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)
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 17
[ Page 13277 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: Along with other members of this House, we spent a delightful lunch-hour with the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C., learning about the Internet. There will be a test at the end of the day for my friends opposite. Joining us in the gallery from that association today are Robert Vincent, the president; Margaret Woods, the first vice-president; Bill Caulfield, the executive director; and perhaps Maria Pattison, the chair of the government relations committee. I would ask the House to make them welcome please.
Hon. B. Barlee: In the precincts -- in fact, to my right -- is really quite a famous cattleman from the Okanagan. His name is Morrie Thomas. He was at one time president of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, and I've read his book -- every bit of it. He may not be of my political persuasion, but he's still a very fine man.
L. Reid: It's my pleasure today to welcome some teaching colleagues who are in the precincts today. As you know, the tours have begun for elementary and secondary students around the province. I would ask the House to please welcome Mrs. Jan London, who is visiting with us today, with a group of grade 7 students.
J. Beattie: I too would like to welcome Maria Pattison to the House. She is not only a constituent of mine and the chair of the government relations committee for the CGA, but she's also the comptroller for the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, a very important organization in the Okanagan for tree fruit growers. I once again would like to make Maria welcome.
C. Serwa: Election fever has certainly hit this Legislature. In making my introduction today, I can't help but note that policies that enabled Socred victories over 13 of the past 15 elections are now being adopted by other parties. But in the spirit of goodwill, would my colleagues in the House -- the Reformedcreds, the Libcreds and the New Democreds -- please welcome the genuine article, Social Credit leader Larry Gillanders.
G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure to have in the precincts today a constituent from the village known as "the life on the edge," beautiful downtown Ucluelet: the government agent for Ucluelet, Jim Spalding. Would the House please make him welcome.
F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, I have a very important introduction to make today. Before I do so, I'd beg a little indulgence from the Chair and my colleagues so that I could just mention....
G. Farrell-Collins: Is it that time of year again?
F. Garden: It's that time of year again, hon. colleague. I see smiles on the faces of the opposition when I say that, so I assume this is something we all have come to look forward to and cherish.
I have in my hands the official government proclamation of Tartan Day. There are a few people I'm going to introduce in a moment, who are going to help us celebrate it. They're all in the gallery in their full -- as you call it -- resplendent regalia. All of us, including the Scots people in the gallery and myself, are proud of our Scots heritage. But we're also very, very proud to be Canadians, because Canada embodies all the freedoms that this proclamation talks about. That's what the declaration of Scottish independence was about. It was about freedom -- freedom to speak out on language, freedom to wear this kind of getup if we so desire and freedom to meet in ceilidhs. I think it's very important, because in Canada we've got such a multicultural country. We've got people breaking out all over and saying: "We want to do things culturally our way." One of the things that was banned in Scotland at one time was the ceilidh. It might remind you of the banning of potlatches for the aboriginal people right here. So we of Scots heritage are very, very proud today that this Legislature has followed Nova Scotia and Ontario in declaring Tartan Day.
I'm going to ask all these people to stand up, the members of the Victoria Joint Scottish Council who are up there. Would you please stand. Let's make them welcome. I would be remiss if I didn't introduce the weest Scotsman of all up there, my granddaughter.... Well, she's gone because she was making too much noise, like her grandfather. So they're all here, and I want to thank you again for your kindness.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would ask the House to help me make welcome some visitors who come here just about every year. This year we have 60 grade 11 visitors, along with their escorts, from the Credo Christian High School in Langley. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
DISMISSAL OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES MINISTER
L. Stephens: From all over this province, people are outraged at the Premier's bungling of the allegations of sexual harassment against his government. My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. Minister, do you believe that the Premier followed appropriate and due process in this case, and that everyone involved was treated with fairness and dignity?
Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.
L. Stephens: The Premier has personally cancelled the independent, non-political investigation by Stephen Kelleher, thereby removing any possibility for proper justice. My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Minister, do you believe that the Premier followed appropriate and due process in this case, and that everyone involved was treated with fairness and dignity?
Deputy Speaker: Minister of Social Services.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I will tell you that for any member of the opposition to suggest, in any way, that some member of this government could suppress the rights of an individual to proceed with a complaint is just nonsense. Clearly, the members opposite do not even understand what remedies are available and are still available to the women who have alleged the complaint.
V. Anderson: When there was one allegation of sexual harassment against the member for Victoria-Hillside, he remained in cabinet; when there were three allegations, he was kicked out of cabinet and caucus. My question is to the
[ Page 13278 ]
Minister of Transportation and Highways. As a member of cabinet, do you believe that the Premier followed appropriate and due process in this case, and that everyone was treated with fairness and dignity?
Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the Minister of Social Services, I just have to remind members that questions to members of the executive council are supposed to deal directly with those ministers' areas of responsibility.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: I'm going to allow the question, but I just want to give that caution.
The Minister of Social Services.
Hon. J. MacPhail: As House Leader, I will respond to this question.
The issue of the former member being in cabinet rests with the Premier. The basis on which we hold membership in this cabinet.... There is a long tradition to this, which clearly the opposition disagrees with by challenging the Premier's authority in this. It's that the Premier must have confidence in us as cabinet members, that we must hold his trust and that we must tell the truth. And when that doesn't occur, confidence is lost and we're gone.
Deputy Speaker: Supplemental question, hon. member for Vancouver-Langara.
V. Anderson: I agree that it's a concerned and touchy subject that we're dealing with today. Fairness is the question for everyone involved. Clearly the Premier underreacted the first time and overreacted the second time, but this bungling has sent a dangerous signal.
Deputy Speaker: Question, please.
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. Could the minister inform the House whether she supports the Premier's view that telling the Premier the truth is more important than sexual harassment allegations?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, you really have to wonder just how much the opposition cares about women who face sexual harassment. You really have to wonder, when they continue to refuse to see the exercise of responsibility by a Premier in asking for honesty and integrity, and in demanding that we maintain his confidence, and also when they challenge a Premier who says that when that confidence is gone, we're gone. I don't understand why they don't get that.
[2:15]
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services as the acting House Leader. The former Minister of Government Services has said that he's outraged at the Premier's decision to kill the Kelleher investigation. In the name of equal fairness, will the minister encourage the Premier and her colleagues to at least give the member the option of resuming the investigation, and give the member the recourse to either clear his name or risk further humiliation by declining the option he has asked for?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are processes in place when people bring forward allegations. There are processes in place available to people who allege.... Those processes are still available. The matters that the Premier sought to do, and did ably, with the greatest understanding of the very serious issues that surround us -- allegations of sexual abuse.... What the Premier did was to protect their privacy and understand the very difficult times that the women were going through. No one has denied, is denying or will deny due process. The processes are still available to be acted upon.
Deputy Speaker: Supplemental, Peace River North.
R. Neufeld: My second question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. The member for Yale-Lillooet was criminally charged and subsequently cleared of assaulting his sister. Can the minister explain her government's double standard of allowing that member to clear his name without being booted out of caucus, while the former minister was denied that right? Why doesn't the minister just admit, on behalf of her government, that he was kicked out of caucus to stop the Kelleher investigation dead in its tracks?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I....
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, no, I don't understand. Many of us are new to this; this is our first term, as well. The issue here is the Premier having confidence in a member of his cabinet. The issue here is the Premier having confidence in someone -- a member of his cabinet, a member of his caucus -- telling the truth. That was not the case. The Premier lost confidence, and the member is gone.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've been on the phones, and I've had my phones ringing over the last two days. Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that the person we have lost confidence in is the Premier of this province.
Deputy Speaker: Member, you know better. Question, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: At every step of this investigation the Premier has put his own personal hide and the hide of the New Democratic caucus...
Deputy Speaker: Question.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...ahead of the rights of the women in this province and ahead of the rights of the member.
Deputy Speaker: Member, please, the question.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister knows...
Some Hon. Members: Question!
G. Farrell-Collins: ...that the only process available to....
Deputy Speaker: Member...
G. Farrell-Collins: I am asking my question, hon. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: ...I'm going to give you one more opportunity to ask your question; otherwise, I'm going to go to Richmond Centre. Member, the question, please -- no more preamble.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, my question requires a preamble to put it in context.
[ Page 13279 ]
Deputy Speaker: Member, you have already given a preamble, however. Please ask the question.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. I'll ask my question. My question is to the acting House Leader, in replacement for the Deputy Premier and the Premier who aren't here. Does the minister feel that the right to privacy -- on which the Premier has expounded over the last few days -- is protected when the only recourse for these women is to go to the Council of Human Rights, wait up to three and a half years for a hearing and then have their names made public in a public hearing? Does she think that's protecting the rights of the women who work under her guidance?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Not only do they fail to understand parliamentary procedure and tradition, but they now besmirch the very avenues available to these women to bring their complaints forward -- these avenues that are still available and that they say are not enough. Checking with every jurisdiction across Canada, we have put in place the strongest supports and administrative procedures available for women to proceed on their complaints. Those avenues are still available and can still be acted upon. I have faith in the Council of Human Rights.
Deputy Speaker: I will allow a supplemental to Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm dismayed to hear that the minister believes that a three-and-a-half year delay and making their names and the issues public in a hearing serves the women's interests. That is the only option that is left these women, because of the Premier's action.
Deputy Speaker: Members, question period is not a debate. Is there a question here, Fort Langley-Aldergrove?
G. Farrell-Collins: Does this minister stand by the actions of her Premier to cancel the Kelleher report, which now allows no avenue at all to those women besides making their names public in a public hearing and having those issues brought forward? Does she think that's protecting the rights of women in British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Premier, with the sense of balance and fairness that he is noted for, had two positions from two people before him. One allegation had been before him, and the minister had another view. With the greatest sense of fairness, and in protecting the woman's privacy, he called in Mr. Kelleher to advise him on whether the minister should stay in cabinet. When two other allegations were brought forward, the Premier lost confidence in the minister. He had not been told the truth, and he lost trust in the minister. He alone made the decision -- his decision -- to remove the member from cabinet. There was no longer a necessity for Mr. Kelleher. Mr. Kelleher agreed that there was no longer a necessity for him to carry out his investigations.
A. Warnke: My question is for the Government House Leader. In deciding a case before the Supreme Court of Canada, the justices clearly define sexual harassment along three specific criteria, all of which must be met in succinct terms. How were these three criteria sufficient to fire the Government Services minister, not only from cabinet for lack of confidence but from the NDP caucus, thereby finishing off his political career?
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The former Minister of Government Services was removed from cabinet and caucus because the Premier and the caucus had lost confidence and found the member to be lacking in straightforwardness. The content of the allegations around sexual harassment rest with the women who made the allegations. There is recourse available to the women. The test of the nature of the sexual harassment rests with those who allege the sexual harassment. That recourse is still available and can be accessed.
J. Dalton: Without question, all the people of this province have called the Premier's action a total denial of justice. In the absence of the Premier, who should be here to respond to these questions, I will put my question to the acting House Leader. Do you believe that the Premier followed appropriate and due process, and that everyone -- and I repeat and emphasize "everyone" -- was given the opportunity they should have for due process of law?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I guess last week was last week, when they were calling for his head, and this week is this week, when they're conveniently the bastions of justice. I wouldn't want to be a woman relying on them for a sense of support, I'll tell you.
Our government has strengthened and defended the process around the way women can bring forward allegations of sexual harassment. The Human Rights Council is available. The fact that this opposition will use this issue -- as they use every other human rights issue -- for political opportunism gives me great cause for concern on behalf of women who face sexual harassment.
Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. J. Pement tabled the report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for 1994.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call the budget debate.
Deputy Speaker: I'll just take a moment before I recognize the member for Burnaby North, who adjourned the debate, to allow members who have other pressing duties to depart the chamber.
(continued)
B. Jones: I will jump into the great budget debate and hopefully bring a calming influence after that lively exchange during question period.
I jump in with a sense of frustration, in that I find the annual budget debate a frustrating ritual. With respect to the balanced budget, this year's debate was characterized by the government saying that two is two and the opposition saying no, it is not. With respect to British Columbia having the lowest debt in Canada, the opposition is saying that it's still too high, and with respect to all the factors indicating the strong economic performance of our country, the opposition is saying that it has happened in spite of the provincial government. It's no wonder that the government, the public and the audience are confused as to the reality of this place and the economic conditions we in British Columbia enjoy.
[ Page 13280 ]
The debate we hear in this chamber doesn't enhance our reputation. It probably enhances the kind of contempt the public has for politicians when we can't even agree on fundamental basic economic facts about the province. I think the facts are indisputable. The fact is that retail sales in British Columbia have increased 10 percent in the last year. That's good for small business persons, merchants and customers. It's good for business, and it's good for the province. It's a fact that export sales have increased 20 percent in the last year. The spoilsport opposition might say that the Canadian dollar has accounted for that. It may have had an impact, but that's certainly a strong indicator that the economic viability of this province is very strong.
[2:30]
It is a fact that debt-servicing costs in the province are one-half to one-third those of other provinces, and probably less than one-quarter that of the federal government. In terms of the kind of frustration generated by Canadians about debt-servicing costs, we enjoy a very affordable rate of debt servicing in British Columbia. The bottom line, or one of the bottom lines, in all this stuff is how the bond-rating agencies view the economic performance of the provincial government. They do so by giving a grade, and what grade does British Columbia get? The students in the gallery might be interested in this, because this is a grade that would be impossible in a school setting. The highest possible grade for any government is called a triple-A rating -- that's A-A-A. The federal government doesn't enjoy that rating, and none of the other provincial governments enjoy that rating, but the government in British Columbia enjoys that interest rating. What that means to the average citizen is that when the province borrows money on international money markets, as it must do to finance schools, hospitals and other capital projects, the cost of that borrowing is cheaper for British Columbia than for any other place in Canada. That saves citizens in this province millions and millions of dollars annually. I think that one fact has been ignored, and it is significant.
I see my friend from Okanagan West over there. He passed on the economic climate. Some of it was beneficial to the current administration, and some of it was not. What this administration inherited a couple of years ago was a spending rate of 12 percent, roughly double the rate of inflation. I think it's significant to note -- and it is a fact, an indisputable fact -- that spending growth is the lowest in British Columbia since the days of my friends here or of W.A.C. Bennett over 25 years ago. You would have to go back more than 25 years to see the growth of government spending at such a low rate as we now enjoy in the province.
