now, the Minister of Finance and the government know that the budget is viewed with extreme skepticism by British Columbians. The single greatest reason is that while the budget is supposedly balanced with a modest surplus, it shows that our provincial debt is increasing by a billion dollars at the same time. Many disbelieving taxpayers ask how this can be. How can the budget be balanced, and at the same time the provincial debt be increasing by a billion dollars?
The Minister of Finance and the government have been unable to explain this without resorting to a new kind of mathematics that has caused some real puzzlement. The Premier has tried to tell us that it has something to do with the difference between good debt and bad debt. As if this wasn't confusing enough, the Minister of Finance has gone one step further. She says there are actually three kinds of debt. I spent a good while thinking about this, and after some reflection I think I now understand what the Minister of Finance means, but she hasn't explained it very well.
No one disagrees that at the start of this budget period, the provincial debt is approximately $27 billion. That's a lot of money. No one disagrees with that, but the government wants to divide this into different pools of debt.
First, it tells us that more than $8 billion of this debt is made up of borrowings by Crown corporations, and it therefore doesn't count. For lack of a less confusing name, let's call this Bob's debt. Some might think I am referring to the former guru of Crown corporations, Bob Williams. Where is he now? We don't know. Let's call this Crown corporation debt Bob's debt, if we can, after Bob Williams.
In addition to Bob's debt, there is also $13 billion of what the government calls "tax-supported borrowing," which the Minister of Finance tells us should be split into two parts. First, there is almost $9 billion in so-called infrastructure borrowing. Let's call this, for the sake of argument, Glen's debt. Then in addition to Glen's debt, there's another $10 billion which the Minister of Finance is claiming accountability for. She says she has a plan to repay it over the next 20 years. Perhaps we could call that portion of the debt Elizabeth's debt. So we have Bob's debt, we have Glen's debt and we have Elizabeth's debt. These are the three pools of debt that I think the government has, and perhaps they could try to explain them more simplistically. So we have quite a bit of debt in our province, racked up over many years.
The Speaker: The hon. member for New Westminster rises on a point of order.
A. Hagen: My learned colleague across the way is very familiar with the rules, and I think that he is bending them in respect to the names that he's giving to debt in that he is using the actual names of members in this House. Perhaps you might remind him of the rules in that regard.
The Speaker: The point is well taken, and I appreciate the member bringing it to the Chair's attention. I'm sure the member will from this point forward conduct himself within the guidelines of standing orders.
Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, the member for New Westminster is a bit too sensitive. I'm simply trying to give easily descriptive terms to the complicated series of arguments presented by the Minister of Finance about the different pools of debt we have. I could call them Bob's debt, or Bob's-your-uncle or what have you, but I'm trying to simplify this matter because I think it's important to understand what the government is doing with debt management. And rather than hide behind fancy statistics or complicated names, let's simplify that and possibly personalize it. If that's offensive to the member, I'll try my best to avoid personalizing it.
But the point is that we have quite a bit of debt in our province, and it's been racked up over many years -- but mostly in the last few years under the current administration. For the Crown corporation debt -- what I referred to as Bob's debt -- there is no specific plan to repay it. The government tells us it's self-financing, even though we as taxpayers are also the shareholders for these Crown corporations, like B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail. And even though we guarantee these borrowings, the government tells us not to worry about that particular portion of the debt. Then for the infrastructure debt -- what I referred to as Glen's debt....
The Speaker: Order! The hon. member knows the rules perhaps better than anyone in this assembly, especially with respect to naming members when it's clear that members are
[ Page 13186 ]
referred to by their constituencies. While I appreciate the explanation given by the member, nonetheless the rules are to be adhered to, and I would ask the member to do so in his presentation, please.
D. Mitchell: The member for Richmond-Steveston suggests I should call this the Kingsway debt. I don't want to go that far; I don't want to get political at all. But I would like to describe this debt in terms that can be understood.
This infrastructure debt, which is largely presided over by the Minister of Employment and Investment.... Even though the government wants to continue to borrow money to build public works projects on a very large scale, and although it has no plans to repay the borrowed billions of dollars, it wants us to believe that there's no problem with this particular kind of debt and that we should just ignore it. When we get to the other portion of the tax-supported debt, which the Minister of Finance herself has said that she will bear some responsibility for, that's where the government finally gets serious. And I applaud the government for this, while it's only a little more than a third of the total provincial debt, the government actually has a plan. Over the next 20 years, the government says we're going to pay off this debt. I used a name earlier, but I'll just call it the debt that the Minister of Finance claims to have some responsibility for personally. She says that she's going to pay it off over 20 years. We have to ask: is this a credible plan? Do taxpayers feel good about it? Do we believe that our public finances are at long last finally under control?
The truth is that even though the government doesn't want to discuss the Crown corporation debt or the infrastructure debt, they've started to think about one portion of the tax-supported borrowings of the province, and I think that's important. I for one don't like the plan, don't believe it and, like my constituents, don't trust multi-year forecasts by government. I don't trust them, because they've never worked. But the fact is that the government is starting to, at the very least, talk the talk, and I suppose that's an accomplishment of sorts that should be recognized. Like my constituents, though, I'm very uncomfortable with a budget that claims to be balanced yet adds a billion dollars to our total debt. That's our total debt: the Crown corporation debt, the infrastructure debt and the other debt that the Minister of Finance says she wants to pay back.
I'm also uncomfortable about a provincial government that makes no provision or accruals for major looming expenditures on the near horizon. For instance, are we going to see a settlement of the Nisga'a land claim? Is it going to cost money? Where in the budget -- and I've looked closely -- are we accruing for it? Are we going to get serious about the B.C. Treaty Commission process, as I believe we should? Are we going to see a start on resolving the uncertainty of outstanding native land claims? Is it going to cost us any money? Where in the budget document are provisions made for these costs? Or does the government believe we're going to settle these claims by signing over Crown land? Nowhere in the budget is there any specific provision made for the settlement of native land claims, whether it's the Nisga'a claim or the B.C. Treaty Commission process claims that are coming forward to a stage of readiness for negotiation.
What about the cancellation of Alcan's Kemano 2 project and any compensation owing to the company? Where in the budget is that provided for? How about the cost of expropriating for parkland the Windy Craggy ore body in the Tatshenshini area? Is there a provision in the budget for that? What about the significant reduction in transfer payments from the federal government as a result of the Canadian social transfer? The budget says that in the next fiscal year, 1996-97, British Columbia will receive $457 million less in transfer payments than we did last fiscal year. At the same time, equalization payments to the so-called have-not provinces are going up. This is clearly unacceptable to British Columbia. But where in the budget, which has some discussion of the transfer payment change, do we provide for this amount of money that's going to be a reduction in revenues? Nowhere.
There is, in fact, no accounting for how we're going to address this or these other challenges I've just mentioned. As a result, it's difficult in the extreme to have confidence in a budget that fails to mention or explicitly provide for major predictable expenditures such as these. It adds to the collective discomfort and uneasiness that British Columbians feel about this budget.
It doesn't have to be this way. The government could have moved much more decisively in a number of areas to address the overriding concerns of taxpayers. I suppose it's too much to ask for, but wouldn't it have been refreshing to see this government -- or indeed any government -- have the courage to stand back from the day-to-day pressures of politics and the grinding work of public administration, and honestly ask: what does the public really want from government? Instead of responding to the demands of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy or the various pressure groups active in our province today, shouldn't we be asking the important questions of whether or not we really need to be spending $20 billion this year in British Columbia to provide the services that are truly needed by our fellow citizens? When will we be brave enough to show the courage to seriously rethink the role of government?
[3:15]
That this administration lacks such courage is borne out by, in my opinion, one single fact: it has backed down on any serious look at the privatization of government-owned enterprises. I'm aware that the Minister of Finance received a number of prebudget submissions urging her to review the government's extensive portfolio of Crown corporations and other agencies, with a view to selling off those that don't fulfil an essential public policy mandate or that could be more efficiently operated in the private sector. Even the federal government in far-off Ottawa -- in remote Ottawa -- now says that government should not be in the business of running businesses, and it's moving forward with the privatization of CN Rail and completing the privatization of Petro-Canada.
Here in British Columbia it was recently leaked that studies are being conducted by Treasury Board on the privatization of B.C. Rail. The Minister of Finance was forced to comment and speculate in public on this matter, but alas, her budget was silent on the matter -- and what a missed opportunity. Privatization could generate significant onetime revenues that could be used to kick-start the rather timid debt retirement program and make it much more credible. Privatization could also provide grounds for lower taxes and would ultimately result in a much more competitive provincial economy.
At a time when privatization has been embraced by governments throughout the world, even in staid socialist and former communist regimes, British Columbia is one of the few jurisdictions in the industrialized world that seems to fear the idea that government assets and enterprises that can be transferred from the public to the private sector should be. Why is the NDP government here in British Columbia seemingly afraid of this concept? Is it a question of process? Is it a matter of not knowing how to proceed?
The other day in the Speech from the Throne debate, the Leader of the Third Party made what I thought was a con-
[ Page 13187 ]
structive suggestion in this regard. He advised the government to seek public input by way of referendum on the desirability of privatizing Crown corporations. He said that taxpayers should have a say in how they would feel about privatizing, in whole or in part, Crown corporations such as B.C. Place, B.C. Systems, B.C. Rail, ICBC and B.C. Hydro.
It strikes me that this idea of public consultation might be a good place to start for a government uncertain about how to proceed. As a member of this assembly, I would certainly prefer this kind of a process to a secretive one in which we're all simply waiting around for the next leaked document from Treasury Board. Hopefully the government isn't resisting privatization for outdated ideological reasons, because the major debate we should be having in this House, not on ideological lines but on practical lines, is about redrawing the boundaries between the public and the private sectors in British Columbia. That's what we should be debating during this budget speech debate.
Most everyone agrees that over the past generation, government has grown too large; it has become overextended, unaccountable and unresponsive to most taxpayers. We've got to transcend the old-fashioned debates about Left versus Right and good versus evil, and instead we've got to talk about what we really want from government. It's not that we need smaller government or larger government; what taxpayers really want is more effective government. Let there be no doubt that there is a need for government. There is a role for government to play in our modern society. In the future my hope is that it will be smaller, more responsive and more effective, but it also needs to be reinvigorated, and we need to restore the ideal of an independent professional public service where the best and brightest British Columbians will strive to work with elected representatives in achieving better value for taxpayers and delivering more for less. We should have a vigorous debate about the proper role for the public sector in our provincial economy. We must have the courage to engage in honest debate about rethinking the role of government and how we're going to revitalize government in its more frugal form of the future. How are we going to use this process of revitalization to restore confidence in government -- something that is sorely missing in our province today?
These aren't partisan issues so much as they are questions about how we're going to structure our government in the future to provide services and programs truly needed by taxpayers, not those that the bureaucracy simply wants to deliver. If we are truly going to serve our constituents, we're going to have to debate these ideas, ideas that will lead to providing better overall value for the precious tax dollars sent from our constituents to Victoria. Unfortunately, we don't get much of this kind of debate in the House.
Instead, we see too much of the juvenile political posturing that continues to erode confidence in government and in our Legislature -- for instance, the posturing that takes place in our daily question period, which unfortunately has become an embarrassment to all of us as legislators and to all British Columbians. Question period was once designed to be a great reform in parliament to hold government accountable about the urgent and important matters of the day. What has it become? It has become a joke.
That can't be how we define parliament -- not through the daily oral question period, but by invigorating debate such as this important budget debate, to talk about ideas about reforming government, rethinking government, and the relationship between the public and private sectors in our province and how it can be structured in the future to make government more accountable. The parties in this Legislature should be forewarned: the citizens of our province will never entrust to them the confidence of their support without knowing what they stand for on these kinds of important issues. Slinging mud and smearing reputations is the old style of politics, and people are turned off by it -- they've had enough. In the future one slogan will hold sway: "No Ideas -- No Votes."
For some, perhaps the passion of old-style party politics too easily gets in the way. In particular, maybe opposition parties naturally become confused. Like some members of the news media, they sometimes think their job is to bring the government down. Some members of the news media think that; some members of the opposition think that's their job as well. They might be under the illusion or be anxious to create the impression that they are, in fact, bringing the government down. The truth, however, is that governments defeat themselves; that's an iron law of history. A former Premier by the name of W.A.C. Bennett often said -- and he knew it from personal experience -- that governments are defeated from within. So maybe we on the opposition side need to recognize that the government is doing a fine job of defeating itself and fulfilling that iron law of history.
Maybe it's time to start clearly presenting alternative policies. Maybe the Liberal opposition, for instance, is going to need to start getting serious in this House. The Liberal opposition in particular is going to need to be a lot more forthcoming, more honest and more responsible before it can ever lay claim to being an alternative to the current socialist administration.
As we approach the next election -- sometime in the next 18 months -- there's one thing that we all have to get serious about, and that's recognizing that British Columbians have come of age; politically they've become very astute. They know that in the next election one slogan alone will hold sway. It won't be a party slogan; it won't be a partisan one, either. It will be one that will ring through the debates of the next campaign. That slogan is: "No Ideas -- No Votes."
R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the budget that was presented in the House last week. I find it ironic that here we have the retread Social Credit parties -- Liberal and Reform -- who throughout the debates have urged government to reduce spending; to not invest in the infrastructure that is so badly needed in British Columbia; to cut, cut, cut; and to basically run with a flavour-of-the-week approach and concept in dealing with this province's future.
I ask them this: which project would you cut, which school would you suggest not be built, which local transportation corridor would you suggest should not be put in place, which hospital would you suggest not be upgraded, and which intermediate or extended health care facility would you suggest not be constructed in British Columbia?
In the riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca this budget reinforces and continues the commitment of previous budgets that, in my view, have enhanced the quality of life for the constituents of the Malahat-Juan de Fuca area. We've seen the construction of the Journey Middle School in Sooke -- a $12 million project. I ask the Liberals and Reform: would you have said no to that badly need facility for the people of Malahat-Juan de Fuca, the Sooke community? Is that what you're saying? Are you suggesting that our youth be denied the right and the opportunity to get a decent education in a decent facility?
How about the Lakewood Elementary School out in Langford? That was a $7 million project. The government made a conscious decision to go out and secure the funds in order to
[ Page 13188 ]
see an elementary school built to serve some 300 students in the Langford community. There hadn't been a new school built in the Langford community since 1979. The construction of that school was long overdue. It was this government that had the vision and the guts to go out there and make a decision on behalf of those constituents. They could see that it was the right and proper thing to do, in both the short term and the long term.
Speaking of schools, in the northern end of my riding in the Mill Bay-Cobble Hill area, we've just seen the completion of Frances Kelsey high school -- a $20 million project. For years the high school students from that region have been subjected to one-hour travel time each day to go to the nearest high school. This has put greater demands on the Duncan community, where their high school is located, and greater demands on Belmont high school in the Western Communities. These students have had to commute because that area has been growing, with young families moving in, and there was no high school for them to go to. Our government saw that there was a need. The government made the conscious decision to build the necessary infrastructure that will see the Skills Now program initiated through that high school, so that the students will be able to receive the skills and training they need to get real jobs in the real world.
The government recently announced the construction of Edward Milne Community School in Sooke -- another high school. That announcement sees the replacement of an almost 50-year-old structure that has been added to and patched with band-aid improvements because previous governments did not have the vision or the will to make a serious commitment in order to make sure that our youth are educated in a safe and proper environment so they can gain the skills to get on with their lives with meaningful jobs and meaningful opportunities. But they needed a school that would help facilitate that.
Are they also saying that they would cut and slash and cancel the Island Highway project? I've heard it, but I want to make sure that what I'm hearing is correct, because what I read is that they will do that. If they form government, they would cut the Island Highway agreement; they would stop it. In the Western Communities, some $152 million is going to be spent on badly needed infrastructure. It's been almost 40 years since any major work has been done on that section of highway servicing the western approaches of greater Victoria.
The commitment the government made -- and it is reinforced in this budget -- is to see an interchange at Millstream, upgrading of the Trans-Canada Highway, an interchange at Thetis and construction of a badly needed Millstream connector between Sooke Road and the Trans-Canada. But what do we hear from the Liberals? They're going to cancel; they're going to cut. They're going to deny the people of the Western Communities what should have been done many years ago to help reduce fatalities on a very dangerous section of highway, relieve congestion and speed up the flow of goods and service. That's what they're going to cut.
[3:30]
Would they also say no to Royal Roads becoming the newest post-secondary education facility on Vancouver Island? They're silent. But if they did form government, you can rest assured that would probably be on their chopping list.
Would they say no to the establishment of the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail? Construction was started last year, employing over 100 of our youth, building a legacy for future generations. Would they cut that? Would they say no to that? I daresay they would.
Here we have the Liberals and the Reformers claiming to represent the interests of small business and the business community in this province. I would like to take this opportunity to read a piece of correspondence I received this year. The Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce, which services the Western Communities, has stated to me:
"Dear Rick:
"I wish to personally thank you for announcing sewer infrastructure on January 5, 1995. We have received many calls in praise for your efforts in ensuring the Western Communities receive the funding and commitment for this project. We know that it is through your dedicated and determined efforts that we have received this infrastructure. Sewers will mean that we can properly plan and develop our community. We will become more self-supporting by providing more employment opportunities through the injection of these funds. This capital will provide over $350 million in economic development to this region."
Are the Liberals saying that they would stop these investments or stop necessary infrastructure? If they are, they should come clean and tell the business community in the Western Communities what their plans are.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I go on with the quote from the letter from the Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce:
"We reviewed the last year and noted other successful accomplishments in this area, including Royal Roads Military College, the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail, the Millstream and Thetis Lake interchange and the Millstream connector, as some of the benefits you have provided through your determined and successful efforts. Thank you for representing the interests of your community, and congratulations. The legacy of your efforts has provided this community with a future we will all benefit from.
"Sincerely Len Wansbrough, CGA President, Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce"
I would like to note that Mr. Wansbrough is a certified general accountant who understands business. He understands the bottom line, and he understands that both government and business have to make the necessary investments to ensure that we have proper infrastructure to enhance and promote our economy in order to make it better for the future.
I thank the Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce for that letter, because it helps state loud and clear that this government stands for investment in communities and that this government is there to work with the business community as well as all the other constituents within the Malahat-Juan de Fuca riding.
The issue of sewers for the Western Communities had been debated for some 25 years. It was this government's vision, based on the extensive working relationship that had been established by me and my colleague the Minister of Environment over the years. We worked with the local business community, the local councils and the regional district to make the infrastructure investments -- some $20 million collectively through the Western Communities -- to see the potential of $350 million of overall economic activity as a result of those sewers being constructed in the Western Communities.
The accolades don't stop with the chamber of commerce. I have a letter here from the mayor's office, district of Langford:
"On behalf of the district of Langford council, Langford sincerely thanks you for your infrastructure grant and commitment to Langford in providing the funding, $2,606,274, for the sewage collection system for the district of Langford. This infrastructure funding has provided Langford with a bright future.
[ Page 13189 ]
"Without this funding, Langford could not provide this essential service to accommodate septic problems and provide for future growth in the Western Communities, particularly Langford. The district of Langford formally acknowledges your support, and we'd like to confirm our gratitude to you.
"Yours sincerely, Stewart Young, Mayor, District of Langford"
Those letters speak loud and clear as to what this government has done for the business community and local councils in the Western Communities.
We hear from the Liberals and the Reformers that we should not be investing or going out and making sure that the necessary infrastructure is in place for business for the people in the Western Communities, but they don't get specific. They aren't coming out of their closet. They mumble down here at the House and through the papers that government is going the wrong way and taking the wrong path.
But the businesses out in the Western Communities have said loud and clear that they support the government's efforts in this way. They feel that the government is finally recognizing what previous governments have failed to recognize: infrastructure -- be it schools, sewers, hospital upgrades or enhancements for extended intermediate care hospitals -- is what the community needs. They're necessary investments in both the short term and the long term. From those investments, what are generated -- and what this budget speaks loudly of -- are jobs for our youth or for people currently in the workplace and maybe between jobs -- but jobs, jobs, jobs.
People have had to rely on both private and public investment for many generations. The governments in the past have made investments in the long term in small levels, but our government has seen that in the past ten years there was an overwhelming lack of investment and commitment for those schools, sewers, highways and hospital projects throughout British Columbia. With those investments, and with the confidence that government has brought forward, jobs are being created and will continue to be created, as noted in the Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce letter.
It's not just the local community, local representatives and those involved with business who are coming out and making statements in support of what this government has done both in this budget and with previous budgets. I quote from the Dow Jones "Capital Markets Report" and Moody's Investors Service. In British Columbia, debt levels remain the lowest of any Canadian province. Nesbitt Burns, an investment dealer, says: "B.C. is in the best financial shape of all the provinces." Now, colleagues in the House don't want to hear this.
An Hon. Member: I do. Tell me more.
R. Kasper: Well, that's nice of you; I appreciate it. From our side of the House, we know what they're saying. But the Liberal and Reform side don't want to hear what people outside this building are saying.
Wood Gundy says: "...the government's commitment to balance the budget...by freezing taxation and cutting the growth rate of expenditures...underscore the market's view of B.C. as a top-notch credit."
Goldman Sachs says: "British Columbia's high double-A ratings and stable outlook are based on the province's improving fiscal profile, moderate debt burden and strong economic performance...we expect total tax-supported debt to be moderate in the near future because of anticipated decline in the deficit." And in this budget, the deficit has been reduced. We have a surplus, as well as a debt reduction through the use of endowment fund proceeds. Well, this budget has said it all. We've actually outperformed what people have been recommending to the government. We've gone well beyond what the economic analysts have suggested. This budget speaks for itself. It says that not only have we introduced a debt management plan, and not only does this budget create a modest surplus -- some $114 million -- but this budget also embraces the fact that in British Columbia last year the economic growth exceeded expectations. The gross domestic product grew by 4.3 percent. Non-residential capital spending was up over 23 percent. Exports were up by 20 percent, and retail sales were up almost 10 percent.
These are the kinds of things that the Liberals and the Reform -- the retread Socreds -- don't want to hear. But when they're out there speaking to their little groups, they continue with the mud slinging, the sleaze and the slime; that's all they can do. But they don't want to really tell people what's going on. They daren't repeat what the financial experts and the bond agencies are saying. Gee whiz, heaven forbid! If they dared repeat what the Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce has said in correspondence to myself, that would be a foggy Friday.
The budget takes into account its commitment to people, both young and old. It takes into account and commits to making sure that our youth are educated in proper facilities that are safe and conducive to receiving a decent, proper education. This budget maintains a commitment for our youth receiving skills for the future that will enhance them in the job marketplace of tomorrow. The budget also reinforces a commitment that this government has made on reforestation in British Columbia and on the skills and upgrading of skills that our foresters will receive in order to go on to the future with forestry. Forest renewal is something that's long overdue. This government can feel proud of those accomplishments.
[3:45]
This budget reinforces the commitments that were made in previous years because this government has a vision, and it's carrying on with that vision. It's a well-disciplined vision that is supported by the business community, by local councils and by citizens throughout the area of Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
When I talk about the major capital investment projects that have been done in the area of Malahat-Juan de Fuca -- the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail, the employment of youth, the construction of elementary schools and high schools, and the construction of the Island Highway project in the Western Communities -- I haven't had one phone call or letter from any constituents not in support of those projects. The people have said loud and clear for many years that these were badly needed projects and that these were things previous governments were unwilling to deal with. Our government had the courage, and it carried out the commitments that I and my constituents had requested, to make sure that we had capital investment in the long term to create jobs for now and for the future.
It's not only the councils and chambers of commerce that support what this government has done. I have a letter here from Byron Cook, who is president of the Edward Milne Community School Society. He says:
"On behalf of the Edward Milne Community School Society, I would like to thank you very much for the highly successful efforts to secure funding from the Ministry of Education for the building of the new Edward Milne Community School. How exciting the next year and a half will be as we watch our new school take shape on our field. The years of consultation with parents, teachers, community members, staff and students will result in a community school that truly belongs to all of us."
That's what this budget is all about: the consultation process the Minister of Finance embarked upon prior to developing
[ Page 13190 ]
this budget. It was the result of consultation with representatives of the community in business and local government agencies on what they had to say about our economy and what should be done within the context of this budget. The consultation that took place six months prior to the development of this budget speaks loud and clear. The Minister of Finance consulted with representatives from business and labour. When a special committee based on a Premier's summit last year was established with representatives from the business community and labour, the president-chair, Darcy Rezac from the Vancouver Board of Trade, made a number of suggestions to the Minister of Finance. This budget has exceeded all those recommendations.
I just can't fathom that the Liberals and the Reformers turn their backs on those business representatives. If they truly speak for business, they would embrace the suggestions brought forward by that special committee, but they don't. They sit there mouthing all the platitudes and the flavour-of-the-week approaches on how government should be dealing with budgets and what programs should be cut, but they're never specific. They don't come out and say that the new high school in Sooke should not be built; they dare not.
It's so bad that the Liberal candidate who ran against me in the last election recently announced that he was going to seek the nomination....
An Hon. Member: Was it for the Liberals or for...?
R. Kasper: For the Liberals.
Within six weeks after making some initial contact with the voters of Malahat-Juan de Fuca, he withdrew. I daresay it probably has a lot to do with the fact that the local chamber is heaping praise on this government for making commitments for infrastructure, for Royal Roads, for the highways and for the new schools that are built out in Malahat-Juan de Fuca. He could find no fault with what this government has been doing. They are having a hard time finding candidates.
An Hon. Member: Read it to us, please.
R. Kasper: I don't know if I want to go through it again.
Some Hon. Members: Read it again.
R. Kasper: Well, I could take some excerpts. I'll just read the third paragraph for the hon. member who wasn't in the House earlier. He had other commitments and meetings with constituents. This is from the Juan de Fuca Chamber of Commerce, and I think this says it all:
"We reviewed the last year and noted other successful accomplishments in this area, including Royal Roads Military College, the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail, the Millstream and Thetis Lake interchange and the Millstream connector, as some of the benefits you have provided through your determined and successful efforts."
I daresay that's why the failed Liberal candidate from the 1991 election decided not to seek nomination for the Liberals. It's because of what this government has recognized and committed to: the extensive lobbying and efforts by the local chamber of commerce and local councils, and this government's ability to recognize what people's needs are.
Interjections.
R. Kasper: Hon. Speaker, when I rise in this House on numerous occasions, I hear heckling from the opposition benches, and that's all it is. It's just heckling; it's their rantings. It's their inability to bring forward options that are clearly identified to the voters. They just mouth the platitudes and state what we shouldn't be doing, but they have no platform. It gives me great pride to support this budget, because it reinforces all the opportunities that are available for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, both in the past and in the future.
G. Brewin: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak today on that tough and strong budget we heard just last week from the Minister of Finance. I want to offer my congratulations and thanks to the minister for bringing down a balanced budget. This budget achieves the necessary levels of fiscal control and moderation while retaining commonsense, pragmatic and compassionate ideals that clearly separate this government from the reactionary perspectives adhered to by Liberals, Socreds or Reform -- take your pick. It is truly an honour to be part of a government that has now fulfilled another of its major 1991 campaign promises. This government has balanced the B.C. budget ahead of schedule, through a method of asking all segments of society to participate and to pay their fair share.
In 1991 I campaigned on a theme of healthy communities. This budget exemplifies why I am so proud to be part of a government that is in fact setting the climate, fiscally and in many other ways, for a fundamental shift in our province's direction from an unsustainable path to a sustainable path for the future. Equally as important as the shift itself, this budget exemplifies how our government is committed to making this shift in a compassionate and pragmatic way.
The residents of Victoria-Beacon Hill recognize that the government, along with business and individual citizens, must move to sustainability while living within our means and preparing for our future. This budget sets a course to achieve these objectives of jobs and of medicare with fiscal responsibility.
Let me give you a few examples of how the move to healthy, compassionate sustainability is exemplified in this budget. This budget is first of all about jobs. Obviously governments only create the climate for job creation. This budget ensures that B.C. will continue to have the lowest debt level and the highest credit rating of all the provinces. Small business is the engine of commerce and job creation in Victoria, as it is in the rest of British Columbia. In Victoria, small business startups boomed in 1994, and bankruptcies sharply decreased. Victoria will be one of the main beneficiaries and driving forces behind the Minister of Tourism's objective of $9.9 billion in tourism revenue by 1999.
Thousands of people are moving to British Columbia. A lot of them come to Victoria not only because of our natural beauty, safety and clean environment but also because we have a booming tourism industry and we are the gateway to Vancouver Island and its indescribable natural beauty and attractions. By creating a strong fiscal climate, this budget continues to allow small business and tourism to get on with the task of actually creating jobs like they did during the Commonwealth Games hosted by Victoria in 1994, and as they are currently doing by benefiting from the Genghis Khan exhibit at the Royal B.C. Museum. I hope they will continue in the future with such events as the world mature athletes games in 1999.
This budget is also about medicare. Beacon Hill residents will also be pleased that this budget firmly retains medicare universality at the top of the government's priority list. In Victoria, we are currently going through the somewhat unsettling but very necessary process of ensuring the long-term affordability of our world-leading health care system by moving services closer to home. I would like to take a moment just
[ Page 13191 ]
to offer my congratulations and encouragement to all those who have participated in the process; it's ongoing at this very moment, as we speak. They have done a magnificent job, as have all the people who have been involved in that Closer to Home process around this province.
If I may digress from my own notes to say a congratulatory note to those who have worked on the CORE process around this province, so many people have been involved in such a significant exercise to bring their communities to make the decisions in their areas for their futures -- such a significant point, and such significant work they have done. I congratulate all of them for all that work.
This budget increases health care funding by 4 percent in British Columbia. That increase will allow the residents of Victoria-Beacon Hill to continue to have universal access to health services that they need. While moving closer to home, existing services are being enhanced like the $18 million upgrade to the Victoria Cancer Clinic and the $800,000 upgrade to the kitchen-dining facilities at the Central Care Home for seniors here in Victoria.
As a government, we insist that medicare be protected and sustainable. I shudder to think what the opposition Liberals would do to our health care. They seem to envy and agree with the approach of Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta, who cut health care funding by 7.2 percent. It scares me to hear the Liberals talk about health care. I don't believe that they really care about universality or about sustainability in the system.
[4:00]
In another area, this budget is very much about government services. The constituents of Victoria-Beacon Hill are aware that government and the public service must be efficient and must live within their means. We have cut the growth of government spending, which was 12 percent per year for many years and when we took office, to under 3 percent in this year's budget -- the lowest in 25 years. More than $100 million was saved last year through cost-cutting measures, and a further $100 million will be trimmed back this year. As well, the government will be bringing in a blue-ribbon panel of business executives to suggest efficiency improvements in management level operations.
The Liberals continue to suggest that the public service should be drastically reduced. Unlike the Liberals, I believe that the public service has an important role in British Columbia. Public servants at all levels, with perhaps one possible exception, are hard-working, dedicated to the good of the province and professional in their approach to their work. Recent public sector wage increases have been averaging 1.6 percent, well below the private sector increases, which have averaged 2.2 percent.
I would like to challenge the Liberals to tell the House and the people of British Columbia which public service employees they want to eliminate. Are the Liberals opposed to the hiring of residential tenancy branch staff to assist renters and landlords who are experiencing difficulty? The 66 percent of Victoria-Beacon Hill residents who are renters would certainly be interested to know that. Do the Liberals disagree with the budget information that hundreds of public servants will be assigned tasks of enforcing our province's Forest Practices Code and environmental regulations? I believe that public servants and the important policy development and regulatory work they do are essential to the province's long-term sustainability and compassion for all citizens. Where are the Liberals on that topic?
This budget is about compassionate fiscal management. What is important about this budget is that the government has succeeded in reducing a $2 billion deficit and 13 percent spending growth in 1991 to a zero deficit and only 2.9 percent spending in 1995. It has been a huge challenge to bring the deficit to zero. But once again, I'm particularly proud that the task has been accomplished without slashing and burning education or medicare programs, an option the Liberals seem to be keen on. Living within our means is fundamental to the sustainability of the government and the province. In a province and capital region where population and inflation rates are increasing, this budget certainly forces us to live within our means. But we are doing it with compassion.
