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)
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 13
[ Page 13203 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
K. Jones: It's with a degree of regret that I pass on to the Legislature the passing of a great Canadian living in Surrey, Arthur Helps, the founder and former moderator of the "Town Meeting in Canada" program, which I think at one time had an audience of eight million people -- probably the first opportunity for people across Canada to participate in a democratic-process talk show. A person whose life was based on the motto of "Town Meeting in Canada," and that was "tolerance, justice and reason in an informed public," Mr. Helps has been very involved with St. Helen's Anglican church in Surrey and in bringing together the desire of the community to bring peace and understanding between the various members of our ethnic communities. He was quite involved in trying to bring a mediation role to the Newton Legion concerns with the Sikh community. I ask that all persons who knew him and worked with him across Canada remember him on his passing today.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me advise the House that the House will be sitting tomorrow. With that, I call budget debate.
(continued)
B. Copping: I am very, very pleased to speak in support of this budget, because this budget is a good budget, a commonsense budget, a budget of responsibility and a budget of balance. It balances what we need with what we can afford.
The budget set out to do three things. It set out to eliminate the deficit and to get debt under control. And eliminate the deficit this budget did, no matter which way the budget is reported. It was reported in two financial statements this time: the way it has always been reported since the constitution of British Columbia, and also by the preferred method of the auditor general. Both ways, the deficit is eliminated.
When we got elected in 1991, all we heard from the opposition was deficit, deficit, deficit. But the deficit is now under control, and since the opposition saw the deficit coming under control they switched to debt, debt, debt. But what they don't say is that we have a debt that we can afford. The Liberals would have us believe that our spending has run amok. What happens when spending runs amok? Credit ratings go down; your credit cards get taken away. And that has not happened in this province.
Second, the budget set out to maintain the strongest economy in Canada. British Columbia has that. I'll repeat that: the strongest economy in Canada. And third, the budget set out to maintain very important and needed services, such as health and education. The budget will not permit the privatization of health care or the semi-privatization of education in the form of charter schools.
Let us look at the economic climate of B.C., a climate that fosters and promotes job creation. The highest credit rating, as I said, of any province in Canada -- that is a fact. The lowest level of debt in Canada as a percentage of gross domestic product -- that is a fact. And investment at its highest level in seven years -- that is a fact. That means jobs, and we continue to lead Canada in job creation.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The economy grew by 4.3 percent, the highest rate of growth in five years. Retail sales are up almost 10 percent. Exports are up 20 percent. We created 67,000 new jobs in 1994; one in four jobs in Canada were created in B.C. Another fact: new non-residential capital investment was up by 23 percent, and 43,000 new jobs are expected to be created in 1995.
Don't just listen to me; let's see what others had to say about our budget and B.C.'s economy. Moody's Investors Service states that debt levels remain the lowest of any Canadian province. The investment dealer Nesbitt Burns concludes: "B.C. is in the best financial shape of all the provinces...the province has taken action to keep debt growth on a downward path...." The investment dealer Goldman Sachs says: "B.C.'s high double-A ratings and stable outlook are based on the province's improving fiscal profile, moderate debt burden and strong economic performance...." Please note: "moderate debt burden."
We need a good economic climate to promote jobs, but part of job creation is also training our young. We need a skilled workforce. Post-secondary funding is up 3.8 percent, to $1.32 billion. Almost 48,000 new full-time post-secondary spaces have been created -- over and above the 8,100 new spaces we created last year. Also, $106 million goes for apprenticeship and work-related training in high schools, for more technical education at the post-secondary level, for retraining workers in their communities and for upgrading skills of people on income assistance to get them back into the workforce. As well, $3.4 billion has been allocated for the elementary and secondary school system -- an increase of 4.4 percent.
Simon Fraser University is in my riding, and I am very, very fortunate to be up there many times. I'm very pleased that they have received grants from the innovation fund program, which is part of our Skills Now initiative. These funds support new ways that offer to serve more students. This is done through the development of many things, such as creative teaching techniques, more flexible programming, more relevant courses and, of course, innovative partnerships between business and the university. We are saying we must find new ways to do more things. We must spend smarter, and this government has done it.
Much has been made of our spending on infrastructure. That means schools, colleges, sewers and roads. I talked about this budget being a budget of responsibility. It would be irresponsible of a government to not build infrastructure, to not build new facilities for 15,000 new children entering the system every year and to not build new facilities for 100,000 people moving to the province this year. That is not responsibility. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
[10:15]
My riding is in the northeast sector of the lower mainland. It was neglected for the last 20 years; it is one of the reasons that I ran for this position as MLA. I was on the school board at the time. There were no schools being built; there was no money for maintenance and repair. We would have a leaky roof. Because there was no money to repair that roof, it was more expensive in the long run. This government has reversed that trend. In the past three years the government has taken action to decrease the backlog of needed education facilities: $1.2 billion has been put into schools and $700 million into post-secondary capital. This year $550 million has been set aside for schools and post-secondary facilities.
We need transportation initiatives; we need to move people to their jobs; we need to move goods and services. And we
[ Page 13204 ]
are seeing that happening in my riding. We are seeing the construction of the Barnet-Hastings people-moving project, with an HOV lane, which is responsible....
We are seeing the building of the Broadway-Gaglardi connector, a narrow strip of road leading up to Simon Fraser University, or heading west into Vancouver from Coquitlam. The backlog on that road, in either direction, goes for blocks and that is going to be fixed.
We are going to have commuter rail up and running in November '95. The Liberal Transportation critic called commuter rail a cash pig -- a cash pig, hon. Speaker! I like pigs. They are noble; they are intelligent; they are beautiful animals. But I don't think the Liberal Transportation critic was being complimentary when he called it a cash pig.
What else do we have in our riding? I, along with my other two Coquitlam colleagues, lobbied and we now have an extension of the Douglas College campus, an innovative partnership among the municipality, the school board and Douglas College. Hon. Speaker, we need it. We are also going to have funding for a cultural facility, an art centre. The northeast sector has gone from the deep depths of oblivion into a place where it will have facilities and infrastructure, thanks to this government.
It's quite interesting that since I've been elected, I've never had a call from a constituent saying: "Please don't build the Barnet. Please don't do the Broadway-Gaglardi connector. Please don't put in commuter rail." Yet it's interesting how many calls I get saying: "When is it going to be finished? Can't you do it sooner? Can't you do it quicker?" I guess I should have been a little smarter and had these people phone the Liberal Party to see what they would have done. The Liberal leader attacks our investments in the community infrastructure program, but he fails to say which priority he would sacrifice and which region he would hurt. But we do know he will cut the corporate taxes.
I said this budget sets out to protect social programs. We will fight privatization of social programs.
The federal budget cut $1.3 billion from B.C.'s medicare and education funding. If this continues, federal medicare funding to B.C. will disappear in six years. I don't know if people realize what that means. It means the two-tier system the Liberals have spoken in favour of. But what does a two-tier medical system mean? It means there won't be equal care for all people, because the care will be based on your pocketbook. This is very unfair. Right now, anybody can go to an emergency ward. I know that if I go, I will be treated in the same way as the Queen of England, and by the same doctors. That will not happen under the Liberals' two-tier plan. With over $6 billion in health care, we say there is enough money but that it must delivered more efficiently.
The Liberal way is to put more money into the system without dealing with efficiencies. They'll put more money into the system through the private system, through people's wallets. That's an easy way out: to open up private clinics and have people open their wallets. Those who have it can get the care. Don't deal with the efficiencies or with change; don't worry about a lost vote because change frightens people. That is not leadership, and that is not what government is about. When you talk about a two-tier system, the other thing is the marketing of medical procedures for profit, which is a very dangerous trend.