The glum faces opposite would deny the fact that these are causes of celebration. We are in a very prosperous and fortunate position in British Columbia, satisfying the needs that British Columbians want. British Columbians want jobs. They want security, prosperity and services from the government. They want good quality education and health care. They want a social safety net and a good justice system. It's pretty basic and simple, so we should be celebrating the fact that we have strong economic performance in the province. We enjoy that, and we can afford the services that are provided.
I look at the glum faces across the House, and I recall a comment the other day when the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who I think.... This House enjoys a long tradition of something important called heckling. Heckling serves a very vital purpose, particularly for those of us who spend long hours here, because it relieves the tension a bit. That member confuses heckling with haranguing, but he did come out with a good line the other day when the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour was speaking. He commented on the glum faces opposite, on their not celebrating the strong economic performance of British Columbia, and that member said: "We don't mind the strong economic performance. We just don't want you guys to take credit for it."
That's at the nub of this budget debate: should the government of the day take credit for the strong economic performance? It's a good question. Rather than looking at credible sources like bond-rating agencies, investment houses, the business community, the CGAs' association and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the opposition will turn to other authorities. They will turn to the Brian Kierans and the Michael Campbells and the Vaughn Palmers. They like the newspaper reports interpreting the economic climate and the credit due the government.
Let me turn to one of their favourite newspaper columnists, Vaughn Palmer, whom they like to quote, in an article dated March 25, 1995. That's the same article in which Mr. Palmer said the Harcourt government has a reasonable chance of winning a second term. In that article, Mr. Palmer pointed out: "...the New Democrats can draw on the resources of a healthy and growing economy -- not all of it their doing, but enough so that they can take credit for it." So I think the bottom-line source on this issue is Mr. Palmer, who suggests that we can take credit for the strong economic climate that we enjoy.
Even if the opposition says no, that's not right, they have to think in their own hearts what their position would be if the economic climate in British Columbia were not as prosperous as we now enjoy. If we had a downturn in the economy, what would the opposition say about the cause of that downturn? They would definitely say -- and the Finance critic in the official opposition is agreeing with me -- that an economic downturn was the fault of the government of the day. Well, if we can take the blame in bad times, member opposite, I think it's fair to take credit in the good times.
F. Gingell: Why aren't you running a true surplus when you should be putting funds on one side to....
B. Jones: We'll come to that. I'd like to discuss that point in a minute. I think the member raised an important point.
First of all, with respect to jobs, I think back to the last federal election. You remember that election. That's the election where the word "debt" was never mentioned. We talked about deficit all the time; we never talked about debt when it was the federal situation. The federal Liberals ran on a very laudable program of jobs, jobs, jobs, and I think that was important.
Jobs are important to British Columbians, too. I think we should take pride in the fact that we have the best record in Canada -- creating 67,000 jobs in the last year, one in every four in Canada. But if I were in the opposition, that's an area that I would attack, because what we still have in this province is an unemployment rate that I think is unconscionable. It's several percentage points above the United States and other major OECD countries, and we can do better in this province. If we're going to criticize the current administration in the province, let's criticize something more important to British Columbians today than the debt or the deficit. People want to work, people want job creation. Jobs are being created at a tremendously great rate in British Columbia, but if I was in the opposition, that's what I would be criticizing, because we can always do more in that area.
The Liberal Finance critic was talking about, I think, honest representation of the books -- that's a very important
[ Page 13281 ]
subject. The member opposite, as chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has suggested for years that the books need to be presented in a different way. So this budget presents the books in the way they've always been presented since the time of Confederation -- that is, using the consolidated revenue fund, which covers all expenditures made directly by the government. In addition to that, the Finance minister presented a separate set of books, which the opposition had called for year after year and the auditor general had called for.
Part of the accusation of the opposition was that capital expenditures for highways and bridges, which had been taken out of direct accounting and put into a Crown corporation, the Transportation Financing Authority.... I can understand that accusation that the members opposite made, and I would have done exactly the same thing -- and I did that kind of thing when I sat on that side. However, that question was answered this year, when the financial reporting was done in the way the auditor general wanted. As well, in addition to the consolidated revenue fund, a set of summary financial statements were made, which governments don't particularly like to report because those reports will include expenditures outside of direct provincial financial control, and governments don't like to report on things they don't have control of. But that was done, and those expenditures of all the government agencies and enterprises, including those that they don't control, were included in the summary financial statements. That's what the opposition was calling for year after year. That should satisfy their concern about an honest presentation of the books. But they will find some way of confusing things so that the public will be confused. I wonder sometimes if that member opposite -- and I think he has a very strong financial background -- even understands what a budget is.
A budget is very simple. It's a listing of income minus expenditures, and at the end of the day it's either balanced or it's not. Debt is neither income nor expenditure; it is separate from that. That's how that member likes to muddy the waters. I think it's a bit insidious to suggest that debt is part of the budget. Revenues are part of the budget, expenditures are part of the budget, the bottom line is part of the budget, but debt is not part of the budget. The debt servicing is part of the budget because that's an expenditure, and the member understands that.
I think every member of this chamber is very proud to be part of this country -- a very proud Canadian -- and very proud of the kinds of values we share in common as Canadians. There are many of those and many that we should also be celebrating, in addition to the fine economic circumstances we find ourselves in in British Columbia. But I think that there is none more emblematic, none that more epitomizes Canadian values, than our health care system, where the richest citizen in the country gets exactly the same kind of medical services through medicare as the poorest citizen in the country. I am very proud, as a Canadian, that we maintain medicare in this country, and I am also very concerned, based on the performance of the federal Liberal Party and the federal government.
The provincial Liberal Party likes to distance itself from the federal Liberal Party, but they have not done so, unfortunately, in the case of the federal Liberal budget. This was a golden opportunity for them to stand up for the provinces, to stand up for British Columbians and point out that over the next six years, the linchpin that holds our medicare system together is going to be pulled out. That linchpin is an economic lever of the federal government to ensure that the provinces maintain the five principles of medicare. When that money is pulled out, that economic lever will be gone, and we will be left with something that frightens me.
[2:45]
In addition to losing all the revenue from transfer payments, we have a federal Liberal Party that is very popular now because they have ostensibly done a job in reducing the deficits for their federal budget. All they have done is off-load costs to the provinces. We are going to experience a tremendous impact in this province, and the one that worries me most, in addition to the universities and the other parts of the social safety net, is our medicare system, because (a) we won't have that linchpin of the federal power to enforce the five principles of medicare, and (b) we won't have cost-sharing from the federal government. How can we sustain a medicare system with those kinds of attacks from the federal government?
I worry very much that although my government and my party is very committed to doing everything we can to maintain the medicare system, the Liberal Party opposite has said some things that I find very disturbing. Their position has led me to believe -- and I would love them to contradict this -- that they are not opposed to privatization of our health care system, they are not opposed to user fees and they are not opposed to letting the marketplace determine the costs of our health care system. Frankly, that frightens me greatly. When I see the pincer movement of the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals on our medicare system, the future looks very bleak. I think the result of that can fundamentally change the fabric we have known as the Canadian fabric in this country. No party anywhere in this country should ever form government, provincially or federally, unless they are committed to the five principles of medicare.
When David Lam did his leave-taking from his office of Lieutenant-Governor, he spoke of his vision and values for British Columbia. I was very moved by his words. I don't have them, but he talked about a kind, sharing, caring and compassionate British Columbia, a British Columbia that he has travelled widely and met many, many British Columbians in recent years. He was very sad to leave his post. The vision that he had, combined with the vision the government has presented in this budget, is a vision that invests in the people and resources in this province and makes the adjustment as we move from a natural resource base to an economy based on a much higher value in terms of the skills of people. A government that is willing to invest in that.... The vision of David Lam, in terms of societal values and the kind of economic investment the province is willing to make in the people and the resources, is in very stark contrast to the kind of negative and meanspirited, bottom-line, greedy, me-first, Fraser Institute kind of values that I see represented by a number of members opposite.
In the very near future, the people of British Columbia will have an opportunity to choose between those visions -- between the kind of confident belief in the future of this province and its people and resources and the bottom-line mentality that I see opposite. I am very hopeful and confident that British Columbians, given that opportunity, will make the correct choice.
C. Serwa: I listened closely to the remarks of the previous speaker, and I genuinely appreciate much of the sincerity that has gone into the remarks. I often think that this House would function more ably if more of us did that. I don't know whether I'm going to be able to do that or not...
M. Farnworth: Try, Cliff, try.
C. Serwa: ...and I may or may not try as hard.
Nevertheless, before I get into what I want to say on the budget, I want to say this. First, when one recognizes that the
[ Page 13282 ]
Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the presentation of the budget, has issued a press release indicating that Mr. Dave Stupich and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society have absolutely nothing to do with the NDP, whereas Mr. Stupich has indicated that it is a fundraising arm of the NDP and is used to promote socialism, it leaves me suspect of the credibility of the Minister of Finance. I wanted to say that because I think that the budget itself requires that type of view, and it is, in fact, suspect.
When we address the budget, we have to be mindful that we're really not going to change the minds of anybody within this forum. What we're trying to do is speak to the public outside this forum -- those who are perhaps viewing this on television or those who will perhaps be interested enough to follow this debate through Hansard -- and that is important to remember. That's what I'm going to try to do, but I'm going to cover a few of the points.
It's apparent in the budget that medicare is a highlight, as if medicare itself is threatened. Perhaps it is threatened, but not from other parties, who will probably form government next time. Medicare is being threatened from overexpenditure in that particular field. No program has died simply because of underfunding, but many excellent programs have gone the wrong way simply because of overfunding. There is a lot of slippage even into the health care field and into the Ministry of Health. Conservatively, probably 10 percent of that budget does not have to go into that particular ministry. It always amazes me -- and perhaps our government was not much different -- that we have enormous amounts of money to spend on acute care, but we have very little money to spend on prevention. I think we have to get on the right road with the idea that if we don't focus on prevention, there is no amount of money that will save medicare. I just wanted to mention that.
Federal transfer payments have been mentioned again. I think one has to be mindful, and the public out there has to be mindful, that one of the largest contributors to the federal coffers has, over many, many years, consistently been the province of British Columbia. So when we look for more money to come back from Ottawa and say it's Ottawa's fault, the provincial government is really saying that Ottawa should tax British Columbians more to maintain the flow of transfer payments. They will get blamed, and not us. The reality is that in all of the different levels of government there is only one level of taxpayer. Fundamentally, that same taxpayer has to pay for all of it. So let's not point fingers at that. Let's start looking at some of the real problems, at the challenges.
You hear a great deal about the conservative growth in the spending of the current government. I think they are talking about their spending cap, which was purported to be 2.5 percent. It's around 3.5 percent. But what are they doing? Are they actually increasing anything? Probably for the last eight years our population in the province has been growing by an average of 3 percent. More utilization of the goods and services provided by government.... Coupled along with that, we also have an inflation rate. So I would suggest that when we're talking 3 percent, we're probably not talking any real increase in spending toward advanced education, a priority that has been eliminated by this particular government. We'll probably reduce the amount going into hospitalization and medicare, and that's another reality.
So, again, I think it's important that the public understands it, because the final judges in this matter that we're debating at the present time...
Interjection.
C. Serwa: ...will not be you and I, hon. minister. It will be the constituents who will make the final judgment on the credibility of the presentation of this particular budget. I think we all have to be mindful of that.
With respect to the comments of my hon. colleague across the floor, I want to point out a few historical facts about the province of British Columbia. In 1991, the direct deficit from the auditor general's figures -- not from my figures or from anybody else's figures -- stood at $4.72 billion. In the previous five years, the Social Credit government, headed for four years by Premier Vander Zalm and one year by Rita Johnston, increased the net direct deficit by only $1.4 billion. Three of the four Vander Zalm budgets were surplus budgets. We actually reduced provincial debt -- the accumulated direct deficit -- by $700 million. Those are facts.
F. Gingell: So you're blaming them for '91-92?
C. Serwa: Oh, I most certainly am, hon. member. I most certainly am. That was as devious a process as the presentation of this particular budget, and that's a bit of a tragedy. In late-night discussions, what we heard from the former Minister of Advanced Education and from the former Minister of Employment and Investment was the fact that there were horrendous write-offs. As a matter of fact, it came out that they wrote off every loan that was made going back to the end of the former administration -- going back 17 years, to 1975. They accumulated more than $350 million of write-offs and charged it to the '91-92 budget, and they were government for six months of that year.
The Minister of Advanced Education came out clearly, being an honest and sincere individual -- and maybe because of that fault he no longer sits as a minister -- saying that every student loan, going back a long period of time, was written off, even if it was only one payment in default. Each ministry did a similar process in order to escalate the purported deficit to $2.4 billion in '91-92. They were responsible for the escalation of that.
Then we hear, time and time again, what prudent fiscal managers they are. I don't have to say one thing and they the other; I think the public can appreciate and get hold of accurate figures from the auditor general on this. At the current time, the direct deficit has been expanded to $10.7 billion; that's doubled in the four years of this government. The total debt in '91 stood at $17.21 billion; it now stands at $27.42 billion. Those are the auditor general's figures -- indisputable.
How can the public out there listen to these well-meaning individuals, who are toeing the party line and standing up and saying what a good, prudent fiscal job they're doing -- that we have the lowest debt per capita and the lowest debt repayment of any province in Canada -- and at the same time standing up, one after the other, and badmouthing the former administration for the loss of the prudent fiscal management of government policies? Folks from the party that has double standards, you can't have it both ways. The public sees through it; the media sees through it. Again, that's the tragedy, because the cynicism that is out there with respect to politicians and politics has been justifiably deserved and earned by members in this Legislature. Again, that's one of the challenges that we all have to be accountable and responsible for, because it's our democratic process that is in jeopardy.
You see, those facts are real, and they're here; you can't deny them. They're in the records. They are not fudged or inaccurate facts. There is often some confusion from the perspective of those who are looking at facts, because the reality is.... It's the old argument of the individual that looks at the
[ Page 13283 ]
front end of an elephant and the individual that looks at the back end of an elephant, and a very heated argument goes forth about what the elephant looks like. What we in this Legislature have to do is be forthright and honest and strive to do the best possible job we can for the people that elected us. That's our first and foremost responsibility. Our first and foremost responsibility is most definitely not to maintain loyalty to the party if the party doesn't deserve loyalty.
An Hon. Member: The last Socred says that?
C. Serwa: That's right. You can read some of the private member's statements that I made when we were government, and this is no different from what I said before. I'm a voice -- maybe a voice in the wilderness. Nevertheless, I think I'm a voice that we all have to start picking up on, because that's where the future is.
[3:00]
The member also indicates the high rate of expenditure.... I would also expound on that. There were two reasons for it: first, the courageous steps the former Socred administration under Bill Bennett took in the restraint years to not get into a serious deficit and debt problem. It was a real challenge to maintain health care services, educational standards and services, and social services for the people, and not fall off the abyss. They did a fine job. Because of that, we were able to accelerate the recovery process. We had very rapid advancement, with rapid growth in the gross national product of the province. That strong economic growth was the result of making prudent decisions when we had to.
We were also responsible for picking up some of the infrastructure that we were unable to attend to during the devastation of the restraint years -- and it took accelerated spending at that particular time. So that's the story on that, and I think the public will understand.
But I really think that any member on the government side who really believes that the budget is balanced -- and that, in fact, there is a small surplus -- denies the reality that it is not formulated under generally accepted accounting principles. There is a structural change in the way the government is presenting the information and the material, and the accurate indicator is the amount of debt that has grown in the province of British Columbia. I might add that the direct operating debt of the province has gone from 3.8 cents of every revenue dollar being spent on interest, on payment on that debt -- when we were government in 1991 -- to approximately 7.4 cents per revenue dollar, according to the government figures.
We're confronted with the reality of the falling Canadian dollar -- and the current government not only borrowed heavily in American dollars on the American market but in yen on the Japanese market. Both are very, very strong currencies compared to ours. The reality is that, if this continues, our debt repayment is going to advance and advance, even if we continue to balance budgets.
Now that I've got through the overture, hon. Speaker, you'll have to bear with me, because I'm going to start to talk about some of the things that I really intended to say. What is in this budget is not so significant as what is missing: a credible vision and plan to build a pathway to tomorrow, which British Columbians can walk with pride. This isn't an honest budget. The government would like us to believe that it is balanced. But you haven't fooled anybody, folks.
What about the cost of native land claims? Is there any provision for that? Your government, your Premier, made British Columbia's taxpayers responsible for a third of the cost of settlement of native land claims. Is it going to be $30 billion? Are we going to be responsible for $10 billion? What sort of provision have you made for that, members of the government? I don't see that any provision has been made.
Where's the provision for compensating Alcan? Now there was a really bright decision. We didn't use due process; we weren't objective. No, we went out and consulted the polls. I don't know whether the Alcan project should proceed or whether it shouldn't. But I'll tell you this: if we had a comprehensive environmental assessment review of that particular project, we could have had objective facts with which to make a good decision. But it was popular and politically expedient to shut it down. Again, the taxpayers of the province are perhaps facing half a billion dollars or more to compensate Alcan for revenue expended.
The Tatshenshini and the Windy Craggy mining project -- what a knee-jerk reaction to what I believe was a good decision on the Clayoquot. But the radical fringe environmentalists didn't believe that the government did a good job. This government represents special interest groups. General interest has never been a concern from day one. So on the basis of pressure from loud, vocal and well-organized radical environmental groups, we lost Windy Craggy -- a chance for revenue to government, to provide all of the good things that government is supposed to provide -- and we were left holding the bag for a significant sum of money, as well as that project not going ahead.
Again, they didn't use due process. There was no environmental assessment review. No, they checked the polls, and whatever the polls said, if it appeared to be popular with the groups that had their ear, that's what they did. It's a very, very foolish way to make decisions which have such profound implications on the people of the province of British Columbia.
So I don't know what the game is. I saw some legislation presented here a few years ago by your party, and I believe it was withdrawn. It had a great deal to do with the socialist principle of expropriation without compensation. Perhaps that's the basis of it all. So I think that we'll be watching that one very closely.
How can you substantiate revenue projections when there are more than half a dozen government policies which impact very, very heavily on our forest resource base? The parks policy, the protected-areas strategy.... Again, the special interest groups are going on and on, and they have the ear of government. How are you going to project those revenues other than with a great deal of wishful thinking?
How much of government's normal budget...? And there are operating costs as well as capital costs buried in B.C. 21. Who knows -- $350 million or a billion dollars? There's another big question. You know the old saying: a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.
An Hon. Member: Is that how Socreds operate?
C. Serwa: No, my friend. But with what is happening with this current government, with your friends and insiders, the reality is that you don't understand business. You come from more or less a very similar walk of life, representing special interest groups rather than representing the diversity that is here in British Columbia. That is another tragedy your government has to confront.
The Minister of Finance has taken $250 million from downstream benefits and injected them into revenue for the province. That $250 million isn't there to compensate you for your largesse with your special friends and insiders. That $250 million was supposed to come back to the people of British
[ Page 13284 ]
Columbia, to assist them to take the next step to assure a solid economy and opportunity, so that British Columbia doesn't become part of a Third World nation within Canada. That's where it was supposed to go. All this is.... It is being utilized as revenue, once again, to show a balanced budget. That's extraordinary revenue; it has no business being shown as general revenue. That's the type of device that the current minister has utilized.
Crown corporation borrowing has really gone through the roof. How wise is some of that Crown corporation borrowing? Well, the minister responsible for Crown corporations has decided -- perhaps on the basis of advice, perhaps on the basis of ego -- to talk about a very fast ferry service. It sounds like a warm and cuddly area. But when you look at the total driving time -- to get from wherever you are on the Island, wait in line, get your ticket and wait in line to catch the ferry -- and at the small time you've cut across Georgia Strait to Horseshoe Bay, and then look at the time it takes to drive from there to get where you want to go, that fast ferry doesn't save very much time.
The airlines all found that out. Instead of flying 737s into Kelowna which cycle between Kelowna and Vancouver in, say, half an hour, we're using Dash-8s. They improved the frequency of service, reduced the energy cost dramatically and added only about 15 or 20 minutes onto the time. When you take your driving time from home to the airport, the waits through it and the driving time from the airport on this end to where you want to go in Victoria, it's relatively insignificant. Twenty minutes is really nothing in the total hours spent.
That's where they're going astray. At $250 million for that particular project, it doesn't make any rational sense at all. If you double the speed, you get four times the friction and consume that much more energy. I don't know how the Minister of Environment feels about it, but I wouldn't feel very good about it.
The time is going by. I've got only about ten minutes, and there's a great deal more I would like to say on that. But I think what we're going to talk about are some of the things that I'd really like to see, because right now what we have seen is....
Certainly, export development has occurred. We initiated that. And 20 percent is a fair and accurate figure. But again it's a temporary situation, entirely dependent on the wood fibre -- which is the big export in the province -- and the differential between the low Canadian dollar and the American dollar, and the strong Asia-Pacific market, with their strong currency compared to ours.
I give the government credit, because they have added some of the auditor general's suggestions in reporting information. That certainly was a very positive step, and I applaud them.
They have agreed to address issues of our overgenerous MLA pensions, and I find that is very positive too. A former member of this House, Mr. Rose -- who is now in British Columbia House in London being rewarded for his long contribution to the New Democratic Party -- is actually able to draw five different pensions. He is making more money in his retirement than he ever did in his work. It is obviously a bitter thing for the public at large, and that has to be looked at and addressed.
In far too many ways, however, this budget is business as usual for big government, and that's where it falls down. You can't borrow your way to economic health. What you're doing is selling your children's future. The amount of debt that this current government has accumulated in the fourth budget amounts to $11,000 for every child under the voting age. That is a debt that we're passing on to them, to maintain our standard of living. That's taxation without representation, no matter how you put it. We're obligating them to pay for our artificial standard of living.
When W.A.C. Bennett invested in the future through the two-rivers hydro policy, the NDP were opposed. That Social Credit foresight is now paying off. Instead of having the option of a tax cut or service enhancement, the NDP's $10 billion spending spree is forcing them to dedicate the provincial heritage funding to paying down debt. I said that earlier, and I reinforce it. Such is the real difference between the NDP and Social Credit. They think that payoffs to labour bosses in the form of vastly inflated wage costs on public construction projects are an investment. Investment in what -- their own political future? If so, it was an awful waste of $10 billion of our children's dollars, since they are far less popular now than when they began. But there is another aspect to that. The fair-wage policy has denied the opportunity for a lot of low-wage earners and low-income families in the province to have access to better-paying jobs. We're getting less in the way of construction projects. We're getting smaller projects at much higher cost through the inflated fair-wage policy that this government brought in specifically at the request of the construction trade unions.
[3:15]
This government says that they are looking at and putting ordinary British Columbians first. They like to maintain that and say it again and again, in the aspiration that if you say something often enough it really does become the truth. One of the first things they did when they became government was remove the supplementary homeowner's grant. That was after they threatened to remove the homeowner's grant itself. The Social Credit government not only introduced the homeowner's grant, we had a supplementary homeowner's grant which had advanced to paying 50 percent of the difference between the homeowner's grant and the school taxes, and that's what it was designed to do. It was going to increase to the point that it would remove school taxes from property. Ordinary British Columbians, poor British Columbians and working-family British Columbians lost that.
What about the renter's tax credit? Does that hit the wealthy British Columbians? I suspect not. I suspect those who have lower incomes have to rent. And what did this government do? Removed it. That's some caring. What about the 1 percent increase in the provincial sales tax? That was a heavy blow. It didn't really hit the wealthy British Columbians that much; it sure hurt lower-income families.
Then there was the search for even more revenue, so we introduced the provincial GST. And what does that mean? That relatively poor people have to pay more for legal costs or accounting costs or other professional services, and the cash and the taxation flow in. The reason I mention these things is that while the current government says there's a tax freeze, the expenses and the new taxes structured into the earlier budgets still have a significant bearing here. When you're looking at relatively low figures on a bigger and bigger base, you're still getting more and more revenue out of that same taxpayer.
On B.C. Hydro, you know, in adjacent jurisdictions that don't have an abundance of hydroelectric energy, whether you go south across the line or whether you go east to other provinces in Canada, in the last four or five years their rates have increased by approximately 4 percent to 5.5 percent, maximum 6 percent. Our provincial government figured out a new way to get indirect taxes from the poor people in this province. Once again, they have lied to their friends: a 22 percent increase in B.C. Hydro rates, hitting virtually every
[ Page 13285 ]
British Columbian in the province, with the exception of those that are served by West Kootenay Power and Light Co. That's some fair treatment, some sensitivity -- I don't think anybody will buy or accept it.
Licence fees and permits have gone up by as much as 800 percent. The other day I asked the Minister of Environment a question with respect to the site fee for communication structures on Crown land. The answer I wanted to get from the minister was that the present rate is $500. It has been advanced under the new fee structure to $4,000.
That really means that small businesses are being forced out of business and that big business, big government and big unions are friends of this particular government. Small businesses, which create the majority of jobs, are being stifled by high taxation and by an incredible amount of bureaucratic red tape created by this particular government. Small businesses are being driven out of the province into the United States and into Alberta. This current government is the best friend of all jurisdictions except British Columbia.
The real danger in the province is the lack of productivity. There has been a productivity decline, and until we recognize that productivity of ourselves is the key to our future, we're going to continue to go into that death spiral, and the friends of this government and this government must realize that.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments and recognize now the member for Okanagan-Penticton.
J. Beattie: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for recognizing me today. I'm glad to have the opportunity to make a very few, brief comments about the government's budget, a budget which is focused on jobs and medicare. I think that's a very important direction for this government to take in terms of how we deal with our fiscal resources.
I have a great deal of admiration for the member for Okanagan West. He has been a longstanding representative for his constituency and he's very well liked by his constituents. However, when I listen to the hyperbole, the doom and the gloom and the accusations of bad government and I reflect on how all of his accusations were truisms for that Socred government, one has to really question the credibility of some of the statements he makes. The Social Credit government had fallen to the deepest lows that one could possibly imagine, and it does have to do with credibility. It has to do with whether a government does indeed represent the wishes, aims and ambitions of its population or whether there is some kind of agenda which services those who may well benefit to the disadvantage of others.
I think it's very challenging at any time to be in government -- and the hon. member for Okanagan West will recognize that -- and it's very easy to pick up on problems that arise during the day-to-day operation of government. But when I look at the record of this government over the last three years, whether it be in building infrastructure, whether it be in supporting health and education, whether it be in introducing legislation which creates an open and consensual building opportunity for the people in this province, I know that this New Democratic Party government is far ahead of any government that has served this province for years and years.
As I said, the jobs and medicare aspects of the budget are what I wish to speak about today. I believe that the well-being of a province, of a country -- indeed, of the world -- is reflected by the ability of people to have meaningful work, to engage themselves in the activities of their communities, and also -- particularly in the Canadian context -- to feel that they are protected from illness and disease without it having to be an incredible burden on their finances, creating more hardships for their families and their communities.
The budget that the Finance minister has introduced is a budget that's based on a balanced approach and speaks to the security of the people of British Columbia. It's not a bookkeeper's budget; it's a budget with vision, a vision which talks more to the long-term needs of the people of British Columbia than to just the bottom line. This government believes that we can only spend what we can afford. As a result of that approach, we've introduced a budget which is balanced and which will create a surplus at the end of this year -- a surplus which will help to pay down a debt which has been accumulated over the last 30 years.
There are two aspects of this budget which have had a direct impact in the last few years on the people in my constituency: investing in infrastructure and investing in people. I want to speak specifically to some of those programs. In the last year, the Ministry of Agriculture made the commitment to invest, over the next five years, $9.3 million in the tree fruit industry. The tree fruit industry in the Okanagan creates jobs and spinoff industries on an ongoing basis for the well-being of all constituents in the Okanagan -- indeed, for all the people of British Columbia. This $9.3 million has a number of different components, but the vision that the ministry has shown in investing that money is a great one. The economy of the Okanagan is based upon agriculture and tourism, and as a result of the investment, the well-being of the tree fruit industry is secured.
I have a great deal of concern about whether the Liberal or Reform parties would have had the vision, would have had the forethought, to look ahead into the future and think about what tree fruits and the agricultural industry mean to the Okanagan -- and not just in terms of the agriculture industry but also in terms of the tourism industry. Tourism is growing at an incredible rate in British Columbia, and the Okanagan capitalizes on that partly because of its relationship to the agricultural industry. The agricultural land reserve -- a far-reaching initiative by the previous New Democratic government -- established a framework upon which to build agriculture and tourism in the Okanagan. This government, through its investment this year and in previous years, will continue to support that tree fruit industry. I have a great deal of concern about whether the opposition Liberal Party would have that kind of vision. For one, I know that they want to decentralize the authority of the agricultural land reserve and give more authority to the municipalities, and I'm very concerned that that would undermine the viability of agriculture.
In terms of health care, in the last number of months we have seen $1.7 million come into my constituency for the development of community-based programs -- Closer to Home programs and important initiatives that will be supported in this year's budget by a 4 percent increase in the overall funding of health care.
This type of funding is supported by a very sensitive and caring initiative in terms of the health care accord to keep people employed in the region and in the hospitals as community care nurses, and that's very important for my communities. Just a number of weeks ago, I spoke to the nurses at the regional hospital in Penticton, and I received overwhelming support for government policies reinforcing their security in the job and recognizing the difficult times they are having in this transition period toward the decentralization of health care as recommended by the royal commission.
The direction for this government is firm, and its vision is firm. Health care is a priority, and that is reflected in my community not only through the Closer To Home fund and
[ Page 13286 ]
the increase in funding to come through the 4 percent budget increase, but also through the funding of a new health unit in my community. The health unit will bring together all the health care delivery agencies into one building and make the delivery of programs more efficient. Not only do we have these, but we have the cancer clinic that is being built, not in my constituency but in Kelowna. It is an important initiative in bringing the type of health care that is important for seniors to an area where the seniors population is very high.
This budget also focuses on an important people program in terms of education, with a 4.4 percent increase in education funding. No other jurisdiction in Canada has increased the funding to education the way this government has done. It is represented not only in the fact that we have new programs like work experience programs to help young people see what is out there in the workplace by giving them work experience, but also in capital projects. In my constituency alone, there have been three new schools over the last two years. The funding for these programs will help bring students out into the communities for work experience, put more teachers into the classroom with the funding in these new schools, and bring class size down. I am very supportive of this government's initiative in education funding.
In terms of capital projects, I want to speak a bit about why the infrastructure programs and the community infrastructure grants are so important for recreational facilities. In Summerland two weeks ago, we announced $27 million in funding, $9 million of which comes from this province, for building a sewer. If the Liberals' desire to cut the budget and not support debt financing in a way that can be handled in our operating budget were to be initiated, I'm sure we wouldn't see the increase in funding for infrastructure like this $9 million sewer project. That project will not only create a better environment for health and a better environment for business and residential development, it will also create real jobs on the ground in Summerland.
Peachland has the opportunity of building new water system servicing. This is an opportunity to increase the quality of health in my communities, to create real jobs and help support a planned infrastructure development for that community to help control growth.
In Penticton, the lift stations to handle the sewage effluent that will be pumped to the sewage effluent stations for treatment will increase the health opportunities in my community. They will prevent leakage problems from developing, and they will increase health.
[3:30]
These preventive measures help to take the burden off health care funding in the long term. When we announced the building of the sewage plant in Summerland, the medical health officer who was there made the direct connection between health care and this infrastructure project. He said that without this type of development, in the long term in the Okanagan we could expect a depletion of the water systems and more leakage from local septic fields, and hence more problems of health care for our people.
The cut-and-slash aspect that Reform spoke to and the request of the Liberal opposition to decrease the amount of infrastructure funding or increase in debt that would fund the community grants projects in my area would have a significant impact on my community. In Naramata, for example, we recently announced funding of about $100,000 as a one-third portion for building a new fire hall and relocating the existing fire hall to a site which is more advantageous to the safety of the people of Naramata. In terms of the development of recreation and sports in my communities and that whole servicing of people's needs so that they feel an integral part of a healthy community, we've funded, by more than $200,000, the building of a new recreation centre in Summerland for youth, and in Penticton, a new baseball diamond to service and help build the recreational aims and hopes for our youth, as well as to support the coming of the B.C. Summer Games to Penticton this summer.
I am very committed to seeing the deficit reduced, to seeing that we have debt reduction over the next ten years so that we're not burdening ourselves, and that when we have a debt-servicing plan it can be accommodated in a legitimate and reasonable way within our yearly expenditures. The budget that has been brought forward speaks to the debt management plan, and it speaks to a balanced budget and to the servicing of debt out of that.
As I feel comfortable with the direction the government has taken in those ways, I feel it's incumbent upon all members of this House to get up and speak for the important infrastructure projects that they need in their communities, whether it's a health unit, a new courthouse or a hospital. They have to get up and say that those infrastructure programs are important and necessary for the health of their communities. We know that if we don't keep up with the development of our infrastructure, to keep up with the growing economy and the world economy, we will fall behind in ways that we may never recoup. In these days of technology, where information is so available to everyone in the world, one cannot let the infrastructure which meets the needs of people fall behind.
I want to speak briefly about the Liberal vision of health care, which speaks to my concerns about privatization.
Interjection.
J. Beattie: The Whip of my party says that the Liberals have no vision -- and indeed they don't. I think they have a vision of two-tiered health care in this province. That has been reiterated by their critic, who speaks to having the private sector involved in delivery of services, in ways which they haven't been specific about; they've been leaving the door open. If you challenge them on it, they say, "Oh, we're talking about maybe not significant programs," perhaps in the same way that the federal Liberal leader talks about only catastrophic use of medicare for people. We don't know what they're talking about. Are they talking about care in the hospital but no ambulance ride to the hospital? Who is to pay for that, the privatization? At their convention last year, the Liberal delegates passed a resolution calling for initiatives to make health care delivery more efficient and cost-effective, including outsourcing to private sector providers, where appropriate.
I don't think we can trust this vision, because the Prime Minister of this country has said that the way the medicare system is operating right now is not the original vision. He said that it has gone too far, and that it's just for catastrophic uses. A catastrophe to a family is when they can't afford to have the operation that makes one member of their family healthy, when they can't afford to purchase that service at a private hospital. That's a catastrophe. The interpretation of the input the private sector might have into the health care system as presented by the Liberal opposition is one that gives me a great deal of concern.
There's a certain element in the community that wants to see us reduce services, cut services for people. They want to see us cut the debt; they want to see us cut taxes. They want to see all of these things, but not for them. They want the ability
[ Page 13287 ]
to purchase the services they may need, and they know they can afford them. When we talk about the cutting of services, the cutting of taxes for those who can afford it, the cutting of debt in three years to zero, we're looking at a vision of people who have no compassion for the poor, who have no compassion for those who can't pay, who have no compassion for the children in our province who are victims when their families don't receive the services they need.
There's a much broader implication in terms of the business community that, I think, has to be referred to. I know the hon. Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture can speak to it very eloquently, and I'm sure he will during his defence of his estimates and so on; but in the discussion I had with him this morning, he spoke about the Liberal vision of private health care. About three years ago this government did a survey of the cost of doing business in Washington State as opposed to British Columbia, and it was shown very clearly that this province is competitive in a productive mode with anything that can be shown to be cost-effective in the United States, or in Washington specifically. The main reason given for that was that employers in British Columbia do not have to carry the cost of private health care for their employees. The burden on small business in this province, were we to tear apart our social safety net for the short-term benefit of reducing the deficit in a quick and unreasonable manner or for the short-term benefit that might accrue to those people who can afford to purchase health care for themselves, just doesn't pay out in the long run. The impact on small business in this province should medicare be torn apart would be significant and indeed serious, not only for the people who wouldn't have coverage but for the businesses that would have to pick up the costs.
Over the last four budgets this government has maintained the highest credit rating in Canada on a provincial basis. No other province has such a credit rating. No other province has been handling the reduction of deficit in such a humane and balanced way as this New Democratic Party government has done. No other government in British Columbia has put its vision of protecting the well-being of the ordinary British Columbian first, and no government in this country has done such a good job in protecting the interests of its citizens. I stand today proud to say that I believe that this is a humane, balanced budget which places the emphasis on jobs for the future and educating our people to fill those jobs, and protection of medicare not only for this generation but for future generations.
Just one final statement, which is not specific to this budget. The federal initiative will have an impact in the long term on our fiscal situation, but which I don't think has been examined closely enough as to the impact it will have on Canadian society, is their block transfer of funds for post-secondary education, social services and health care, as opposed to identification of certain sums of money for those programs. This is one of the most serious cuts to our social safety net that has ever occurred. We are going to see a patchwork of programs across this country, which will tear apart the heart of this country in terms of our belief in the universality of programs.
I'm sad to say that the opposition Liberal Party and Reform Party have said that the cuts the federal Liberals have made have not gone deep enough. I feel that the challenge before this government in protecting our citizens against those cuts will be enormous. But I'm proud to see a cabinet and a government that have made a firm commitment to rebuff that attack on universality and to say that in British Columbia everyone will receive equal treatment as a citizen of this province.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
S. Hammell: I'm pleased to rise to speak to the budget. For many of my constituents, and I must admit for myself as well, managing the household budget and doing my income tax once a year is fairly challenging. When I was younger I was a partner in a small business. Although we did quite well, we were never flush enough to hire an accountant to do our books, so I ended up with a rudimentary knowledge of bookkeeping. Then as a community activist working in volunteer associations -- especially after I got involved in politics -- I learned how to raise money, to prepare budgets and to meet them. So when I read the provincial budget, I approach it with no professional training but with a fairly good stock of common sense and experience.
I remember that as a rookie MLA, I was a little intimidated by the millions and billions that we in this chamber are responsible for as we debate and make decisions on behalf of our constituents. But I'm not a rookie anymore, and I know now that our role here as democratic representatives is to apply our ordinary common sense and good judgment to public finance. Although the millions and billions are still quite intimidating, I've come to understand that there isn't a very big difference between my household accounts and the books we keep on behalf of the people of the province.
Let me give you an example. I know that when I use my credit card I'm creating short-term debt that I will have to pay off under a prescribed set of rules. Whenever I sign my name on a Visa or MasterCard bill, I borrow that money and promise to pay it back. Sometimes I've gone overboard and spent way too much. And once I exceeded my limit; that was the day I decided to make a plan, pay off my balance and put the card away.
That's exactly what this government did in 1992 with our first budget. The previous government had run up a big deficit on our provincial credit card. We made a plan to bring our spending under control so that we wouldn't need to use a credit card any longer. After three years of prudent financial management, this province is now in a position to put away our credit card and spend only what we earn. This government promised to get rid of the deficit financing, and that promise has been kept.
[3:45]
Then there's the debt. I must confess I didn't understand the public debt until I became a member of the Legislature. But as a teacher, I worked in a chronically underfunded school district that was a victim of cheap provincial politicians who refused to invest in the future of our young people. I knew that too many of the children whose families were moving into Surrey would spend many years at school in portable classrooms, because the Bennett government -- copying California, I think it was at that time -- had decided not to invest enough money in schools.
That mentality, applied to our personal lives, would have us all live in a tent until we had the cash to pay for a house, which may be never. How absurd, hon. Speaker! British Columbians are proud to be homeowners, and I have never yet met anyone who bought their first home with cash. I bet that almost everyone in this House went out on a financial limb for their first home, confident in their personal future, confident in the province and confident that the house they were building would last a long time and hold or increase its value. I bet that almost everyone here in this House went to a credit union or a trust company or a bank or a rich aunt or uncle to borrow the money for that first home, the home they wanted for their young families. This is the way we grow and
[ Page 13288 ]
prosper in Canada. We believe in our ability to create wealth, and we do that by making prudent investments or by borrowing money from those who know the value of the houses, the products, the services and the businesses we build.
Hon. members opposite are always telling us on this side of the House that they are the friends of business. I'd like to know how many of their business friends they would advise to save up all the cash they need to fund their entrepreneurial enterprises. How many members opposite want to scrap the system of financing new business by equity loans, by commercial lending, by stock market offerings and other mechanisms based on the promise of value in the long run? I ask members opposite to get their feet on the ground and have a good look at the real world where this government's investments in education, medicare and jobs are creating a dynamic economy second to none in this country.
Some members opposite would have us turn back the clock to the tired old politics inflicted on this province in the last decade. My constituents have made it clear to me that they do not want to turn the clock back. It was our misfortune in Surrey that the Bennett government did not believe in borrowing to build schools or to provide enough places in our college. It wasn't just our education institutions that suffered from the previous government's lack of confidence in the future of our children. Our hospitals, our public health system and all of the infrastructure for public services was shortchanged during the eighties in the name of a vague and ill-conceived policy called restraint.
Straitjackets have restraints, and the Social Credit's shortsighted pandering to ideologically driven notions of public finance put my constituents and their children into a straitjacket that deprived them of equal opportunity. Our children studied in an inadequately funded school district, and our post-secondary rate became the worst in the province. And as Surrey continued to grow, we fell to the bottom in every single category of public service.
Now members opposite would bring back this old program, and this time it's not just Surrey they would drive to the bottom but the whole province. They don't want us to build schools until we have the cash to pay for them. They say: "Don't build schools for the children of the 100,000 newcomers to this province each year; don't provide hospital services." Public health services under their control will have to be stretched and stretched and stretched until they break into two tiers.
Hon. Speaker, I'm sad to tell you that there are opposition members in this House who have an urgent desire to destroy medicare. They hoot and howl and say we can't afford it anymore. They look over the fence to the east and to the south, and they get confused. Smoke drifts across the borders from the slashing and burning of other governments in other places, and they can't figure out why we in British Columbia are balancing our books without adding to the fire. They can't figure out how this government, through prudent financial management, has been able to protect medicare, protect our health care services, protect our hospitals and our public health system, protect the jobs of workers in the health care sector and protect the health of the young and the old while removing redundant administration and bringing decisions closer to home. They can't figure it out because there's much too much smoke in their eyes. They gaze longingly over the fence, wishing for a more destructive public policy. They're envious of an Alberta Premier run amok, selling off public assets and turning his back on a civilized society that his community took a century to build.
There they sit, lusting after a conflagration and demanding that we burn down the house to pay off the mortgage. Don't invest in the future of our children, they say. "Share out the existing schools and hospitals. Make do with existing road systems. We can't afford to provide the institutions where our young people can learn the skills they need for jobs in the future." They say we're broke.
Well, we're not broke. British Columbia in the past three years has risen to the top of any measure in this country. Let's go over it again. The deficit is gone. We have the highest credit rating. We have the lowest per capita debt. We have the highest job creation, and we have the lowest growth in government spending since the sixties. Taxes are in the deep-freeze, and make no mistake: putting direct taxes in the deep-freeze makes a real difference to the lives of ordinary British Columbians. It's definitely a change for the better.
In my constituency of Surrey-Green Timbers, families are worried about jobs. It may be politically expedient to tell people the end is near, the province is broke and the situation is hopeless. But this scares young people who are entering the workforce. It scares seniors relying on tax-supported pensions. It frightens single moms, hoping to get help with day care costs.
I say to members opposite that the bully-boy politics of fear may scare some votes your way, but it is very bad public policy, and this government has refused to play in your yard. Instead, this government is working for the future and building a strong foundation for the economy of the future. We're working for those Generation Xers who fear they will never know the sweet smell of success. We're working for the boomers who have been thrust out into the street in mid-career.
The very tangible evidence of this government's commitment to future jobs will be built in Surrey at Cloverdale, where a technical university will be in place in just a few years. This new university provides hope for all of those who have been frightened into believing they have no future, no possibility to live a decent life and no opportunity to work hard for the rewards they deserve.
There are those in this House who say we shouldn't build a new university in Cloverdale; we shouldn't invest public money in the future of our young people. My constituents don't agree. They want access to training. They want access to advanced education so that they can compete for the jobs of the future. They want an equal opportunity to build a life for themselves and their families, and they will be able to do that because this government is prepared to put money where the people are, to put money where the need is and to put money where it serves the public interest. Jobs are what can make or break the families of the future. When people speak reverently of family values, they must also acknowledge the fact that families need jobs. They need confidence that the work they do to prepare themselves for the workforce will be the basis for a safe and sound future for their families. People do not want to live in fear that the comforts and amenities of the life they have known could be gone at the stroke of a pen. People do not want medicare to disappear because some trendy economic person decides that we can't afford it. There is only one thing this province can't afford, and that is the pessimism and cynicism that motivates the politics of fear.
The first lesson we learn in Economics 101 is that prosperity depends on confidence. The budget presented to this House by the hon. Minister of Finance is built on confidence -- confidence that we can continue to build a future in this province. We have put our economy on a strong and sound foundation. This budget enables us to get on with the job of building the rest of this structure. We all have a job to do. Let's get on and do it.
[ Page 13289 ]
G. Janssen: I want to talk about this budget and how fortunate we are in British Columbia to live in this rich and bountiful province, rich not only in its natural resources but in the people who live here. I want to talk about that because, before the session started in early March, I had an opportunity to join my son and to drive down to visit a friend of his in San Francisco -- a little mini-holiday. I have to tell you the dismay that my son noticed there, the lifestyle there compared to how we live in British Columbia. The Republicans that some of the opposition want to follow.... The contract with America, as it's called, that the Newt Gingriches of the world want to bring forth as policy, is being followed by opposition parties here in this House in this country. Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform Party, was invited down to Washington, and Newt Gingrich said: "Thank you. I can see by your statements we are not going far enough. We know the agenda."
As we entered Redding, California, we drove to pick up some supplies. Standing at the entrance to a mall was a woman with two young children, about four and six years old. She had a sign that said: "Will work for food." My son was taken aback by that person. He said: "What's going on?" I said: "That's the contract for America. That's the contract for Canada that the Reform Party and the Liberal Party are looking forward to putting in place by saying: 'Cut, cut, cut; don't spend any more money. People on social assistance get too much'." That's the agenda.
[4:00]
We continued our on trip. We went to visit his friend in San Francisco, a friend who used to live in Canada for a number of years. That's how he knew him. He's working at Fishermen's Wharf as a cook, making $4.50 an hour, but he's fortunately living at home with his mother. He has no benefits for health because he can't afford them, and he can't afford security either, but he's fortunate to have the job.
We walked around one evening just as it was getting dark, and we saw people starting to bed down for the evening underneath the many freeways and overpasses. These were not old people or derelicts, but people who had mental disabilities and couldn't care for themselves. They weren't shabbily dressed; they were dressed in rags, and they were in groups for protection.
We went to a mall, and there's a type of campground for mobile homes right underneath the Bay Bridge, so we pulled our camper in there. There's a small doughnut shop right near there, across the street, and we went in. At 9:30 or 10 p.m., we saw these people with obvious disabilities who were in there for warmth, and my son was taken aback. As you know, it rains continually in California. We could have stayed home and enjoyed the rain, but we decided to drive to California and enjoy the rain there. These people were in there, out of the rain, to keep warm. Besides their disabilities, he commented to me about the emptiness in their eyes and the blank looks on their faces. They had no hope and no plan for the future, just existence.
We are fortunate in British Columbia to be able to provide the necessities of life for people like those, with what we feel we can afford and can share with people who are not as fortunate as we are. If you listen to the opposition parties, they decry the debt, and they decry spending any money because the almighty dollar has to come first. The almighty effort must be to get rid of the deficit and the debt, ensuring that business has its way. Is that the contract with British Columbia? That's not the type of contract I want, and I can tell you that after being to California, that's not the type of contract my son wants.
I encourage him and all young people in British Columbia to take note, because if we listen to the right-wing agenda in this province and in this country, that's what we will end up with. We will end up with an agenda that says if you're a single mother or single parent on welfare, there's an orphanage for your children, and then you can go to work. That's the contract we're talking about.
We have to be diligent, and we have to plan. We have the resources in people, mining, fishing, tourism and timber, but those resources are under attack. The Premier and ordinary British Columbians, such as my constituent George Watts, went to Europe and told people about the lies being spread by the environmental movement. They needed to secure those markets so we could continue to enjoy the revenues that will allow us to defend ourselves against the contracts for America or, as the opposition would have it, the contracts for British Columbia.
I went down to California about that time because Senator Hayden proposed a bill in the California Legislature that would ban the importation of any tree over 100 years old; that would be known as an old-growth tree to them. Of course, if you follow that scenario through -- and I pointed it out to the other senators down there -- and you can't harvest anything for 100 years, we will now harvest 99-year-old trees. Of course, in 100 years British Columbia will be full of 99-year-old trees and 200-year-old trees, and in 300 years it will be 99-year-old trees and 300-year-old trees, and so on. We were able to fight that back; we were able to stop that bill; we were able to continue to secure those markets. And the senators were simply astounded when I explained to them the great benefits that the forest renewal plan was bringing forth, the new jobs that it was creating in British Columbia. They will be looking at a similar effort as their resources deplete in Washington, Oregon and California.
Industry is starting to recognize this government commitment by investing and by joining us in creating those jobs. We have seen a steady decline in the forest industry around British Columbia. Some 30,000 jobs were lost in the eighties, but we have seen over 14,000 new jobs created since this government took office. In Alberni alone, Rebco Wood Products.... Two local operators, Rob Coleman and Burt Erickson, created 30 new jobs in a value-added mill -- 30 union jobs. I know the opposition hates that word over there. Anything to do with unions -- get rid of it. They are known on the record.
Coulson Forest Products, run again by the local Coulson family, which is well known in the forest industry throughout British Columbia -- 65 new jobs in a new industry since this government took office. Timbermil, run by Pat McKay -- tremendous, using wood such as low-bore cedar that is traditionally not harvested and creating 36 new jobs -- union jobs, again. Of course, the Nexgen project will create 30 new jobs at the MacMillan Bloedel mill in Port Alberni. The Toquaht band is operating Macoah forest products down at Toquart Bay, with 25 new jobs. We are creating more, not fewer, well-paying jobs -- not jobs such as we see created under the contract for America, something that the opposition, I'm sure, would be more than happy to see.
The Leader of the Opposition said in his budget response that all the aquaculture business was going down to Chile. Well, there happens to be some aquaculture business in Barkley Sound and Clayoquot Sound. They are growing and expanding. But I can tell you we are not going to use that gold-rush mentality which the former administration used, where we had to write off hundreds of thousands of loans made by that administration to aquaculture and finfish farms that could not survive. They shovelled money out the door into unprofitable and unfounded operations. We will be much more diligent with the taxpayers' dollars.
[ Page 13290 ]
At Alberni Engineering, Lyle Anaka is another local owner. The business is doing very well. I'm sure the hon. member for Prince Rupert will be happy to know that Alberni Engineering is building some of the dock works for the new ferry stopover unloading ramp at Bella Bella. Across this province, in Nanaimo and in Chemainus, in Prince George and in Vancouver, new jobs are being created by this government: 67,000 new jobs last year. An estimated 43,000 are already predicted for this year.
The Leader of the Opposition likes to compare us to Alberta. He likes to attack the minimum wage: "It's too high. Don't pay people that kind of money. Make them work for peanuts."
Interjection.
G. Janssen: Yes. They don't allow their own staff to unionize, hon. member; you're correct. So they can't enjoy the benefits, and they can't afford to join the rest of British Columbia in the bountifulness of this province.
The Reformers -- formerly Social Crediters.... And if they don't win, they may well be Social Crediters again. Or they may call themselves Republicans and phone up Newt Gingrich and say: "Come on up, show us how it's done." When they were in office, they used to say that the New Democrats would shovel money off the back of a truck. Hon. members, they created the massive deficit that we've had to clean up. Why? They weren't shovelling it off the back of the truck. They were driving down the highway with the tailgate open. They had a wonderful budget. They had a wonderful Finance minister, Mel Couvelier, who created the BS fund, the budget stabilization fund. That fund created economic uncertainty and chaos in this province, which has taken this administration three and a half years to clean up.
The deficit is gone, unlike the benchmark that the opposition parties like to hold up: Alberta. They still have a deficit. They can learn something from this administration. They can learn how to control spending -- the lowest spending we've seen in this province in years. Ralph Klein, come to British Columbia. We'll show you how it's done.
Business is seeing that; they're feeling secure. They're coming back to British Columbia; they're investing, and they're creating those jobs. The hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview will undoubtedly speak later about all the ship owners that are coming to British Columbia, that are bringing investments, that are locating here and that are bringing jobs. They are coming from the Pacific Rim. They're coming here along with 100,000 other people. And what does the Liberal Party do? The member for Vancouver-Kensington, in a private member's statement, related to us the imposition again of the hated head tax. That's how we welcome people to British Columbia. We tell them that they have to pay a head tax in order to locate here. We don't want to open our arms anymore; we don't want to open our hearts. We want to say that if you've got cash in hand, you're allowed here. We're going back, not forward. And who supports that, hon. members? It's the Liberal Party that supports that, and they don't disavow themselves of it.
We are proud to participate in this province. We are building the necessary infrastructure for those 100,000 people a year: the Island Highway, the new ferries, water and sewer, rapid transit in Vancouver. They talk about discontinuing the Island Highway. What would happen? The deaths and the mayhem on a road that is inadequate for today's needs would continue to mount. Would they go to those families and say: "Yes, we will accept the blame for your son or daughter's death. We'll accept the blame because the breadwinner of that family is now in a wheelchair. We did not want to build that Island Highway because it would have cost too much money"?
[4:15]
Because we didn't build any new ferries and because we held off, when you go to Departure Bay now, as the hon. member for Nanaimo knows, sometimes on weekends you're backed up to the top of the cut on the Island Highway. If the opposition parties have their way, they'd be backed up to Duncan and Ladysmith waiting to get off the Island or waiting to get on. We're planning for the future. The population of Vancouver Island will double over the next 20 years. Vancouver Island has waited long enough. We have to ensure that there is a safe, complete and adequate transportation system available, and it isn't just big projects. In the constituency of Alberni, neglected for so many years by Social Credit, we're rebuilding roads like Port Albion, Hector Road, Burde Street, Thompson, Bainbridge; and this year we'll do Smith, Debeaux and Batty roads, because they have been neglected for years and years and years. We know of that neglect.
The members from Vancouver and from Social Credit ridings have had their airports. Alberni now has an airport, thanks to this government: a $2.5 million investment partnered with the regional district. We have a carrier, North Vancouver Air. Coulson's helicopter logging -- the Coulson family again, investing in that airport -- the biggest helicopter logging operation in British Columbia, is building a service depot there, again creating jobs. That infrastructure will bring jobs to British Columbia. The hon. members of the opposition would say no and would send those jobs somewhere else.
Interjections.
G. Janssen: We don't apologize. We're glad to make those investments and to invite those investors into British Columbia and into communities like Alberni.
Let's take Ucluelet, with a $7.5 million infrastructure in water and sewer. What has that done? It's created more jobs. It was partnered by the federal government, the provincial government, the village of Ucluelet and, yes, the fish-processing companies. It's a partnership that would create more jobs, diversify the industry and allow those fish plants that are now located in Steveston, False Creek, Burrard Inlet, Victoria Harbour and Nanaimo, where property values have risen astronomically and where they're building condominiums and cappuccino bars by the thousands.... Where will those fish plants go? They're not welcome in Nanaimo anymore; they're not welcome in Victoria Harbour. Well, hon. members, they're welcome in Ucluelet, and they will locate there and they will create jobs and investment.
I want to talk about the Clayoquot compromise. That decision for the first time will include the native community in the decision-making over their traditional lands. They are now partners in their own destinies. In years past governments deprived them of the right to vote. We took the vote away from people who were the original inhabitants of this great province of ours. We took their vote away; we took their fishing rights away; we took away their rights to join in the economic prosperity. They weren't allowed to become doctors. We stole their children; we stole their heritage; we destroyed their culture. We beat their children if they dared to speak their own language, and we abused them in the schools. We've all heard of Arthur Henry Plint; he was in Alberni. There are more Arthur Henry Plints out there, and I say to this chamber and to the Arthur Henry Plints in British Columbia: we will bring you to justice.
[ Page 13291 ]
I hear comments from members of the Reform Party that we're going too far, that we're moving too fast and that native rights can go only so far. Throughout this province, throughout this country and throughout the world, we have traditionally -- and it's factually documented -- made reparations after wars to those people that were affected. Yet the Reform Party would say no to the natives, the original inhabitants of this province. I will stand up and defend that. This government will negotiate fairly. We will see that finally, after hundreds of years of injustice, the native peoples of this province are dealt with fairly and honourably.
The interim measures agreement through the central regional board will, for the first time, allow native people in Clayoquot Sound to be partners in the decision-making process. They, with other local representatives -- not from Victoria, not from Ottawa, but local -- will be able to make those decisions. Will the Reform Party scrap that? I don't know. I can only guess, from the remarks they've made, that they're not in favour of that kind of local decision-making.
Native communities in Ahousat now have their own native RCMP on their reserves -- not constables, but RCMP. They have their own medical systems in place. The Tofino General Hospital is old and not required any longer in its own context. Half the population on the west coast of my riding is native. They have their own health units now, and they don't utilize that hospital fully. I've seen that the electrical systems and the pipes in that hospital virtually all need replacing. They don't need as many beds, because the economy has changed. Pacific Rim National Park now fills that hospital up with broken ankles, cut limbs and various other minor ailments all summer. During the winter months, the off-season, the hospital may have one or two patients.
We will invest in a new health care facility in Tofino that will not only deliver health care but deliver a home for those people so they don't have to be placed, in their elderly years, in Nanaimo or Vancouver or Courtenay -- far away from their loved ones and the surroundings they enjoy so much. We have done that in Alberni. The last time there was an NDP administration in this province, we built Fir Park Village. Now, under this administration, we have built Tsawaayuus, the first native continuing-care home, and Echo Village because it's required. We see continuing-care patients throughout this province of ours taking up acute care beds when they should be in their own home where they could receive a level of care they felt comfortable with. They are in acute care beds that are more expensive but also don't deliver the level of care that those people would be comfortable with.
Whether it's J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell or T.C. Douglas, the CCF and this party that followed it were the founders of medicare in British Columbia, and by God, we will be the defenders of medicare in this country. As the Liberals talk about cuts, as the Reformers talk about scrapping it.... I understand that in Ottawa they're calling Prime Minister Chretien the Destroyer. We're talking about Closer to Home, and we're talking about community health councils and regional health boards with local people making local decisions. The Liberals are on record: "Scrap that plan. Let's go back to the old ways. Let us make all the decisions. Let us hold all the tax dollars here."
The hospital in Alberni is not earthquake-proof; it is inadequate. There aren't the facilities that are required today in a modern medical society, and we are going to replace that hospital. I know what the Liberal Party will say. They will say: "It's too much money. Scrap it. Don't build it. Take the people to Nanaimo."
Let's just talk for a minute about what the Liberal Party would do. Gur Singh, former head of the B.C. Medical Association, said: "Patients should be charged a user fee for medical services." And he's the Liberal candidate in Kamloops. He's espousing user fees -- Liberal policy.
In October 1994 they passed a resolution at their convention. What did it say? "...outsourcing of health care to private sector providers where appropriate." Let's bring the private sector in. Let's go back to the system that they have under the contract for America down in the United States: make people pay. If you can't afford to pay, well, you can go to the coffee shop in San Francisco and get your health care there.
What did the Leader of the Opposition say? "The Finance minister, Paul Martin, didn't go far enough in his cuts on medicare." We know what's in store for British Columbians.
I could go on and on. The Liberals and the Reform Party are here with no direction and no principles on health care or on the direction for this province. We are going to provide the hope, the vision and a positive attitude by making investments in jobs, in health care and in British Columbians.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm certainly going to have to work to follow what I thought was an outstanding speech by my colleague from Alberni on outlining the government's programs and twin themes of investing in infrastructure -- in roads, hospitals and schools -- and in people.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. member, I was delighted to listen to that member talk about how that investment theme, which this government has had consistently over the last three years, has paid off in new jobs in Alberni and in a strengthening of the community. In fact, that story is being told right around this province.
I have some comments on the Liberal motion last week it was, I guess, in which I chided the members opposite for using fashionable rhetoric but not particularly laying out to the people of British Columbia just where they stand when it comes to these issues that are of such critical public importance. The working men and women of British Columbia want to know where the opposition stands on these very important issues. I actually do have some quotes and comments that I've managed to glean and that I think portray accurately the positions of both the Reform caucus and the Liberal caucus in this House. I'm sure that British Columbians would be shocked. I know that even I was shocked and dismayed to learn of some of the positions that the Liberals and Reformers have taken against the best interests of ordinary working British Columbians.
I want to start, first of all, with the issue of the budget. Clearly that's primarily important as we address these issues in British Columbia. As I said in my remarks last week, this government has made a conscious decision to spend money in a variety of ways, because we think it's important not only now in this stage in our economy but for the future.
[4:30]
I pointed out that the population of British Columbia is growing at a significant rate. It is a very attractive place to be, and we do attract people from offshore and from the rest of Canada -- in fact, they're fleeing Alberta in droves. How do we prepare both now? How do we deal with the situations we have to deal with now in terms of providing education to our young people -- indeed, not just young people but British Columbians from all walks of life -- so that they have the skills they need in order to seek, find and maintain employment? That issue is really being dealt with under my ministry under Skills Now. I'll go through some of the programs and
[ Page 13292 ]
some of the results we've...if you'd like a report card. Because I think that all politicians really have a duty to report to the public, and this is an excellent venue to do that.
I wanted to start with the issue of affordability, because that has been misconstrued very much by the opposition. I am somewhat puzzled by their remarks, because I do note that the leader of the Liberal opposition has indicated that he's going to cut taxes by a billion dollars, and yet he's going to maintain a balanced budget. I'm somewhat puzzled as to how the Liberal Party that wants to be the government -- they want to sit over in these seats; they want to run this province -- intends to cut $1 billion out of our operating budget and still provide the kinds of services that we think are critically important: education services, medical services -- all the range of services that are important to individual British Columbians, but are important in terms of maintaining our society. How can they do that by cutting $1 billion out of the budget?
The answer has become clear to me as I peruse some of the documents that have come into my possession. The answer is very clear. Even though the Liberals don't want to tell the public of British Columbia what their game plan is, I think I've been able to ferret it out.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The member for Richmond Centre has just said that the Liberals will simply make it up, and I believe them. I think they're making it up every day. The only advice I would give them is this: they should really strive for some consistency, because as they make it up every day, they change their story every day.
Let's deal with Statistics Canada, that great, unbiased, impartial recorder of facts and statistics in Canada. What did Statistics Canada have to say about the debt across this country? Let me quote from an article in the Vancouver Sun. Actually, it's a CP.... Well, it might not be a CP story. The article in question is in the April 5 edition of the Vancouver Sun. It's no surprise; it's on page D1. Nonetheless, I think it's useful information. Let me briefly quote. This report that was done by Statistics Canada says the following: "...the report reveals that on a per capita basis, Quebec is the most heavily indebted province, at a projected $8,413 per person at March 31...this...year."
I want to briefly run through some of the other provinces.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: One of my colleagues is seeking to have me identify whether or not the government of each of these provinces is Liberal or otherwise. Time may not permit me to be too extensive, because I have a lot of material to cover. But if I'm not mistaken, the Liberal government in Quebec was defeated recently, and they have had a Liberal government there for some time. But let me continue.
Alberta actually has the lowest debt per person of any province in Canada; it's the least indebted, at $1,404 per person. I'm not going through this exercise to denigrate other provinces at all -- each of them has their own unique problems and circumstances -- but simply to illustrate where British Columbia stands vis-a-vis these other provinces.
The report does say, however, with respect to Alberta: "...Alberta's track record during the past half-decade is the worst of all the provinces, spilling more red ink per person than any other and putting an end to what only three years ago was the province's debt-free status." I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that they have had a Conservative government -- in fact, a fairly right-wing, Conservative government -- in Alberta, lo these many years. Perhaps it does come as some surprise that they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. They've got all the rhetoric but they don't really know what they're talking about.
Let's move on. A breakdown of per capita debt levels of the other provinces shows Nova Scotia with the second-highest debt, at $8,405 per person -- a Liberal government; my goodness! -- followed by Newfoundland at $7,673. I want to say that Newfoundland has had some significant problems, and I have great admiration for people from the Rock for their tenacity. I have met many of the people there, and they're struggling with a very difficult situation.
Resource mismanagement: there's a lesson here. I've heard all the rhetoric on the other side with respect to land use issues, but I've never heard one of those people stand up and indicate that they understand in the least that if we don't have good resource management -- if we don't have sustainable harvest levels in our forest -- our communities are doomed, like they were in Newfoundland.
Let me move on: Ontario at $7,450 per person; Saskatchewan at $6,741. We all know that the New Democrat government in Saskatchewan has now balanced its budget. They've got a debt retirement plan. They inherited that from the Tories; from the right wing, they inherited that mess. And they're cleaning it up, as we're cleaning it up here. New Brunswick, $5,265 per person; Prince Edward Island, $3,565 per person; and British Columbia, the second-lowest debt per capita of any province in Canada, $2,198 per person. I'd say that's performance. It belies the shallow rhetoric we hear from the opposite side.
What do we get from the opposition with respect to how they intend to address the very serious problems we face in this province? They've made it clear in almost every speech they have given. The leader of the Liberal Party has said, "We will take the money out of the pockets of working British Columbians; we will scrap the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act," an act that says that if you're a British Columbian working on a taxpayer-funded project, you're entitled to a decent rate of pay. They have spent the money so many times that I think people are starting to see through them. They'll take the money out of the pockets of working British Columbians, and at the same time, as the leader of the Liberal Party has said, will cut taxes on big business. So there you have their fiscal plan: cut taxes for big business, which is doing quite well in our province; cut taxes for big business and take the money out of the pockets of working people of British Columbia.
I want to quote from a letter written by the Liberal Party of British Columbia to all of the legal firms in British Columbia. You know what they're after? Guess what.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The member for Richmond says money. By the way, I am somewhat dismayed, because for all the huffery and puffery -- Mr. Huff and Mr. Puff on the opposite side of the House -- and for all their caterwauling and shallow rhetoric, there are only two members of the opposition in the House right now as we debate the budget of British Columbia. Yet we have a dozen members of the government caucus in attendance. Where is the Leader of the Opposition? Where is the leader of the Reform Party? Where are they hiding?
But let's deal, because our government believes that British Columbians are entitled to earn a decent rate of pay....
[ Page 13293 ]
Our government believes that the people who are working in the lowest-paid jobs in British Columbia are entitled to a reasonable minimum wage. The Reform Party and the Liberal Party are against the working poor in British Columbia having a reasonable minimum wage. Here's what they've said in their letter to the lawyers, looking for donations to the Liberal Party: "The prosperity of most legal firms in British Columbia is directly tied to the provincial economy. One thing for sure, the NDP have got to go." Now, here's the most important phrase in this letter: "We also have them to thank for the corporate capital tax, a tax on business, which the leader of the Liberal Party has said he will get rid of. He will take the tax off big business...."
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Wait for it, hon. Speaker. I ask the members opposite to be patient.
The letter goes on to say: "Now the minimum wage is going up to $6.50 per hour in March 1995 and $7 in October! Is there any business that can afford another term with this bunch?" That's proof positive that the Liberal government will turn back the recently announced increases in the minimum wage. Shocking! They will take money out of the pockets of the working poor in British Columbia. They will give gifts to big business, which can afford to pay taxes, and that is the Liberal economic plan: scrap fair wages, scrap training and eliminate the increases in the minimum wage. Hon. Speaker, I say shame! British Columbians will never allow you to move the minimum wage back down.
We talk about health care; we talk about commitments to health care. You know, it's a bit disturbing that the Liberal opposition and the Reform opposition have never said one word about what they would do. We do know from a report in the Times Colonist on March 26 what their Liberal colleagues in Ottawa are up to, and I've never heard them criticize -- not even in a whisper.... I have never heard one member of this Liberal caucus be even slightly critical of their friends and colleagues in Ottawa. Why not? They're in league with them. In fact, they said that they didn't cut enough.
I talked about Bill C-76 which is now tabled before the federal Parliament. According to a Canadian Press story in the March 26 edition of the Times Colonist, this bill spells the end of medicare: "The federal Liberals have quietly introduced legislation that would let the cabinet decide how to penalize any province that denies welfare to the poor or charges for medicare, the Toronto Star reported Saturday." Isn't that shocking? We get this complicit Liberal gang here in British Columbia, and we know what their agenda is. They said: "The Liberals in Ottawa haven't cut enough."
The article goes on to say: "The amendments....
L. Stephens: Wouldn't you like to be at 36 or 37 percent?
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, just let the House record that the Liberal member for Langley feels that.... She said: "Wouldn't you like to be at 36 or 37 percent?" In other words, they think that because they're riding high in the polls, they have no obligation to explain their policies to the people of British Columbia. Well, time will prove them wrong.
[4:45]
Let me go on about the bill before the federal Parliament.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, order.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: It's not about where you stand in the polls, hon. member. It's about what you stand for that's important in this province.
"The amendments are aimed at facilitating changes contained in the February budget that called for bloc funding payments to the provinces for things like health, welfare and post-secondary education. However, the new legislation doesn't spell out specific penalties for provinces violating conditions attached to the funding. Instead, such penalties would be left up to the direction of the federal cabinet."
Shame!
So what happens when we, and I, as the minister of post-secondary education, talk about the dramatic impacts on students in British Columbia, the doubling or tripling of tuition fees? From the parties opposite who say they like to talk for ordinary people.... What do they say? They said in the Vancouver Sun or the Province -- I don't have a date on this, but I'll get it: "Students got little sympathy from some politicians after their one-day strike." These were students in British Columbia who said a doubling or tripling of tuition fees means that they might not be able to get their post-secondary education. "Little sympathy" -- who were those politicians? "The government has to make cuts, and we as a society must recognize there will be some pain with these cuts," said the leader of the Reform Party of B.C.. So the Reform Party of B.C....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The member from Richmond says some kids are better off out of school. There's the Liberal policy with respect to post-secondary education. The Liberal member from Richmond said some kids are better off out of school. We'll remember that one.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, order, hon. members. Mr. Minister, will you take your seat.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: I ask the House to come to order, please. The minister is making a speech. He's entitled to his remarks, and the members of the House should provide some decorum for that occasion.
The hon. member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: If the member is going to make comments or repeat comments I've made, I wish that they were at least true rather than complete false fabrications of what I've been saying. He heard the comment. Hansard will record the comment, and he heard it. He has no right to say lies in this House the way he's been saying them.
Deputy Speaker: I thank you for your point.
D. Symons: This is not a place where you lie to the public, to the television out there. The minister has no right to do that.
[ Page 13294 ]
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, will you take your seat, please.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, have you finished?
D. Symons: I have not, until he retracts those comments, because they're lies.
Deputy Speaker: I think, hon. member, that is overstating the case considerably.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: I didn't hear, myself.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I'd like to address a point to the hon. member for Richmond Centre. I appreciate that in the course of the debate tempers fly and we get a little excited. At this time I would like to ask the hon. member to withdraw the accusation of a lie -- of that word. It's not acceptable in this chamber, as I'm sure the member knows, and I would like you, respectfully, to withdraw that comment.
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, I will withdraw the statement in the light that the minister will withdraw the wrong comments that he has attributed to me. They are comments that I said were made by the minister who was the Minister of Education at that time. They are indeed comments that a member of his party made, not I. If he will correct the record, I will also withdraw my statement -- but not until.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate your withdrawal of your comment. I will now ask the minister to carry on.
Hon. D. Miller: Let me just say, with respect to any offence the member might have taken, that I certainly believe in spirited debate. At no time did I think any of my remarks denigrated any individual personally. I was speaking about policy issues that I think are very, very important. If I've offended the member, I certainly apologize for that. But if I were to spend all of my time correcting statements by the Liberal Party, I wouldn't have enough time.
D. Symons: I do not accept that as a withdrawal of the statement that he attributed to me. He has totally evaded the issue that's before this House, and that's the truth of the comments that he was attributing to me.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
Mr. Minister.
Hon. D. Miller: Thank you, hon. Speaker. As I was proceeding, I was talking about the dramatic impact that the federal Liberal cuts will have on post-secondary education, and the fact that the two main opposition parties in British Columbia offered absolutely no support to students in British Columbia, who will be faced with these dramatic increases. As reported in the press, I've already cited the leader of the Reform Party, who said that the government has to make cuts, and people just have to accept them. But the B.C. Liberal leader said that while students are right to protest, "We are not doing them any favours in avoiding the cash crunch that this country faces." What he's saying to them is that it's quite acceptable to have those dramatic increases in tuition fees.
I find that somewhat contradictory because they also like to portray themselves.... They say, for example: "No tax increases." It's laudable to say, but how do you reconcile saying no tax increases while saying that it's okay to increase the cost to students -- those least able to pay -- by doubling them or tripling them? There's a grave inconsistency in what they are portraying.
All I've tried to say to them is that if you want to have some standing in the province, if you want people to take you seriously, you should be fairly upfront about what it is you're going to do. This government has been upfront. Sure, there has been criticism. But we have laid out our approach in very clear terms to the people of British Columbia. We go back to those themes, because we think they're important. We think it's important to invest in infrastructure now: it's important to build highways now; it is important to put better rapid transit in place; it is important to build schools; it is important to build colleges. If we don't do these things now, we are not serving the public very well now -- nor will we be able to serve the public in the future as this population expands.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Finally, that approach is paying real dividends. There were 14,000 new jobs created in this province in the forest sector last year, over 60,000 jobs provincewide. We have the best job creation record.
I'll just close with the quote that I gave earlier. We have the second-lowest debt per capita of any province in Canada, and that means that we can afford to make these investments now. The return will be jobs and prosperity and security in the future for citizens of British Columbia.
B. Simpson: I'm delighted to participate in the budget debate. Before I do so, I wish to briefly cite some of the comments that members of the business community have made regarding this budget.
"We welcome both the elimination of the deficit in 1995-96 and the clear emphasis on debt reduction in the new budget. Minister Cull deserves good marks for leading an open and constructive prebudget consultation. It is apparent that she has listened to the advice she has received from business and others who have been urging the government to scale back its borrowing in order to get the province's debt under control."
That comment was made by Jerry Lampert, president of the Business Council of British Columbia.
What does Troy Lanigan of the B.C. Taxpayers' Association have to say about this budget? "It's a good budget for taxpayers. They've responded to the mood of the public with their continued tax freeze."
Ritchie McCloy, president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, said: "I think it's one of the better documents they've come up with. The B.C. budget scores three out of four."
And what do the CIBC and Wood Gundy have to say? "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 revenues."
Bob Vincent, president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia, said: "We are pleased with the budget's emphasis on both deficit and debt. While one can quarrel with the details, it is refreshing to finally have a provincial Finance minister present a budget and a management plan which contemplate a substantial reduction in B.C.'s accumulated debt."
RBC Dominion Securities said: "The province's standing as a premiere credit among Canadian borrowers is solidified further following presentation of this budget."
[ Page 13295 ]
And Nesbitt Burns said:
"B.C. should maintain the highest credit rating among the provinces. Riding on the coat-tails of robust economic growth and surging revenues, British Columbia has eliminated the deficit a year ahead of schedule and looks forward to a period of surpluses beginning in the upcoming fiscal year."
This budget is a result of consultation by our Finance minister with hundreds of British Columbians and leaders in business, labour and various other sectors of our community. One of the most important committees advising the minister was a group entitled Working Group on Fiscal and Debt Benchmarks. The members of this committee are among the foremost business leaders in the country: Larry Blain, chair of the Investment Dealers' Association; David Bond, the vice-president of Hongkong Bank of Canada; Arthur Hara, chairman of Mitsubishi Canada Ltd.; Don Hudson, president and chief executive officer of the Vancouver Stock Exchange; Darcy Rezac, managing director of the board of trade; Mike Pedersen, a senior vice-president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; David Levi, president of the Working Opportunity Fund; and Ken Georgetti, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour.
This group made certain suggestions that our government listened to and implemented. They set fiscal benchmarks. One of the most significant was that the government should balance the budget in 1995-96 and begin to accumulate surpluses as soon as possible. Another recommendation was that the ratio of taxpayer-supported debt to GDP should be reduced to 15 percent.
Yes, this government listened to this distinguished group of British Columbians. The deficit was eliminated one year ahead of schedule, without raising taxes. Not only did we follow the recommendation to balance the budget, but we're projecting a surplus of $114 million in 1995-96. We've limited spending to a 2.9 percent increase; after adjusting for population increases and inflation, spending actually falls 2.3 percent. That compares with spending increases of 12 percent per year with the disgraced former Social Credit administration. Revenues this past year totalled $19.2 billion -- $524 million higher than projected, thanks to B.C.'s robust economy. As recommended by the working committee, there's a comprehensive debt management plan, which will keep B.C. with the highest credit rating and lowest debt service costs in the country.
There are further highlights. Taxes are frozen for two more years. There's no increase to Medical Services Plan premiums or to income sales and other consumer tax rates. The full homeowner grant is extended so that 95 percent of British Columbians continue to receive the grant.
[5:00]
B.C. continues to have the second-lowest direct tax and sales tax in Canada. And to what do we owe this robust economy? We owe it to the tireless efforts of hard-working British Columbians; to the entrepreneurship of our business community and small business, which is the backbone of our economy. What was the objective of this budget? The objective of the budget was to create jobs and protect our health care system. Our health care system is under attack by powerful forces which are sweeping throughout our country. I wish to deal with that threat to our health care system and to the health of each and every British Columbian in a few minutes, but first of all I want to deal with the question of jobs.
As Premier Harcourt said, to keep British Columbia's economy the best in Canada we are moving forward with the jobs and investment strategy. By investing in our natural resources, infrastructure and people, we will ensure that British Columbia matches the advanced economies of Japan and the European Community, making long-term jobs and creating new opportunities for British Columbians. B.C.'s population expanded by 2.6 percent in 1994, as net immigration from overseas and other provinces reached record levels. Over 80,000 people moved into this province last year: 40,000 from other provinces and about 41,000 from abroad. Many of the people from abroad came from Asia and brought with them investment funds to create new businesses, which has resulted in more jobs and increased employment. Economic growth in this province was 4.5 percent. As a result of our government's policies, more young people were moved off welfare and into jobs and job training -- on-the-job training for 18,000 British Columbians.
I want to touch briefly on an exciting project that is happening in my riding, Vancouver-Fraserview. Recently I attended with Premier Harcourt at David Thompson Secondary School in my riding to announce a Skills Now project in the Vancouver School District. These projects invite the business community and post-secondary institutions to share their expertise with students. The development of the partnerships is crucial in making education more relevant, so that students graduate with up-to-date knowledge and skills. One of the main goals of the Skills Now program is to increase the number of partnerships between high schools, post-secondary institutions and local businesses.
At that time, I stated that the coordinated effort of our community to assist our students is an indication of how we are working to improve the quality of education of all our students in Vancouver. The dedication of the Vancouver School District and non-profit social service agencies, businesses and post-secondary education, labour, students and their parents is commendable. David Thompson will offer career development instruction for students with special needs. It will introduce new career and apprenticeship programs, including hospitality, administration, design architecture, health and social support services, digital imagery design, and will offer a locally developed career exploration course and workshops for young women, in partnership with Gladstone Secondary School.
On the subject of David Thompson School, I would like to acknowledge the East Side Revue publication. I want to congratulate teacher Dr. Cary Chien, who was recently presented with the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence in Science, Technology and Mathematics. In 1985 Dr. Chien was teaching a geometry course that had nearly been cancelled for lack of interest. The problem was not unique to geometry; enrolment was falling in general at David Thompson School. Dr. Chien decided that this course was not attracting students, because the course content was neither interesting nor practical. He began introducing related problems from calculus and physics, showing the students how geometry related to other fields. Those students responded positively, and many later returned to him. The course had prepared them well for university. Now David Thompson is one of the top schools in Canada, and I commend Dr. Cary Chien and all the outstanding students and teachers at the school. I'm proud to have it in my riding. Funding for the project will come from the Ministry of Education through the government's Skills Now training program. Over the next two years, $20 million in Skills Now funding will be directed to all school districts to provide B.C. students with increased work experience and apprenticeship programs, graduation credits for skills learned outside the classroom, expanded stay-in-school programs, mandatory career planning and modernized technical vocational training.
We will invest $200 million in the next two years to help B.C. youth, workers and the unemployed find and keep jobs in the changing B.C. economy. This initiative is dedicated to making skills training in high school relevant to the work-
[ Page 13296 ]
place, increasing student access to college and university, retraining workers with skills relevant to their communities and helping people move from social assistance into the workforce. The creation of jobs is what this budget is all about.
We must have a high-quality, productive workforce, and it is for this reason we are providing high-quality skills training for British Columbians. There is $1.23 billion for post-secondary funding, which is an increase of 3.8 percent over last year. We're creating 4,800 -- I repeat, 4,800 -- new full-time post-secondary spaces. There is $3.4 billion for funding the elementary and secondary school system, which is an increase of 4.4 percent. While the province of Alberta is slashing their education and health budgets, we are increasing ours.
When we became the government in 1991, we inherited a backlog of unfulfilled needs for schools and post-secondary institutions. Over the past three years, that backlog has been addressed by investing $1.2 billion in schools and $700 million in colleges and universities, thus creating 15,000 new spaces for post-secondary students.
Last year 67,000 -- I repeat, 67,000 -- new jobs were created, and we are forecasting an increase this year of 43,000 new jobs. Those jobs will be filled by British Columbians who have benefited from the focus we have put on higher education and job training.
I referred earlier to the working group on fiscal and debt benchmarks. Some of the most prominent members of British Columbia's business communities, such as Darcy Rezac, head of the board of trade, are members of that group. Listen to this carefully, hon. members, because they stated in their report: "The group also recognizes the appropriateness of taxpayer-supported debt that is incurred to build infrastructures such as schools, hospitals and transportation, thereby amortizing capital costs over a period of time." Let's look at some of the items that have been built that have resulted in taxpayer-supported debt for this province, debt which this distinguished group of business leaders acknowledges is necessary.
I wish to address first the expenditures in my own riding, Vancouver-Fraserview. There has been over $8 million to build the Finnish Home for the Elderly, which created 140 jobs; $1 million for the Killarney Community Centre; $8.5 million to be spent for Royal Arch Masonic Home; millions to be spent for Fair Haven Home for the Elderly; $1 million for the Khalsa Diwan Society Cultural and Resource Centre. I look forward to the day when the Holy Family Hospital in my riding, one of the foremost rehabilitation hospitals in the world, is rebuilt. I'm proud of the fact that our government has put hundreds of thousands of dollars into rehabilitation and thousands of dollars into the Holy Family Hospital's Easy Street project, a facility for stroke victims and those who suffer from other physical disabilities. I will be continuing my efforts to ensure that Walter Moberly Elementary School is upgraded at a cost of over $5 million.
I do not apologize for putting money into these worthwhile structures, as it is to enhance the lives of my constituents. Yes, we are incurring debt to build infrastructure, as this is an investment in our youth and in the future. We're building new highways, ferries, schools and hospitals, and I and our government have nothing to be apologetic for.
Every constituency in this province is benefiting from our government's policy of building infrastructure, which leaders of the business community recognize as vital to the well-being of our citizens. The opposition has spent a great deal of time criticizing this government for incurring these expenditures. I ask the opposition -- the two of them who are in the House this evening: which one of these projects do you want us to stop and not build? Which schools do you not want us to build? Perhaps it's one of the 15 schools that we're building or upgrading in the constituency of Maple Ridge at a cost of $50 million. Perhaps it's the Justice Institute in the constituency of New Westminster or the replacement of the health care centre in the constituency of North Coast. Perhaps they do not wish us to build the Vancouver Island Highway at a cost of over $1 billion, which is creating 17,000 jobs. Perhaps they do not wish us to complete the replacement of the Lions Gate Bridge, which will cost an estimated $300 million and create 4,000 jobs. Perhaps they do not wish us to complete the Westview connector...
Interjection.
B. Simpson: Yes.
...which will cost an estimated $30 million. Perhaps the opposition would like us to not go ahead with the University of Northern B.C. at a cost of $75 million, which created over 7,000 jobs. Perhaps they would like us to not build the three schools in Saanich South at an approximate cost of $17 million. Perhaps they would have liked us to not proceed with the B.C. cancer clinic in the constituency of Surrey-Green Timbers at a cost of $26 million, or the half-dozen schools that are being built or renovated in Surrey at a cost of $70 million. Perhaps the opposition would like us to stop the plans that are now underway for building McGee Secondary School in Vancouver at a cost of $20 million.
Perhaps the opposition would not have wanted us to put close to $100 million into St. Paul's Hospital or given the moneys to SUCCESS, that outstanding social services group in the Chinese community for the development of their health facilities at a cost of $10 million, or given the $5 million that we're putting into upgrading Mount St. Joseph Hospital.
I say to the members of the opposition.... I see a third one has now come into the House. Congratulations. I say to the members of the opposition when they criticize us for incurring debt: put up or shut up. If you do not wish us to build some of these facilities, tell us which ones you do not want us to build. Put up or shut up, hon. members. I have yet to hear from any member of the opposition what care facility, road, hospital or bridge you would not like us to build.
If any of you wish to stand up now, I will take my place and sit down. I would be pleased to let you proceed to tell us which one of those projects you will not go ahead with. Go ahead. Tell me to sit down and let you stand up. You're the Finance critic, hon. member.
Deputy Speaker: Member, please. The convention in this chamber is that we do not debate with one another directly; we go through the Chair. Please uphold that convention.
B. Simpson: He's still sitting, I've been informed. Of course they will sit, because they know we are on the right course.
I now want to deal briefly with our health care system. Health care affects each and every one of us, each and every British Columbian. Throughout the province, British Columbians are becoming concerned about what will happen to them if our present health care system collapses. Over the next two years, $800 million will be lost in transfer payments from the federal government, including over $200 million for health. In six years there will be no further transfer payments.
Our health care system is under attack. Less means less.... It also means less for health care. We are facing the
[ Page 13297 ]
beginning of the end of medicare as we have known it. Those are not my words. That's from this week's edition of Maclean's magazine, in an article entitled "Medicare Wars." I'm quoting the words of Mr. Leo-Paul Landry, secretary general of the Canadian Medical Association: "Throughout the province you hear British Columbians saying that our health care system must be protected."
[5:15]
Hon. members, it will be the New Democratic Party government that protects the health of each and every British Columbian. We will protect the health of the working British Columbian, the single mother, and those who cannot afford to be part of the two-tier system where the wealthy get the best of health care and those who do not fall into that privileged group get inferior health care.
This budget is designed to ensure that citizens of British Columbia, through their New Democratic Party government, will get the best of health care. We have put over $6 billion into the health care system this year -- a $252 million boost, of which $82 million is going to hospitals. This represents a 4 percent increase in health spending and a 3 percent rise in hospital funding. This budget makes health care a priority.
In addition, this government will provide $300 million worth of new hospital and clinic construction. The Health ministry's budget, which is by far the largest in our government, is rising to $6.64 billion.
We're also determined to continue to decentralize the delivery of health care services, where those who are affected the most will have the say on how their precious tax dollars are spent in the health care system.
It is time to take up arms and fight the attempt to destroy our health care system, which is the envy of every country in the world. British Columbians have every reason to be frightened as to what will happen to their health and the health of their families. Let there be no doubt about it that the clouds of a two-tier medical health care system loom on the Canadian horizon.
We will continue to build new cancer clinics, further shortening surgery waiting lists, and continue to free communities to set their own priorities to promote preventive care. We will protect British Columbians against the assault on our health care system which is now taking place.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments and recognize now the Minister of Finance, who will close the debate.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, just before I do that I beg leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery this afternoon are some scouts from the 12th Garry Oak Troop in Oak Bay, and they're up there with Mr. Stewart Churlish. I'd ask all the members to make them welcome.
While the debate on the budget has been going on in this House over the last number of days, I have been out around the province talking to British Columbians. I've been in Vancouver, Burnaby, Kelowna and Kamloops. I've been on the phone to people in Prince George and Nelson. I've talked to business people, to community leaders, to working people, to financial experts and to the investment community.
Despite what we're hearing in this House, out there in the real world people are saying that this is a good budget. They're saying we listened. They're saying the budget provides the direction and the leadership that they were looking for on the issues that they are concerned about: creating jobs and protecting essential services like medicare.
The opposition over the last number of days, as I've been reading in Hansard, have been trotting out the lame cliches of smoke and mirrors. It seems like every speech contains smoke and mirrors two or three times in it somewhere. The reason they're doing that, I believe, is that they want to divert attention away from what other people are acknowledging is a good budget. They certainly want to divert attention away from the fact that they offer no realistic or specific alternatives to this budget.
This is what the financial community and others have to say about our budget. The president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. -- I believe the opposition critic is himself a chartered accountant -- says: "I think it's one of the better budgets they've come up with." Headline news was: "B.C. Budget Scores Three Out of Four." It was the immediate reaction of B.C. chartered accountants. In this day and age of letter grades, three out of four is a B-plus average, and I have to say that while I'd like an A, I'm pretty pleased with a B-plus average on this budget.
Wood Gundy says: "B.C. remains in the best fiscal shape of all the province, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest ratio of debt-servicing costs to revenues. This budget will not change the market's perception that B.C. and Alberta remain the top-tier provincial credits." RBC Dominion Securities says: "The province's standing as a premier credit among Canadian borrowers is solidified further, following the presentation of this budget." And then they go on.
The CGA Association of B.C. says: "We're pleased with the budget's emphasis on both deficit and debt. While one can quarrel with the details, it's refreshing to finally have a management plan which contemplates a substantial reduction in B.C.'s accumulated debt."
When it comes to the budget, these people are far more credible because they have put partisan politics aside and have dealt with the truth.
I want to talk a little about what happens when you are so determined to be negative that you can't even get your facts straight. On the debt management plan, the official opposition says it's not good enough. In fact, when the Leader of the Opposition first heard that the business community had been invited in to assist us in developing the debt management plan, he was dismayed. He was dismayed because he prefers confrontational politics as opposed to the politics of compromise and bringing people in, and the common ground that we found by bringing business and labour together to sit down and work with us to come up with this debt management plan.
He huffed and he puffed and he said it was a 15 percent debt-to-GDP ratio -- which is what the business community recommended to us -- and that that was not good enough; it should be 12 or 13 or maybe 14 percent. But when we released the budget, the target that we had set was 10 percent. Did the Leader of the Opposition congratulate us for going beyond what the business community recommended? No. Did the Leader of the Opposition congratulate us for going beyond what he himself recommended? Of course not. No, he returned to the tired old cliches and said that our forecasts must be too optimistic.
Well, he has to say that because he can't bring himself to admit that we have the best economy here in Canada. Nesbitt Burns talks about our economic forecast, and what they say about our budget is that the province's conservative economic
[ Page 13298 ]
forecast enhances the credibility of the budget. They go on and talk about interest rates, and point out that the interest rate assumptions we've made are high relative to the interest rate assumptions they would have made. That is giving us room, even if the economy does not perform as well as we think.
So let's go to the experts; the experts tell us the truth on these matters. They tell us that we have been conservative and we have put together a good budget. In fact, when Darcy Rezac was submitting the debt management plan to me, he signed the covering letter to the debt management plan that was put together -- as others have already said in this House -- by a very credible group of business leaders and representatives from labour. What Mr. Rezac said I think is very important. He said: "We emphasize that these benchmarks are meant to define a context for long-term planning and should transcend partisan politics and specific political priorities." Mr. Rezac said to me: "Argue with the details of where you spend the money, but these are sound, businesslike, realistic benchmarks. Adopt these no matter which party is in power, and then let's argue about the specifics of policies after that."
If you are bound and determined to be negative and ignore the facts, let's look at what happens when you do this with taxes and services in this province. The Leader of the Official Opposition tells us that they would cut the corporation capital tax and eliminate the school property tax. That's $1.5 billion of revenue. On top of that, he says that he will balance the budget and maintain health, education and other important services. Well, if he is going to cut taxes for big business, he is going to have to either raise taxes for average working people or drastically cut services for health and education.
But he doesn't tell us that. He says, in fact, that he'll spend more money on health and education. So, looking at the budget, I have to conclude that that means he is going to look to other parts of the budget. He is going to look at Agriculture, Environment, Forests, Tourism -- what some of my colleagues like to call the wealth-generating ministries. If you are going to take $1.5 billion out of those areas of our budget, you would have to slash those budgets by 50 percent. I have to conclude that either the Leader of the Opposition can't add or he's not coming clean with his real agenda.
On spending, the Leader of the Opposition says that he would slash spending, but I don't think he's told his caucus that yet. I spent an enjoyable few hours reading through Hansard, looking at the speeches of all the opposition members. I will not lengthen this debate by putting out each and every spending request that we have heard here in the last couple of days, but let me just highlight a few of them. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano called for more spending on highways not only on the Westview interchange in his own part of the world but on the Vancouver Island Highway as well.
The member for Surrey-Cloverdale said that we needed over $100 million for new schools in Surrey alone to get rid of the portables. He also told us later on in his speech that the government should spend money on a convention centre for Surrey. It's interesting that I said "spend money," but the word the member actually used was "invest." It's interesting how he talks about investing money when it's a project in his riding, but it's debt or spending when it's in somebody else's riding.
My last example is the member for Chilliwack, who has asked the government to come in and correct a decision of the federal government. His party is saying that the federal government didn't go far enough in their spending cuts, except in his riding where the provincial government should come back in and take over and fix the problems that the federal government has created.
We agree with investing in our communities. People on our side of the House and in our government have also stood up in this House and asked for more investment in our communities. But we're not hypocrites. We don't go outside the House and call for spending cuts, and come back in here and lobby for our communities.
On medicare, the Leader of the Opposition says that we should protect health care, and we agree. But when the Liberals in Ottawa announced that they were going to cut $800 million out of medicare, higher education and social assistance over the next two years, the Leader of the Opposition said they haven't gone far enough. I don't know how much farther he wanted them to go, because the federal government has cut spending on its own programs by 3 percent, but it has cut spending on health, higher education and income assistance by over 20 percent. Hon. Speaker, I have to tell you that their priorities are all wrong. British Columbians are outraged, and the seniors, whom I have talked to in the last couple of days as I've been going around the province, are starting to realize the threat to our health care system that's being posed by these wrongheaded positions in Ottawa. But they better not be looking to the opposition benches for support, because what the opposition is offering is more cuts and a two-tier health care system.
We, in this party, will not stand by while any political party or government in this country tries to undermine what is undoubtedly the most important social program in Canada.
I don't want to leave the Third Party out entirely -- the Socreds who now call themselves Reformers. The only thing that I can see they are reforming right now is their past record. The Leader of the Third Party should be the last one to talk about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. They were the government that created the mess. The member for Peace River South, who is now their leader, was a member of the party which, through the hack-and-slash restraint program of the 1980s, starved this province's education system, left us with overcrowded schools, a sea of portables and far too many young people being turned away from our colleges and universities.
The Leader of the Third Party likes to talk big about balanced-budget legislation. He was in government when the Taxpayer Protection Act was passed. I remember that very well, because I was sitting in the opposition benches in those days. His government blew the budget that year by $2.4 billion and increased spending in the last three years of their administration by 12 percent. We now see what happens when that member supports balanced-budget legislation. It's certainly not carried out in reality. But now he has seen the light: he's converted; he's a Reformer. He now calls investment in hospitals, schools and vital public services a reflection of government excess. I don't think most of our communities would see it that way. Most of our communities would see schools, hospitals, colleges and universities as essential public services, but that's not the way Reform sees it. They simply fail to understand that by investing in infrastructure right now we save money in the long run, and we build the foundation to keep the strongest economy in Canada, which is creating jobs for all our citizens.
[5:30]
The problem is that the opposition doesn't want British Columbians to hear the real story. They're certainly not telling it. I never hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about the 67,000 new jobs that have been created in the province. I don't
[ Page 13299 ]
hear the Third Party talking about us having the lowest debt in the country. But let me take a minute and tell the story of British Columbia's economy. We have the best economy in Canada and have had the best economy in Canada for the last three years. Last year we had a 4.3 percent growth rate, the best increase in growth in seven years: 67,000 new jobs. One-quarter of all the jobs in Canada were created right here in British Columbia. Retail sales were up by 10 percent, exports were up by 20 percent, and business investment was up by 23.5 percent -- double the rate of neighbouring Alberta.
The opposition doesn't want people to hear that this budget has brought in a surplus. Whether you do it on the consolidated revenue fund, which has been the method of reporting on budget surpluses or deficits in this province since Confederation, or whether you go to the method that the auditor general prefers, it is still a surplus budget. They don't want to talk about the tax freeze. They point out the fee increases, but they don't talk about the tax reductions in the budget that fully offset each and every one of those fee increases. They certainly don't talk about the lowest debt.
Interjections.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, before I go on to debt, I can hear members on the other side asking "Where? Where?" about the tax reductions. You know, I have been wondering why I haven't heard them talk about the tax cuts we made for farmers. I certainly didn't hear the member who is the critic for Agriculture talk about the agriculture tax cuts that were in this budget. I haven't heard them talking about the tax cuts that were given to homeowners on the property tax base. But now I know. I have been listening to the member for Langley -- I think I have the right riding -- saying: "Where? Where?" I guess she hasn't read the budget. It's on page 27, if you want to have a look at it. If you haven't got a copy of the budget yet, hon. member, I'd be happy to give you one.
The lowest debt -- no one talks about the lowest debt in the country or the highest credit rating despite the fact that that is what is going on here. They don't want to talk about the debt management plan that has been supported by the business community. They certainly don't want to talk about the highest increases in the country to health care and education and the lowest spending increase in this province in 25 years.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: I just heard another one of the members -- I think it was the Opposition House Leader -- say, "That's no plan," concerning the debt management plan. I am happy to inform him that I now have a letter from the auditor general, dated April 4, commending me and our government on this important and timely initiative. He has reviewed the debt management plan and commended the government for bringing it in.
If British Columbians want to hear a fair critique of this budget, they are going to have to go outside the Legislature and read the reports that have come from other bodies not represented on the opposition side. They are going to have to go to groups like the B.C. Business Council -- a good friend of the New Democrat government, I might point out. The B.C. Business Council headline says that they support the budget's emphasis on debt. They go on by saying that we deserve good marks for leading an open and constructive prebudget consultation. It is apparent that we llistened to the advice received from business and others who have been urging the government to scale back its borrowing in order to get the province's debt under control. And they go on, again, on the debt management plan, saying that if it's successfully implemented, there is no doubt that the result will be positive for British Columbia's economy and investment climate. They conclude that the Business Council has noted that the government has improved the quality and comprehensiveness of its financial reporting, including the use of summary financial statements and debt indicators as recommended by the provincial auditor general.
As I said earlier, the chartered accountants have already given us a B-plus average. They call our debt management plan "a realistic plan for attainable debt management," and they say that "it sets forth a concrete business plan to control the debt. This is essential and long overdue." They conclude that "overall, it is a fair budget."
I know it hurts the opposition when I read these things out to them. It hurts the opposition to read the reviews that we're getting, and it will hurt them when we get the reviews that are going to be coming in from other investment houses across this country that will be reviewing our budget.
But let's move on to the real issues. This is a good budget. Let's move on and start debating what the real issues are in this House. You know, the real issue which we have to debate over the coming months in this House is: what vision do we want for British Columbia? Do we want a vision that cuts spending, cuts public services, cuts real wages and cuts the protection to our environment and to workers? And, most importantly, in a very narrow-minded way -- not supported by the business community, not supported by labour and certainly not supported by the community leaders I've talked to in the last six months -- what they want to do is turn off investment for the very essential infrastructure that our communities need if we're going to support a strong economy. The other vision is our vision: one that will see the economy creating more jobs than the rest of Canada; one that will have the best public services in Canada; one that will make continuing investment in education and health care -- in short, the strongest economy in Canada. That's what this budget is all about. That's the difference between this government and the opposition, and those are the issues that I think need to be debated up and down this province over the next couple of months.
So with that, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education, that the hon. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 30 | ||
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Smallwood |
|
Cull |
Pullinger |
Janssen |
|
Randall |
Beattie |
Farnworth |
|
Conroy |
Doyle |
Lord |
|
Streifel |
Simpson |
Jackson |
|
Krog |
Brewin |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Hartley |
| NAYS -- 8 | ||
|
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
Gingell |
|
Stephens |
Serwa |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
|
K. Jones |
Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:43 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]