This is the fifth budget that I have seen as the MLA for Shuswap. It seems that some things just continue on, year after year. It seems like only a few hours ago that we once again went through the exercise of passing a few hundred million dollars in special warrants. In fact it was just a few hours ago that we did that, and again this year we are discussing another deficit budget from this current NDP government.

My constituents are very concerned about the financial direction of this province. They're very concerned about the budgets that are produced by the NDP. Whether you're in Sicamous or Salmon Arm or Enderby or Armstrong -- the north Shuswap -- everyone is concerned with the lack of good fiscal management in this province.

I think that this particular budget is disappointing because this government had an opportunity to change directions and didn't exercise that. Over the past six months, I guess, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from candidates for the leadership of the NDP, from NDP cabinet ministers and backbenchers, about a new vision, a new direction for British Columbia. I think that in fact many British Columbians were prepared to offer them that -- a second look, a second opportunity to actually restore some responsibility, some confidence, some trust in their government.

But what people are looking for particularly is performance, not promises. Over the last nine years British Columbians have been privy to a constant stream of hollow promises from this government. We'll talk about some of those promises today. People want performance. They want to see real, actual evidence that the government has changed direction. They want to see performance, and they have not seen that.

The government had an opportunity in this budget to deliver change, to deliver a departure from the seemingly endless stream of deficit budgets which this government has produced and a move away from the ballooning debt that I think haunts the future of this province for our children and our grandchildren. They had an opportunity to do what virtually every government in every other jurisdiction in the western world has done, and that is to achieve a balanced budget and to set the jurisdiction on a debt reduction and debt management plan. On both those counts, the NDP has failed once again.

[1015]

In many respects -- in fact, virtually all respects -- British Columbia is the envy of the world. Just look at our human resources, our energetic and educated people that we have in British Columbia. You look at the remarkable natural resources we have in British Columbia, most prominently our forests, but many other resources as well -- natural resources that are the envy of the rest of the world. Look at our climate; look at our geography. Look at our opportunities for international trade that other provinces and other jurisdictions in the world simply don't have. You add all that up. You look at all the B.C. advantages. You ask: why not? Why don't we have a balanced budget? Why don't we have a huge surplus budget, in fact, as Alberta does?

The fact of the matter is that while we may have a great province -- and certainly we do -- we have the worst government in the western world and certainly the worst government in North America north of Havana. In fact, there are many days in this chamber when I think that we can look to Havana and Fidel's experiment in Havana and say it has been a spectacular success in comparison to the NDP government in British Columbia. Fidel, at least, would not have launched his own fast ferry fleet only to disavow it a few short years later.

So why not? Because we've got a very bad government. Did the NDP deliver on the opportunity that they had and on the opportunity that British Columbians were prepared to give them? No, they blew it; they blew it once again, hon. Speaker. By every vital measure, this government -- this budget -- continues the pattern of failure, mismanagement, incompetence and recklessness that has characterized NDP governments over the past nine years.

Let's look at some of those measures. The ninth consecutive deficit budget in British Columbia -- I am sure that there is no government in the history of British Columbia that has failed to balance the budget for nine consecutive times. Perhaps there's no jurisdiction in Canada that has. I don't know. It certainly seems like a record to me. In fact, budget days in British Columbia always remind me of that movie, Groundhog Day, where Bill Murray gets up every day and relives

[ Page 14652 ]

Other measures -- $3 billion more in taxpayer-supported debt, an astonishing figure in one year. In fact, the total provincial debt in British Columbia has now grown to a staggering $36.5 billion. I'll make a frank admission here. I had to sit down and set out the number of zeros involved in $36.5 billion to get some sense of it. I don't think any of us can even imagine the enormity of the problem that this government is creating for the people of British Columbia -- for our children and our grandchildren. This government's recklessness is penalizing our children, our grandchildren -- and probably their descendants as well, by the time these guys are finished.

An Hon. Member: A lot of zeros.

G. Abbott: A lot of zeros. When you consider that it took 125 years of previous British Columbia governments to get us $16 billion in debt. . . . It's taken this band of incompetents nine years to more than double the total taxpayer-supported debt in the province. It is an astonishing pattern of recklessness and mismanagement in the province of British Columbia.

[1020]

I guess the next question we had -- and we hear a lot of this from the government side, so I think we should address it -- is: did we need to get into this mess, particularly considering the things we talked about earlier -- the people, the resources, the trading opportunities? Did we have to get into this mess in British Columbia? No, we didn't. In fact, we saw from the Finance minister the other day a not quite subtle, not quite indirect -- it was fairly overt -- reference to this problem, when he said: "No more megaprojects." We certainly salute that on this side of the House, although without much confidence that they won't blunder in some other area of public policy and lead us further down an unfortunate path.

This NDP government has wasted billions on ill-planned and ill-conceived megaprojects, costly business subsidies, bail-outs, politically driven labour settlements. We talked a little about this the other day. I think we are still promised an explanation of this from the Finance minister. About $600 million in the budget this year is a product of politically driven labour settlements and, of course, needless red tape, of which my favourite as Forests critic is the Forest Practices Code. Perhaps if we have the time and an opportunity, we can talk a little bit more about that.

Two examples of the NDP's recklessness and the consequences for the people of British Columbia are $463 million-and-counting on fast ferries, something which the NDP now readily acknowledges was a failed experiment, and $73 million on the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre -- again, another failed project by this government. Last night we talked about it in the supply debate, and I understand that there have been some recoveries. They've recovered a couple of million dollars for salvaged walkways, so that's great. I think that what we should use those walkways for, hon. Speaker, is to set up what would be the equivalent on a fast ferry fleet of walking the plank, where we can actually put the cabinet ministers on there, and without any expenditure of energy or in fact brainpower on their part, simply send them off the end. I think that the people of British Columbia would be most delighted with that innovative use of that particular part of the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre -- or what would have been had it actually taken some definitive shape.

[1025]

Rather than enumerate those things, I want to talk about some of the problems that I don't think get the same recognition -- some of the present and looming liabilities around the Ministry of Forests. This is just to give people a sense of the kind of situation that has been created in this province. We've got the Skeena Cellulose bailout, and I think we can estimate the present and looming liability with respect to that to be in the $250 million to $350 million range. We have certainly completed the MacMillan Bloedel -- now Weyerhaeuser -- settlement for lands and cutting rights expropriated by this government -- $85 million. There is no question about that; that's $85 million plus interest.

We have the huge looming liability of the Carrier Lumber suit, where this government knowingly deceived a company in British Columbia and has been found responsible for that by a Supreme Court justice. The looming liability there has been estimated at $150 million at least and quite possibly more. We have a suit launched by Husby Forest Products up in the Queen Charlotte Islands around some of the same kinds of issues and questions that prompted the Carrier Lumber suit. Who knows how much that is going to be? We have suits in the courts around the government's treatment of royalties on timber licences, certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This has got to be a huge concern to the people of British Columbia. Not only the obvious things like the fast ferries. There are land mines everywhere that have been planted by this government's incompetence, mismanagement and recklessness.

The phrase that came to my mind most frequently as I listened to the Finance minister the other day was the old adage "Talk is cheap." What you need to do in order to assess the talk of this government is look and compare promises to performance. Let's just look at a few of those. In 1995 the Finance minister of the day said that they would deliver the debt management plan. This promised to deliver budget surpluses in 1995-96 and '96-97 and pay down $10.2 billion of debt over 20 years.

Well, how did they do on that one? I certainly remember when I was running for this esteemed office in 1996 that one of the frequent bragging points of the NDP government was that

[ Page 14653 ]

The 1995 debt management plan was, as one might expect, an abject failure. What do they come back with? The 1997 financial management plan. This promised to balance the budget in '97-98. Did they do it? No. Another massive deficit budget. As a consequence of that failure, in 1998 we saw the modified financial plan. This promised to balance the budget in 1999-2000. That would have been last year. Again it's another deficit budget -- well in excess of a $1 billion deficit. We'll talk a little bit more in a moment about that.

The failure of that produced the 1999 five-year fiscal planning framework. This promised to balance the budget in 2002-2003. How are they doing on that promise? We're still a couple or three years away from 2002-2003, and they've already acknowledged that they're not going to make that target.

[1030]

G. Abbott: "How disappointing" is right. I can't imagine how disappointing it is to the people of British Columbia to see that.

The newest projection from this government, courtesy of the Finance minister the other day, is to balance the budget in 2004-2005. Now, we don't know whether that is on a western calendar or Islamic calendar or whatever; that's not made clear here. There may be a little bit of wiggle room here in terms of 2004-2005. I'm thinking that perhaps the government should tie -- I'm speaking to the Finance minister here for a moment -- the next balanced budget to the reappearance of Halley's comet or something like that. That would give them a little more flexibility in terms of managing things in British Columbia.

We see again, year after year after year, more promises about balancing the budget, more promises about debt management, and they never come through, hon. Speaker. And there's a reason: they have a huge spending problem here. The NDP have a huge spending problem in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: It's great. We're finally getting some spirit out of the Finance minister. We certainly didn't see it when he was delivering his budget the other day. He was quite embarrassed, in fact, to be doing it. I'm happy to see him giving us some spirited responses now.

I think the most amazing thing is that when you look at this government, they had over $1 billion in unanticipated revenue in the last fiscal year -- right?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Yeah? He agrees. The most remarkable thing is that you'd think, oh, they have over $1 billion in unanticipated revenue; surely they're going to balance the budget, because it was less than $1 billion that was projected in the spring of 1999 for the budget. No, no. They go out and spend that billion and more. They go even deeper into deficit than they anticipated. It's incredible. How can a government do that?

Well, they can do it because they have absolutely no control over spending -- absolutely no control over spending. They are completely incapable of managing.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Yeah, that's right. We're hearing now from the first mate on the fast ferry fleet here, from Powell River.

We know that British Columbians can't run their homes and businesses like the NDP runs the government of British Columbia. We know they can't. We know what would happen if British Columbians, over nine years, spent way more -- in fact, in the case of the government, billions and billions and billions more -- than they took in. We know, at minimum, that all our credit cards would be seized. Further, we know that we might lose our homes and businesses. In fact, I think that if some people had the spending problem the NDP has, we'd probably be institutionalized and forced to take some kind of remedial treatment for the spending problem. It's simply a huge problem, and unfortunately, they've made it a huge problem for the people of British Columbia. As I said, they've got a debilitating spending problem, took in more money than they expected last year -- and still a massive deficit budget.

Now, all of this very reckless spending has had a profound impact on the business climate and the investment prospects of British Columbia. It has produced what is termed "the B.C. discount." The B.C. discount is particularly evident in the critic area which I'm honoured to have, forests. This NDP government has taken the forest industry in British Columbia from being the most competitive, most vibrant, powerful industry, certainly in the western world -- the B.C. forest industry -- and through their reckless taxes, their utter devotion to regulation, regulation and more regulation, they have systematically undermined the competitiveness of the forest industry in the province.

[1035]

G. Abbott: I'm glad one of the members opposite raised the point. I recall attending a news conference, about two or three years ago now, down in the press theatre. The former Forests minister was there, along with the former Environment minister. They were at a table, and behind them were great, huge stacks of white paper. The point of the news conference was to say that as a government, they were going to reform the Forest Practices Code. They were going to move toward a results-based Forest Practices Code, and the consequence of that was going to be that all of those great, huge stacks of paper would be disappearing from the province and from the Forest Practices Code.

One of the newsmen there that day -- I think it was Vaughn Palmer -- asked some questions of the ministers. He said to the Forests minister: "So, over the past three years we have spent a billion dollars a year on administration on both the public and private side of the Forest Practices Code?"

[ Page 14654 ]

The ministers, I guess you can imagine, hon. Speaker, weren't quick to acknowledge that. But that's the fact: over a billion dollars has been sucked out of this province, sucked out of the forest industry unnecessarily, and it is, I'm afraid, entirely too typical of this NDP government -- that if a little regulation is good, a lot of regulation has to be a whole lot better. That's the philosophy that drives them, and that's the philosophy that is driving business out of the province of British Columbia.

This is a government that has absolutely battered the business climate in this province, and in turn this has stifled economic growth. By virtually any measure you might like to look at, this is an NDP government that has taken us from number one to number ten in the nation of Canada.

Again, there are a couple of things we might want to talk about briefly, in terms of that performance by this government. If we look, for example, at private sector investment growth between 1992 and 1999, at the top of the list we see New Brunswick with 118 percent growth in private sector investment over that period. Even Newfoundland, which used to be regarded with some amusement by this part of the world. . . . Newfoundland's performance was 87 percent.

Now we look down to tenth, down to the bottom of the list. We can see the economy that -- I think, entirely unnecessarily -- has become the basket case of the Canadian scene: British Columbia, '92 to '99, 11.1 percent in private sector investment growth, the worst performance in Canada. This is despite the incredible resources that we have in the province -- astonishing! The only other province that's even close to us -- and they're a long ways away -- was Prince Edward Island, with 41.6 percent growth over that period. B.C.'s 11.1 percent -- it is an astonishing testament to the incompetence, the mismanagement of the current administration that this occurs.

I see, hon. Speaker, that my time is very nearly up. Certainly I would like to note that B.C. is also last of the ten provinces in terms of job creation over the '96-to-'99 period and certainly last in economic growth overall.

[1040]

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, given that this is also my first opportunity, let me add my congratulations to you on your elevation to the Speaker's chair. I know that you'll carry out your duties in a fair and appropriate manner, and I look forward to this next session of the Legislature with you in the chair.

Having said that, I'm pleased to rise to speak to the budget today. Every time a budget is introduced in this Legislature, each of us -- or at least I -- look back on previous budgets and previous governments and look at the trend on where we've come from. That draws to mind what British Columbia is founded on. Each budget presents to us a vision for the future, a vision of the government and where they think British Columbia should go.

When we think of that, we should also think about where British Columbia has come from, because this province is a place that is founded on generations of hard work. From the first day that the first wave of immigrants hit our shore and joined the first nations in British Columbia, they worked hard. They built this province by the sweat of their brow and the hard work that comes from people who believe that if they work hard, the future will be better for their children.

My great-grandparents were amongst those immigrants. They came in the 1800s, and when they came to these shores, they came here with nothing. They came from Scotland, because they believed that what they would find in British Columbia would be better than what they left behind. They believed that this province would offer their children a future that they couldn't have back in Scotland. They came here with absolutely nothing to their name, because they knew that if they worked hard and they believed in their future, they could make something of it.

When we look at this budget today, hon. Speaker, you can say to yourself: what has happened to that sacrifice that not just that generation made but every other generation made to work hard in British Columbia to make the future better? What happened when this government presented its ninth consecutive deficit budget? What is this government's view of all that sacrifice those people made, when they come forward with another budget that fritters away our future rather than putting money aside to protect for future generations; when they build up a deficit and a debt that will eventually have to be paid back by future generations; when they build up a debt, the interest on which every day encroaches on our ability to pay for health care and education? What does that tell us about their view of the sacrifice that those generations of people made for British Columbia -- for their children?

My great-grandparents came here in the 1870s. Shortly after them, generations of Chinese immigrants came to British Columbia's shores. Those people worked hard too. They came across the ocean, not knowing what they could expect here. They endured unbelievable racism; they risked their lives to carve the railway out of the side of the Fraser Canyon -- for peanuts. They did it because they believed that British Columbia would offer them and their children something better than what they had back home -- something better than where they came from. They believed in this place. They believed that if they came here, worked hard and dreamed big, they could achieve anything they wanted to. They would have the freedom to build something here.

[1045]

[ Page 14655 ]

Since 1991, British Columbia has gone from being the best economic performer in the country to being the worst. We've gone from having a health care system that was the envy of the world to having a health care system that everybody recognizes is crumbling. We've gone from having a world-class education system that people flocked to, to take part in, to an education system that no one feels they can depend on anymore. What's happened in British Columbia? All those opportunities, all those dreams have been frittered away by a government that believes that it can keep spending beyond its means and that if they do, they will never, ever have to pay the price for that.

This seems to be a government that believes that it doesn't matter how much they spend -- that it doesn't matter about keeping the bottom line -- because somehow, magically, they won't ever have to pay the money back. They are right about this. They will not have to pay the money back. It's not going to be them that has to pay it back; it's going to be future generations of people that have to pay it back.

When we look at the record of this government over the last ten years and recognize that they're New Democrats, let's look back at where the New Democrats come from. Let's look back to where they were founded in Saskatchewan. Let's look back to what their founder Tommy Douglas would have said about this party and about this government's inability to live within its means. Let's think about what Tommy Douglas would have said today about this budget. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he was a man who said that if you wanted to care for people, you needed to be fiscally prudent -- that government couldn't spend beyond its means, because government would then make itself hostage to the big banks. Tommy Douglas was a man who believed that every penny you paid in interest on your debt, you weren't putting into social programs to care for people. He was a man who fundamentally said that every cent you're in hock to the banks makes it harder for you to control your own destiny, and I agree with him on that. He's the man who founded the NDP.

That's something that the current Minister of Education used to say he believed in too. Sorry -- the current Minister of Employment. They change so often, it's hard to keep track. That's why they give us a map on our desks of what the ministers are responsible for; they keep shifting them around. I'll refer to him as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, a man who, when he sat on this side of the House, used to say he believed in those things -- in fiscal prudence, in being conservative about our future, in taking care about how much money we spent so that we weren't mortgaging away the future. That's what Tommy Douglas believed in.

[1050]

We've got the Deputy Premier who presided over Treasury Board when the fast ferries were being put through. And what happened? What was the price she paid for that fiasco, for visiting a half-billion dollars of waste on the taxpayers of British Columbia? What happened to her? Did she get fired? No, she got promoted. That's the way things work over there in the NDP. What would Tommy Douglas have said about that?

What would he have said about a government that decided it was okay to fritter away a half-billion dollars of taxpayers' money on fast ferries, on a project that everyone told them all along the way was going to fail. What would he have said about a government that refused to come clean with British Columbians when they were asked throughout the process to provide the information -- to provide a business plan? What would he have said about a government that did that? What would he have said about a government who, rather than firing the perpetrators of this fiasco, promoted them?

What would he have said about a Premier who decided, while he was running for leader, that he wanted to get to the bottom of the fast ferry fiasco, that he thought those parliamentary hearings -- the legislative committee looking into it -- should have an opportunity to get to the bottom of it? Then, of course, when he becomes leader, he decides to change his mind. He's got enough information: "Sorry, I made a mistake." Guess what, folks. He's already leader. He doesn't need to worry about keeping the promises that he made. What would your founder have said about that -- the founder of the NDP?

I think that if he was alive today, he would look at what's going on in Saskatchewan with their NDP government and say: "You know, they're living a little bit truer to the founding principles of the NDP than this crew here." What would he have said about a government that has brought in a deficit of $1.2 billion -- their ninth consecutive deficit? What would he have said about a government that has a $36.5 billion debt? What would he have said about a government that's paying $7.7 million every single day in interest? And it's getting worse. You know what? Tommy Douglas would look down, and he would say: "At least in Saskatchewan they're trying to get things under control."