Do we believe that Jim Nielsen is opening the MRI clinic for the greater good? Give me a break. He's opening it because it's a cash cow. What it means is that clinics are a wonderful game to be in, because there are lots of studies on everything. You tell the population: "You can have an MRI. You pay for it, and we'll make sure we can find out if you've got breast cancer." It doesn't matter if you're in an age group where a study wouldn't be of benefit to you, or there might be a false positive and you end up with unneeded surgery. That doesn't matter: "We'll set up the market. We'll make the money." Who is not going to have one, to find out whether or not they have cancer? It is very, very dangerous, and could possibly cost the public system even more. When they see all the marketing that will happen with private clinics, the public might start demanding those things from their public system.
We are not only protecting medicare; as I said, we are being responsible and changing the way we do things. We are moving health care closer to home, and that means getting people into their homes if that is where they want to or can be cared for. We are freeing communities to set their own priorities by the creation of community health councils, and we are promoting preventive care. But the Liberals have stood in the way of every health care reform we have made. The Leader of the Opposition opposes New Directions and tries to raise fears about more bureaucracy when he knows very well that is not true and that it will do just the opposite.
We are putting patients first. We are investing, as I said, in new hospitals and new health care facilities. We are building new cancer clinics. We are shortening surgery waiting lists. We recently targeted $18.5 million to reduce waiting lists. We have licensed midwifery and established a new college of midwifery. The leader of the Liberal opposition attacks our health care spending, but he will give a billion dollars to corporations in tax breaks. Over the past three years we have increased funding for health care by over $1.1 billion, an average annual increase of 5.9 percent, at a time when many other provinces are decreasing health care funding. That is responsibility, and that is balance.
The throne speech talked about this government having a commitment to British Columbia as more than a marketplace: a place where people live and work, a place with a heart and a soul. I am very pleased to be a part of a government that has a heart and a soul, a government that brought in a budget with a heart and a soul.
J. Pullinger: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction, if I may.
Leave granted.
J. Pullinger: I just learned that in the gallery today we have 25 grade 11 students from the Duncan Christian school and their teacher Mr. Cousins. I ask my colleagues in the House to please help me make them welcome today.
C. Tanner: In replying to the budget speech, you might say that I have come to praise Caesar, not to bury him -- that comes later.
Let's look at the good things this government has done in the past. They created parks, and I like parks; I think that's a good thing. They got carried away a little with the Tatshenshini, but they did have the courage to do what they thought was the best thing for the province. They showed the courage to withstand the wrath of their own supporters concerning their position on the Clayoquot controversy -- an unusual circumstance and one that deserves mention.
They continued the work begun by the Leader of the Third Party when he was a member of the last Social Credit cabinet. I refer, of course, to the land claims of the B.C. aboriginal peoples. This government has put in place a treaty process which, while they made some initial mistakes, is in theory, at
[ Page 13205 ]
least, the correct course to follow to resolve this most difficult problem.
In health care they attempted -- and let me repeat, attempted -- to implement the Seaton commission recommendations and the Closer to Home philosophy. They made a tremendous mess of the implementation -- they created confusion at local levels, consternation among health professionals and concern among the public at large -- but they showed some intestinal fortitude in attempting to reorganize a system which was in need of change.
I don't agree with all of this government's answers to the incompetence of the last Social Credit government's handling of our forests. But while I don't agree with their methods, I respect this government's right to bring reforms to British Columbians' greatest resource. I respect this government for at least trying, although failing; one must appreciate the attempt, at least.
Let me now address the budget and those areas which directly affect my role as critic on this side of the House, and that includes Tourism and Culture. As I said at the beginning of this, I come to praise this government for two decisions. Firstly, the Minister of Tourism has finally prevailed upon this government to invest in tourism -- our fastest-growing industry. The member of cabinet for Tourism -- the only practical, hands-on business person in cabinet, to my knowledge -- has finally convinced his colleagues to take a businesslike look at their budget. They finally invested the same amount in tourism this year as they did five years ago in 1991.
The same member, the Minister of Culture -- and here again he deserves my praise -- is investing tax dollars in a very important aspect of our lives, one which generates consequential income and jobs. Mr. Minister, congratulations. My suggestion of three years ago that the member for Okanagan-Boundary should be the Tourism and Culture minister has finally borne fruit.
So, Mr. Speaker, my praise of this government is genuine, although tempered. They've tried and mostly failed. At least they have fulfilled the expectations of their followers: those few socialists who are left, either federally or provincially. They tried, with their most outstanding success coming from the only member in cabinet whom I suspect would be more comfortable on this side of the House. He illustrates a fiscal responsibility and a financial understanding totally at odds with his fellow cabinet ministers.
[10:30]
And so we arrive at an entirely different matter: this year's budget. The Minister of Finance claims to have tabled in this House a surplus budget. I don't know whether you believe them; I know the press doesn't, and I certainly know that members on this side of the House don't believe them.
I'd like, if I might, to draw for you what I suspect went on in cabinet before they came down with this budget. Can you imagine the cabinet sitting around their cabinet table? The conversation probably went something like this.
"Premier: 'You know, maybe there's something in this balanced-budget stuff. Even our colleagues in Saskatchewan are onto it. Let's see now, that's four provinces that are following the popular sentiment to reduce deficits. It seems to me we might have a shot at this. What do you say, member for Vancouver-Kingsway?'
"Minister of Employment and Investment: 'Well, Prem, there's an election coming, and the tradition is to spend before and reign in after. Besides, I took my lumps in '92 and '93 when I raised taxes to the roof. Isn't it only fair to tell her to let me spend now?'
"Minister of Finance: 'It's time to balance the budget, buddy. It's just a matter of how much. What do you say, Prem -- a million over? Or $100,000 short? How does $114,000 sound?'
"Premier: 'Very, very believable. I think the ordinary people will buy that. But how do we continue to spend, keep up the high volume of taxation, help the Minister of Employment and Investment with his very reasonable request to buy an election from the back of a truck and at the same time pull this whole stunt off?'
"Minister of Finance:'No problem. I've got dozens of NDP friends happy to solve a minor problem like balancing and borrowing, cutting and spending, increasing the public service, reducing staff, adding and subtracting from the same balance sheet. That's kid stuff, Mr. Premier. It's all called forecasting. You take a bunch of indeterminate facts, mix them into a confusing and unaccountable formula, spread the whole mess over 20 years, sprinkle in economic predictions, and voila: a balanced budget -- deficit gone, and we're all heroes.'
"Another minister, voice not recognized: 'Mr. Premier, all that sounds like NOW Communications spin. Why can't we do what we did when I was in business? Take last year's income, carefully and thoroughly analyze next year's potential income, and if it looks like we're going to overspend, cut some of our expenses.'
"Premier: 'Mr. Minister, thanks for your input. Now, Minister of Finance, you and a couple of the other big spenders around here run along and fix the whole thing up. Why don't you take the Minister of Consumer Services, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Health -- among the four of you, you should have no trouble at all in cooking the books'."
The picture fades, and a few days later we come to what you might call the big pie in the sky, this so-called surplus budget. You know what propagandists say? Tell the story enough times and eventually it becomes the truth. This is not a surplus budget; it is not even a balanced budget. It's a fudged-figure budget. I, my party and the B.C. newspaper columnists think so. The only simpletons who buy the Finance minister's line are those party hacks sitting in the cheap seats on the other side of the House.
Let me quote from the day-after's newspapers what the press think of this budget. On March 29, Robert Williamson in the Globe and Mail wrote:
"While the three-year-old government wants to position itself as a tough debt-manager before facing voters likely some time in the next 12 months, business leaders said the economic forecasts underlying the government's new 20-year debt management plan are too rosy to be taken seriously."
An editorial in the Times Colonist on March 29 said:
"No wonder the Harcourt government has planned for a modest surplus in its new operating budget, a year ahead of schedule. But look at the bigger picture: total provincial debt, which climbed almost a billion over the past year, is predicted to climb almost another billion over the next year."
The Times Colonist's Denise Helm's headline was: "Balanced Budget Claim Overlooks Creativity in Accounts, Critics Say."
An editorial in the Province said: "Yesterday the NDP announced its first budget surplus. On the surface, that's good news. But Cull managed it only by moving $337 million in transit debt to a new Crown...."
Brian Lewis of the Province wrote on the 29th:
"While the provincial government was patting itself on the back yesterday on tabling its alleged balanced budget for 1995, many who closely read the documents ended up booting Premier Mike Harcourt in the backside.
[ Page 13206 ]
"There was considerable justification for the unkind kicks."
The Province's Barbara McLintock's headline said: "NDP Shuffles Debt to Arrive at Surplus."
The Vancouver Sun's Daphne Bramham wrote: "However, spending is up, the long-term debt is increasing, and even the minimal surpluses forecast for the next three years are dependent on strong economic growth coupled with windfalls."
An Editorial in the Vancouver Sun -- the headline: "Budget Short on Drama But Long on Optimism."
"Taxpayer-supported debt, which excludes Crown corporation debt, has leapt 46 percent over the same period.
"This budget also fails to provide any relief for individual taxpayers, who continue to suffer under the highest marginal tax rate in Canada. Politically, this budget has the potential to be an easy sell...."
The Vancouver Sun has David Bond saying: "Government Debt Plan Has Problems." Vaughn Palmer -- just the headline: "Stupid Budget Tricks Can't Hide NDP's Big Spending."
Gillian Shaw in the Vancouver Sun: "The biggest challenge the New Democrats faced in this budget was credibility. Credibility not only for the numbers but also for their sales job on the budget.... Servicing costs on B.C. taxpayer-supported debt will account for $964 million in the coming fiscal year."
It goes on and on. It is not only this side of the House that is critical of this budget. The commentaries in all the newspapers the next day were equally critical.
The Vancouver Sun called for Premier Mike Harcourt to honour his promise to eliminate the corporate capital tax when the deficit disappears. Hongkong Bank chief economist David Bond says: "There are no surprises in this budget. We can't have a balanced budget when debt is increasing by almost $1 billion."
The other day the Minister of Environment stood up and quoted some of the ratings this government enjoys from bond companies. That might have been the case a year ago, but more and more the public is becoming aware -- as are the people who comment on these sorts of things -- that this party is broke and is spending money it doesn't have, and it's tax, borrow and spend. Not satisfied with cooking the books, the Premier of this province, probably on the advice of Mr. Struble, in a pathetic attempt to divert attention from his own ineptitude, has accused the federal government of sabotaging both his budget and the medical insurance plan of this province. That is another inexactitude.
It may come as a surprise to this cabinet, but the federal government cut funding to all provinces. It had to, and it did so while consulting with the provinces. It consulted with you, Mr. Premier, and all the provinces insisted that the federal government reduce its debt. If it doesn't, those decisions will be made for Canada in places like New York, London and Hong Kong.
The Premier of this province has answered every question in this legislative session's question period with a suggestion that the federal government and this opposition are attempting to disband the health plan of British Columbia. He knows full well -- his party knows -- it's not true, and he should desist from his propaganda. Nobody on this side of the House wants to disband health care.
Mr. Premier, what a pathetic spectacle you made of yourself on TV at the so-called town hall meeting! For the sake of the office you are privileged to hold, don't propagate this nonsense further. We on this side of the House, when we become government, will do what is impossible for your government to do: honestly face up to budgeting and to the reasons for any shortfalls.
This budget deserves to be buried with Caesar, because the unwholesome smell of its tainted carcass pervades this legislative chamber. The Minister of Finance is not travelling down Main Street, British Columbia. She and her colleagues are parked, inert, on a dead-end street. If the government doesn't believe me, call an election. Hit the road, Mr. Premier, and let the people judge your misguided budget.
Hon. D. Miller: I want to talk in general terms about this province and the vision of this government with respect to what needs to be done now if we are to ensure continued growth and prosperity, and jobs and economic opportunity into the future. I must say I'm somewhat dismayed by the remarks I just heard from the member opposite.
With respect to the federal Liberals, I want to say that there is absolutely no question in my mind that they are in the process of dismantling medicare as we know it. There is a bill before the federal parliament that will rescind the dollar-for-dollar deduction that's currently contained in the Canada Health Act. Under the Canada Health Act now, if a province introduces user fees for medical services in their province, that province will lose an equivalent amount from the federal government in transfer payments. That is the national check, the national standard that is maintained for medicare. That national standard is being rescinded. The decision on whether or not to penalize a province for allowing the introduction of user fees will now be taken up by the federal cabinet. That is the death of medicare, and it is being presided over by a federal Liberal government. It's apparent to me that the provincial Liberal Party agrees with that fully; they are complicit in that approach.
I also want to say that the federal government has announced that it is going to withdraw its funding for post-secondary education in British Columbia.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a point of order.
M. de Jong: The minister may not be proud of the things he has to say, but a quorum should at least be here to listen to what he has to say.
Deputy Speaker: I think we do have a quorum, member.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Okay, thank you. Point taken. I appreciate it.
The minister continues.
Hon. D. Miller: Thank you. Perhaps the member was just uncomfortable listening to my remarks.
The federal Liberal government has announced that it is going to withdraw funding for post-secondary education in British Columbia -- indeed, in all provinces. In British Columbia's case, that will amount to over $300 million. That will potentially see tuition fees at our colleges and universities dramatically increased -- doubling or tripling. All we've heard from the provincial Liberals is a statement by their leader, something to the effect that students are going to have to realize that they're just going to have to pay more. This is the party that purports to stand up for average British Columbians. It's a disgrace.
Let's look at the position our province is in with respect to its industries, its economy and its population. I think these are fundamental to the debate. As I started to say, I think this
[ Page 13207 ]
debate is about.... I was going to say it's about two competing visions, because clearly on this side of the House we do have a vision of what's required to build this province. But I've not heard any vision expressed by the members opposite, except a lapse into the current popular rhetoric that we are reading every day in our newspapers, epitomized most succinctly in North America by the neo-conservatives: the Newt Gingriches and the Preston Mannings. It seems fashionable. I note that the Liberal Party, who used to have some pride in being somewhat different, has descended into using that rhetoric rather than trying to display to or to advise British Columbians what they are in favour of. I always thought that political parties should have an obligation to actually talk about what they are in favour of. I look forward with delight to the Liberal Party opposite ever, ever, ever telling the people of British Columbia what they are in favour of. We know they are opposed to a lot of things.
[10:45]
Let's look at the position our province finds itself in, first with respect to its population. We currently have about 3.6 million people in British Columbia. It is obviously a very desirable place to come to. We see that our population is growing by about 100,000 people per year. Those are people coming from other parts of Canada and other parts of the world. As we look at what our population might become over a reasonable period of time, we can see that, as we get into 2020 and 2030, the population of British Columbia will reach about 5.5 million -- considerably more than we currently have. In being able to accommodate that increase in population, we as a party and a government have said that we have to address what we refer to as infrastructure. In other words, there has to be a transportation network that allows the free flow of goods and people. There have to be transit systems that allow that free flow, particularly of people, so that there is not gridlock in our cities.
We have to ensure that the facilities that are required to develop our human potential -- our schools, college campuses and university campus buildings -- are constructed now so that when those population increases which are upon us as we speak occur, we have the capacity in our K-to-12 and post-secondary systems to give British Columbians the kinds of skills and training that are important as this economy goes through a transition. It's not happening just here; it is happening in the western industrialized nations.
We are a province that prospered very well on primary industries -- the primary processing of our natural resources. I'll use forestry as the analogy because I think it is quite apropos. What we have seen, particularly over the last decade, is a decline in the traditional resource extraction jobs in favour of a shift to more sophisticated technical jobs. It's no accident that there was a story recently in our British Columbia newspapers that indicated that the largest-ever hiring in British Columbia was taking place for people with specialized skills in forestry: forestry technicians and registered professional foresters. That hiring was attracting people from across this country, because in dealing with our land use issues and in trying to put together rational plans, a system of parks and wilderness areas, and a system of management on our forest lands that is much better than we have had in the past, there is a need for people with these specialized skills.
We are turning those people out here in British Columbia in our technical institutes -- for example, BCIT in the forestry program. I believe that every one of those graduates is virtually guaranteed employment in a good, well-paying, challenging and rewarding job. In that respect, we were pleased to announce on Thursday a significant breakthrough: the development of a faculty devoted to value-added wood processing at the University of British Columbia, but linked into our community colleges and high schools. In fact, it's a network not just in British Columbia, but right across the country which will see continuing education delivered to people in the forest sector. It will see opportunities to turn out graduates similar to the graduates that come out of the Rosenheim Institute in Germany. These are people with very sophisticated skills and technical ability with respect to marketing, the uses of wood and design -- all the things we need to be good at if we are going to expand that sector of the forest industry. And indeed, it is expanding. It is currently employing about 12,000 people and potentially could employ many thousands more.
Thus we see the vision we have, which is to invest in facilities. In this case, it's a building on the campus of the University of British Columbia. In doing that, we are borrowing the money; that is debt. In putting money into the program side, we are investing in our human potential here in British Columbia so that young people and those in the industry now will have an opportunity to get new skills.
When you are developing new industries, it seems to me that two elements are required -- maybe three. Let's deal with the three basics. You need the raw material, the basic input to that industry. We have that in our tremendous forest resources in this province. You need capital, and capital brings the technology and the machinery. You need the know-how, and the know-how isn't something you just acquire out of thin air. It's acquired through education and training.
So we are bringing all those elements together. We are investing in capital facilities and in our human potential, and the benefits are clear. Even my friends opposite, it seems to me, should have the ability to understand that the investments we make now.... Perhaps the question we need to ask ourselves -- and it's a very basic one -- is: does the public think that there is a return on the investments we are making? In other words, by investing $550 million in schools and post-secondary institutions, and $300 million in hospital and health care facilities, and -- in the case of Vancouver Island -- $1 billion-odd on the new Vancouver Island Highway, and $103 million in commuter rail in the lower mainland, and $800 million in new ferries, is there a return on that investment? The answer, very clearly, is that there is.
Is there a return on our investment in people? Under Skills Now, the plan that I'm responsible for as the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, we have expanded our budget. I'm pleased to see that in this budget year, again, we're looking at a 3.8 percent increase in the budget for my Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, because we think it's important to invest in the human potential of British Columbians and to provide British Columbians, no matter where they come from -- not just the traditional people who may go to a college or university campus, but British Columbians right around this province, in every region -- with the opportunity to get the skills they need to maintain their employment. If we don't make these investments, do we not pay a terrible price in having people who don't have those skills and who are unable to find and keep employment? I'd say we do, and therefore our twin themes of investing in the infrastructure and in people pays off in building this province.
Let's go back to the issue of population increase. If we don't make these investments now, what will be the result in 20, 30 or 40 years with this population expanding as rapidly as it is? Let me use one small area, hon. Speaker, and point out what I think is a very obvious contradiction on the part of the opposition. I, along with the Premier, recently had the great
[ Page 13208 ]
pleasure to announce that we will be expanding opportunities for technical education in British Columbia. We are going to develop a technical university in the Fraser Valley. We need that technical university and that approach because the industries now growing in our province are knowledge-based. We made that announcement at a small plant in Surrey that manufactures components for the satellite industry. They make them right here in British Columbia. The people who work in that enterprise have a very high level of skills. They got those skills by attending technical institutes. They went to school -- in other words, post-secondary institutions. The technical university in the Fraser Valley will allow us to turn out graduates who will complement the growth taking place in our economy in these knowledge-based industries.
By the way -- and I think we don't pay enough attention to reminding ourselves -- we'll maintain an industrial base in British Columbia. We've seen examples in some parts of the U.S. and in other parts of Canada where there has been a hollowing out of that industrial base, an overreliance on simply the information businesses and no reliance on maintaining an industrial base -- and where those economies, over time, will suffer. So we have announced a new institution, and we're going to borrow the money to build it. It is debt, but it is debt that is worth incurring, that we can afford and that will pay us untold dividends far into the future.
Let's look at the population argument, using the technical university as the example. The Fraser Valley, where this institute is located, currently has a population of about three-quarters of a million people. In 20 years that population is projected to be 1.5 million people. If we don't provide those educational institutes in those areas now.... This is a provincial institution and will attract students from all across the province. Nonetheless, it clearly will attract students from the Fraser Valley area. If we don't build those facilities now, we will find ourselves with expanded populations of young people who cannot get post-secondary education and training when everything that's happening in our economy clearly dictates that they will need more and more skills -- an ever-increasing level -- both for their own ability to keep and hold a job and to complement the kind of shift that's taking place in our economy. These are investments; they are investments that are absolutely necessary.
If my friends opposite were in power, they have announced to this province that those investments would stop. They would not make those investments -- notwithstanding the fact that when we made that announcement in Surrey, the Liberal MLA came up to me and shook my hand and said: "Thank you very much. You have just made a very good decision." They speak out of both sides of their mouth. They've made the grave mistake of thinking that as long as they're just critics, as long as they don't put forward a vision to the people of this province, as long as they deal in smear -- and they do that on a daily basis -- they have charted their course to power. Well, they have not. British Columbians expect a little better; they expect a higher standard. I know individuals over there who are capable of a higher standard, and I know individuals over there who can never rise above the very low standard they've already set.
These are the significant public policy issues in British Columbia today. The Liberal vision and the Reform vision is no new highways, no new schools, no new college campus buildings and no new health care facilities. That is the Liberal vision, and they speak to it every day. The Liberal vision is no expansion of post-secondary education and training, no investment in our young people, no investment in our working people.
They're going to scrap Forest Renewal. Forest Renewal was put together as something.... Finally the forest industry and forest workers in this province have a vehicle with some real money in it -- stumpage money -- at arm's length from government. Finally there is a vehicle where they can make investments in silviculture. They have a piece of the announcement we made on Thursday: the new faculty of value-added at UBC. Finally we have got to that point. I happen to know that the Leader of the Opposition is running around talking to groups, and I know what he's saying. They're going to scrap the forest renewal plan. They don't believe in it, they voted against it in this House, and we know they're going to scrap it. They don't have a vision. They don't have anything other than smear....
W. Hurd: We learned from the best.
Hon. D. Miller: The Forests critic.... The member didn't learn a thing from me; he didn't learn a thing.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
So we have these two.... I was going to say competing visions, but they're not really competing visions, because I have not yet heard either one of the two main opposition parties put forward a vision of what this province needs and what this province could become. We owe it.... There were pioneers in this province who recognized that in the past. Would we have highways pushing up into northern British Columbia if past governments had not said that it was important to build those highways and had not borrowed the money?
W. Hurd: Pay as you go.
Hon. D. Miller: We now have the Forests critic of the Liberal Party saying: "Pay as you go." That's instructive. We now know, and we've just had it confirmed by the Forests critic on the Liberal side, that they will not put money into new highways; they will not put money into new schools; they will not put money into new college campuses; they will not invest money in our human potential, in young people and in workers around this province, to give them the skills they need to compete and to make sure that the transition into this economy -- and it's a tough economy -- will take place. It's disgraceful.
[11:00]
We are developing probably the best collection of knowledge-based, technology-based companies in Canada. If we're going to encourage that, if we're going to nurture that growth.... If the party opposite were in power, it wouldn't be nurtured. It would die on the vine; it would wither. They believe, I think -- let me try to summarize what I think they believe in -- that British Columbia workers should not earn a fair day's pay. Their relentless attack on measures that this government has brought in, which simply says that if you're a working person in British Columbia you deserve a fair day's pay.... I know that in the first job I got, the personnel manager said to me: "I'm going to hire you, and here's what I expect: I'm going to pay you a fair day's wage, and I expect a fair day's work." And I thought that was a pretty good bargain. It's good enough for me; it's good enough for the working people of British Columbia. But we know that this party over here wants to pick the pockets of working people. They think every problem can be solved by making sure that the wages of British Columbia workers are driven down to the
[ Page 13209 ]
bottom, and somehow that's going to bring us prosperity. I'll tell you, what a blockheaded vision for this province! What a dumb vision for this province!
They think that they can get by using smear -- by simply using the hollow rhetoric that they borrowed from the extreme Right, from Newt Gingrich -- and that that's going to sweep them into office, and they're not going to tell British Columbians a thing about what they stand for. Which schools are you going to cancel? Which highway project? Which college campuses? Are you going to cancel Skills Now, our very successful post-secondary education and training program that saw 8,100 new full-time spaces across the breadth of post-secondary training created last year in British Columbia --6,000 direct new spots in our colleges and universities? This Liberal opposition over here doesn't believe in that; they don't believe in it. They believe, as the federal Liberals.... They haven't said a word.
The federal Liberals are going to pull their money out of post-secondary education and training. They're going to pound.... Tuition fees are doubling and tripling, and this party over here -- you know what they say? "Well, students have to realize they've got to pay more." And this same party, paradoxically, stands up and says it speaks for average British Columbians. They speak for average British Columbians, and yet they're saying to the students of British Columbia: "Sorry, doubling, tripling of tuition fees -- your problem, not our problem."
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Now they're protesting, but we know what this party....
In closing, I want to reaffirm what this party and this government stand for, and what the difference is between our vision for British Columbia and the vision expressed -- not very well, but expressed -- by the two main opposition parties. We believe in investing in our province. We think there's a return on those investments when we invest in highways, schools, hospitals, campus buildings and colleges, and when we invest in our young people and our working people to give them the skills to build this economy into the future. That's our vision: the twin tracks of investment in the infrastructure and in our human potential. We will build this province. We will maintain....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Finally, it's a question of affordability. It's like the homeowner who asks: "Can I afford to buy that new house?" They look at their yearly income, and they make a decision. We have looked at our annual income, and we now have a balanced budget in the province of British Columbia, a balanced...
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, can I get some protection from this...?
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. D. Miller: We have a balanced...operating budget in the province of British Columbia, and we are borrowing money...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. D. Miller: ...to make these fundamental public investments, which will pay dividends far into the future in building an economy with jobs and prosperity in British Columbia for a long time to come.
J. Tyabji: It's always a pleasure to follow the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour in debate. I am happy to rise to respond to the budget speech.
It's unfortunate that we can't get on record some of the remarks that were made in the course of debate when the minister was on his feet. What I find interesting is that since the House has opened, there hasn't been a day that has passed when I haven't heard on the floor of the House the Liberals talking about how they can't wait to get into the seats of government. The only thing that's more frightening than the status quo is the idea of that particular caucus taking over.
You have to give credit where it's due. We have to recognize that when the calls came to get rid of the deficit -- and they came from all sides -- this government in fact got rid of the deficit.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Finance critic is saying: "You don't believe that." The facts are that there's no question there's been some creative accounting.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The hon. member will have his turn in debate, I'm sure.
G. Wilson: He already has.
J. Tyabji: He has had his turn in debate.
I'd like to speak about this creative accounting and the relative merits of the decision that was made. Before going into that, I want to address the previous speaker's discussion about the argument on investment. Unless perhaps they're sitting in those seats over there, I would have to say that no one with logic can argue about the need to invest in a long-term vision for this province. There's no question that it needs to be done.
There are two questions that come with that, though. Where is the accountability in the decision-making process, and how is that decision arrived at? Those are the two questions that need to be asked. Who decided about the vision, who decided on the investments, and where's the accountability? Those questions are at the heart of why the public is so cynical right now about government processes, whether it's at the municipal or school board level, whether it's provincial or federal.
Let me speak for a minute about an issue this government has to come to terms with: the fact that this House did not sit for nine months -- nine months of no debate. We live in what's supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. Argue as you will, whether you're on the side of this budget being good or this throne speech being good, the fact is that we are not in a benevolent dictatorship. Even if you sit in the back benches and defend your government's decisions with respect to the budget and the Speech from the Throne, who can defend a government that has the choice of having a parliamentary democracy and does not choose to do that? Although they promised change in government structure and a more democratic approach to government, this government has instead forced a silence on opposition members who would have critical and constructive input into those decisions.
[ Page 13210 ]
Although I would take issue from an ideological standpoint with some of the investments being made, I do not take issue with the idea of investing in the public, in the people and in youth. I know that the leader of the Alliance has spoken out for many years about the need for a comprehensive land use strategy that builds in value-added manufacturing. When those decisions are taken, we can applaud from an ideological standpoint some of the decisions that will result in investment, but how can we sit by silently and be complicit in the antidemocratic process that has been used to derive those decisions?
We clearly can't. We can't possibly support any government that will not allow debate, a government that will sit and say: "We are a benevolent dictatorship, and because we are benevolent you should support that." The minute we lower our guard on the democratic process is the minute we open ourselves up for the word "benevolent" to be taken out of the dictatorship and for us to be left in a position where the voters and constituents are voiceless -- which is, in effect, where we have been for the last nine months.
There are a number of issues that should be raised, but I want to go back to the creative accounting with respect to this budget. The Finance critic for the opposition was yelling out: "You don't really believe that there's no deficit." It's not whether I believe it or not. The fact is that the way the books are laid out, there is no deficit.
I will use the analogy of one's personal income. It's as if, when the government came in, they had a situation where they inherited the asset -- the asset being the value or the property of government -- with a mortgage on it. They also inherited a large credit card balance. That credit card was where the operational expenses and the deficit would sit, and the balance was very high when they came in. There were loud cries from the public, and people had been speaking out, saying: "For goodness' sake, get rid of that credit card balance, because it will affect our credit rating. It will affect our ability to borrow and therefore to invest. It will affect our ability to operate, and our servicing costs on that credit card are so high that our hands are tied in basic service delivery for health care and education."
What this government did was get rid of that credit card balance, and for that we will recognize them. And in doing that, in getting rid of the credit card balance, they have protected B.C.'s credit rating. So for that, British Columbians should be happy. Our credit rating is, at this point, intact.
But how did they do that? And that's where the creative accounting comes into effect. How they got rid of that credit card balance -- going back to the analogy of personal finances -- was that they said: "We have this very large asset of government." And in addition, if we use the analogy of a home mortgage and a house -- the house being the asset and the mortgage on that being government debt, a personal debt -- they moved the credit card balance onto the mortgage.
And they've done it even more creatively than that. There were certain accounts, and we would call them Crown corporations in the government accounting. Those Crown corporations become holding companies for the debt. In fact, some people will even practise this if they have a home-based business. They'll shuffle some of that debt into a business so that it doesn't show up on their personal credit rating; it shows up in another identity. So they themselves aren't carrying that debt, but it's being carried in a business. And if it's a limited company, then that business can actually close up shop and it doesn't affect the personal finances. I come from an accounting family, so some of these things are things that have been explained to me over the years.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Not personal experience, but certainly I've had these things explained to me over the years.
So we can imagine that that's what the government has chosen to do: they've taken the credit card balance and they've put it into debt. They've put it into some of these holding companies, which are Crown corporations. The problem, again coming back to the basic questions of process, is who decided, and accountability. Accountability is a key question here, because those holding companies are not accountable.
Neither are they accountable when it's our personal finances, and that's a debate that should take place in this chamber, if this chamber ever met long enough for us to entertain anything other than pressing government business. We would have debates like that about people who actually abuse and rip off the system by hiding things in limited companies and then allowing them to go bankrupt, and the rest of us having to carry the can for that. That's not the debate that we're entertaining today, but we are looking at the government books.
So if we've got these Crown corporations carrying this debt, where's the accountability? The answer is that there isn't any. We're not going to debate it on the floor of this House. This House is a joke insofar as how often we sit is concerned. It's the laziest Legislature in the country. So it's not as if we'll ever get around to having a debate in this House on Crown corporations.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I'm sorry to have wounded you, but that is the truth and the truth might be hard to hear for those conscientious government backbenchers who are doing a good job in their ridings. They should be speaking out for the democratic process.
But with respect to the creative accounting, if we look at the debt and the house analogy, we may be in a position where the mortgage actually exceeds the sale price of the house, and we don't know if we're there yet. Why don't we know? We don't know because nobody has ever done an assessment; nobody has ever taken an inventory of what the total government assets would be. And I'm not talking about government assets such as a bridge, which you can't sell anyway, or a school, which is currently on the creative accounting methods that the government is using and is going to be put down on paper as an asset. So let's say the government borrows $50 million through B.C. 21 -- which happens to be the Crown corporation for that expenditure -- and they spend it on a school. Well, the books are balanced, because we've got a $50 million school, which is recorded as an asset, and we've got a $50 million debt -- and they kind of balance themselves out. That's not really an accurate reflection of government's net worth. It really isn't, because we can't sell the school. The school is depreciating. In terms of our personal finances, our house will tend to accrue value; it will increase interest.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: And I would hope that the member for Mission-Kent will get up in debate, because that would be a very interesting point to make in debate.
But the provincial government will never be able to realize that asset on their books, and without being able to realize
[ Page 13211 ]
it, it's hardly a good analogy to say 100 percent capitalization of that asset is going to reflect well on the government. At this point it does, in terms of our credit rating, and I go back to the original point I made. If we're out to protect our credit rating and the ability of government to do business, that's a good move to make. It's a bit of moving things around, but ideologically, if you're committed to large expenditures in the social sector as this government is, I can understand that that would be a choice it would make. We happen to believe we can do things a lot more efficiently and a little bit differently -- or a lot differently, after we get through the books. However, given the ideology of this government, I think it was a responsible move for them to at least safeguard our credit rating.
I think we can look at B.C. Ferries as an excellent example of a Crown corporation where the debt has gone from $200 million to in excess of $700 million this year. Are we ever going to sell those ferries off? On the books we might say, well, we have this ferry -- for example, these catamarans with unproven technology.... If we had a process for proper debate of this, and we were not in this dictatorship system -- and I would say the government would argue a benevolent dictatorship....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I would encourage the member for Mission-Kent, as I did before, to get up and debate.
If we are going to have this enormous purchasing of these catamarans -- which the leader of the Alliance, my colleague from Powell River-Sunshine Coast, is on record as being strongly opposed to, as it's unproven technology -- and if we were to increase the debt by $500 million, do we really have capital assets that we can then sell off? Clearly we don't have assets we can sell off, because if we did we wouldn't have a ferry service. We would then have to borrow more to buy more. So it's an artificial economy.
[11:15]
Having spoken for a little while on that, what are the long-term implications of the current accounting method of this government? I'd say that if the government considers the status quo to be acceptable, as clearly they do, then we will go broke -- no question. We will go broke because government spending continues to increase. That is the bottom line.
This government came in after three successive budgets under Social Credit where government spending had gone up. The two budgets prior to the 1991 election had gone up double digits. When this government came in, they could have frozen the increase in government spending. Instead, they increased it and congratulated themselves because the increase in government spending in their first, second and third budgets was not as high an increase as it was in the last three years of Social Credit. That's not good enough. With the 12 percent increase in government spending that they came in on with the previous Social Credit government, there could have been a freeze on increased government spending.
Let's make that clear. That doesn't mean there would be no new spending. It means that every year for the last three years of Social Credit, the pie kept getting bigger. When this government came in, they could have said: "Well, that pie is just big enough. We're going to cut it up and allocate it to our ministries." But they didn't. This is the fourth budget where we have seen an increase in government spending under this government, which means the seventh budget in a row where British Columbia's taxpayers are faced with an increase in government spending. That is not good enough.
If we go back to the analogy of personal debt management, we will see quite clearly that if a family continues to increase its spending -- the difference being that this government can always write itself its income, the income being from the tax base, a privilege we don't have in our families -- and the debt continues to increase as a result of that, then we know that at some point we will have to pay down that debt. There will be a limit that the taxpayers can bear, beyond which.... I think we've reached it. I don't think we can ever go back to the taxpayers.
That being said, are we going to continue to be able to afford increased government debt? We can't, because with the debt comes debt-servicing costs. Those debt-servicing costs are increasing -- they are $1.7 billion now. How much would that provide in health care service delivery?
I have a bad cold, so if my voice breaks, it's not with emotion.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: You have it, too? It's an epidemic. Where is the Minister of Health when you need him?
Bureaucracy has increased at an unprecedented rate under this government. That is where this government is departing from the global trend. If we look at some of the people who are predicting where the labour market is going internationally, we know that the very jobs this government is creating are artificial jobs. In actual fact, the whole concept of labour is in the process of shifting. We're moving into an age which has never been seen on this planet, and that is an age of integrated technology and the true global village.
The global village was first envisioned with the first photograph of Earth from outer space over 20 years ago. When we first saw that picture, we didn't have the ability to integrate communications. We are moving into a time where we can plug in through our computer. We can talk directly to someone on the other side of the planet -- no filters, no media, no letters, no postal service, but directly. We can have a dialogue that isn't over the phone. We can have an exchange of information; we're integrating. What we are seeing right now is just the tip of the iceberg. We are entering such an exciting age, and this House is so irrelevant to that that it's shocking. We don't have the ability in our own offices to be networked into that in any significant way. We're not really integrating that into the process. We don't even sit long enough to bring it into the House.
What an exciting process it would be if we could put aside some of the partisan differences and adopt the Alliance Party's model for parliamentary democracy where there would be direct delegation on the floor of this House; where people can have direct input; where the MLAs would be seated by region, not by party affiliation; where cabinet becomes streamlined and we get rid of some of the unbelievably enormous bureaucracy of government and we integrate the ministries of government -- not only with each other, not only in the capital -- but in the field where it really matters: the regions where there is incredible development potential, some of which this government is beginning to act on, but where much of the dollars are getting tied up in administration. We have so many cumbersome levels of government that are obsolete because of technology, and we're not getting rid of them.
In large measure, I understand there are some concerns that with a considerable downsizing of the civil service.... If it were done the way the federal government did it, that would be unbelievable. The way the federal government handled the downsizing of the bureaucracy is unforgivable. They acted as if those people didn't have lives or families, as if there
[ Page 13212 ]
weren't commitments. That's not how the Alliance Party believes we have to move forward. The Alliance believes that in the downsizing of the civil service and the integration of the ministries, there would be a program for attrition, buyouts and early retirement. It would be a program phased over a period of five to ten years, where we would finally achieve a properly streamlined government.
That's what this budget does not do; this budget does not recognize that the status quo is not good enough. On the one hand, we can congratulate the government for taking whatever steps were necessary to ensure that a change in the status quo is not imposed on us by the International Monetary Fund and that we don't have an outside financing body come in and say: "All right, you guys have blown it. Your credit rating is down and we're moving in." We can say that's a good thing, because the wave hasn't crashed over us. But why don't we ride the wave? Right now we're in a trough where we have a choice to move forward, and we're not making that choice.
If we could look at why people are so disillusioned right now, we'd see it's because they voted for change. I didn't vote for the federal Liberal Party in the last federal election, even though philosophically I'm a Liberal. If you want to look at an entrenched establishment where they are perpetuating the status quo, you just have to look at the federal Liberal Party. They are so obsolete and archaic in their approach to things that there is no progressive thinking in the cabinet. I think there is some in the back bench, and I wouldn't hesitate too much to say that that might reflect somewhat on the provincial government's status right now, as well.
That federal government made the same mistake the provincial government is making, in that they do not believe you have to change the status quo. In the last federal election they were joking that Jean Chretien's real name was going to be Job Creation in French, because he was going to create so many jobs. It hasn't happened. In fact, look at the number of job losses we've had. If we allow the machinery of government to operate the way it's operating, it will inevitably collapse on itself because the machinery is old, outdated and falling apart. It's not working.
In the special warrants debate I took a few minutes to go after the Attorney General and the Minister of Agriculture for the same kind of thinking. We have outdated thinking where there has been no significant change. The justice system is cumbersome and expensive. More important than that -- because we have to have justice, and if justice ends up being expensive, so be it -- it isn't working. Why isn't this government saying: "Here's a way to cut down on our costs"? Let's develop an effective dispute resolution machine to replace this outdated judicial institution and save some money. That's one option.
In the Ministry of Agriculture we have the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, which does nothing that could not be done by a regional office of the Ministry of Agriculture. Why is there a duplication? Because it's just easier to allow it to keep going. That's not good enough. Phase in a change, bring in a regional office of agriculture and preserve the Summerland Research Station, which the federal government has been shutting down. That's one of the few areas where we've been on the world's leading edge of research and development.
The Ministry of Advanced Education, which has disappeared somewhere in the Minister of Labour's portfolio, has an opportunity to start encouraging the most creative minds in the province....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister says we are. Where is that reflected in the government's decision-making process? It's not. We had a heated debate last session about these new levels of administration that the minister is bringing in -- the education councils -- which are sucking up a huge portion of his budget. I happen to know the current funding for the B.C. Science Council. This government in the first two years drastically cut the B.C. Science Council and is now keeping them on a lifeline -- sort of like an intravenous. There's no significant funding for research and development in this province.
Why is the minister of advanced education, who is actually the Minister of Labour, not integrated with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Forests and not on the labour side, on the research and development side? Why aren't we recognizing the opportunity for growth in this province? The opportunities are there. The challenge is to take issue with the status quo. That hasn't been done.
I found it interesting that one of the previous speakers for the NDP was talking about how the opposition kept crying "deficit, deficit, deficit." Now that we have reduced the deficit, they're saying "debt, debt, debt." Well, hon. Speaker, who's in charge? Why are they even listening to what the opposition is saying, unless the opposition is speaking on behalf of the public? I'm talking about the Liberal opposition right now. I've listened to the Liberal opposition, and they're not saying anything I'm hearing in my riding from my constituents. My constituents are saying something very different. The one message that comes out loudly and clearly is: integrate the democratic process and make it relevant, accountable and accessible. This government's done nothing on that.
With respect to growth management -- and I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs is here -- I'm looking forward to a very rigorous debate on growth management strategy in this session, and I hope it will be forthcoming. We are so long overdue for a proper growth management strategy for this province which integrates land use strategies in our resource sectors with municipal government. It will not work through the CORE process, and it will not work with the aboriginal treaty negotiation process in place. It will not work. Those processes almost render a democratic process obsolete.
I would hope that we can have a growth management strategy where the residents' associations will be heard. It's not enough to say -- because I've heard this argument -- that if the residents' associations are that upset, why don't they run in the municipal elections? I happen to come from a municipality where the voter turnout is roughly 27 percent. That's how much confidence they have in the municipal election process. This government came in with a promise that they would bring in a ward system. If we had a ward system, I guarantee we would get a higher voter turnout in the municipal elections, because we would have a more accountable process. If we could have a more accountable, accessible and integrated process, it would save this government millions of dollars. We're talking about a downsizing of government, where we could get rid of the -- what is it? -- 18 cabinet ministers. I can't count the seats there. Actually, it looks higher than that, but it's at least 18 cabinet ministers. We can bring them together and integrate them with all the lower levels of government. None of that is being done.
An Hon. Member: You'd work them to death.
J. Tyabji: How many school boards do we have? We could use a little bit of working to death. Trust me, we could use a little bit of working to death in this House.
Interjection.
[ Page 13213 ]
J. Tyabji: I would welcome the member for Cariboo North getting up in debate and telling me why we shouldn't have a better system of integration. There's nothing our constituents would like better than to have us working harder in this House, representing their interests. If that means we pick up some of the responsibilities from the lower levels of government, let's do that. Let's bring that up in debate.
D. Mitchell: They prefer a lazy Legislature.
J. Tyabji: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said they prefer a lazy Legislature. We have the laziest Legislature in the country. This is the only province where some MLAs continue to do their jobs as a part-time job and practise a profession on the side. That tells you how often we sit in this House. Some of us take this job very seriously and are shocked to find that there are people still practising another profession on the side.
How many school boards do we have in this province? What is it -- 75? We have 75 school boards. How many municipalities do we have? How many regional districts do we have? And now we have -- lo and behold -- health councils. Hurray -- another level of local government! We are so long overdue for a proper overhaul.
[11:30]
This budget, if we like the status quo, is a good budget. For everybody who likes the status quo, pat yourself on the back and say: "We've got the status quo; we've preserved the status quo. This is a good budget." We are so long overdue for a change in the status quo. In 1991, when 51 new MLAs out of 75 were delivered to this chamber, one would have thought that this government and the members in the House and the arrogance of the Liberal opposition who think they're going to de facto become the next government....
An Hon. Member: Heaven forbid!
J. Tyabji: Heaven forbid! That one gives me nightmares. Anyone who is arrogant enough to assume that the voters are going to automatically endorse them, when they haven't come up with a concrete policy statement yet, frightens me. But if the democratic process chooses that, let's work with that. Let's wait and see.
In the last election, when 51 out of 75 MLAs were brand-new, that should have shown this government that the public is so tired of the status quo that they're prepared to send in rookies and say: "You know what? You're going to do a better job because you couldn't possibly do a worse job than what was there before." In the last federal election when the governing party was reduced to two seats, in B.C. we had -- what? -- two or three incumbents. How many? They were from your party.
An Hon. Member: Two.
J. Tyabji: We had two incumbent MPs from British Columbia -- two. Those people happened to be excellent constituency representatives, which is why they got re-elected. The rest were all brand-new MPs, primarily from a party that previously held one federal seat. And it took all but eight? I'm not that good on my federal seat distribution, but a brand-new party went from zero seats in British Columbia to a majority of seats federally.
What does that tell us? That tells us that the people recognize that the one true avenue for change is at the voting booth. They recognize that the change they can effect through their vote is going to come only if their representatives listen. Do you know what I'm recognizing, hon. Speaker? I'm recognizing that most of the members of this House aren't really listening. They're so complacent. I don't want to take it away from the NDP, who sit there and say: "Well, you know, we got a good budget." All things considered, given the previous ten years, I'll give you that.
Given what the voters' mood is right now, we're not even halfway there; we haven't even started the road to reform. We haven't made one significant decision in this House. The first significant decision would have been to have this House sit in regular sittings, as the Alliance Party advocates. It would have been for a fixed budget day, as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has tabled as a private bill -- no question. The leader of the Alliance has been saying that since 1987, when he entered the provincial stage as a provincial leader.
I'm happy to say that three of the members who were elected under the leadership of the leader of the Alliance continue to hold those policies as a paramount plank in the platform for reform of this institution. There are three -- and maybe some more who will be silent -- whom we hope to hear from later in this session. But at this point there are only three.
We must listen to the voices of those who are not represented in this House. We must listen to those who are calling for integration of the various levels of government. If we do not listen, at the next election the voters will insist that there again be two-thirds or more brand-new MLAs in this House. I would make the prediction that the party with the leader with a vision, and with the candidates who have been good constituency advocates -- not in elected office, but community advocates -- leading up to that election, will win the respect and trust of the voters. It will be that party which will at last put in place the reforms that are so desperately needed and the vision that was articulated in the 1991 debate.
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm very proud to stand up today and speak in support of the budget that our government tabled in this House last Tuesday. It's a budget which makes very clear that this government's commitment is to all British Columbians, not just the privileged few. It's a budget that demonstrates our ability to listen to the concerns of ordinary British Columbians and to respond to their expectations of fiscal and social responsibility. It's a budget that expresses a clear and realistic vision of how a government should move forward in a modern economy.
Our budget takes an aggressive approach to controlling B.C.'s debt, but it does so in a reasonable and compassionate way that doesn't put the burden of debt reduction onto the backs of those least able to afford it. It doesn't punish the innocent, it doesn't punish children, and it doesn't marginalize the sick and the elderly. It's so easy in a crunch to marginalize those who are least able to afford being put aside, put on a back burner or cancelled out by government policy. It's so easy to marginalize and punish the poor. It's so hard to do budgeting the right way when you're dealing with a limited number of taxpayer dollars.
The budget balances sound fiscal management with a recognition of the importance of investing in jobs, of prosperity for ordinary people and of protecting medicare for each and every British Columbian. This government strongly believes that good, family-supporting jobs are an important part of life for all of us in British Columbia. Work helps individuals share in the province's prosperity. It creates the province's prosperity.
[ Page 13214 ]
We also strongly believe in universal health care and in the importance of taking the actions necessary to further shorten surgery waiting lists and move health closer to home in order to protect ordinary British Columbians from those who would have one type of health care for the rich and another type of health care for the rest of us.
The key to understanding our budget and the strategic direction it embodies is to recognize, and recognize right now, that we are not Alberta. We are not the federal government; this is British Columbia. We have the strongest economy, the best employment record, the best credit rating and the lowest per capita debt in the country. In addition, our challenges are unique, and they require our own solutions made here in British Columbia.
The biggest challenges we face can be traced to rapid growth. As Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have spent a great deal of time on -- and look forward to bringing in legislation around -- managing growth in the near future. With 100,000 new British Columbians every year, we're in a class of our own. This level of urban and suburban growth could be the best thing that ever happened to us in B.C. If we slash spending and cut vital programs and services, we could strangle in it. If we make affordable investments in our future by investing in infrastructure, we need to manage growth without sacrificing our quality of life. Then we'll have the basis for a strong economy for years to come.
We fully expect that the economic spinoffs in terms of business startups and new jobs will more than justify our investment, including a strong economy that will provide the revenues we need to keep debt down over the longer term. We are investing in B.C.'s most valuable resource -- that's our people -- so that we'll have the finest, most modern workforce in the world with workers who are ready to compete and win in a global economy.
The announcement last week of a faculty of advanced wood processing at UBC was one of those initiatives: $7.5 million from the province, $8.7 million from Forest Renewal, $150,000 from business for the operating maintenance and an additional $150,000 per year from the business community for scholarships to send students to the faculty of advanced wood processing. This is called investment in jobs for our future. This is called value-added. We've called it many things over many years, but it basically increases the number of jobs we can expect to pull out of each cubic metre of wood we cut in this province, and that is called investment. And, as my colleague the Minister of Skills and Labour just said, we borrowed for that. We borrowed for it, and we will reap the benefits of that investment in years to come.
We're also investing in a transportation network for the twenty-first century by improving roads and bridges, modernizing our ferry service and expanding one of the finest public transit systems in North America.
I'd like to focus for a moment on our infrastructure investments, particularly what we are accomplishing through the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program. The fiscal year '95-96 will be the second year of this three-year program, which is putting desperately needed roads and water supply and sewage treatment facilities into communities throughout this province. To date we have announced 322 projects, representing a total commitment of $587 million. These projects are expected to create more than 7,750 jobs in every region of this province. More importantly, they're providing the basis for spinoff jobs and other economic impacts for years to come.
I've worked closely with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and individual municipal officials to structure this initiative with them so it supports local priorities -- predominantly in hard infrastructure, like sewer systems and roads. I must tell everyone in this House that not one single mayor -- not even those mayors running for the Liberal Party -- told me that the province should keep its money if this shared investment in infrastructure was going to add to our debt -- not one mayor from Vancouver Island, where we've spent $80,965,000; not one mayor from the lower mainland, where we've put $279,625,000; not one mayor from the Okanagan, where $71.5 million has been committed; not one mayor from the Kootenays, where $24.5 million has been committed; or from the Cariboo, where we've spend $15.5 million; or from the North Coast, where $15.5 million has been similarly committed; or from the Nechako, where we've put $3.5 million; or from the Peace River, where we've invested almost $20 million.
Local governments in this province understand the value of infrastructure, understand the value of maintaining the basic glue that holds communities together, and understand how important it is for taxpayers' dollars to go into hard infrastructure. In fact, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs received over 550 applications totalling $1.3 billion for water and sewer alone. This is almost twice the value of the total program. It is the UBCM, along with this provincial government, that is putting its bucks on the line and saying to the federal government: "Extend the program. Make it possible for us to invest more money in hard infrastructure in communities throughout this province."
Premier Mike Harcourt has said we have $250 million more to put toward this program, and the UBCM in this province is one of the few municipal confederations in the country that has said we can afford it. Affordability is the key word -- affordability for projects that are of high priority. It becomes a question of affordability and priority, does it not?
The private sector also agrees that municipal infrastructure has to be modern and that it has to be upgraded so we can attract new business investment and secure further jobs. The Leader of the Opposition, however, agrees neither with the municipalities nor with the business sector of this province. He says we're spending too much and that we should move much more aggressively to reduce our debt and spending.
I would be happy to compare the record of this province with Gordon Campbell's. Since he doesn't have a track record at the provincial level, I think it's fair to look at his approach to spending and debt reduction at the municipal level. When the Leader of the Opposition was chair of the GVRD, he presided over the three largest budget increases in the history of the lower mainland. Under his leadership, spending went up by 50 percent and staff increased by 30 percent. When he was mayor of the city of Vancouver, the city's capital debt rose by 46 percent, spending rose by 40 percent and taxes were hiked each and every year, especially for small retail businesses, while essential services like firefighting were cut.
[11:45]
As the Minister of Finance reported on Tuesday, our government is making our financial reporting clear and more comprehensive, as was recommended by the auditor general. There's no smoke and mirrors here. By including the consolidated revenue fund and the summary financial statements as recommended by the auditor general, we are ensuring that all capital spending will be fully reported and fully accounted for, for the first time. The previous government could never manage this feat, and the auditor general made points year after year.
This government, for the first time in the province's history, has managed to bring together two ways of stating the
[ Page 13215 ]
accounts: in a way that we can all be proud of, and in a way that the auditor general will be able to state explicitly that this province is not engaging in smoke and mirrors, that there are no games being played. What you see is what it is, and what you see is what you get. That is the nature of the new accounting system that we are bringing forward for this House.
The key word once again is "affordable." Debt is not affordable when the cost of serving the debt outstrips your ability to pay. For example, 34 cents of every tax dollar the federal government receives goes to service tax-supported debt. Most people would agree that that is too high. In Alberta it is 13 cents on the dollar. Here in B.C. we have the lowest cost of debt in Canada: 7.2 cents on the dollar. Our debt management plan caps interest payments at a maximum of 8 1/2 cents on the dollar.
By contrast -- these figures come from Vancouver Mayor Philip Owen -- the city of Vancouver, after Gordon Campbell's tenure, now pays 15 cents on the dollar. That's capital debt and it's double what we pay. Yet as mayor, the Leader of the Opposition believed that that was affordable.
So if we are to judge by what people do as opposed to what people say, British Columbia's debt is certainly within the threshold of affordability set by the Leader of the Opposition -- some threshold, eh -- and it is certainly within the threshold of affordability the investment community wants to see.
As the Minister of Finance has reported, the bond-rating agencies have given British Columbia the best credit rating in the country. Our government has made very clear our commitment to balance and security; our commitment to controlling debt while continuing to make the affordable investments that will secure jobs and economic opportunity for working people, their families, their businesses and their communities; and our commitment to protect medicare in the face of the federal government's retreat over the next six years.
The budget speech has been about all these commitments. It outlines our approach to addressing real problems and real challenges that affect real British Columbians. I'm proud to support communities through my role as Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I'm proud to endorse the budget speech as a balanced action plan which will create jobs, protect our health services and bring life to our government's commitment to British Columbia.
D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, seeing the lateness of the hour, I wonder whether it might be appropriate for me to move adjournment of this debate.
D. Lovick moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]