The Liberals would have preferred that we brought down a budget that eliminated funding to non-profit groups that provide invaluable service to our communities -- groups such as the Bridges project, the Family Caregivers Network or the Victoria AIDS Respite Care Society. I am proud that our government has balanced the budget through identifying efficiencies in government, not by eliminating the important funding to keep these not-for-profit groups serving our communities.
This budget is about being green. By that I mean the environment. But perhaps it could also mean, as we hear cries of anguish from the Liberals, their sense of being green with envy about this very strong budget. Congratulations, then, to the Minister of Finance and Ministers of Environment and Forests for taking steps to increase the number of public servants who will be monitoring and enforcing our environmental and forest practices regulations, where it is really vital: in the field. Again I differentiate between the actions of our government and those the Liberals seem to be advocating: no enforcement, no regulations and, seemingly, no desire for sustainability.
In the capital region, the Commonwealth Nature Legacy has added more parkland to our rapidly urbanizing lower Island than has been added in the last 50 years.
Interjection.
G. Brewin: Amazing as it seems.
An Hon. Member: How many years?
G. Brewin: Fifty years, hon. Chair.
The budget continues to make investments that will renew and protect B.C.'s forests, and provide stability in our forest and forest-dependent communities. The residents of Victoria-Beacon Hill strongly support the government's continued announcements about increased parkland in our province, whether they are doubling the parks in the Kootenays, as we did this spring, on Vancouver Island, as we did last year with the Vancouver Island land use plan, or on the lower mainland, with announcements to come in the near future. Sustainability and increases in park and green space are in stark contrast to the proposals articulated by the Liberal Party. They want to mine parks, to particularly and generally go back to the old Socred approach of slash and burn and be short-term.
This budget is also about local issues and local needs. It is vital that health care continue to effectively function while in the transition phase of Closer to Home, in order to enhance and continue to protect medicare. The residents of Victoria-Beacon Hill want to see the phased redevelopment of the Royal Jubilee Hospital site. They also want to see community care enhanced and improved -- or, dare I say, increased -- to community service providers and agencies. I am particularly anxious, as we all are, to see the home support labour dispute settled so that workers and clients can get on with their lives.
[ Page 13192 ]
This government has balanced the operating side of the budget. For that I believe Victoria-Beacon Hill residents are thankful, because they realize that government must live within its means. However, I know there are other projects that the residents of Beacon Hill also see as urgent priorities: Sir James Douglas Elementary rebuilt and the restoration and preservation of the national heritage site, St. Ann's Academy. Victoria-Beacon Hill residents strongly urge support from government's priorities for providing good-quality, fiscally prudent public services and public policies within the framework of affordability, fairness and compassion. This budget exemplifies those objectives, and that they can and will be met.
This is a strong budget; this is a tough budget. This is a budget which depicts and talks about our vision of British Columbia: one that is based on community; one that is based on a positive view of people; one that builds on our strengths. It is also based on what we need and what we can afford. I close by once again thanking the hon. minister and the government for the budget that came down just last week.
N. Lortie: I am pleased to rise in response to this excellent budget. It's an excellent and a balanced budget. It balances the needs of our communities with the ability of the taxpayers of British Columbia to pay. It's an affordable budget and it's a doable budget, and I am very proud to be a member of this government. It creates jobs and it protects vital services like medicare and education.
Would somebody inform the opposition caucuses that the member for Delta North is on his feet and that this is a good time for them to get even for some of the catcalls that have come over from this corner? I'll give them five minutes. No, I won't. Because I want that opposition caucus to hear the truth. I want them to hear my response to the budget. Unlike the Leader of the Third Party, I waited until after I heard the budget and read the documents before I drafted this response for this House. The hon. leader of the reformed Socred Party, the repentant Socreds, who faxed his response to the budget not only before the minister rose and gave that budget speech but even before the Times Colonist leaked the budget.... I believe that member over there has a crystal ball, so he knew exactly what was happening. But apparently he didn't, because his remarks about the budget were way off. It's the same old Socred mentality. They've changed their name from the Socreds to the Reform Party, but it's still a discredited party with discredited policies and a discredited right-wing philosophy.
The official opposition critic, the member for Delta South, rose in his chair with a knee-jerk reaction immediately after the minister gave the speech, and he started with the analogy that we delivered the sizzle but not the steak. Something in my mind clicked, and I thought I had heard this before. Was he giving the same response to this budget as he gave to the budget before and the budget before that? "The sizzle but not the steak" is a very familiar analogy. I have spent most of my life in the meat business -- 33 years, before I was elected -- and I consider myself to be an expert not only on sizzle but on steak. I judged this budget and the budget address by the minister to be filet mignon, the champion of steaks, and I judged the response by the opposition members to be chuck steak at best.
During the speech from the minister, I noticed that the opposition started off very boisterously. They were very up, and they were joking and catcalling. During the speech, I noticed that their mood got more and more sombre, until at the end they were sitting there in dejection, because they knew there was no legitimate way they could attack this speech and budget. They knew they were in trouble, so now they've distorted it. They have tried to find holes and to be picky, but they're not being very successful.
Now we're subject to the cornpone philosophy of the member for Matsqui, that little triple-dipper who gets a salary from this Legislature and from the school board, and then does some work for the ministry in his capacity as a lawyer. That city slicker is masquerading as a country boy, a farmer who's actually a lawyer from the big city.
The Liberals say they have no ties to their federal counterparts. They take no responsibility for what happened in the federal budget or for the downloading on the province; they say that's not their fault. But people can't be fooled. In my constituency and my community of Delta, the Liberal candidate in the last federal election is now the constituency president for the hon. member for Delta South, going from federal candidate to working in the constituency at a provincial level. It seems to me there's quite a tie there.
One of the people who is seeking the provincial nomination for the Liberals in my constituency of Delta North is the provincial president of the party, and he has been a federal candidate for office on many occasions. There is a direct link between the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals, because a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.
Now that I'm talking about parties, there's a small irritant, and I wish the members over there would pay attention to this. Member after member from the opposition stands up and says that the NDP party should do this, and the NDP party should do that. I want them to know that NDP stands for New Democratic Party, and you don't say "party party." So please, if you want to say New Democratic Party, go ahead -- but not NDP party, please.
[4:15]
The opposition wants to cut spending and eliminate borrowing for infrastructure improvements, but they don't say what kind of improvements they want to eliminate. They're not going to eliminate the upgrade of the Westminster and Hamilton interchange, I hope, because my constituency wants that upgrade to the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. I lobbied the government to get that project started, and I'm proud to say that it's going ahead. If the opposition says that it shouldn't go ahead, they should stand up and say so now.
You know, this intersection should have been done when the bridge was first completed, but it was cut back by the former government that is represented now by the Reform Party. It was thrown in our laps to complete that work. We took the responsibility. We said it should be done. We're working with taxpayers' money to complete something that's absolutely supported by my constituents.
Or would they not support the preservation of Burns Bog, that huge and wonderful ecological area in my community that people want this government to purchase so that it can be saved for generations and generations? I support it. I'm working for that. And if the opposition says no more money for those kind of projects, if they don't want to support that, let them stand up and say so.
Do they want us to cancel, or would they cancel, the new university south of the Fraser River? Would they jeopardize our children's future for their own partisan political purposes? If they'll do that, let them stand up. Would they jeopardize the future of my constituents' children?
This is a budget that outlines affordable investments in infrastructure to keep B.C. growing and yet eliminates the deficit. In fact, we're showing a small surplus. The member for Vancouver-Langara, who's with us today, speaks of better
[ Page 13193 ]
service to social assistance recipients. I want him to know that better service costs money, and the money comes from taxpayers. You can't talk out of one side of your mouth and ask for better services, and then out of the other side of your mouth say: "Cut expenditures." It doesn't work. If the Liberals do that, then they're hypocritical.
There are two ways to manage this economy. One is to slash and burn -- slash services to people, slash jobs to real people who have families in our communities, and lay-off workers. This is the choice of despair, the choice of the opposition. The other choice is to improve the economy, create more jobs and help the private sector create those jobs -- more people working, more people contributing to our economy, and fewer people on social assistance, fewer people drawing UI. A clear choice for British Columbia: a choice of despair or a choice of hope. I know which choice the people of British Columbia would make, given that choice. We chose the positive alternative: the choice of hope and the choice of the future. We are creating jobs in British Columbia through the private sector, and we are protecting medicare. Taxes are frozen in this budget. The deficit is eliminated. Investment in affordable and necessary infrastructure continues with this budget.
An Hon. Member: It shows you don't know how to read a balance sheet.
N. Lortie: Is it any wonder the opposition is resorting to the kind of rhetoric we hear from that member? It's a legacy of hope that this budget.... If he'd read the documents that are supplied with this budget, he'd know that there's a budget surplus of $114 million, and a comprehensive debt management plan to address the debt for the people of British Columbia. A three-year tax freeze continues under this budget -- great news for the taxpayers of British Columbia. We're cutting waste. Government is being made more affordable -- a more efficient government and wise use of the taxpayers' dollars. And we're still making those affordable investments in infrastructure. I am proud to support this budget.
J. Dalton: I thought I would start off by making a few remarks which, in passing, the member for Delta North commented on. We are addressing this budget in the aftermath of the New Democratic Party party -- or whatever he wishes us to refer to it as.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: Is it the party of the people? Or is it the party that's lost the support of the people? We might ask that as well.
The Premier, these days, thinks it's so cute and popular to point out that we are allegedly the party of Howe Street and the New Democratic Party is the party of Main Street. However, I think there's an irony in the fact that the convention last weekend they've just returned from was two blocks from Howe Street and many blocks from Main Street. It might be better to remind the members opposite that it may be more appropriate, in these references to streets, to say it's Now Street. They should all be concerned about that and the implications as well -- Now Street, not Howe Street.
I'm sure all members opposite enjoyed their time in downtown Vancouver, whether they were or were not on Howe Street. However, putting aside the convention of the weekend, when we think back to almost a week ago and the unfortunate confusion of last Tuesday morning when a significant part of the budget was released prematurely, I suggest that the premature release was in effect a non-confidence vote in this government and in the budget that was brought down last Tuesday. I realize that the Minister of Finance, who is here today to participate in this debate, described the premature leak of that budget as an act of sabotage, but quite frankly I think that's an overstatement of the circumstances. I certainly do not want a misimpression left in any way, shape or form that we would condone such a release, because obviously that is the furthest thing from the truth.
The fact is that this government in its dying days -- whether that be this spring, but I guess a spring election is gone by the board, or this fall or next year, heaven forbid -- is leaking badly. This government is leaking not because people are acting improperly or behind the back of the government but because the people in the bureaucracy, the civil service and, more importantly, the public in general have lost confidence in this government.
Need I remind the government of other recent leaks, putting aside again the unfortunate embarrassment that the Minister of Finance and the cabinet faced last Tuesday? I'm sure the Minister of Finance will remember fondly the Chris Trumpy memo that was prematurely released. The government will be aware, of course, of the fact that the opposition came into possession of the legislative agenda for this spring session. We have several conflicts of interest that are being investigated at this time -- again indicative of the fact that the people of this province have lost confidence in this government and are raising concerns about its conduct. Need I remind the government as well of the leaked Vancouver Island memo dealing with the towns of Tahsis and Gold River, and with the very real concern about job loss in those communities? I hope this government is prepared to face the record on those issues; we will have to see. Need I remind the government as well of its recent failed experiment with the electronic town hall meeting? I cite these because this government clearly has a difficult and embarrassing track record of problems: leaked information, members who are under scrutiny and, more importantly, a government that is under scrutiny by the people of British Columbia.
I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that the most commonly asked question of me and my colleagues in the opposition these days is: "When do you think the election will be?" That is the number one question that comes from the people of this province. I am hoping that the message is getting through to the government that the people of British Columbia want the opportunity to respond to this budget, to the throne speech and, more importantly, to the conduct of this government, which is shameful in many respects, quite frankly. The people want an opportunity to respond -- not necessarily through their elected members, although it is our function here to raise these concerns in the House, but more importantly at the ballot box. Hopefully, that opportunity will come soon.
So again, when we think back to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding last Tuesday's budget, it can be best described as a non-confidence vote in this government, due to the mismanagement that this government shows, to the ideology that it is driven by and, perhaps most shamefully of all, to the self-interest that it unfortunately shows on a consistent basis. This government lacks accountability; it lacks fiscal responsibility. I think that's clearly demonstrated in the budget we are now debating.
That's the sorry background to the budget, but I guess we could add that it's the political embarrassment of the government itself. However, more importantly, the budget is the economic millstone of this province, so let me make some comments and examine some of the detail of the budget before us.
[ Page 13194 ]
This, of course, is the so-called good news that this government would have us believe is for the economic benefit of this province. I would add that this budget was obviously, without question, intended as a pre-election budget. Why do I say that? Let's examine some of the details of this budget. Balanced? We are told by the Finance minister that the province's budget is balanced. How convenient to create such an impression, when, as I just commented, presumably this was to be the budget that would launch the government into a spring 1995 election. Of course, as we know from the words that the Premier himself actually said on the weekend at the convention of the NDP party party, the election would be in the fall of this year at the earliest -- perhaps next year. Maybe we could speculate that the Premier is going to pull off a Bob Rae and hang on by his fingernails until the bitter end and then, of course, drop once and for all from the cliff. So we invite this Premier to stop hanging on by his fingernails and do what the people of British Columbia are asking: call an election.
[4:30]
Let's come back to this so-called balanced budget. These are the words of somebody who's far more expert than I am in dealing with budgets and economic issues, Richard Allen: "Rather than making significant spending cuts, the government has used creative accounting to manufacture a $114 million surplus." So there you are, hon. Speaker. Richard Allen is of the opinion -- and he is widely consulted and cited on these issues -- that this budget is supposedly balanced by creative accounting.
Obviously -- and I will be making some other remarks as I proceed -- the government had an agenda in mind. They had to bring in this balanced budget which, I remind members opposite, they said they would be bringing in in the spring of 1996. Why is it a year earlier? Of course, it's a year earlier because they had planned to go to the polls this spring, and those plans went down the proverbial tube. The plans were cast aside because of all the controversy that this government, in its mismanagement, has created. So we have before us a supposedly nominal surplus which, as I've said, is a year ahead of schedule. How happy for this government! I wonder what we can expect next year if, in the meantime, the government has not gone to the polls -- which, of course, we are hoping it will do.
Let's take an example from the budget about this so-called balanced exercise that the Minister of Finance has gone through. We see in the highways expenditures that the budget is down from last year's figure of $685 million to a figure of $673 million. Well, it looks good. I might add that if the members care to look at all 18 ministries, they will see some other nominal decreases. Perhaps the Ministry of Highways decrease is the most significant. Why is that? The fact is that many of these expenditures of the Highways ministry have been diverted into the Transportation Financing Authority and, as my colleague from Chilliwack reminds me, into B.C. 21.
The Transportation Financing Authority is a Crown corporation. We in this House have no opportunity to examine the books and the financial picture of these Crown corporations. That's where a lot of the money of this government is being diverted. It does not lend the members of this Legislature the opportunity to question the spending of these Crown corporations.
When we look at an example like the Highways ministry, we supposedly see a decrease in spending in the current budget year, but we know that is not an accurate picture. I would also remind the government that when a government such as this one is running two sets of books.... One is the consolidated revenue that the budget itself is dealing with, and the other is the one that the auditor general would prefer, the summary financial statements whereby the Crowns can be examined in detail. Again I remind the government that we lack the opportunity to do so in this House. Needless to say, when you produce two sets of books, you can produce some happy results from the government's point of view. I would suggest that these results are artificial at best.
Let's examine the debt picture of this government. Has the debt been reduced? No. It's important to ask the question of whether the debt has been reduced, because I'm sure I need not remind the government opposite that the Chris Trumpy memo that came out from Treasury Board pointed out quite clearly that the Achilles' heel of this government is debt -- debt that is killing government spending in the important areas of health in particular, education and even social services. This government has run up a debt and what do we see? From the financial year that's just concluded, the debt was $26.9 billion, and the debt now is up to $27.85 billion. So we've added another $950 million in debt, which clearly will be the Achilles' heel of this province and this economy. Without question, unmanageable debt is crowding out needed government programs, and unmanageable debt is going to be the killer of this province. I can certainly state without any hesitation that the people of this province are concerned about this government's tax-borrow-and-spend habits and the unmanageable debt, which has escalated to that point.
I would also like it to be recorded that when the NDP took office in 1991, the debt of British Columbia was $20 billion -- that's a pretty dreadful figure in itself. In the 1994-95 fiscal year just concluded, the debt was up to $26.9 billion. As I've already said, we're now at $27.85 billion and escalating....
Interjection.
J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, it would appear to be very difficult to get a clear message through to the members of the NDP that unmanageable debt is going to be the killer of government programs, and that's what the people of British Columbia are saying consistently.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I don't know about the members opposite, but I live within my means. I live within a family budget, and I don't think there's any evidence that this government does so.
M. Farnworth: Do you have a mortgage?
J. Dalton: I hear a comment opposite: do I have a mortgage? Yes, and it's a mortgage that I manage within my income and within the means of my family. You know, it reminds me of the so-called good debt versus bad debt that our Minister of Finance was telling us about.
An Hon. Member: We've already discussed that good debt and bad debt.
J. Dalton: Well, really. There's no such thing as good debt or bad debt? If it's manageable, bad debt is fine....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: In the curious ebb and flow that defines this House, it always seems that at approximately 4:37
[ Page 13195 ]
p.m. we begin to erupt. So now that we have all vented, I could perhaps ask the member to continue in a somewhat more quiet atmosphere.
J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to hear from you, and you quite rightly bring things back into their proper perspective.
Now let me just conclude my comments about debt. It's not an issue, hon. members, of good debt versus bad debt. It's an issue of manageable debt, and the government debt is not manageable. [Applause.]
J. Dalton: I'm glad you agree. Thank you.
On other details of this budget, we're told that there's a freeze on taxes. Well, is that the truth? Of course it is not. Putting aside the fact that actual taxes are of themselves excessive.... Again, I would just invite any members opposite to speak to a friend or a neighbour or any constituent. If they can come back and tell us that those people are happy with their tax picture, particularly in the month of April when they have to fill out their tax returns, I would think that they have not been truthful when they're talking to those constituents or friends or neighbours.
What do we see in this budget? We see $3 million in new fees and licences, including among others, fishing licences -- they are up; mine health and safety inspection is up....
Interjections.
J. Dalton: My colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour tells me it's a 120 percent increase. I might add.... It seems curious to me about mine health. With the attitude of this government, that is certainly an oxymoron of the worst order: mine health -- there's no such creature.
Motor vehicle licences, drivers' licences, are up. I just name a few from that area. Our government would tell us that those are not taxes. Well, they are taxes; that's money coming out of the same taxpayer, who is overtaxed federally and provincially. This government has done nothing to alleviate the pressure on the taxpayer.
The budget goes on to say that it is cutting waste. I'll give the government credit for one thing: it admits that there is waste in government -- and there is a tremendous amount of waste. Let's see what waste has allegedly been cut from this budget.
I see in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways budget that administration costs are down $12 million. As I commented earlier, given that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways really is a shell game and doesn't do anything -- all money is diverted into the B.C. 21 enterprise -- there really shouldn't be any administration costs to cut in the first place.
We are also told that travel costs have been cut, saving $2.4 million. When I think of some of the jaunts the Premier has taken to the Far East and other places, I would suggest that we could save far more money in that area -- not just a rather meaningless cut of $2.4 million but something more substantial.
Another cut is in government advertising. I think we could say that "now" this is certainly an interesting cut: $3.6 million from the government advertising budget. I hope the waste of money that was exemplified in the town hall meeting that went sour will not be wasted in further such adventures.
We're also informed in the budget that the civil service has been reduced. The figure the Minister of Finance gave in the budget was 450. That's not an accurate figure either. I would look at the Attorney General's ministry. In the 1994-95 fiscal year, full-time equivalent employees were 5,460; in the current fiscal year, now just underway, the figure has escalated to 6,007. I do not understand how the government can say that the civil service has been reduced, when in actual fact that is not the case.
Let me comment on what the public of British Columbia is asking for that they have not seen from this government or in this budget. Clearly, they are asking for less spending -- not just the superficial cuts this government has put into the budget but real reductions in spending. The government is also not listening to the people who want less taxation. Of course, less taxation includes a reduction of fees -- fewer fees and licences -- and rates, such as B.C. Hydro, all of which contribute to the unfortunate, poor and beleaguered taxpayer, who cannot take on any more burden from any level of government -- this one in particular.
[4:45]
While we're on the question of taxation, we have to raise the issue of what happened to the corporation capital tax. Why was it not rescinded, as the Premier himself said? When the Premier was on his last junket to the Far East, he said, without any question whatsoever, that the corporate capital tax would be removed. What do we hear instead? When the Minister of Finance met with the Vancouver Sun editorial board the other day and was asked this very question, she said: "If we had eliminated it" -- referring to the corporation capital tax -- "in this budget, it would not have been balanced, because the corporation capital tax brings in about $350 million." So what is the government saying? The Premier is running around the world promising things that he can't deliver on, and the Finance minister -- I hope -- is embarrassed by having to admit publicly that she could not withdraw that tax because she couldn't have produced the alleged balanced budget we are debating at this time.
Finally, the public wants less debt. Remember the Achilles' heel, hon. members. The government must reduce debt; it must spend within its means. This government has never demonstrated the ability to spend within its means, and it is only getting worse. My message to the members opposite and to the government would be to make some real reductions in government spending: cut out waste not in a superficial manner but in some realistic terms; do away with patronage and the special deals that this government is prepared to offer to its friends and neighbours; and attend to the fiscal responsibility that a government should demonstrate -- not, unfortunately, the one that is clearly lacking with this government.
I am hoping that the government will do two things: first, realize that its economic practices are misguided. Second, I'm hoping that this government will do as the people of British Columbia are consistently asking: put aside these fiscal flimflam games that they go through and get to the real point of the exercise, which is a general election. It is long overdue. As a relatively minor, perhaps cost-saving measure, I would add that the government need not call the Abbotsford by-election, which of course it must do within two weeks or so. It could save that extra cost by calling a general election instead. That would allow the people of the entire province the opportunity, not just the people of Abbotsford, who will clearly demonstrate through their election that this government is not acting properly.
[ Page 13196 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure for me to join the budget debate. It's fascinating to listen to the opposition as they comment on the budget debate. You have to come to the conclusion that the only people who don't have confidence in British Columbia are the 17 Liberals and other members of the opposition sitting across the way.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, 14 Liberals.
I had the privilege to be in this House in 1986. I remember the 1986 and 1991 election campaigns, where the right wing in British Columbia would argue, as they do now, that if an NDP government was ever elected, investment would flee the province; there would be no investment in British Columbia because there wouldn't be capital investment with a government like the New Democrats. The politics of fear that came from the right -- Reform, Liberals and Socreds -- was such as to try to persuade voters that there wouldn't be investment in British Columbia.
We have now had the better part of three years to witness this administration's performance and the application of its fiscal plan, and to determine whether or not that fiscal plan has been successful in meeting the objectives that government set for itself. At the point when we were elected in October 1991, we set out to ensure that British Columbia had the strongest economic performance of any province in Canada. We now have the evidence of the last three years, which demonstrates that since 1991, 40 percent of all of the new jobs created in Canada have been created right here in British Columbia. Economic growth in British Columbia has increased at a rate of 4.3 percent, leading the nation. Exports are up by 20 percent this year alone, leading the way in Canada. Retail sales are up 10 percent, and non-residential capital investment is up 23 percent.
I agree with those who say that governments don't create jobs. Governments create the climate for investment. They create a climate for the private sector and the public sector, either independently or in partnership, to invest in a province. What we've done as a government is create the kind of climate that is a prerequisite to good, healthy investment.
There was a time in this province when 80 to 90 percent of our trade was with the United States. As a result, the economic fortunes of this province went up and down with the economic fortunes of the United States. In 1991, when the Premier assumed the responsibilities for B.C. Trade, he set it as an objective of government to diversify our trading patterns. Now about 50 percent of our trade is with the United States, 40 percent is with the Asia-Pacific markets and 10 percent is with Europe. By achieving the diversification the Premier said that he wanted to achieve, we have made sure that our economy is immune to the ups and downs of the cycles in the United States and that we have growing investment from the Asia-Pacific markets in British Columbia.
I expect the opposition in British Columbia to take umbrage with the success of the economic policies of this administration. And I expect them to suggest -- as they have during the past few weeks -- that somehow this is a budget which has increased the debt and, with regard to deficit issues, is "smoke and mirrors," to quote the Leader of the Opposition.
I suppose it's always a matter of politics in this chamber that people on my side of the House will defend the economic policies which have been a remarkably successful part of our administration, and that the opposition will criticize them -- in a style that I'm sure all members have become accustomed to. Maybe it's appropriate to put aside the rhetoric and take a look at what third parties have to say about the economic performance of this administration -- third parties which don't have a vested political interest in political affairs in this province.
Let me share with hon. members some of the comments that have been made. On the 1995 budget which the Finance minister introduced, the president of the chartered accountants of British Columbia says: "I think it's one of the better documents they've come up with." The B.C. Taxpayers' Association says that it's a good budget for taxpayers. Wood Gundy says: "B.C. remains in the best fiscal shape of all the provinces, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest ratio of debt-servicing costs to revenue." They go on to say that this budget will not change the market's perception that B.C. and Alberta remain the top-tier provincial credits. In their corporate bond credit update of March 1995, Goldman Sachs says: "British Columbia's high double-A ratings and stable outlook are based on the province's improving fiscal profile, moderate debt burden and strong economic performance...." Citicorp says: "British Columbia is still the strongest credit with respect to financial flexibility. The provincial economy is expected to continue to perform well as a result of a pickup in domestic construction activity, strong net in-migration and continued robust export growth to the Pacific Rim." Nesbitt Burns said in December 1994:
"B.C. is in the best financial shape of all of the provinces.... Besides achieving lower deficits, the province has taken action to keep debt growth on a downward path...debt service absorbs just 5 cents of every spending dollar. By way of comparison, every other province devotes more than 10 percent of total expenditures towards servicing the debt."
I could go on, quote after quote. In August 1994, with regard to the fiscal performance of this government, Lehman Bros. said: "British Columbia was the only Canadian province to outperform its budgetary targets substantially in the 1993-94 fiscal year, and the government has put forward a credible plan to balance the budget."
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: CS First Boston said in July 1994 -- and I know this irritates the opposition, judging from the heckling opposite:
"British Columbia is a leader in budget deficit reduction among Canadian provinces.... British Columbia's prospects are positive, based on the Harcourt administration's economic management, the overall recovery of the Canadian economy, and the province's geostrategic position as a crossroads of the Pacific."
The jury is in, and all of those independent, neutral third parties whose job is to evaluate the fiscal and economic performance of government have come forward and said straight out that the opposition is lying when it suggests that somehow this province is not achieving its economic potential.
How have we done it? How have we managed to create the success that we've had? We've done it because in 1991 we made an election commitment to British Columbians that we would endeavour to increase the size of the economic pie in British Columbia and to generate more wealth, more revenue, in British Columbia. And rather than going back to the old Socred days, which are now being advocated by the Liberals; rather than going to the cut, slash and burn strategy which caused 25,000 civil servants to show up on the steps of the Legislature in 1983 -- and I happened to be there; instead of trying to bring about the kind of catastrophic impacts that we're now seeing in Alberta....
The other day I was reading a story of a young child in Alberta who, because of the cuts in ambulance service, had to
[ Page 13197 ]
be brought down by taxi from St. Paul to Edmonton, and died on the way because there were deficient services within the ambulance. It's terrible to see the impact of the kinds of cuts that the Liberals on the other side of the House would advocate.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
We as a government made a conscious decision to try to create prosperity and economic activity in British Columbia, and we've succeeded in generating the kind of activity that we can all be proud of. I think a good example of what we've been able to achieve and of what's occurred in British Columbia over the last three years, if we take a look at one sector alone, is what's happened in the forest sector in British Columbia. As we all know, forestry is the number one component of our economy, and it generates about half of the economic revenue in British Columbia. Profits for publicly traded B.C. forest companies were minus-$350 million in 1991. In 1994 they were $800 million, a turnaround of more than $1 billion.
[5:00]
You talk about creating an economic climate where investment occurs. I would hope the opposition would chill out here for a moment so that they can hear about success, because the only people in British Columbia who do not have confidence in our economic success are members of the opposition.
Capital expenditures in the B.C. forest industry were $1.43 billion in 1991. A Statistics Canada survey of investment intentions shows the figure for 1995 will be $1.86 billion, an increase of 30 percent since 1991. Direct employment in the B.C. forest industry was 91,000 jobs in 1991. In 1994 it was 105,000 jobs, an increase of 15 percent, or 14,000 new jobs, in the forest sector since we've come into office.
We've done it by bringing about certainty in land use decision-making, so we can say to forest workers: "Here are the areas where you can log." At the same time, we are doubling the number of parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia, to put an end to the war in the woods.
I've found it astonishing that the three pillars of the strategy -- Forest Renewal B.C., which sets aside money to offset any job loss in British Columbia; the Forest Practices Code, which changes the way we manage our forests and is tough on enforcement; and the decision to double the number of parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia -- are the three fundamental initiatives which the opposition has voted and spoken against. The three initiatives are designed to bring certainty and stability, to generate the type of wealth creation in the forest sector and the revenue we need to pay the bills.
The opposition says that the budget is not balanced, and that it's smoke and mirrors. There are two ways in which one can determine whether the budget is balanced. There is the method the auditor-general spoke to some months ago, and there is the method of bookkeeping that we as a province have been engaged in since Confederation. Under either methodology, the budget is balanced, in one case by $141 million and in the other case, by about $31 million.
The opposition will never read those quotes I just read about the investment houses and the success in the forest sector. They will never acknowledge that we have balanced the budget in British Columbia while implementing a three-year freeze on taxes at the same time.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands has been most inconsiderate, not just on this occasion but in the past, when members are speaking. The Chair would ask the member to constrain himself at least to a low form of interjection rather than constantly interjecting from his seat.
Hon. M. Sihota: The opposition will never recognize that we have frozen taxes for three years in British Columbia, and at the same time we have managed to balance the budget. They would rather stand up in this House and speak for their friends on Howe Street, demanding that we provide tax breaks for large corporations in British Columbia.
There were days in this province when a bank teller working for a bank paid more taxes than the bank, and when a gas jockey working for an oil company paid more in taxes than the oil company. We've closed those loopholes. The opposition Liberals and Reform are on their knees begging us to open those loopholes for their corporate friends. We as a provincial government will not do that.
Debt. It is true that this administration has made conscious decisions to build schools, hospitals and transportation facilities throughout British Columbia. We've done that in the context of affordability. We will do that which we can afford to do in terms of attending to the needs of ordinary British Columbians.
It is wrong to try to cram 1,500 students into a school built for 900. That is why we as an administration have made a commitment in my constituency to build a new school for the children of View Royal Elementary.
An Hon. Member: You made the commitment, but you did not follow through.
Hon. M. Sihota: The opposition, I suspect, if it had its day, would cancel that kind of project.
An Hon. Member: Nonsense.
The Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member please try and constrain himself. The Chair is trying to allow for reasonable interjections; clearly that happens. But I think all hon. members know the rules. I think it's very clear that this is quite distracting. It's difficult for the Chair to follow the debate if members are continuing to interrupt from their seats in such a loud tone.
Please proceed, hon. member.
An Hon. Member: The member is provocative.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you.
The Speaker: It would help if the hon. member would address the Chair as well.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, it is not my intention here to inflame the opposition. It is my intention here, in a measured and reasonable way, to put forward the success of this administration with regard to its fiscal and economic policies, and to say that we as an administration think it in the best long-term interests of this province that we invest in British Columbia -- in its people, resources and communities. We're doing that in the constituency I represent and doing it with pride in constituencies throughout the province. We're investing in people.
In my constituency, Esquimalt-Metchosin, we've made a conscious decision -- and I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance for assisting in this -- to save Royal Roads univer-
[ Page 13198 ]
sity so as to provide post-secondary opportunities for young people here in the greater Victoria area. I fear there is even a prospect that the opposition may find its way into government and would eliminate funding for Royal Roads. I know that people in my constituency would not stand for that.
We have made a decision to invest in communities in my constituency -- $30 million to expand sewers into the Western Communities. That's $30 million being committed by our administration and the federal government under a joint partnership program, which the opposition has criticized and has said that, as part of their debt management strategy, they would eliminate. Those investments in the Western Communities will allow for growth to occur on lands that are non-agricultural in the greater Victoria area in a planned and sustainable way, and will allow for growth in the Western Communities as opposed to the Saanich Peninsula -- again, a sensible and logical investment.
We've made a decision to expend funds to improve our transportation systems in the Western Communities. The Vancouver Island Highway project marks the beginning of the end of the Colwood crawl. I know that constituents in my constituency have talked for years about the transportation difficulties in that region. We have now come forward with a comprehensive plan that provides for road construction -- which is a forerunner and a prerequisite to investment -- and for protection of corridors for light rail transit. It develops a plan to increase transit service in the Western Communities by 30 percent. We make no apologies for coming forward with an integrated transportation plan for the Western Communities.
I am deeply concerned that the Leader of the Opposition would go on C-FAX Radio and say that he would cancel the Vancouver Island transportation program of this administration. We've invested in the resources of the Western Communities. We as a government made a conscious decision to construct the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail and establish what will become an internationally renowned park in the Western Communities, which reinforces and sits adjacent to the internationally renowned West Coast Trail.
Families from this area will be able to hike some of the most spectacular coastline on the west coast of Canada over a day or two period. We will be able to say to tourists: "Come to the greater Victoria area. Yes, spend a couple of days at Butchart Gardens and walking through the Inner Harbour, but then take your family out on a two-day wilderness experience." A family of four with kids the ages of mine -- eight and four -- can get out there and hike on an overnight trip and see some of the remarkable splendour of this province of British Columbia.
We're investing in resources. We see that by investing in the Juan de Fuca trail, by building a proper road network in the Western Communities and by bringing forward funding for Royal Roads university, we're laying the foundation for a vibrant economy in the long term for the Western Communities component of the greater Victoria area. We're now seeing opportunities out of transportation which did not exist three years ago in terms of post-secondary education, tourism and employment. Those types of initiatives are long-term investments in British Columbia, long-term investments in people and long-term investments in communities, and they will pay dividends for years to come.
They don't stop in the areas of education and transportation; they continue into areas such as health care. I remember that in 1986, when I first ran for office, senior citizens in the Western Communities were coming to me and saying that we need health care services so the pioneers from the Western Communities side of Victoria could, with dignity, spend time with their families in the later days of their lives. Again, I'm proud that, in concert with the Minister of Health, we've finally been able to announce the construction of a new Priory facility in Langford.
These are remarkable successes on the part of our administration. We have a record of fiscal performance that is second to none in Canada. We are building a province that is second to none -- an area of the world that is second to no other area in the world. We have a lot to be proud of. We have accomplished a tremendous amount over the past three years. And we will continue our work to make sure that our economy is not only sound and sustained but one which has an eye to future generations and attends to the needs and concerns of future generations.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to pose a question to the other hon. members in the chamber: how do you have a surplus of $114 million while at the same time declaring that you're going to go in debt another billion dollars? How do you manage that? There is no accounting practice I know that can account for that. Maybe this cooked-book idea has some truth to it.
[5:15]
I'm pleased to take this opportunity to discuss the budget speech. The current strong economy in British Columbia is in spite of this government, not because of it. Economists are warning of a downturn -- inevitable in any resource-based economy. This budget does not plan for this.
My confidence in this government has been wavering since 1992, when I heard their first budget speech. Each year the budget gets worse. The fourth budget, which we have just received, proves that this government is completely out of control and has lost the confidence of the people. This is a budget of blame: blame the Socreds blame the federal government. But heaven forbid that this government should take responsibility for this and the last four budgets -- which have created this mess, by the way. The lack of security and numerous leaks in this government are inexcusable. Even the civil servants have no faith in them. Due to this lack of confidence, the people want an election immediately. The disastrous budget has just reinforced this. This budget, and this government, is on its death bed.
The B.C. taxpayers were eager to learn what this government was going to do about the province's long-term debt. We have just been given a scam. The books are not balanced; they are cooked. It is a big spender's budget, as seen with B.C. 21. The government is gearing up to fight the next election -- with taxpayers' dollars, I might add.
The overall debt now sits at $26.9 billion. That's up 62 percent since the NDP took power in 1991. Sixty two percent is not something to be proud of. It's projected to be $28 billion by the end of '95-96; that's another increase of $1 billion. To fight the debt, the NDP could unload or downsize Crown corporations. Why were B.C. Rail and the B.C. Systems Corporation not privatized?
It has been reported that 320,000 public sector workers consume 53 percent of government spending. That's some more food for thought, hon. members. The government has not really addressed the tough questions concerning the long-term affordability of its public sector labour force and the size of government. There is no debt relief in the British Columbia budget. We have just seen creative bookkeeping with billions of dollars of heavy new capital spending commitments -- all of it borrowed money -- taken off government books and put into Crown agencies and Crown corporations. In this way, this government deceived us in saying it was a balanced budget. The Finance minister has said our debt is good debt. Well,
[ Page 13199 ]
there's no such thing as good debt -- just debt. Our interest payments are quickly becoming unmanageable; the debt is unsustainable.
Let's see how this government has added to our debt since it came to power in 1991. Direct government debt has jumped 119 percent from $4.72 billion to the current year's projection of $10.35 billion. Tax-supported debt has increased by 92 percent from $9.77 billion to $18.8 billion. Total debt, the most important of all, has increased 62 percent from $17.21 billion to $26.9 billion to date, and at the end of this year it will be at $28 billion.
Looking at expenditures during the same period, based on last spring's budget figures, social services spending has jumped 43 percent. Health spending is up by 15 percent; education is up by 18 percent. Transportation expenditures are obviously going to increase in an election year to buy votes. But the largest increase in expenditure is interest on our debt, up by 53 percent to approximately $1.5 billion this year. This government, and the Socreds before them, allowed taxpayer-supported public sector wage increases to far outstrip private sector increases and annual inflation. This government has ensured that more wage dollars in government work go to their big labour friends, who have enjoyed a political payback time since the last election.
This has been partially taken care of with massive increases in indirect and hidden taxes that are there despite this government's phony claim of a three-year tax freeze. We all feel the increases in the never-frozen, hidden taxes such as the $235 million that B.C. Hydro will give Victoria as a result of increased hydro fees. This year this government intends to continue its hidden taxes by increasing more fees, such as vehicle licence fees. This is on top of the huge fee increases of the last few years, such as increased gas tax; a new corporate capital tax -- another broken promise, I might add -- it's still in effect; increased personal income tax; increased commercial and business taxes; a new automobile tax; a 3 percent surtax on luxury vehicles -- and on the list goes; an increased provincial sales tax -- from 6 percent to 7 percent -- that came in on October 1, 1993; PST on labour and services such as car repairs, house repairs, legal fees and haircuts; PST on parking; removal of the supplemental homeowner grant for some as of March 31, 1993; the sales tax allowance for passenger vehicle trade-ins eliminated; a new flat tax of $1.50 per vehicle rental; tobacco and alcohol prices increased up to 30 percent. In October 1993, Medical Services Plan premiums increased; this is from the people who are going to protect medicare. Every conceivable tax and licence has been increased, and now there are more fee increases -- enough to keep this government going without tax increases until 1997. Fees, licences, leases, Lotto -- say what you will, they're just another form of taxation. It's time this government realized that, and it's time they realized that every time they go to the people's pockets they're getting emptier and emptier.
The minister emphasized jobs, but I didn't see potential jobs in fisheries and agriculture. Once again this year I will re-emphasize the importance of agriculture and fisheries, since for the fourth year they were completely neglected. These areas have 208,000 employees, but there was not a word about them in the speech. These areas have not been a priority with this government in the past three years, even though they are wealth-generating industries. They obviously will not be a priority in the future. Both industries are in crisis, yet they weren't mentioned in the speech, and two cabinet ministers come from farming communities and the industries.
Agriculture is essential for British Columbia's prosperity. We must maintain the capacity to feed ourselves because it gives us critical independence; it keeps us free of future market monopolies in an industry that is impossible to replace once it is lost. British Columbia farmers can compete -- they have in the past, so there's no reason that they can't in the future -- with a fair, competitive climate, with balanced taxes between Alberta, British Columbia and the state of Washington. There's another hint there, hon. minister: balanced taxes between those jurisdictions. This doesn't necessarily mean subsidies for farmers, but it does mean giving British Columbia farmers the same breaks as their competitors.
The best investment we can make in our agriculture and food industry is the education of young men and women who will continue the long tradition and legacy of progressive agriculture in the Fraser Valley and all of British Columbia. We must ensure that agriculture is strong and viable. As for jobs, a 5 percent increase in sales of farm products in this province would increase jobs by 4,000. New agriculture technology centres with natural labs are needed to educate our young farmers. I will urge this government to work in consultation with the private sector in order to develop more of our primary agriculture products into marketable, processed and packaged goods. That's more jobs, hon. minister, if you ever decide to invest in the province like you've been trying to say you're doing. Underlying agriculture and farming is a dynamic, thriving processing industry which our government promotes. It is apparent that the agrifood industry plays a major role in British Columbia's economy. Chilliwack is a major player and must be encouraged to expand, and more jobs are created. But when Fraser Valley Foods closed down, losing hundreds of jobs, there was not so much as a peep out of this government. That was just in the last six months. Where is this job commitment?
The budget speech also forgot fisheries. The province must be involved, and stay involved, in the fisheries issue. Over $1 billion worth of processed seafood is sold annually in British Columbia. All these jobs could be lost, forcing retraining and putting another burden on social services, which we cannot afford. We are in danger of losing our province's fishing industry if this government does not intervene and stay involved. The aquaculture industry, which was a rising star, is leaving this province due to government regulations. The jobs and investments are going to the U.S. and Chile. Conflicts with the scenic corridors, which have not been resolved, continue to plague and destroy this industry. I'd like to quote from the Globe and Mail on March 27, 1995: "Angered at being stonewalled by British Columbia's Environment ministry, some West Coast fish farmers are steering millions of dollars in job-creating investment outside Canada to rival nations, including Chile and the United States." It's too bad the Minister of Environment didn't stay around to listen to a little of this; maybe he could straighten it out.
In 1988 Chile raised only 4,400 tonnes of salmon; in 1995 they raised over 100,000 tonnes. That is many, many jobs, and you're watching them go outside this country. Meanwhile, we've lost those jobs. We've lost that investment, and they're all in Chilliwack -- or in Chile, I should say.
Interjections.
R. Chisholm: But I wish they were in Chilliwack.
This government must be involved in consultations and negotiations with the federal government, but not as an afterthought. The fisheries must be enhanced through more incentives for onshore value-added, not through shipping value-added offshore, as we see presently. Stricter laws and quotas must be implemented, and it is crucial that they be enforced and monitored. The province must take the initiative to assist
[ Page 13200 ]
and inform the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans about their fisheries. After all, we are losing a valuable resource, and we are losing all that employment. This government is not doing this forcefully or effectively.
The salmonid enhancement programs must be continued and operated by all levels of government, industry and volunteer groups. The funding and control of this program must remain with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It must not be funded by B.C. 21, whose jurisdiction is confusing. It has been lost, and it is doing a very poor job because of that. We all recognize that the aboriginals have certain rights to fish for ceremonial and sustenance requirements, but we must recognize that the commercial fisheries are of crucial importance to the well-being of this province. Right now, they are in sad shape indeed. The fishing industry benefits all British Columbians, and if we keep going at the rate we're going, we will have massive unemployment. One of the big issues of their speech was employment: -- jobs, jobs, jobs. I heard it said over and over again, but I have yet to see the conscientiousness behind that decision. The Minister of Finance expects to increase jobs. She should not omit our best assets: agriculture and fisheries.
The federal government has told us that there will be a cut of $5.3 billion in transfer programs beginning in 1996 and '97. In the first year this will cost British Columbia $282 million, and the province is not ready for this. This government -- and I re-emphasize this -- has not planned for it in their budget, nor does it look like they will be planning for it. All they can do is blame the Socreds and the feds. It is a problem for this whole country, not for just one group. Economists are now saying that the British Columbia business cycle has peaked and that in the next five years there will be a downturn. When this happens, this government's affordable spending will be awfully expensive.
During the budget speech, the Finance minister again stressed her government's commitment to jobs. I don't like the results of their type of commitment. In my riding alone, this government's job commitment has translated into job losses. When Chilliwack's Fraser Valley Foods closed, there wasn't a peep out of this government, and there went 200 jobs. There has just been an announcement that the Fraser Valley bus service in Chilliwack has lost its licence, causing more job losses. This government could not care less, and it's time they did. If they were honestly thinking about jobs, then it's about time they showed it and proved it.
There has recently been an announcement by this government that the forest industry annual cut reduction in Chilliwack will also translate into more job losses. The spotted owl policy, which is yet to come down, and the protected-areas strategy will create more job losses.
We're now up into 300 or 400 jobs so far. The recent announcement of the closure of CFB Chilliwack brought absolutely no response from this government, even though it meant a security risk to British Columbia as well as 747 job losses. Why, Mr. Premier, are you not protecting British Columbia on this issue?
[5:30]
Since this government obviously isn't acting to save the Chilliwack base, then this budget should reflect how they plan to deal with it. But this budget doesn't project that loss. Could it be because the final closure of this base is in four years, and this government knows it won't be the government of the day having to deal with it? That is the only logical conclusion one can make, since any government with long-term planning would either fight to save CFB Chilliwack to prevent job loss and let the federal government be responsible for emergency response, or budget for its closure and identify alternative uses and their costs for emergency response once the base closes. Neither has been done, showing this government's lack of confidence in its own future, which concurs with the feelings of the voters. Therefore I can only conclude, based on this government's action to date, that they have no commitment to British Columbians and jobs. Chilliwack has lost a total of 1,000 direct jobs, with no protest from this government. I say again: 1,000 direct jobs with no protest from this government. And if you add a conservative multiplier of three, this equates to 3,000 jobs. Where are your job ideas now, hon. minister? You said you were going to create them; all I've seen is a loss since you've been in power, and your budget does absolutely nothing about it.
Since the Premier has not acted on behalf of British Columbians and the people of Chilliwack concerning the job loss at CFB Chilliwack and all the rest, whether they be with Fraser Valley Foods or with the bus lines, maybe he should resign and call an election and we can straighten this mess out for them.
This budget has proved that it is hard to budget for patronage and perks -- very hard to budget for patronage and perks. The Finance minister claims to have cut the civil service, but where? Where did she cut it? Will it be with government friends with salaries in the $100,000-to-$200,000 range, plus lush benefits packages as we heard in question period earlier today: guaranteed bonuses, sick leave, paybacks, preretirement leave and overtime pay? Will it be cutting the contracts of members of the extended NDP family without the accountability of public tendering? No, it will probably hit much-needed workers such as teachers, nurses and the like, but not the friends and insiders -- heaven forbid! In 1993 the Korbin inquiry suggested that the perks be linked to a management performance criteria. Obviously this government hasn't heeded the advice, and the patronage will continue.
The Finance minister plans to reduce the government's advertising budget by 15 percent to save $3.6 million. Let me suggest that she can save even more by getting rid of the U.S. spin doctors. That will just be a start; there is a lot more fluff to be cut out of their budget. A lot of these ideas are not just mine; we have heard them from different sources in the province, including their own. I urge her to support this government's concept of Buy B.C. for all services and products, not just for the food industry and agriculture.
The minister keeps talking about good debt and bad debt. With interest payments on their debt up to $1.5 billion per year, I have to wonder what the minister thinks she could use that amount for if it was coming in and not going out. I say again: all debt is bad debt. What could we use $1.5 billion for? What would that buy us in this province?
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: They talk about education in schools, and I hear from over in the far corner about universities. Well, $1.5 billion of interest payments will pay for an awful lot of university.
Where is the auditor general's recommendation of value-for-money audits implemented in this budget in order to ensure that tax dollars are well spent and justified? Unfortunately, a lot of these things are myths. I would like to poke a few holes in some of these myths. During the campaign, it was said by this government: "We don't anticipate and will not bring in any major new tax initiatives." The fact of the matter is that they've just put in a billion and a half of them. That's one myth.
[ Page 13201 ]
Myth No. 2 is that New Democrats will not commit British Columbia to increased government debt. The fact of the matter is that next year the debt will increase -- and I'm just talking about next year, now -- by $1 billion, at the same time that you people are telling us we have a $114 million overage, a surplus. Amazing accountability practices we have here.
The next myth that the NDP said is: "I'd like to see smaller government, too." The fact: the NDP has just added another 500 employees to the government payroll. These are facts and those are myths.
An Hon. Member: Tell us.
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, hon. member, I just told you and you weren't listening. It's too bad you didn't clean out your ears and start listening.
I'll go on. I'll even quote from the minister in charge of B.C. 21. This was June 11, 1994.
Interjections.
R. Chisholm: I hear a no, but I must. It says: "God, we're shovelling money off a truck." No wonder we're broke; no wonder we have $28 billion worth of debt. Like I said, it's a billion and a half dollars of interest, hon. member. How much university will that buy for you? If you're so enthusiastic about universities, think about a billion and a half dollars and how much that would buy. We have British Columbians paying more in taxes than they spend on food, shelter and clothing combined.
An Hon. Member: Shameful!
R. Chisholm: Yes, it is shameful, and it's about time this government faced up to the realities and started governing. That's exactly what people put them here for. But they are in heaven. All they've done is taken care of their friends and insiders.
Like I said, this government debt has gone up by 62 percent since they came into office. Then we wonder why we're in trouble. I have yet to see a major cut by this government.
F. Garden: No more child care. Save Chilliwack base for us. Do it all.
R. Chisholm: I hear "No more child care; save Chilliwack base." I can get into a debate with that member and show where there are no savings with Chilliwack. I can show that member where he could have all the child care in the world if he weren't paying out interest payments every year.
An Hon. Member: Is your mortgage interest-free?
R. Chisholm: I hear: "Is your mortgage interest-free?" I'll tell you what my mortgage is: it's under control -- not like our debt. Our debt is out of control, and that's our problem. It's not sustainable. It's about time the hon. members realize that what they are doing with this province's budget is unsustainable. It is about time they accepted their responsibility, stopped blaming the Socreds, stopped blaming the federal government and started taking responsibility for what they created: a mess.
I hear all these quotes from the Minister of Environment about what people think of their wonderful budget. It's very easy to get a quote from somebody who is gaining money from this government; it's very easy to get quotes from the friends and insiders. But it's not so easy to get quotes from, let's say, Richard Allen with the BCCCU. He says: "Rather than making significant spending cuts, the government has used creative accounting" -- I call it cooked books, myself -- "to manufacture $114 million surplus." At the same time, you hon. members have increased the debt by a billion dollars. Just like me, even the unwashed public out there understands those numbers.
I will quote from Troy Lanigan, Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, and he is obviously not being paid by anybody here: "This government is paving the road for future tax increases once the tax freeze is over, because of its lack of leadership in making the needed spending cuts." So he is saying we are in for a big downhill slide.
An Hon. Member: Doom and gloom.
R. Chisholm: Yes, hon. member, there is a bit of doom and gloom in here. The members on that side of the House created the doom and gloom, and now we have to face it.
Jerry Lampert, Business Council of British Columbia: "We're characterizing this as a quicksand budget. Their economic assumptions are, in fact, faulty." Gloom and doom? No, just facing the reality, hon. members. That's exactly what they're doing, and they're telling us to face the reality.
Dave Robertson, president of the B.C. Construction Association said: "They're expecting continued growth in the economy to allow them to continue with their spending levels. We're disappointed they don't seem to have addressed some real issues."
The only real issue these people seem to want to address is patronage. I have yet to see one major cut in the budget since 1991. Just show me one major cut that is substantial. And don't show me that you're spending $1.5 billion on a highway at the same time, because the interest payments are killing us. They're killing not only us right now, they're killing the future of our children and their children.
An Hon. Member: Check the credit rating.
R. Chisholm: And I hear: "Check the credit rating." It's very easy to have a decent credit rating when the dollar is at the state it is at this point in time, and they can't take credit for that.
Interjections.
R. Chisholm: It's very easy to sit there and make remarks about checking the credit rating. The problem is that the facts remain. By the end of the year, it will be $28 billion. By the end of the year, we'll pay a billion and a half dollars in interest. It still begs the question: what could you do with a billion and a half dollars? How do you account for your budget, when you say you have a surplus of $114 million and then you increase the debt by $1 billion?
All we've seen since this government was elected is growth of government, growth of debt, increased taxes and no plan for managing these items. It is ludicrous that this government has devised a 20-year plan for correcting their faults, particularly when they won't be here in 20 years. The debt is presently at $26.8 billion. In the next year they will add another $1 billion, to bring the total to $27.8 billion -- not exactly a great start to their 20-year program. As I said, these people are on their debt bed. It's about time for them to realize
[ Page 13202 ]
it and try to rectify some of their faults, because it's costing this province its future. It's costing our children and our grandchildren their future. Hon. members, it's about time for people on the government side to stand up and be counted, and start saying it the way it is. There are cooked books out there. Let's straighten up this mess.
Taking note of the time, hon. Speaker, I move....
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.
B. Copping: I'm very pleased to stand and speak in favour of this budget, because it is a budget of responsibility and a budget of balance. It balances what we need with what we can afford. However, hon. Speaker, in view of the length of my comments and seeing the hour, I move to adjourn debate until the next sitting after today.
B. Copping moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]