How many consecutive balanced budgets have they had in Saskatchewan? How many? How much interest have they paid down on their debt? They're paying $200 million less. British Columbia's paying $300 million more. You've got to ask yourself, hon. Speaker. . . . When this government sits there and says, "We're still not the worst of all the indicators in

[ Page 14656 ]

This government trumpeted in its budget that we had the lowest business taxes in the country. Gee, we did, for small business, for 22 hours, until New Brunswick introduced their budget with a lower small business tax. Here we've got a government where promises don't last a year; they don't last a day. A promise is good for 22 hours. That's where things stand with this government. That's the best they can do. That's the big promise that they offered in their budget, and it didn't even hold good for 22 hours.

This is a government that doesn't understand the fundamentals of running an enterprise as large as British Columbia, a government that doesn't understand the link between investment and jobs, a government that doesn't understand the link between hard work and productivity, a government that doesn't understand the link between being honest with the public and getting the respect of the public. That's why this government is so profoundly unpopular with the public -- a public that knows they have been betrayed, by people who said, in the first instance, that they'd balanced the budget and then said that they'd balanced the budget again. They went to the people, got elected on that promise and then within days told the public that it wasn't true.

[1055]

These budgets have never ever been based on anything real. The government put them forward because they know they have to. They then try to come up with some cynical explanation of how they're going to do something in the future, how they're going to balance the budget -- to try and deceive the public again. People in British Columbia are hip to the facts, ladies and gentlemen. They know that this government is incapable of keeping its promises. They know that when this government says it intends to get its budgets under control, it isn't telling the truth. They know that when the current Premier stood and promised that he would balance the budget during the leadership. . . . I'm sure no one had any expectation that he would keep that promise either. I'm sure they weren't surprised anymore when the Minister of Finance got up and delivered the Premier's budget, and it had yet another deficit in it. I'm sure no one is surprised by now. The level of cynicism in British Columbia is so high.

What have we got here? How has the government strayed from the founding principles that they all say they still believe in? What we've got across from us in this Legislature is a group of people who came of age in politics in the 1960s -- people who came of age in British Columbia when there was lots of money to spend, when government seemed to have a bottomless pit of dollars, when the economy seemed to be expanding. We have an era of people here whose founding principles for their political views are based in the 1960s. Sixties radicals sit across from us, and there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of people were radicals in the 1960s -- lots of people. Lots of people went to Woodstock. But then again, some didn't. Lots of people went to see Martin Luther King speak. But then again, some didn't. I understand that there might have been some New Democrats there when they made the first moon landing. There might have been some New Democrats who scored that goal in 1972. But then again, there might not have been any. I don't know.

My point is that there were a lot of people who went through the 1960s and bought into that radicalism. The fact of the matter now is that most of those people left that sixties radicalism behind. They came to understand, when they started their small businesses, started taking care of their families, started running their homes and started getting into the real world, that those economic theories just don't work. That's what they came to understand. Most people who went through the 1960s -- through those heady days of radicalism, through those days when government seemed to have nothing but money to spend and the economy seemed to be expanding constantly -- have since then forgotten.

[1100]

They don't have the privilege that the rest of us do to sit in this Legislature and talk about laws and budgets. They have to live that stuff every day. Every day that this government keeps going down the course that it has chosen, where it's mortgaging our future and the interest on the debt is going up so high that we're really losing our ability to salvage our health care and education systems. . . . Every day that happens and every day that taxes get higher for people -- the regulatory burden gets heavier for people -- is another day that somebody can't make it.

All those people that started out as sixties radicals came out of the other end of it, started their own small businesses and went out. . . .

One of the things that the government has got to understand -- one of the things that I don't think anybody on that other side understands -- is that when someone loses their small business, they lose their life's dream. What if they lose their home? They lose the place where they feed their family every morning, if their mortgage is foreclosed on or if their business is foreclosed on. If they lose their job, it's only a matter. . . . When they have to go home and tell their family, tell their children that there isn't another paycheque coming in or that their paycheque from the mine that used to pay them $60,000 a year has been converted into a minimum-wage job flipping burgers at McDonald's. . . . When they have to go

[ Page 14657 ]

Members on the other side laugh, joke and scoff about that, but that's pretty serious business for British Columbians. What is it that this government thinks all these people are leaving British Columbia for? Why do they think that kids in British Columbia, when they graduate from university and high school, don't stay here in the numbers that they used to? Why do they think that people aren't coming from everywhere anymore to be a part of British Columbia? It's because the NDP have taken British Columbia, have taken those generations of sacrifices, and have frittered it away.

Not only have they frittered away people's hopes and dreams for the future, not only have they frittered away our economy and our strength, but they've gone out and frittered away people's opportunity to be taken care of by our social safety net. This government has gone out and carved huge gaps in our ability to care for people.

There were a lot of people in British Columbia in 1991, including me, who would have said: "You know what? The NDP is totally incompetent at running the economy. Everybody knows that. The NDP couldn't add a balance sheet if it tried. Everybody knows that. The NDP isn't interested in running balanced budgets or being fiscally prudent or taking care of the future. Everybody knows that." But a lot of people would have said: "At least they'll take all that borrowed money, and they'll spend it on taking care of people."

Well, what's happened in British Columbia? We see increasing poverty; we see increasing food bank use; we see increasing waiting lists for health care; we see a crumbling education system. That's what we see. We see a declining quality of education in post-secondary institutions. We see people deprived of hope every day.

There is nothing so symbolic as when you walk down the street in the downtown east side, and every day you see a few more people living there who maybe used to be able to get care for their mental illness somewhere else -- people who are maybe confused. They're dirty; maybe they don't have any shoes. Maybe it's not a whole bunch of people, but certainly it's got to symbolize what's going on with the NDP.

[1105]

I believe that we can return British Columbia to the place that it once was. It has been ten years. It has been a lost decade of opportunity. It has been a decade of decline into recession. It has been a decade where people are leaving our province instead of coming here. It's been a decade of diminished health care, a decade of a government that's so obsessed with staying in power that its members will do anything and say anything to keep their places on the cabinet benches.

You know what we can do, hon. Speaker? We can restore hope in British Columbia. It can be done; it's not too late. We can give B.C. back to all those people who built it. We can honour the sacrifices that those generations of immigrants made for our province. We can honour the sacrifices that people make every day to make the lives of their children just a little bit better. We can do that, hon. Speaker. You know how it's going to be done? It's going to be done by a government coming in that's fiscally responsible -- a government that understands that if you keep spending beyond your means, you won't have any means left to take care of health care and education.

Let's look at the NDP formula for success so far. The NDP has decided that if you just keep taxing people, and you tax people to the max, then what you'll do is get more money for government. Well, the fact is that you don't. The fact is that the NDP doesn't get more money for government. Then what they do is say: "Well, gee, we can't afford to pay for these social programs anymore." So we end up with less ability to take care of the people that need the help. On the one hand, they tax people out of work, so that there are more people who need help. They have less money coming into government, so they can't care for the people who need the help. What's happened in British Columbia? The NDP formula for success means higher taxes, higher unemployment, fewer social services. And they look at us and say: "So what's your solution? Gee, wouldn't you keep on the same track and go with the status quo?" Of course not.

What we need in British Columbia is to kick-start the economy. When this government says that it is a new government, they must be misleading us, because we're on the same old track we've always been on. You know, what we need in British Columbia is a bold, courageous, gutsy government -- a government that shows some leadership and is prepared to make the tough decisions. What about this, for example? The NDP's formula of increasing taxes hasn't worked -- hasn't worked a bit. Why don't they try what's worked in every single other jurisdiction where they're tried it? Why don't they lower personal income taxes? You know what? If the government lowers personal income taxes and puts more money in people's pockets, they'll go out and create economic activity. And guess what. Here's the secret the NDP doesn't seem to understand. If you do that, revenues to government actually go up, and that's been shown in every single jurisdiction where it's been tried.

[1110]

[ Page 14658 ]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: First, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is my father John Bowbrick and his wife Alinda Ware. I'd ask all members of the House to join me in making them welcome.

As I join this debate today, I've had the privilege of listening. And listening to the last two opposition members speak, I guess one of the things I'll commit to at the outset is that I won't engage in some of the rhetoric I heard from the member for Shuswap. I don't think it's helpful in public discourse to engage in the level of silliness that involves comparing the government of British Columbia to the government of Cuba or calling it the worst in the western world. The last time I checked, British Columbians weren't flocking to Cuba and asking for asylum. That's just a level of silliness that doesn't shed any light on the issues that British Columbians care about.

I want to address a number of aspects of this budget and then maybe offer some somewhat more philosophical views as to why I support a number of elements in the budget. But first, I'd like to touch upon the issue of process. My colleague the Minister of Finance introduced a couple of days ago the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which I think is milestone legislation not just in this province but probably anywhere in this country. People have the right to see where their money is going and to be able to see it clearly. All rhetoric aside -- and we hear it constantly from the opposition benches, unfortunately -- that's something that people have never been able to see in the history of this province. What this legislation will do is end many poor practices in budgeting that have permeated budgeting in this province for decades under governments of various stripes.

We know that under Social Credit there were references to the BS fund, for example, and I know that there are probably many opposition members sitting there right now who voted for those governments. In fact, as we hear in the nomination process that's going on for the opposition Liberals right now, there are some people who sat in the cabinets of those Social Credit administrations who are seeking nominations. And I'm sure the opposition will welcome them with open arms. The point is that British Columbians have a right -- all partisanship aside -- to see an end to those types of questionable budgeting practices and to see clearly where their dollars are being spent.

One of the first items I'd like to move on to, in terms of the budget itself, is the tax cuts that are contained in this budget. I think the key is affordability and moderation. The key, in terms of moderation, is to balance the affordability of tax cuts with the need to control the deficit. Indeed, as the economy grows this year, I hope to perhaps even see the deficit lowered. Certainly that's what we saw in the past year.

Now, we need to talk about the impact of tax cuts. There's no question in my mind that tax cuts do stimulate economic activity, but here's the lesson: I have yet to see any evidence that they actually will increase the revenues of government. I actually asked my staff, when I was still sitting on the back bench, to contact the Fraser Institute and ask for the studies that showed a causal relationship between tax cuts and actual increases in government revenue -- not a correlation, but an actual causal relationship -- and I haven't seen it yet.

[1115]

In terms of some of the specific initiatives around income taxes -- taxes generally -- I'm only going to mention new initiatives here. There's $175 million resulting from changes to federal taxes that we supported. For years, of course, provinces benefited from piggybacking on federal tax rates. As taxes went up, provinces benefited. So when federal taxes are on their way down, I think provinces are under an obligation to pass on those savings. That's exactly what we've done in this budget. In addition to that, we've added $50 million more of our own tax cuts this year and $70 million next year. These are targeted specifically to middle- and lower-income people.

With our income tax rates in British Columbia, we've also indexed them to inflation to eliminate bracket creep, just as has been done on the federal level. That's a fair thing to do for taxpayers.

Now, when it comes to other taxes, what I would call other personal taxes. . . . I'm pleased with this one in particular, as the minister responsible for technology in this province. One of the things we did in this budget is we made sure that we passed on what amounts to $33 million in provincial tax cuts around capital gains on stock options. This is particularly important in the high-tech sector, where stock options are used as a means of compensation, particularly with small, growing companies. So that amounts to another form of tax cut. For those who are critical that there aren't enough in the way of tax cuts for higher-income earners, I mean, we know we're already bringing down the marginal tax rate in this province. But the passing on of the savings on capital gains -- a tax cut on stock options or deferral -- is another example of trying to stimulate that sector.

When it comes to business taxes, we have the small business tax cut, which is down to 4.75 percent on July 1. Now, I hear the opposition saying, "Oh well, X number of hours later" -- I think they say -- "New Brunswick brought in a lower rate," and they mock us. You know, it's interesting. I think the point that most British Columbians want to see is that we have a competitive tax system wherever possible. So whether it's the lowest or the second-lowest -- and it's very close -- the point is that when it comes to our small business income tax rate, we have the most or amongst the most competitive tax structures in the country when it comes to that particular tax.

[ Page 14659 ]

Now, on education. I'm trying to go through this reasonably quickly, because I think this is just fairly informational in terms of what's contained in the budget. And as I said earlier, then I have some more philosophical views to offer about this budget and where it takes us and some personal views on issues like tax cuts and debt and deficit.

I want to focus now on education for a moment. In kindergarten-to-grade-12 this year, we'll be hiring 300 new teachers. I want to raise this specifically, because the opposition has a habit of saying, "Oh, look. You're not really zero-zero-and-2; look at the cost of accords," and what have you. Frankly, my response to that is to say: "Well, where do you think this money goes? Is there a big black hole into which it disappears?" No. The fact is that in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system, we're hiring 300 more teachers this year. That is the face of the accords they seek to minimize. So that's a real result: new teachers in our classrooms.

We're continuing this year with class size reduction. I don't think that there is another jurisdiction in this country that's actually reducing class size. I don't think that anybody in this chamber would seriously argue that a reduction in class sizes doesn't have a beneficial impact on the education of our children. This year we'll be down to an average of 22 students per class in grades 1 to 3.

[1120]

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I have to take a moment to say that I'm particularly pleased that in my own constituency of New Westminster, we're seeing two new middle schools being built: one at Glenbrooke and one in Queensborough. We have an expansion of Lord Kelvin Elementary happening. This is in a relatively small school district. It's got about 5,000 students right now, and we're physically adding 1,000 new spaces. That's a 20 percent increase in the physical infrastructure in my school district in two years. It's absolutely unprecedented, and I know it's greatly appreciated in the community that I represent.

Hon. Speaker, in post-secondary. . . . Of course, I know that in the estimates process, as minister responsible, I'll get the opportunity, and I look forward to having that debate in estimates. We have a record that's second to none in the country in this regard. Just to go over some of the post-secondary initiatives quickly. . . . We're now in the fifth year of our tuition freeze. We have gone from the beginning of the 1990s from a position of having the second highest tuition fees in Canada to now having the second lowest. Indeed, the only way that students would qualify for the lowest tuition fees in Canada is if they are actual residents of Quebec. So if you're a British Columbia student -- if you're graduating from a British Columbia high school this year -- the cheapest place for you to get a post-secondary education is right at home in British Columbia. It's an enormously popular initiative with students. I think the opposition is beginning to see that, which is why I see them waffling on this issue. I think I've seen the Leader of the Opposition say he's in favour of a freeze -- but with inflation, which doesn't really strike me as much of a freeze. Students don't buy it for a minute.

I think it's important to note that things like universities and colleges are the types of things people expect to be funded out of their tax dollars as much as possible. So when we get into tax comparisons between British Columbia and other jurisdictions like Alberta -- and I will touch briefly upon some -- it's important to bear in mind that some jurisdictions can have somewhat lower personal income taxes, but they're not using personal income taxes to make sure that their post-secondary institutions are as accessible as possible. In most categories of income earners -- for example, a family of four in Alberta -- any tax advantage they have by living in Alberta is quickly eaten up if they send a couple of kids to university. It disappears, and in fact, you end up with a British Columbia advantage if you're just looking at the bottom line for that family.

This year we're also adding $85 million to the overall funding of our post-secondary institutions. That's designed to assist with core funding but also to assist with the impact of the tuition freeze. I should add that that's exactly what university presidents asked this government for, and I won't go into the quotes and the press releases. But university presidents and representatives of the college sector are delighted with this budget. They're absolutely delighted with it, because they understand that they're getting a level of commitment to post-secondary education from this government that isn't seen with any other government in this country.

The other thing we've done in post-secondary education is added over 5,000 new spaces. Five thousand new spaces is completely unprecedented. I tend to be fairly cautious by nature in terms of making claims, but I will say that again. It is unprecedented -- certainly in this province. That's an enormous increase. That means almost 1,500 new spaces for our universities and over 3,500 spaces for our colleges. We're targeting 800 of those specifically as high-tech.

Hon. Speaker, I can touch briefly on areas like health care, again, to draw the opposition's attention to the nature of the accords and the zero-zero-and-2 negotiations we've had. Yes, extra costs. . . . We're hiring 600 new nurses this year. The opposition is funny. They'll argue against the accord, but they won't argue against the specifics that arise out of the accord, like the hiring of 600 new nurses. That wouldn't be politically expedient, and I know that political expedience is really what they're all about.

[1125]

[ Page 14660 ]

Of course, the other thing in the health care budget this year is new funding for doctor services. I believe that budget is now almost $2 billion just for doctor services. Again, I'd have to confirm this, but I suspect they're the most generously compensated in the country.

I want to touch for a moment upon the effect of tax cuts in this budget. The 100,000 lower-income earners in this province will end up paying no income tax at all as a result of this budget. A family of four with two incomes, at $60,000 a year, will see a 9 percent tax cut, and a family of four with $45,000 per year income will see almost a 10 percent tax cut.

I think it's worth noting on an interprovincial comparison -- for the benefit of those who may be following this debate and for the benefit of the opposition members -- that they can find this on pages 142 and 143 of "Budget 2000 Reports." There are a number of categories of families and individuals at various income levels comparing their overall tax burden -- not just income taxes but their overall tax burden -- between British Columbia and other provinces. I would argue that what's important, again, is that all taxes are included. The opposition loves to just talk about income taxes in the hope that people will think that what they're talking about is the overall tax burden. That doesn't shed a lot of light on public discourse. It's a cute manoeuvre, but it's not the type of thing that's going to make a fundamental difference to people at the end of the day. What matters is the overall tax burden. And in each of the categories that are listed there, British Columbia had the second-lowest taxes in overall tax burden -- not income taxes. Sometimes income taxes are a little bit higher, but in other areas taxes are lower.

Let me take one example. In these tables, property taxes in British Columbia average $1,168 a year net. I would take net to mean after the homeowner's grant is deducted. In Ontario, the property taxes average $2,800 a year. Why the huge difference? It's a huge difference simply because in Ontario the government provides less service than in British Columbia -- specifically, they have a whole budget area they're not responsible for. In Ontario, the government doesn't pay for income assistance; they off-loaded that onto municipalities. How do municipalities get the money to pay for it? They raise property taxes. It's the same taxpayer. It's a shell game. What matters is the overall tax burden.

When we look at an interprovincial comparison of total provincial and federal taxes in the categories that I've outlined -- a two-income family of four making $90,000 a year; a two-income family of four making $45,000 a year; a two-income family of four making $30,000 a year; an individual making $80,000 a year; a senior couple with equal pension incomes, with a total income of $30,000 a year -- all of them, in this province, have the second-lowest overall tax burden in the country. That's not necessarily personal income taxes but the total tax burden -- what has gone out of their pockets at the end of the day. I think that's what most people care about. That's what most people care about: what they actually take home. I just say that by way of trying to offer a little illumination on the tax issue.

I'd like to touch briefly upon the new economy, which we've highlighted in this budget, and specifically the high-tech sector. We have a number of inherent strengths in this province already when it comes to this sector. Our post-secondary education system produces a highly educated workforce that is needed in order to provide workers for this industry. I've already spoken with representatives of the industry who give us full marks for our policies when it comes to post-secondary education. We also put a great deal of money this year -- $117 million more -- into research and development, specifically the B.C. knowledge development fund.

Then I would argue there's a lifestyle advantage that exists in British Columbia. I think that if you talk to high-tech sector workers, many of them would say that yes, they may pay higher taxes than in California, but they feel safer living here. They prefer this as a place to raise their families. That's not to minimize the issue of brain drain; it's certainly an issue. I think that as a government, we have to be sensitive to the need for reasonably competitive tax regimes when it comes to all sectors, but specifically high-tech. We shouldn't take too ideological an approach. We should be governed by practical concerns.

[1130]

I want to offer some more philosophical views right now, or some views in terms of what I believe about some issues that are addressed in this budget and are raised as part of the whole budget debate. The first is on deficit. First, it's important to point out how we now keep the books in this province. When we talk about a deficit now, we're talking not just about operating spending but capital spending, combined. That's an important thing to note, because I think there is a difference between what we'll now call a deficit that involves capital spending versus operating spending. Capital spending is an investment in the future, for the most part. You're investing in assets, and there may be times when it's justifiable to run a deficit on that basis.

On the operating side, I think it's justifiable to run deficits, but not all the time. What all governments should do is work to bring down the deficit. I think that's what we're beginning to do in this budget. This budget is certainly an attempt to keep the deficit under control. I would argue ultimately, in a philosophical sense or in a public policy sense, that with the economy growing now and with us looking at the forecast for this budget being, I think, 2.2 percent economic growth this year, we should be taking a significant part of the benefit of that economic growth in terms of revenues and applying it to deficit reduction. That's something I will certainly argue for internally within government, and I think it's something that many of us believe we should be doing.

The approach to deficit reduction is not massive spending cuts that end up hurting the people who can least afford it. The approach is to take advantage of economic growth and apply some of those benefits in increased revenues to the deficit. I don't think that what I'm articulating is an unreasonable approach.

It's funny. The opposition Liberals berate the government for not balancing the budget this year. But I note that their

[ Page 14661 ]

I'd also like to touch for a moment on the issue of debt. I for one don't minimize the issue of debt and the importance of dealing with it at all. Having said that, I think it's important that we put debt into perspective in this province so that we can have a reasonable discourse about it. When we look at debt on a debt-to-GDP basis, this province still has the second- or third-lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the country. That's not to say that that's okay and that we shouldn't do anything about it. But we shouldn't be rushed into panic responses. That would make for very poor public policy.

We should also recognize that the debt that we have in this province mainly represents accumulated capital investments over time, not accumulated operating deficits. That means that it's schools, hospitals, roads, transit -- these types of things that we've paid for in the past. I think, as well, in terms of context on this issue, we know that in the late eighties we essentially had a capital deficit in this province. The government of the day had seriously neglected capital investment, particularly around schools.

[1135]

I also want to touch, for a moment, on why I support tax cuts in this budget. I know that the people I represent do feel squeezed. Many of them do struggle to get by. The overall tax burden in this country has risen with the overall level of debt. Certainly at the federal level, that's represented mainly cumulative operating deficits until very recent times. The tax burden went up accordingly. I guess I'm sometimes surprised by the overly ideological tone of the debate over taxes. There are those on the left who almost take the position that taxes are an inherent good and defend taxes in and of themselves. There are those on the right who just say that taxes are bad. It's a simplistic debate that isn't useful at all.

On the left, I think we have to focus on the end that we seek, which is the creation of a better society. We believe that the government plays an important role in this. On the right, I think the tax cut debate is really an attempt to use the popularity of tax cuts to mask what is an unpopular agenda, which is to minimize the role of government. There are many who are ideologically on the right and want massive tax cuts who won't, for a moment, politically dare to come out and say that they're in favour of private health care, for example. So they use the popular part of their agenda to mask a very hard-core ideological agenda around the role of government and minimizing it, which I think they know -- they understand politically -- is not popular, because that's not where Canadians are at.

There are also small business initiatives in this budget. I wholeheartedly support them, and it's for this reason: I would argue that, politically, support for small business goes to our roots as a party and as a movement. I think, honestly, that sometimes we haven't done as good a job as we should have in reaching out to small business. I would argue that when the CCF was established in the 1930s, one of their core constituencies was small business. They were called farmers. They were family farmers. I think that we have to connect better with that constituency again. I think that our challenge is to disregard, to some extent, the hard-core ideological position taken by some representatives of small business and instead speak directly to small business people themselves. They're young people, people of my generation -- I just turned 34 -- who in another era would have gone out of university straight to a full-time job for life. Today they end up as consultants; that makes them small business people. They end up as professionals, and that makes them small business people. I think it's important to recognize small business people for what they are. They're hard-working people just like anybody else. They deserve the support of government. That's why I support the small business initiatives we've taken in this government.

I think I'm running out of time, and I want to touch upon a couple of other things briefly. I believe in the role of government. That's why I take some of the positions I do. Some might say that my views on debt and deficit and taxes would. . . . They might characterize me as a right-winger. I take these views because I believe in the potential of the role of government to make our society better. That won't happen -- society won't become better -- if we rely on people exclusively to look out for themselves. It won't happen if we rely exclusively upon charity. There has to be a fundamental role for government.

[1140]

That brings me to child care. I'm not going to have time to get into it. I'd really like to, but I think child care will be the mark of my generation of politicians. We have spent too much time on the left, simply defending the gains of the past. It's time to look for things that will benefit people today, where we can make our mark and truly do something great. I think child care. . . . It's a very modest initiative we're starting with. We have to do it in a sustainable, balanced way. We can't do it all at once, but this is the beginning of it.

Finally, I noted that there were some references made to Tommy Douglas.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Thank you.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: That's a shame. I'm going to have to find another opportunity to get into that.

B. Goodacre: One of the things that was referenced in both the throne speech and the budget speech was the green economy, which has entered our vocabulary and is used quite often. There's a great deal of misunderstanding about what the green economy really means, but it's a very important concept and something that I want to devote my remarks to this morning.

In our government about a year ago, we established the green economy secretariat. The purpose of the secretariat was

[ Page 14662 ]

Just last week I had the opportunity to attend two gatherings in our province: one in Victoria, the Climates of Change Congress held right at the Victoria Conference Centre next door, and Globe 2000, a gathering of business, government and environmentalists from around the world to showcase the developments both in this country and around the world in efforts to deal with the looming environmental crisis that the Earth faces at this time.

Maurice Strong, the moderator of Rio '92, was present there. We had an opportunity also to meet with Maurice Strong and learn from him some of the things that are happening in the world today in terms of dealing with the issues arising from the environmental degradation that we're faced with at this time.

Hazel Henderson also made it to the Climates of Change Congress -- one of the world leaders in government and business opinion, in terms of how best we're going to deal with the challenge that faces us.

In terms of that challenge, we are also blessed here in British Columbia to have had a concept developed by a professor named Bill Rees, at the University of British Columbia, working with one of his graduate students and associate professors there, called "the ecological footprint." The ecological footprint basically measures the effect each and every one of us has on the Earth, in terms of how much of the Earth's carrying capacity is necessary for each of us to live. One of the things we're faced with, of course, is that we are in fact outstripping the ability of the Earth to look after us. A quote from the Natural Step Foundation says:

"Today the Earth's human population is approximately six billion people. Due to the collective actions of the current population, life-supporting systems such as croplands, wetlands, the ozone layer, forests, fisheries and groundwater are in decline. An increasing amount of waste is being generated, which includes the visible garbage, such as that which is placed in landfills, as well as invisible forms of molecular garbage such as greenhouse gases and CFCs, which are accumulating in the atmosphere."

[1145]

In a speech to Globe 2000, our Canadian Environment minister, David Anderson, was talking about the end of the fossil fuel era -- the fact that we know that a transition to other forms of energy is imminent and something that we need to pay attention to. He produced a very interesting quote at that time, referring to the need to change at this time. He suggested that the Stone Age didn't end because people ran out of stones.

The situation that we're faced with at this time is to develop a better understanding of our relationship with the Earth and with nature. There's an emerging discipline calling itself biomimicry, which is getting a lot of acceptance in the scientific community because they're finding ways to work with nature to do a lot of the work that we've been trying to do with machines. One of those jobs in particular is dealing with waste. They're developing natural ways to deal with solid waste, both heavy metals and the organic waste from our sewage systems. These kinds of developments in science are something that we all have to pay closer attention to and link onto, so that we can ensure that as we move forward we have true progress in our society.

Which brings me to the issue of waste itself. Paul Hawken, an activist in the States who has been very active in linking business and the environment for quite some time now, has this to say: "We are far better at making waste than making products. For every hundred pounds of product we manufacture in the United States, we create at least 3,200 pounds of waste. In a decade, we transform 500 trillion pounds of molecules into non-productive solids, liquids and gases." It gives one a sense of the immensity. That translates into ordinary terms as about 94 percent of all of our production being in fact waste, not products that we can use.

Which raises the issue of sustainability. In the world today, we are blessed with people who are at the leading edge and are sharing with us opportunities to really turn some of this stuff around. One of the key technologies that's evolving -- or a method, if you would -- is called the Natural Step. Here in British Columbia, we have a fellow by the name of Brian Nattrass and his wife, Mary Altomare, who have written a book called The Natural Step For Business. . . . It's a sustainability program for business. The Natural Step is something that our government is taking a look at, and the government of Oregon and the government of Washington as well. In the northwest, the Natural Step is starting to make a strong impression.

[1150]

System condition No. 1. "In order for a society to be sustainable, nature's functions and diversity are not systematically subject to increasing concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust.

"In a sustainable society, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and the mining of metals and minerals will not occur at a rate that causes them to systematically increase in the ecosphere. There are thresholds beyond which living organisms and ecosystems are adversely affected by increases in substances from the Earth's crust. Problems may include an increase in greenhouse gases leading to global warming, contamination of surface and groundwater and metal toxicity, which can cause functional disturbances in animals. In practical terms, the first condition requires society to implement comprehensive metal and mineral recycling programs and decrease economic dependence on fossil fuels."

Condition No. 2. "In order for a society to be sustainable, nature's functions and diversity are not systematically subject to increasing concentrations of substances produced by society.

[ Page 14663 ]

"In a sustainable society, humans will avoid generating systematic increases in persistent substances such as DDT, PCBs and freon. Synthetic organic compounds such as DDT and PCBs can remain in the environment for many years, bioaccumulating in the tissue of organisms, causing profound deleterious effects on predators in the upper levels of the food chain. Freon and other ozone-depleting compounds may increase risk of cancer due to added UV radiation in the troposphere. Society needs to find ways to reduce economic dependence on persistent human-made substances."

System condition No. 3. "In order for a society to be sustainable, nature's functions and diversity are not systematically impoverished by physical displacement, overharvesting or other forms of ecosystem manipulation.

"In a sustainable society, humans will avoid taking more from the biosphere than can be replenished by natural systems. In addition, people will avoid systematically encroaching upon nature by destroying the habitat of other species. Biodiversity, which includes the great variety of animals and plants found in nature, provides the foundation for ecosystem services which are necessary to sustain life on this planet. Society's health and prosperity depends on the enduring capacity of nature to renew itself and rebuild waste into resources."

System condition No. 4. "In a sustainable society, resources are used fairly and efficiently in order to meet basic human needs globally.

"Meeting the fourth system condition is a way of avoiding violating the first three system conditions for sustainability. Considering the human enterprise as a whole, we need to be efficient with regard to resource use and waste generation in order to be sustainable. If one billion people lack adequate nutrition while another billion have more than they need, there is a lack of fairness with regard to meeting basic human needs. Achieving greater fairness is essential for social stability and the cooperation needed for making large-scale changes within the framework laid out by the first three conditions."

Another contribution at this time to the effort to push the green economy forward is a work by Paul Hawken, who I mentioned earlier, and two scientists from the Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory and Hunter Lovins, who have long been involved in the sustainability world. They produced last year a book called Natural Capitalism, which is the definitive work at this time on the emerging technologies and the systems and processes that are in place to reduce the amount of waste that we have in our society.

[1155]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

An Hon. Member: Noting the time.

B. Goodacre: Well, it's not quite my time yet. See, it's white over there; I'm going to use up my 20 minutes.

The thing is that we've got a thing called the Henderson-Calvert indicators -- a new book that has come out that's pointing to measures used by ethical investment funds, the Calvert fund -- to indicate these kinds of things in which you actually measure the improvements to society rather than just additions to the economic balance sheet. This is something also that the green economy working group is looking at, along with another measure that the federal government is also interested in, which is the tax shift measures. We have put together a tax shift paper in this province that we are hoping to discuss with the federal government. Minister Anderson indicated in his speech at Globe 2000 that the federal government is going to be seriously looking at neutral revenue-based tax shifting for the next budget round in Ottawa.

Considering the time, I will just add one more thing before I close, and that's to share with the House that our sister jurisdiction south of us in Oregon is preparing to release a statement called an executive order from the Governor of Oregon dealing with the matter of sustainability. This executive order is going to be calling upon the state government of Oregon to implement steps to bring sustainability as the framework for decision-making in that state.

I will stop there, hon. Speaker. It sounds very much like people want to go to lunch. Noting the time, I move adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada