Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12185 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

I would like to start by reading into the record from a budget debate that was conducted on April 19, 1990. The present Premier of the province was speaking in his capacity as the critic for Finance:

"British Columbians want a budget that is fair, a budget that reflects their social and economic priorities for the 1990s and a budget that is fiscally sound. . . . Above all, they want a budget and a government that is honest. This budget is a deceptive budget that is out of touch with the priorities of British Columbia."

He went on to say:

"The government tells us they are committed to tax fairness, and yet there is no tax relief for the majority of middle- and lower-income British Columbians."

He went on to say:

"British Columbians are looking for honesty in government. They're looking for a government they can trust to bring about tax fairness. They're looking for a government they can trust to achieve equity for women. They're looking for a government they can trust to reflect their social and economic priorities for the 1990s."

The government and the Finance minister went out and talked to various members of the public and various groups of leaders around the province and told them that they were consulting. They wanted to know what their views were; they wanted to know how they could get British Columbia back on track; they wanted to know what business needed; they wanted to know what education needed; they wanted to know what health care needed. They made a great show and pretence of consultation.

Members of the public -- certainly non-profit organizations and public sector groups -- know what this government means when they talk about consultation: nothing. It means nothing. The business leaders that came to the government and gave them their input are saying: "Was the government listening?" Obviously, if they had been, they would have taken some of the advice that was put to them. But this budget does not reflect any of that at all.

[1010]

It's no wonder; it's absolutely no wonder. The stats are very discouraging, to say the least. An unemployment rate that's 8.4 percent. . . . Again, this is the information from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. They say that females accounted for all the job losses in March, as there were 16,800 fewer women employed; in terms of gender, females accounted for all of the job losses in March. So much for protecting the rights of women, and so much for protecting women.

A number of organizations have critiqued this budget, aside from the chartered accountants. The B.C. Central Credit Union said that this 1999 deficit of more than $544 million marks the ninth consecutive budget, that no other province in the country has such a record and that this ever-increasing debt burden is simply unsustainable. Members on this side of the House have spoken about that; members of the public have spoken about that; and certainly individuals and organizations in this province that have an understanding of the economy, of job creation, have spoken about that. Indeed, I think the numbers show that the people of British Columbia are certainly aware and understand that as well.

But when we look at the choices the government is saying they made. . . . They're talking about choices and priorities. What they've done is chosen their friends and insiders over the people of British Columbia, and I think that's absolutely clear. Three billion dollars in capital projects clearly says that it's their friends in the big trade unions that got the payoff this time -- certainly not the people of British Columbia and certainly not families. When the Minister for Children and Families is asking for a 1.5 percent cut to services that her ministry funds, that is absolutely appalling. It's shocking that members opposite get up and try to tell the people of British Columbia that they are in fact protecting children and families. It's simply not true, and the numbers support that.

When we look at the kinds of services that are available in my area in the Fraser Valley, there are 600 children on a two-year waiting list with access to 13 therapists. That's speech and language, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. These are the children who need all the help they can get, and that government is asking for a 1.5 percent decrease in funding. That means there are going to be fewer services for children -- fewer services, not more -- and yet that government can give their friends in the big labour union a $3 billion make-work program in one year alone, and all of it borrowed money -- every single penny.

The child development centres have received letters asking that they find a 1.5 percent saving. What the minister has said is: "We want to take it out of administration." Well,

[ Page 12186 ]

[1015]

A couple of weeks ago, the ministry refused to provide protection for a woman in a transition house who wanted to return home and get some clothes. The ministry wouldn't do that; they wouldn't fund that. So the woman and her children did go to the home. . . .

An Hon. Member: That's hearsay.

L. Stephens: That is not hearsay. The woman and the children did go to the home. They were confronted by the husband, and all three of them were badly beaten. That is what is happening, hon. Speaker, and this government doesn't care.

Let's look at legal funding. The government keeps saying: "We're protecting children; we're protecting families; we're protecting the people who can't protect themselves. We're looking after those who are disabled; we're looking after the mentally handicapped." And what are they doing? Legal aid funding numbers for '97-98: the total funding was $91.5 million; the lawyers' tax was $81.4 million; and they got $25 million from the federal government. Where did that $25 million go? Into general revenue, to spend on something else, but it didn't go to legal aid.

Speaking of legal aid, you cannot get a legal aid lawyer now to change or enforce or collect on an existing maintenance order. You can't get legal aid to change a custody or access order if there is not a serious risk of harm to your children. Again, they are cutting back on services and cutting back on funding to reward their friends -- $3 billion in capital funding for the big labour unions, the people that government needs to stay where they are.

The family bonus, I think, is the biggest shell game of them all. It's now called the national child benefit, and a significant chunk of this money is nothing but a shell game. It involves the families that are on welfare, receiving B.C. Benefits. What happens is that they have their cheques reduced by $103 a month and then receive this money back through the national child benefit. So people out there in British Columbia who think that this government is giving families $103 per child plus the new national child benefit are wrong. What this government has done is it has taken away. . . . That is a cruel shell game on the children in this province. About 100,000 children in the province of British Columbia are subjected to this.

The budget announced a 2 percent increase in the combined family bonus and the national child benefit. The total impact would be $8 million. So $8 million a year for the poor children in this province -- the children that this government says that they want to help and support -- equals about $20 per child, per year. It's shameful, hon. Speaker. How this government can get up and say that they are supporting children and supporting families is an absolute tragedy.

With those few words, I will resume my place -- other than to say that this particular government has demonstrated since 1991 that in fact it does support only its friends and insiders, certainly not the people of British Columbia and certainly not the defenceless in the province. That government tries to tell us that they support them and that they are the ones -- and the only ones -- that can look after them, and they are the only ones that certainly look at whether or not the benefits of the economy of British Columbia. . . . And the social policies of a government that likes to call themselves social democrats -- that are anything but, as demonstrated by their actions. . . . They certainly don't deserve to submit another budget. This side of the House is very anxious that this government call an election so that we can get British Columbia back on track.

[1020]

They were elected in 1991. I moved here in 1991; I moved here the year that the NDP got elected. You know what? In the eight years that I've lived here, I'm horrified that this government's. . . . They were elected in good years. They have governed through good times and have taken us into bad times. In the eight years that I've lived here, I've seen the NDP take B.C. from first to worst, from number one in the country to last place in economic growth. I just find that appalling. I find that absolutely appalling.

It's interesting. The industries that I've seen affected in the eight years that I've lived here. . . . I've seen forestry decimated; I've seen mining decimated; I've seen housing decimated. I've seen more businesses and people moving out of the province in the last few years than I've seen moving in. I have said this in the House before. Personally, I've been affected by it as well. I've hired people for my office, and unfortunately one of the workers in my office. . . . Her husband couldn't find a job in B.C., and he moved to Alberta a few years ago. Last year I lost a very good worker in my office because, rather than live as a split family -- one in Alberta, one in B.C. -- they made the choice, because they had two younger girls, to move to Alberta, where they have work, and live there.

It's affecting families. Either families are split, looking for jobs in other communities around B.C. or in other provinces,

[ Page 12187 ]

My own chamber in Kelowna. . . . The top news -- I believe it was a day or two before the budget was announced, or almost a week before the budget was tabled in this House. . . . The Kelowna Chamber of Commerce called for the NDP to quit. They passed a resolution, unanimously asking that the government quit because it had shown that it was incapable of managing the province's finances.

I want to quote the chamber president David Rush: " 'It is clear that the government of the day has lost all credibility with the business community as well as with the public at large. . . . The continued crisis of confidence in the government, together with their clearly demonstrated inability to properly manage the finances of British Columbia, must be reversed immediately if we are to avoid further long-term harm to our economy and to our quality of life.' "

The article that I'm reading from in the Kelowna daily newspaper also goes on to say: "The chamber cites the government for several financial failings, among them: a projected 1999 deficit of $700 million. . . ." They were off by a few hundred million, because we know that the budget came in at what the government is saying is a $890 million deficit. They also cite the auditor general's report, which suggested political manipulation of the 1996 budget estimates, massive cost overruns on the fast ferry project and the decision to widen Highway 97 into Merritt -- rather than build a faster route to Vancouver, or spend any money at all at a time when we know that finances just aren't there.

[1025]

The budget has a projected deficit of $890 million. Last year the Finance minister stood up and said that her budget had a deficit of $95 million. It was assumed that it was going to come in as a balanced budget this year. But do you know what, hon. Speaker? Last year's balanced budget of $95 million came in at a deficit of $544 million. They don't even know what their numbers are. They guessed a deficit, and it's five times bigger that what they guessed it was going to be. In this budget they have actually increased debt -- they have increased the deficit -- and they have increased the uncertainty in the business climate.

These are the choices. The Finance minister stood up and said: "This budget is about choices. The NDP are making choices." Everyone across the province is telling the government: "You're making the wrong choices." Increasing the debt is not going to inspire confidence. It's not a good way to go, when every other province across the country is working toward balancing its budget and paying down its debt, trying to reduce taxes, and trying to get business and investment going. This government is going against the tide and doing everything in its power to totally take B.C. down the road to ruin. A budget for disaster is what it is.

I can't even imagine what it's like for business owners. Personal experience. . . . For the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to get hold of an antique dealer in town -- a small business owner -- because about four years ago, when I bought my house, I went to this store and bought some stuff for the house. I've been phoning and phoning this store, because I know it's one of the better stores in town, and they have some neat stuff.

Finally, I got hold of this person. He left a message on my answering machine, I called him back, and we met on Saturday morning. I said: "Where have you been? I've been trying to call you for the past few weeks." He said: "You know what? I do 80 percent of my business in Calgary. I've been doing that for the last four years." Since I bought my stuff there about four years ago, he's moved most of his business to Calgary. He said that in 1992 he paid $2,800 in business taxes in Kelowna. Do you know what he pays today? Guess what he pays today: over $7,000. And he doesn't keep his store open. Basically he answers by answering machine. If somebody wants something, he'll go down there -- make an appointment. But he says: "Most of my business is in Calgary."

Most people know that investors are going to go where they're going to get a return on their investment. Businesses are going to go to where they can make a living, where they can create jobs, where they can do well -- where they can actually make a living. It's little stories like that that I hear that frighten me and make me realize that people. . . .

I come from an area that is considered to be the heart of free enterprise in this province. Kelowna and the area -- the Okanagan Valley -- is sort of a bright spot in the province. We're doing well, in spite of what the government's going. We've been growing. We've had success stories. We've got a beautiful area that's attracting tourism and other things. But some of the businesses that have been there for a long time are leaving. Sure, we're getting some new stuff, but it frightens me that people who have made their living there, who have raised their families there, are now finding that they are doing 80 percent of their business in Calgary. There's something wrong with that.

[1030]

The way we're going now, we're getting ourselves deeper and deeper in debt, and we're mortgaging our kids' futures. Our kids are going to be paying for this mad spending spree.

[ Page 12188 ]

The Finance minister stood up and said: "We had choices." One of her choices was to build into her budget this year the money to pay for the higher costs of borrowing. In the last few weeks, we have seen three credit-rating services downgrade B.C.'s credit rating. I think it's absolutely irresponsible and pathetic and sad that a minister stands up in the House and is proud of the fact that they've built those extra costs into the budget. I think that is really sad, and it just shows how far off they are with understanding what the people in this province want.

When you look at our credit rating -- this is the second year that our credit rating has been lowered -- and you look at other provinces. . . . Let's look at their cousins in Saskatchewan. We've got an NDP government there with six consecutive balanced budgets. They're reducing taxes; they're reducing the debt. You know what? It's a province with fewer than a million people. They have had to tighten their belts in the last few years. They've had to swallow some pretty bad medicine. But you know what? They are on the road to recovery. They're adding money to services; they're reducing taxes. And you know what, hon. Speaker? Last week we heard that two major forest companies were investing in Saskatchewan -- 10,000 jobs for Saskatchewan. Those companies are divesting of their investments in B.C. and investing in Saskatchewan. It's almost predictable.

People do not want to come to B.C.; they do not want to invest here. The ones that are here are trying to find a way to get out of here as fast as they can. They know that they are going to being paying for the downloading that this government is budgeting for. We know that municipalities are paying the cost of downloading. This budget reduces funding to municipalities -- a 41 percent cut in funding for municipal governments, $98 million in grant cuts. There is only one taxpayer, and when the municipalities get their funding cut, they pass that on to the property owner. When you look at what the government has been doing in the last few years, I can understand what the antique store owner is thinking: "I've got to get out of here." Because the government has been doing this every year, it's almost predictable that his taxes are going to go up and up and up.

At the same time that B.C. received a downgrade this year, Saskatchewan received an upgrade from the Canadian Bond Rating Service. It's their fifth upgrade in the past three years. Nine out of ten provinces are working toward balancing their budgets and getting their finances in place. Why is this government going against the tide? Why are they doing that? It's because they don't know how important it is for the people of B.C. Either they don't know or they don't care. Both are scary thoughts.

[1035]

There have been massive job losses in the last few years. I remember, almost two years ago, the Premier flying up to Prince George and saying that he was creating 21,000 jobs in the forest industry. What we've seen is 16,000 job losses in the forest industry. There are major companies hanging by their fingernails right now, with workers wondering if tomorrow they will have the job they have today. Highland Valley Copper is a good example: 1,400 jobs at stake there. That's very frightening for families. That impacts on people in my community and on that whole area. That's very frightening for workers. I look at Gold River -- I went up there a year ago, and that was very scary for families. It's not just a mill shutdown; it's a whole community that is affected.

I honestly believe that the only thing that's going to inspire any confidence in this province -- the only thing that's going to lead us to the road to recovery; the only thing that's going to help -- is if there were a few jobs lost on the other side. That's what the chambers are asking for -- for all those members to resign. Call an election, and let's have a government that listens to people. Let's have a government that will actually balance the budget, decrease the debt, decrease taxes and say B.C.'s open for business again. That's what people are asking for, and that's what they want, hon. Speaker.

I can't support this budget.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Prince George-Omineca. [Applause.]

P. Nettleton: Thank you for that thunderous applause. I'll try and live up to my billing.

I intend to address the budget debate presently. I'd like to make a few introductory comments, if I may. It is a shame that the budget debate -- all debate -- has been so greatly undermined by the events of two weeks ago. I feel that I should speak to this while I can. In its use of closure on the Nisga'a treaty and then again on the debate regarding closure, the NDP has demonstrated its utter contempt for debate, for tradition, for parliamentary procedure -- and yes, for democracy. We in opposition are all left wondering: "How much can I say? When will I be cut off? Will I get a chance to speak?"

Government is supposed to be a system of checks and balances. In our system, the official opposition is supposed to be the most important of those checks.

The Speaker: Hon. member, we're on the budget. I remind the hon. member. . . .

P. Nettleton: Yes, thank you.

There's supposed to be a job for those of us here in opposition to do: we are to hold the government accountable to the public. But we have all seen that we won't be permitted to do any such thing. We are a token presence.

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

P. Nettleton: The government has demonstrated that it will do what it wants.

[ Page 12189 ]

P. Nettleton: Yes, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you.

P. Nettleton: With reference specifically to the budget, then. . . . I'm not sure whether to bother, in fact, to respond to the budget. I can't seriously expect anything I say to be heeded, and I can't be sure that it won't be just irritating enough for the government to shut me up. In any event, I had a great deal of difficulty preparing my remarks with respect to the budget. There is little to say to this budget which I haven't already said in response to other budgets: more of the same mistakes, more rhetorical flourish about vision and commitment. You, on that side of the aisle, have different values, it is said; you stand for improved health care, it is said, and for B.C. families who need those services -- and on the side of education.

And on this side of the aisle. . . . Oh, well, if we disagree with this budget of the NDP, why, we are told that we're voting against more nurses, more hospital beds, shorter waits, more teachers, smaller classrooms, frozen tuition -- and even against tax cuts. That's what we've been told.

[1040]

Health care. Health care is a right, you say. What is health care, exactly? Wart removal? If thousands flock to clinics for the removal of unsightly facial hair, would we have to increase health care funding? I suppose we would. We'd have no choice. After all, those warts and that hair would be diverting resources from other important treatments and procedures. The new resources would be required for the cancer treatments, kidney dialysis, cardiac surgery and even pediatrics and hip and knee surgery, for which there are not sufficient resources. I mean, you could look at it that way -- right? What is health care? If I run to see the doctor every time I have sniffles so that he or she can prescribe useless antibiotics to make me go away, should the taxpayer fund this?

Choices will have to be made in our health care system. It doesn't matter how much money you pour into health care, you can always pour in more. Is there no point at which someone can say, "Hold on there," without being branded somehow as uncaring? Health care is a right, but there must always be limits on rights so that they do not interfere with the rights of others. I do not have the right to have my wart removed if that right will jeopardize another's heart procedure. Nor does the government have the right to confiscate my future wealth to feed its ill-defined standard of health care until my pockets are empty and the government's credit is gone. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The NDP say that they will be able to fund 10,000 more cancer treatments, for example. Why not 10,001? What about that last one? Will they turn that last one away? Good grief! They are picking figures out of a hat and acting self-righteous because their figures are so big.

Health care, like all services, has to be paid for. There needs to be a triage in health care at some level, because the funding for health care must have some limit. I agree that health care should be a priority in our spending and that the people of B.C. have a right to the best health care we can afford. If we agree to increase the funding for health care to some level, it must be the understanding of all concerned -- including the government and the people of this province -- that the funding for something else will have to decrease.

The government's choices on the fast ferries are water under the bridge -- pardon the pun. But don't wag your finger at me for opposing massive deficit spending and say, "We must protect health care," when you've just thrown a couple of hundred million away on a lark. I suspect that the SkyTrain expansion will have a similar result.

Look, no one has the right to a blank cheque in health care or in anything else. This budget is a prescription for the collapse of the health care system -- maybe not today, but we would like to think that our children will also benefit from good health care services. It's not in anyone's best interests to bankrupt the system.

[1045]

Education -- the other politically expedient thrust of this budget. The government is particularly proud of its claim of having the highest investment per student in Canada. They have a real habit of measuring their success in how much money they spend. Education is important, certainly. B.C. can be proud of the achievements of its teachers and students. But I really couldn't say how this relates to whether they learn in a new school or a renovated one, in portables or not, or whether there are 22 students in a class or 23. I haven't seen any studies on any of this. I think that if we are successful in our schools, it is because of the quality of our educators and administrators, particularly at the local level -- and perhaps because of more motivated students. They must be growing more aware of how competitive the market is.

Of course I'm speculating, but I would hate to say that the potential of a student in a poor African village is somehow less because the walls of his classroom are made of mud or dung. Good learning materials, good teachers, student

[ Page 12190 ]

This is the same thing as health care, though. If we spend money we don't have now, we will face a future in which we cannot maintain even minimal funding. The government should take a lesson from the school board in the Coast Mountains district. They have determined priorities and have cut certain programs in an effort to live within their means. We have to live within our means on a provincial level as well. On this side of the aisle we stand for living within our means. We stand for our children's prospects for a bright future, not just for our own political future.

Talking about health care, the Minister of Finance stated that the easier course of action would have been to simply maintain provincial funding levels, etc., etc. How, Finance minister? How would that be easier? Is it your money that you're spending? No. Have you perhaps polled the province or otherwise determined that people are concerned about health care and education too? I imagine you have, yes. Is standing up and declaring that you're protecting health care and education a politically unpopular or popular thing? Of course it's a popular thing. In what way, then, have you taken the difficult path? Where is your sacrifice?

One thing in the hon. Finance minister's speech caught my ear. It was in her introduction on the education issue, when she said: "We believe every child deserves a decent education, regardless of their parents' income." When I hear "regardless of income" from an avowed socialist government, it makes me nervous. Is this perhaps an oblique reference to the recent policy accord on government training expenditures, which promises to sharply curtail the ability of private trainers to compete for public training dollars? It's my understanding that quite a few private training institutions have impressive records of placing their graduates in related employment. I think that the government should be encouraging the emergence of innovative private sector-based education and training options, which can respond more rapidly and appropriately to the changing marketplace. This is not the place for any ideological notion of equal access for all -- no jobs for anyone. If appropriate training is not available here, or that training is out of reach because it cannot be subsidized, people will just go elsewhere for their training.

[1050]

Taxes are one of the most important factors in this brain drain from our province and from Canada. At 52.3 percent, as proposed for 1999, and 51.3 percent for the year 2000 -- or 49.9 percent -- B.C.'s top marginal tax rate will still be far out of line with neighbouring jurisdictions: Alberta, 45.6 percent; Washington State, 40 percent; and Oregon, 43 percent. B.C.'s top rate also applies at a much lower income level than is the case in U.S. jurisdictions -- around $78,000, compared to the equivalent of $350,000 (Canadian) or more south of the border.

B.C.'s high marginal tax rates combined with the weak Canadian dollar and rising salaries in the United States have made it almost impossible for technology companies here to attract skilled employees, particularly at managerial and senior technical levels. High taxes were identified at a recent meeting of business leaders as the single biggest obstacle to new private sector investment job creation entrepreneurial activity in the province.

Alberta and many other provinces have acted to control the size of their broad public sectors and decrease the burden of provincial taxes on their residents in the 1990s. B.C., on the other hand, for its part has been slow to follow suit. Although there was some talk in the last two budgets of cutting taxes -- and last year I acknowledged the tentative steps in that direction which the government appeared to be taking -- at the same time I've noted that many of the tax savings described could be translated as "tax increases we've decided not to make." Obviously I have to be skeptical. However, I will be happy to see a reduction in personal income taxes, especially in B.C.'s marginal tax rates, which are presently the highest of any jurisdiction in North America.

Also, the reduction in the small business rate is good. We approve of this. I hope that when the Finance minister stated that some would give the biggest tax cuts to the biggest and wealthiest businesses, she wasn't implying that we, the Liberals, were opposed to cuts for small businesses -- that is, if she was referring to us. We do believe that there is no reason not to give substantial tax cuts to those best positioned to generate more wealth for the province, more jobs for the people of this province and ultimately more revenue for B.C.

We don't believe in penalizing big business just out of ideological spite. The corporation capital tax -- a tax on capital investment -- is being reduced. It should be eliminated. The impact of such a tax in B.C. is magnified by the fact that in Alberta, Washington and Oregon they do not have similar taxes.

The business community has also noted that B.C. is the only province that levies its sales tax on business purchases of machinery and equipment without providing some form of offsetting credit. There has also been a steady increase in a host of other taxes, fees and levies -- including at the municipal level -- that are unrelated to business profits. All these issues need to be addressed. Tax reductions are necessary to the recovery of the economy in this province, but they have to be significant enough to allow B.C. to regain its competitiveness.

[1055]

[ Page 12191 ]

Blaming Asia. The NDP government blames the economic malaise in B.C. on troubles in Asia, just as it did last year. There is still no recognition in this budget that our downturn may be related to the government's own policies, its excessive regulation, its onerous tax burden or its lack of credibility in terms of its projections or in terms of its commitments. If the Asian flu were the whole story, then how is it that other North American jurisdictions which also extensively depend on commodities and/or trade with Asia seem to be faring much better than our province? Alberta, Saskatchewan, Alaska, Oregon and Washington all registered solid gains in real GDP in 1998, and their economies continue to grow. These jurisdictions also boast more buoyant business investment and lower unemployment rates than British Columbia. Australia, a resource-dependent country whose economy is deeply intertwined with Asia, has also escaped recession. The NDP just can't blame B.C.'s ailing economy on distant forces like Asia or commodity prices. Gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, has been growing more slowly in B.C. than in Canada since the start of 1995. Economic output per person, the most widely used measure of prosperity, has been growing more slowly in B.C. since 1992. GDP per capita has fallen in three of the last six years, although in Canada it rose during the entire period. Unlike the rest of Canada, in B.C. the economy has been growing slower than its economy through most of the 1990s. This obviously matters to people, as it refers to how much money they actually have in their pockets to spend. The real incomes and the materials, the living standards of British Columbians, have been eroding throughout the tenure of the NDP government. It is apparent that B.C.'s economic problems are not just an incident of global economies. B.C. has a structural economic problem, one that became apparent long before the Asian flu took hold.

[1100]

I don't think academic performance has paralleled the increase in teaching staff. Perhaps the demand for a lower student-teacher ratio is a symptom of the fact that teachers have to police their classes in priority to teaching their classes. Maybe if these kids were learning to behave at home, the teachers could do their jobs. There's a tangible way in which government could help families: make stay-at-home parenting affordable. I think we would see some cost savings in other areas, such as education.

In conclusion, this budget is not about protecting health care and education. The quality of health care and education is not strictly about dollars. More money with less thought will help no one. Nor will building a school or hiring nurses today help much tomorrow, when that school is boarded up and we've laid off more nurses than we hired.

This budget is not about helping families. This budget is not about tax relief. It is about continued taxation -- too much taxes. There's no money going back into my pocket. I didn't see anything about rebates on previously appropriated taxes. Maybe a tiny little bit less is being taken from me, but forgive me if I'm not ecstatic. The bottom line of this budget is deficit and debt. The abandonment of any effort to control the deficit and the enslavement of the people of this province to a debt load from which the only escape will be out of the province is a guarantee of seriously degraded services in the future.

The Finance minister solemnly pronounced that this budget is about the future. To be more precise, it is about mortgaging our future. "Honest Glen's Government Services Emporium. No money down, no payments until the NDP has left office."

T. Stevenson: I'm pleased to rise today to contribute to this debate on the 1999-2000 budget. This budget, of course, is of great importance to all British Columbians, as many speakers have already testified. But I want to speak to it from my particular position as MLA for Vancouver-Burrard and point out that although it does have obvious ramifications for every British Columbian, it is hugely significant to the folks of Vancouver-Burrard in particular. All of the main issues and themes that are raised within the budget have a direct effect on the folks in Vancouver-Burrard. Before discussing the budget specifically and directly, I want to touch briefly on the state of the economy, as the member before me has done, generally in British Columbia and how that affects Vancouver-Burrard.

There is no doubt that we in British Columbia, over the past few years, have been going through a rather difficult time -- a challenging time, actually. In fact, we've been in a recession, really, for the past couple of years, and this has primarily been due, as we know, to what has gone on in Asia.

[1105]

[ Page 12192 ]

Prior to the collapse in Japan and in Korea, we were indeed number one in Canada. Our economy was number one. The Asian situation has taken everyone -- all economists in North America and Europe -- by surprise. There was no one forecasting the Asian crisis. No one even thought that this was remotely a possibility. In fact, it was quite the opposite. They thought that Japan and Korea were going to continue to grow -- as were the other economies of Asia, such as Indonesia and Thailand -- and that has turned about. That has had a huge effect on British Columbia because, of course, we export a third of our products to Asia. Now Japan and Korea aren't buying. That's meant that our forest industry has been in great difficulties, as have all of the industries that are dependent on our sales to Asia.

What's happened with this collapse is that we have basically ended up with two economies in B.C. We have the rural economy, which the member before me is from, and we have the urban economy. They're quite different economies -- totally different, now -- as a result of the economic pressures and economic problems that we've had with the collapse of the Asian markets. If you go into our rural areas in B.C., into the forest-dependent areas -- also fishing, mining and so on -- people are definitely struggling. Unemployment is up; the economies of those cities and towns are in great difficulty.

That's quite different from what's happening in our urban economies. That's quite different from what's happening in my own riding of Vancouver-Burrard. In the urban economies we see that the film industry is booming, the tourist industry is booming and the high-tech industry is booming. All three of these directly affect Vancouver-Burrard. If you walk through Vancouver-Burrard you'll see that things are actually looking quite good. People are relatively happy; people are relatively well dressed; people have relatively new cars; people are living relatively comfortably. That's because many are employed in the film industry, and many are employed in the tourist industry and in the high-tech industry.

The shops are busy. The shops are busy not only from the local residents but also from the tourist industry, which is absolutely booming in Vancouver and in the urban centres -- Victoria and Vancouver. The shops are full; the restaurants are full; the theatres are full; and all is busy and bustling. This is quite a different economy, obviously, than when you go into the rural areas. You don't see that.

I'm speaking now primarily from my position as an MLA in this very urban riding, where the economy is indeed booming. About three or four months ago I had the opportunity to go to a company -- a new computer company -- that has moved from one area within my riding to another. They had 40 employees only two years ago, and now they're moving because they have expanded to where they have 200. Now they're planning to go to 700 employees within the next two years. That's because the high-tech industry indeed is booming -- and it is booming, again, in the urban areas. It's very exciting for me to be a part of that and to be the MLA in such a vibrant riding as Vancouver-Burrard.

The film industry. I'm sure everyone is very aware of what the film industry is doing right now, as you go through Vancouver-Burrard and see them filming throughout. There are all sorts of shoots in all parts: Gastown, Yaletown, the West End. Many people are employed in the film industry in one way or another -- either as actors or in the catering business and so on.

[1110]

Last week, I heard the member for Richmond-Steveston say that we, the government, had betrayed our NDP principles of some 25 years ago with this budget. As a Christian democratic socialist, I wish to completely disagree with that member. In fact, I think it's rather the pot calling the kettle black. It's not the government that's betrayed any principles -- as I'll try to show as I discuss the budget -- but rather, I believe, the B.C. Liberal Party that has betrayed any Liberal principles or Liberal values that they might once have had when their leader was the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Their sole concern, it seems to me, by both their discussion of their values and their discussion of their taxation, is for the rich and the powerful in our society.

This budget is about our values, about democratic socialist values -- Christian democratic socialist values at that. It is about our core values -- our principles and values to support health care, to support education and to support small business and people needing housing, as well, particularly low-cost housing. This budget is indeed about making choices -- a choice either to support health care, to support education, to support small business. . . . Or one could choose to cut, and cut deeply, to bring about balanced budgets.

In my riding of Vancouver-Burrard it's very clear that this budget will have a huge impact for the better in both health care and education. Let me begin by talking about health care. Health care -- or what I like to call socialistic universal health care, rather than capitalistic health care, which the members across the way seem to promote -- is a universal system. We're striving to keep it as a universal system, not a system where you need to take your American Express card or, as the member across the way said: "If you have some medical problem, you'll be turned away at the door." He was talking about warts. You'd be turned away at the door. But what about children -- a parent going to a doctor? He says: "You run to a doctor because you're sniffling." You might have something very serious when you're sniffling -- or your child might. Instead of having to pull out your American Express card, you go to the doctor, and the doctor will see you. We will continue to maintain that rather than having some arbitrary line, some two-tiered system, to decide who can see a doctor or who can have a heart operation. Maybe you're too old, so the member would say: "No, you can't have that heart operation" -- or your father or your grandfather -- "because you're too old." No, hon. Speaker, we will maintain a universal socialist health care system.

In Vancouver-Burrard there is a large population of seniors who are dependent upon this health care system and don't want these kind of criteria that the member is trying to arbitrarily set up. We have many, many people who are living with AIDS and are completely dependent on our system. This government has, over the years, been absolutely supportive of this community, bringing in protease inhibitors. There is no criterion, no test: "How long will you live before you. . . ?" Shall we have a judgment as to when you can come and see the doctor or what drugs you can use or what drugs you can't have?

[ Page 12193 ]

[1115]

This is Mental Health Week. Yesterday I joined the Minister of Health to open up a new emergency psychiatric unit in St. Paul's Hospital. That has been wonderfully received by the residents of Vancouver-Burrard and by the whole of the downtown east side. There is such a need for this new emergency psychiatric unit, as of course we have many people in the downtown east side who are suffering from drug and alcohol abuse.

I think that opening is only possible because of this commitment of more dollars into health care. Without it, our community would be lesser, much lesser. We have been struggling with so many people with mental illnesses and drug and alcohol abuse, and now, finally, we have been able to make a significant contribution.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I'm so proud, actually, to have this hospital -- St. Paul's Hospital -- in my riding. It is an extraordinarily fine hospital not only because it has the province's heart centre but also because it's the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. It serves the whole community as a community hospital for the residents of Vancouver-Burrard. So this budget, again, means not only that this fine service will be maintained at St. Paul's Hospital but also that now we indeed have this new psychiatric unit, which of course is of such major importance.

But this budget also means that organizations such as AIDS Vancouver and the PWA Society will have their funding maintained and can continue with their extraordinary work that they do -- not only for Vancouver-Burrard, not only for persons living with AIDS, but also for persons all over the province, including persons in Prince George-Omineca, who come down and receive services from AIDS Vancouver and the PWA Society.

Health care means making choices. Obviously we're making a very important and significant choice with this increase of funding. Instead of cutting -- as would be absolutely necessary if the Liberal budget was to be implemented, in order to bring about this balanced budget that they are calling for at the moment -- we're increasing. I think it's not just, as the member says, because it's somehow politically popular; it's because that's what people's priorities are. That's what people want. Certainly that's what they want in my riding. They want to have their health care needs taken care of and not to have to worry about whether or not something or other will be done.

[1120]

Of course, as I'm sure everyone is aware, there are a great many post-secondary students living in Vancouver-Burrard. It's an attractive place to live -- the West End, with all of its amenities -- and there is a very high percentage of post-secondary students living there. This tuition freeze, for the fourth year, is obviously extraordinary good news -- the fourth year of a tuition freeze. When we look at what the rest of the country is doing -- whether it's Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba or anywhere else -- it's almost unbelievable to see that we are putting such emphasis upon students and the students' needs. I have three daughters who are all at university, and I can tell you that this tuition freeze is making an incredible difference for them. You might want to slash some taxes somewhere else, for whatever reason, and end up with a little bit more in your pocket as a result of that decrease in taxes, but this tuition freeze, for those of us who have children in university, makes a huge difference -- far more than you would have gained elsewhere.

This budget means that we will have 3,000 more post-secondary spaces, university spaces -- Langara, Capilano College, the University of Northern B.C., and so on. So 3,000 more students will be able to attend university -- post-secondary spots -- this year than before. For many families wanting to make sure that their children have a better start -- get a head start, get into university -- obviously this is good news. Again, this is about our priorities, our values and the choices that we will make.

There are a few other areas in the budget that I'd like to briefly highlight, which affect Vancouver-Burrard. Vancouver-Burrard is made up of a great many small businesses. All you have to do is drive around Vancouver-Burrard, and you'll see the number of restaurants and little shops up and down Davie Street, Denman Street and Robson Street. They are thrilled, I might add, that as of July 1, the income tax rate for more than 40,000 small businesses will drop to 5.5 percent. This is a 35 percent cut, and small businesses will save $65 million from this alone. This is very good news in Vancouver-Burrard, because of the large number of small businesses that we have.

In Vancouver-Burrard there is a real housing crunch. Many people are moving into Vancouver-Burrard -- into the West End and into Yaletown -- not only from the suburbs of Vancouver, because it's so attractive to live in, but from the rural areas, where the economies, as I said, aren't as healthy at this moment. That has put on a lot of pressure, but it has also meant that young people from right across the country, who are coming out for the climate and the lifestyle, have come into Vancouver-Burrard, and many of them are homeless.

[1125]

[ Page 12194 ]

We have had to struggle with what we can do to help young people, to help seniors who are feeling the crunch from the high cost of renting and to help PWAs -- persons living with AIDS -- who are having the same problem. We've put in more and more low-cost housing. I was very pleased to be a part of opening, just this last week, a cooperative in Coal Harbour. Yesterday I was part of an announcement at the Sunset Towers -- that's a seniors centre with about 700 seniors' residences and low-cost housing -- to redo that. Also, the Wings Housing Society, which is a housing society that tries to find housing for persons living with AIDS. . . . In conjunction with B.C. Housing, we've been able to renovate a whole new unit so that persons living with AIDS can live in low-cost housing. We're looking at doing more in that area and more for seniors and for the young people who are unable to find decent housing for themselves because they simply can't afford it. So at the same time as we're concerned about and see as our priority health, education and taxes for small business, housing is also of great concern to this government and in this budget.

I would just like to conclude by saying that I'm very proud that we're doing all of this without increasing our gaming revenues. I don't know if the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca, who seems to uphold Alberta's way of doing budgets. . . . In Alberta they're taking in more money from gaming than they are from oil revenues. Can you imagine -- more money from gaming than from oil revenues? It's pretty obvious to see our position by looking at our budget: there is no increase -- absolutely clear. So in these provinces where the opposition members are insisting that you find balanced budgets -- and these are Liberal and Conservative governments -- I would like you to note that it is the amount of gaming revenues, and nothing else, that is giving them the ability to have a balanced budget.

I actually had hoped to continue on, but my Whip is telling me that I have to bring this to a close. He's whipping me to a close -- not yet. But I do have a few more points that I want to bring out for the people of Vancouver-Burrard. Hopefully, I'll get another chance to do that, including what the member is asking me in regard to gambling.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the budget. I'll be pleased to vote in favour.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure today to introduce two guests in the gallery: Ernesto Sirolli of the Sirolli Institute and Yvonne Fizer, executive director of the Sirolli Institute. Would the House please help me make them very welcome indeed.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Premier, to close debate.

Hon. G. Clark: It is my pleasure -- in fact, my honour -- to close the debate on this budget. Budgets, of course, regardless of who is the government, really reflect the choices that the government makes on behalf of all the people of British Columbia. In this budget, as the Minister of Finance stated in the budget speech, I think the choices that we made are very clear, and I want to talk about them in a minute.

I also want to compliment the opposition, which I don't normally do. I think that in the course of this discussion, the Leader of the Opposition, particularly, has made clear the choices that he would make if they were ever to form the government. This is essential, it seems to me, for democracy and essential for the public -- to understand the differences between the opposition and the government on such a fundamental question as the values and choices that we make in this chamber. I must say that I think the gap between the opposition and the government has never been wider and the choices never more clear for British Columbians.

[1130]

I would say that in many regions this is an issue which I get from people virtually every day. The public in Canada are losing confidence in our health care system. Even in British Columbia, where we have not made the cuts that other provinces have, the system is clearly under strain. That strain is showing, and people are very concerned.

We decided in this budget, consciously and clearly, to make this major commitment to our health care system -- whether it be on the capital side, with a new cancer treatment facility here in Victoria or in Kelowna, or whether it be on the operating side, with money to reduce waiting lists for emergency and elective surgery in British Columbia. This is a significant commitment that we make. It's one that we make consciously; it's one that we make proudly. It's one which helps to restore public confidence in the Canadian system -- the Canadian health care system.

I might at this time draw attention to a very prominent Canadian -- the chairman and chief executive officer of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Now, it's very unusual for me to quote approvingly the CEO of one of the major banks in Canada -- which, by the way, just recorded record profits again. It's interesting that even the bankers in Canada, and Charles Baillie in particular, talked about the medicare system in Canada as one of our key competitive advantages as a nation. Unlike the neighbour to the south of us, which has no universal medicare system -- and 30 million Americans have no health care at all -- Canada has developed a unique system, which means that no matter where you live in this country and no matter what your income is, you have a right to public access to universal medicare.

What Charles Baillie said in this very interesting speech is that we now must make a long-term commitment to health care. In fact, he would go further, I think, and does go further, with respect to other provinces and the national government on the medicare front. In British Columbia we are leading the country. Maclean's magazine knows that. Every other province knows that, and the people of British Columbia know that. We are leading the country with a significant investment in health care to restore public confidence in our system.

[ Page 12195 ]

I think that also talks about choices and values. With the teachers' union -- and I compliment them for that collective agreement -- and the government and yes, the employers. . . . We all know that if we want young people to get ahead in a very competitive world, an increasingly competitive world, we must provide the resources for those young people today. We know that pedagogically -- I'll check with the Minister of Education just to make sure I've got that correct -- the best place to put new resources in the education system is in the kindergarten-to-grade-3 years. If we make that investment now, it pays dividends in the future. You can look that up, hon. members over there, if you want.

[1135]

We made a significant commitment beyond grade 12. It is always interesting that about 100 years ago in the west, people decided collectively. . . . Not even New Democrats but society decided collectively that they should provide a free, publicly funded education to all the citizens of the west from grade 1 to grade 10 and later to grade 12, because our ancestors knew that literacy was a key to democracy, a key to the economy and a key to a successful society. It's interesting to me that we stopped thinking about education after those historic changes 50 and 100 years ago. I think it's true for everybody that grade 12 is not sufficient if we want our young people to be successful. Why is it free from kindergarten to grade 12, but after grade 12 you have to pay for it? If you have to pay for it -- and those obstacles to post-secondary education are real -- it means that those from lower-income families or from remote districts of Canada and British Columbia will not have the same access. Surely, if we believe in mobility, if we believe in equal opportunity, if we believe in giving access to education no matter where they live, we must start to begin thinking about extending access to education beyond grade 12 -- beyond just the bare minimum of literacy. We must provide our young people with the tools they need to be successful in a modern and competitive economy, and that means more than grade 12. It means post-secondary education and training.

I am proud that in this budget we have again increased the funding for post-secondary education; we have increased the spaces again. And we have frozen tuition fees in this province for the fourth consecutive year. So we have gone from the second-highest tuition fees in Canada to the second-lowest in the land in these four years, and we won't stop until we're the lowest in Canada. We have gone from the second-lowest participation rate in colleges and universities to the second-highest in Canada in four short years. Shortsighted people on the other side of the House say that we shouldn't be investing and that we should raise tuition fees. If we want our young people to be successful in the modern economy, this is exactly the kind of investment we have to make. We have to make more investment, not less, in colleges and universities in British Columbia, and that's what this budget does.

The budget also deals, very clearly, with the other big issue in British Columbia, and that's the question of the economy. Clearly the issues, when you travel around, no matter which town you go to. . . . If you go to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Williams Lake, the Kootenays or Vancouver Island and you talk to the average citizens, they talk about health care, they talk about education for their children -- they want the future for their children to be as good as or better than it was for them -- and they also talk about the economy. There's no question that our economy has lagged behind and that we have suffered from the Asian crisis -- that it has impacted us significantly. We must do what we can to make a difference both in the economy generally and to help people who are struggling to deal with the effects of a poor economy.

This budget cut small business income taxes more than anywhere in Canada. It's the largest tax cut ever for small business in British Columbia, and I'm proud of that. We know, and British Columbians know -- and I suspect that even the opposition knows, although they won't admit it -- that the engine of the economy in the 1990s and beyond is small and medium-sized businesses. They're generating the jobs, and they're generating more jobs in British Columbia now than anywhere in Canada in the last couple of years. This tax cut will make a difference for them, and they will create more jobs.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

In the budget, as well, are some significant resources for housing initiatives. Housing is clearly struggling in British Columbia. We want to try to make housing more affordable for young families and stimulate the economy.

[1140]

The Minister of Finance has allocated $20 million for a high-tech strategy. The high-technology component of our economy is rising, and rising rapidly. We know that these are not unrelated. The quality health care system, significant investment in post-secondary education and, yes, now a high-tech strategy developed by the Minister of Advanced Education working with the Minister of Finance to make sure that this part of our economy continues to grow -- continues to outstrip other parts of the economy. . . . We know that in this province, when you look ahead ten or 20 years -- with the kind of amenities we have, with the educational resources we have and with a sound and focused government agenda -- we can make a difference and grow this sector of the economy so that it will ultimately be the largest sector of the economy in our province.

[ Page 12196 ]

This budget lays the path and sets out the choices we have made. It sets out the choices on small business. It sets out choices for a new and diversified economy. It sets out choices to help create jobs in our province. It sets out choices on health care. It sets out choices on education and post-secondary education. We also in this budget -- and it's true -- have a significant commitment to building the province. Again, that's in marked contrast to the members across the way. We are committed to infrastructure investment in this province -- again, to ensure competitiveness and to ensure the quality of life of our citizens. So in this budget is a commitment to SkyTrain technology and the expansion of SkyTrain all the way from Coquitlam to Vancouver. That's what we're committed to. That will make a difference.

In this budget is a Highways budget to make sure that the Hart Bridge in Prince George is built, and built with local labour. In this budget is a commitment to the Island Highway to make sure that not only is it a highway that works, but that we're making the investment so that it works for years to come -- with four-laning from Courtenay to Campbell River. In this budget is investment in, yes, the Lions Gate Bridge -- you might actually support this, members over there on the North Shore -- to make sure that that landmark bridge is there for generations to come and, of course, in a fifth lane -- an HOV lane -- on the Port Mann Bridge across to the Fraser Valley.

There's so much in this budget, hon. Speaker, that I could speak for hours. But I only have a couple of minutes. I just have a minute left, and I didn't get a chance to talk about the alternative agenda across the way. The alternative agenda just stripped bare is very simple. They believe that we've made the wrong choices. They want to see radical cuts -- $3.2 billion in cuts -- to health care and education, shortchanging our children's future, because they want to give that money away to big corporations and the richest people in our province. That's their agenda. Contrasted with our agenda, the choice has never been clearer, and I've never been prouder to be sitting on this side of the House. With that, I move the debate. . . .

[1145]

[1150]

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada