1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 15

[ Page 4997 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Boone: In the members' gallery today we have some special visitors from Thailand. The committee on justice and human rights from the House of Representatives of the kingdom of Thailand is on a study tour of Canada. They are being briefed in the parliament buildings today and will be in Vancouver tomorrow. Will you please welcome these visitors to British Columbia.

V. Anderson: Visiting in the precincts today is a musical group from McKay High School in Salem, Oregon. They gave a concert in front of the Legislature during the noonhour. We appreciate what they have shared with us, wish them well on their visit to Victoria and welcome them to the Legislature.

E. Barnes: I would like the House to join me in welcoming some very special guests who were at the Lieutenant-Governor's reception at Government House today to participate in the presentation of a garden bench by the Commonwealth Caribbean Club of British Columbia. Members of the executive are Mr. Neville Thomas, president, Antigua; Dr. Hebert Allsopp, chairman of education and public affairs, and consul general for the Republic of Ghana; Mrs. Mavis Cooke, treasurer, Jamaica; Dr. Astley Smith, founder-president, Jamaica; Mr. Eugene Haydn, member, Dominica; Prof.

Vince D'Oyley, president, Canadian Black Educators, Jamaica; Mr. Wilbur Walrond, president, Trinidad and Tobago Club; and Mr. Roy Taylor, president, Guyana Cultural Association. I'd like the House to please join me in making them all welcome.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'd like all members to welcome Mr. Derek Fox and his family. They have come here from Alberta. He is deputy speaker, from the NDP. He is also the Agriculture critic. Would all members please award him a very nice and warm British Columbia welcome.

G. Brewin: I'd like to introduce a constituent of mine who has just moved into the riding, a renowned businesswoman from Port Alberni and other places: Maria Janssen. She is related to a member of this Legislature. Would you all please make her welcome.

J. MacPhail: I am delighted to welcome two full classes of grade 11 students from Vancouver Technical Secondary School, an award-winning school in my riding. Please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: In the gallery today is a former colleague of mine and of some of us who were here in the last session. He was not on my side of the Legislature, but he was part of this building and of this operation: Bruce Strachan from Prince George. Would the House please make him welcome.

E. Conroy: In the gallery today is a longtime acquaintance and constituent. Would the House please welcome Gwen Jones from Castlegar.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the gallery today is Judy Basso, the special projects manager of the 1993 Canada Summer Games -- that event in the great city of Kamloops which all of you, I am sure, have scheduled on your vacation itinerary. Would you please help me make her welcome.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In order not to interrupt the House at 3 o'clock, and if members wonder which school group is coming in at that time, I'd like members to welcome in advance a group from Robron Secondary in Campbell River.

Oral Questions

PREBUDGET CONSULTATION ON PROPERTY SURTAX AND HOMEOWNER GRANT

A. Cowie: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the past hour the government reversed its decision on the property surtax, as you probably already know. Can you tell the House what you know now that you did not already know during the prebudget process, other than a resounding rejection of the process by the people of B.C.?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The Minister of Finance articulated the position today; he will be articulating the options in the days ahead, and I'll leave it to the him to do that.

A. Cowie: The Minister of Finance should resign. This is the first government to introduce a budget by trial: come in, come out. The only criterion....

Hon. A. Petter: Point of order.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair would prefer that the point of order be taken after question period.

A. Cowie: The only criterion that this government has to determine public policy is the strength of negative opinion polls. Given this fact....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. If the member would ask the supplemental question directly, the Chair would appreciate it.

A. Cowie: Given this fact, will the Minister of Municipal Affairs also commit to maintaining the homeowner grant for all seniors?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and this government as a whole will be articulating the options in the days ahead.

[ Page 4998 ]

A. Cowie: These subjects do come under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in case the minister doesn't know it. Will the minister table the costs of the provincewide consultative process that he took

part in regarding the budget, which evidently didn't pick up the public's anger about the surtax?

The Speaker: Would the minister address the portion of the question that he considers to be within his jurisdictional responsibility.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, the consultation was undertaken by the Minister of Finance. The member may wish to address the question about the costs to him.

EFFECT OF FEE INCREASES ON TOURISM INDUSTRY

C. Tanner: Hon. Speaker, politely put, the tourism industry was hammered in this budget. It took another hit last Friday, when fees for swimming pools, restaurants and angling were increased. Since the government seems to be in a backing-down mood today, will the Minister of Tourism back down on the increased fees that her ministry brought down last Friday?

[2:15]

The Speaker: Phrased in the way the question has been phrased, hon. member, I regret to say that it appears to be a matter of future policy. I ask the hon. member to ask another question.

C. Tanner: Hon. Speaker, the minister did rise.

It wasn't too difficult, but perhaps she can try this one. The Minister of Finance has done nothing to improve the tourism industry since taking power. Since the Minister of Tourism was so instrumental in changing the mind of the Minister of Finance on the surtax issue, why can't she be influential when dealing with things within her own ministry?

Hon. D. Marzari: It gives me great pleasure to be able to respond to the question, especially after the weekend in Vancouver which gave British Columbia over $100 million worth of advertising in this province and in the world.

It also gives me great pleasure to respond to the questioner in the sense that in the last year the Tourism ministry, as it is presently constituted, has gone through a major business plan. For the first time in its history it is now able to look toward the next five and ten years with a real balance between marketing and planning, not only in the central cities but throughout the regions of this province. We now have a Tourism ministry which is ready and prepared to accept and promote tourism as a real industry in this province, capable of matching any industry in its productivity and its job creation.

GOVERNMENT LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE CHARGES

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. As revealed in Sunday's Province, the government has quietly allowed abuse of government long-distance telephone privileges by relatives of senior bureaucrats. Why has the minister sat idly by while relatives of senior civil servants have run up $800,000 worth of personal phone calls charged illegally to British Columbia taxpayers?

Hon. L. Boone: I am more than happy to have the opportunity to really clarify a situation that was, unfortunately, put in the paper in a rather bad way. This government and I are always concerned about misuse of funds and misuse of government. In fact, the information we have shows there has been $300,000 worth of third-party calls in the entire time since this government came into power a year and a half ago.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister wrap up her comments, please.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you. I'd be more than happy to wrap them up right now.

There has been no indication at all that any of that $300,000 has been misused, and in fact there is monitoring on an ongoing basis by B.C. Tel, by B.C. Systems and by government ministries. I think the members here should all be happy to know there's been no indication that any of you or your family members have been abusing the telephone system in this government.

H. De Jong: Supplemental. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. The abuse of telephone card privileges is fraud -- pure and simple. What specific steps is the minister taking to recover the money that has been lost due to its failure to monitor the long-distance phone charges?

Hon. L. Boone: We have increased the monitoring since December, when it became clear that there was a North American problem with regard to third-party billing. In fact, this government has received $50,000 back in credit in the last six months from B.C. Tel, which shows what a good job both B.C. Tel and our employees are doing.

H. De Jong: Final supplemental. Can the minister advise the House whether any spouse or relative of a sitting cabinet minister has charged personal telephone calls to the taxpayers?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, they often say we're not listening to the questions. I'm afraid the questioner wasn't listening to my answer, because I indicated to him that there's been no such indication. Nobody from either the opposition or the government benches is being investigated with regard to fraudulent use of the telephone system.

[ Page 4999 ]

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON HIRING WOMEN

K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. Does the minister support equal opportunity hiring, and does this government discriminate against persons on the basis of gender?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm very pleased to have the official opposition take such interest in the fair and equitable hiring practices of this government. This government believes there should be no discrimination in hiring. Our government's policy says that nobody will be denied access to employment within this government on the basis of race, gender or disability, and we're proud to have that policy. There is no thought whatsoever that citizens in this province are not welcome to apply for positions or to work with this government. We should be taking pride in the efforts that this government makes to ensure that our staff and public service represent the people in this province.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, my supplemental is to the Minister of Government Services. On March 12, 1993, the government air services posted two positions for first officer, pilot 1. Competition 432 clearly states that no men may apply, and that it is restricted to female applicants who are disadvantaged. Since Government Air already has female pilots, why is the government discriminating against males?

Hon. L. Boone: That posting was for a bridging position, and it was given approval by the federal government because there was not an adequate number of women in pilots' positions. The person has to apply through a competition, the same as everybody else, when that bridging position is finished. It was a bridging position; it was not an employment opportunity in that position.

K. Jones: My final supplemental is also to the Minister of Government Services. Further comparison of the two postings shows lesser qualifications for the female-only posting: 1,000 hours of flight time versus 1,500 hours, and 300 hours on multi-engine aircraft versus 500 hours for the open posting. Since I have always considered females to be equal, why does the minister ask for lesser qualifications? Would it be safe to fly with this less-qualified pilot?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm glad to see the women over there hiding their faces in shame after that comment.

The posting was for a bridging position to give a woman the opportunity to gain the necessary experience and skills, so that she could compete on an equal basis. She had to compete for the full-time position at the same level as everybody else. I'm pleased to say that she did, and she won that competition.

B.C. HYDRO BOARD APPOINTMENT

A. Warnke: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The minister will recall some controversy surrounding the appointment of Judy Urban to the board of B.C. Hydro. The minister indicated that she was going to check to see if there were any rules or common practices about citizenship requirements and so forth. This individual is an American citizen and has remained so for the last nearly two decades. So would the minister indicate just exactly what the hiring practices are? Does she not see a contradiction here, a conflict of interest, considering her citizenship and the fact that we're going into negotiations on the Columbia River Treaty?

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, I have looked into that. I certainly can't answer in detail what the hiring practice of B.C. Hydro is. Nevertheless, I know there is no restriction that requires that board members be Canadian citizens.

I have known Ms. Urban in my community for the past two decades to which you refer, and she has been an active and contributing member in the community. She has worked there. She has not only contributed to charitable organizations and worked with community groups, but has been chair of the United Way Community appeal. She has been to the college, taken her education and become a CGA. She is an upstanding and respected member of the community, and one that we should all be proud to have on the board of the B.C. Hydro corporation.

A. Warnke: A supplemental. It is quite clear that the answer went in one ear and out the mouth. The fact is, this person is an American. Does she not see an active contradiction here? Is that not setting a precedent for future B.C. Hydro hirings from abroad?

Hon. A. Edwards: I think that you put a considerable amount of weight into your suggestion that Ms. Urban, as an American citizen.... By the way, she has applied for her Canadian citizenship and will become a Canadian citizen.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the minister's reply.

Hon. A. Edwards: Ms. Urban will become a Canadian citizen as soon as the judge gets to our community to actually swear her in. She had done this before the uproar that was made by local people. So there is no question at all. She has been a landed immigrant. She is now going to become a citizen. She has adopted this country as her country of interest and has lived here for more than two decades, so I think the argument against her sitting on the board is spurious.

The Speaker: I will now take the point of order.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, the point of order is simply that while the government is very tolerant of question period being used for statements that will lead to questions, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena continues to make statements that don't lead to even the

[ Page 5000 ]

pretence of a question. I would appreciate it if he would cease doing so and that you would call him to order.

The Speaker: Thank you for the point of order. It gives the Chair an opportunity to remind both those who are asking questions and those who are answering them to review the guidelines for question period and to remember that questions should be brief and to the point and without political statement, as should be the answers.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the 1991-92 annual report of the Provincial Capital Commission.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

On the amendment.

G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure to rise and respond to a budget that presents, I think, the fairest and most balanced approach to the economy and the people of British Columbia that we have seen in a long time. This budget protects middle- and low-income families. It provides for tax savings and reductions for 28 percent of British Columbians. Yes, a cut in taxes. Nowhere else in Canada in these hard fiscal times has a provincial government offered a cut in taxes. In New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan we have seen taxes rise.

Even in Alberta, for the first time, they're considering a sales tax -- heaven forbid! -- to meet these tough times. In fact, there has been a $2 cut in spending for every $1 in new taxes in British Columbia.

Six ministries in this government will spend less money, in response to people demanding that government should downsize. Cabinet ministers, MLAs, deputy ministers and heads of Crown corporations are leading the way with salary freezes and cuts. I wonder if the leader of the Liberal Party, who receives a minister's salary, would also agree to take the same cut that ministers of this government have taken.

In the 1992-93 budget we cut $40 million in waste, and have cut a further $35 million in the budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year. The opposition talks about cuts, but will they participate in those cuts? No.

Let us review some of the spending cuts and some of the criticisms from the Liberal Party. Regarding the removal of the Agricultural Land Commission chair, for a saving of $200,000 to this government and the people of British Columbia, the member for Chilliwack said in the Daily Courier on February 6, 1992: "The Agricultural Land Commission needs a full-time chair." He wants to continue spending.

On cuts to the B.C. Business Network, the member for Langley said in the Vancouver Sun on March 6, 1992: "We all know government has been talking restraint. I sincerely hope this isn't one of them." On cuts to the harvesting

section of vote 42 of the Forests estimates for 1992-93, the member for Surrey-White Rock said on page 1474 of Hansard on May 12, 1992: "I find it absolutely amazing that the minister can find almost $1 million to cut out of that vital

section of his budget...." On the one hand they talk about cuts; on the other hand they advocate increased spending.

On cuts to the 1992-93 research budget in forestry, the member for Surrey-White Rock, again, said in Hansard on May 12, 1992: "...that particular

section has suffered a significant cut. What gives?" On the shift to community care, the member for Richmond East said in the Prince George Citizen on February 2, 1992: "I don't think there's any political will for it, but if you're saying you're behind community care, you have to fund it appropriately."

On the Highways budget, the member for Richmond Centre said in Hansard on April 23, 1992: "I would urge the government to consider expenditures on roads and alternative forms of transportation as essential rather than discretionary." We are doing that in this budget. We are capitalizing Highways' projects and doing what the opposition demanded, but they stand and criticize it.

Regarding cutbacks to travel subsidies in sports and fitness, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena said in Hansard on May 26, 1992: "I'd like some assurance that their programs will not be shelved, and that they will not suffer from this budget." Again, members on the other side say one thing, cut and cut, but demand that we spend and spend.

On cuts to the 1992-93 tourism budget, the member for Saanich North and the Islands said to the hon. Minister of Tourism -- and this is truly amazing -- in Hansard on May 5, 1992: "The suggestion is that you should eliminate the sales tax on both accommodation and alcohol." And: "You should allow a wholesale price on bulk purchases of alcohol." The member for Saanich North and the Islands, who says that there have been cuts to the Ministry of Tourism, is advocating an increase in alcohol consumption by cutting rates and the elimination of taxes that are used to fund services in this province. What exactly is the policy of the Liberal Party?

There are no increases in income tax in this budget for 92 percent of B.C. taxpayers. In fact, medical services premiums have been eliminated for 430,000 low-income families and reduced for another 135,000. The Pharmacare deductible for plan E has increased $100 to $500 in this budget. There is more tax relief: the homeowner grant has increased $20 to $470, and increased $25 for seniors to $475 -- again showing there is a need in British Columbia, and this government is meeting that need.

As a small business person, I have many contacts in the business community, and the small business tax rate will not rise in this province. In fact, 2,000 small businesses will be exempt from the corporate capital tax and a further 1,500 will see their tax reduced. Does the opposition criticize those cuts? I haven't heard them. They say it's not enough, and I say it's not enough, because growth is needed.

In communities such as mine in Alberni as of March 15 of this year, there were 3,939 people on unemployment insurance and a further 2,200 employable people on social services. The recession has hurt small

[ Page 5001 ]

resource-based communities such as Alberni and Prince George; communities in the interior, in Lillooet and Hope. But this government is offering hope to those people. This government will build B.C. for British Columbia families and their children.

Unlike the Socreds who offered nothing but promises, we're taking action. B.C. 21 -- that new program -- will build our future. It will accelerate development of new schools, highways and forest projects. It will add new investment into the regions. It will expand community colleges, health centres, courthouses and schools. It will provide $500 million in new spending by Crown corporations to stimulate the economy.

Is the Liberal Party criticizing those? If they don't want a new school in their riding or if they don't want a new courthouse, they can just stand up and say: "No, we don't believe in that type of spending." And then they can go to their constituents and complain, and say to them: "The government wanted to bring jobs, but we don't want those jobs, we don't want those new schools, and we don't want those new highways and courthouses."

I invite them to come to communities such as Alberni and Prince George. And I want to invite them to meet real people -- real families and their children, some of whom have been out of work for two years -- and say to them: "There is no hope from the Liberal Party. If you want hope, vote NDP." And that's exactly what they have done. We are meeting the challenge. Government will provide the infrastructure, and private enterprise, the business community and their dynamic entrepreneurship in this province, will provide the jobs that are necessary to sustain an economy.

Let me just give you a small example. In Port Alberni we recently four-laned a highway outside a shopping mall. Because of that small infrastructure, a new Payless Gas station was built, providing some 18 new jobs. McDonald's built a new facility there which will provide some 80 new jobs. That's the type of infrastructure we're talking about. Rebco Wood Products was put together with Pat McKay's Timbermil Logging, and because we were able to offer some forest fibre through a value-added facility, 45 new jobs were created. Coulson Forest Products -- again in the forest industry -- was given a small forest licence and provided 95 new jobs.

Innovative waste management technologies. "Mine Scrap Tire Lode." "If the material in scrap tires were found in the ground in six-foot veins, we'd be mining it," said the manager, Claude Lessard, as he opened up a new $2 million Port Alberni factory. As one of British Columbia's new green industries, it will use scrap tires for the manufacturing of durable, decorative paving stones, and provide 15 full-time jobs for local workers. That's how we are moving ahead with B.C. 21; that's how we're moving ahead in British Columbia to provide jobs.

What about the opposition? How many jobs will they provide? Let's look at their spending demands, hon. Speaker. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, during estimate debates in his role as critic for Aboriginal Affairs, identified several other funding priorities. Education funding: "We have raised education funding 3 percent in this budget," he said in Hansard on April 28, 1992. The member for Richmond-Steveston on colleges, again in Hansard, June 3, 1992: "They expect and hope that these campuses can expand, because there was the former commitment there." We have kept that commitment.

The member for Chilliwack on Buy B.C., again in Hansard, June 4, 1992: "I think we have to put in a little more emphasis and money, and speed the process up, so that we get some results from it immediately, before we lose these farmers." The Minister of Agriculture has embarked on a dramatic Buy B.C. program; I think there's $10 million in this budget for that program. We are listening to the opposition, and we are providing the programs.

The member for West Vancouver-Capilano in Hansard, April 14, 1992: "...districts need more money." This budget provides more money. We have said we will build new schools. The member for North Vancouver, April 9, 1992 in Hansard: "We need a number of additional classrooms plus a new school. A new school is definitely required." We are responding in this budget; we are providing those schools.

The member for Richmond East, again on education funding, says: "It doesn't matter what the dollar cost is, the money must be found to provide the rights of the exceptional as stated here." That's in the Times-Colonist, February 20, 1992. And I repeat: "It doesn't matter what the cost is," hon. Speaker, "spend, spend, spend." We are listening; we are providing those services.

We are providing an additional $500 million in Crown corporation spending. And this is in response to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in Hansard, throne speech debate, March 19, 1992: "There must be a greater commitment to infrastructure development: maintenance of existent sewer and water system; the maintenance construction of our highways; the B.C. Ferry service must be seen as a natural extension of our highways." We are responding. Again, $500 million in new spending by Crown corporations.

This budget responds to the needs of British Columbians, and we've been listening to the opposition. The member for Saanich North and the Islands said that given the amount of money raised by children in visits, $72,000 to the provincial museum, the government might as well let them in free -- Times-Colonist, June 10, 1992. On the one hand they say: "cut, cut;" on the other hand they say: "spend, spend." Where are they? Do they have any policy at all? No, hon. Speaker. They should do some research work.

[2:45]

This budget does not promise miracles, but gives a balanced approach to controlling and cutting government waste and ensuring the future of B.C.'s economy and services to people, such as services in health and education. People in British Columbia, in the regions and in my riding of Alberni, are saying that this is a good news budget. It reduces the deficit from $2.4 billion in '91-92 to $1.95 billion in '92-93 to $1.5 billion in '93-94. We are reducing the deficit while we are stimulating the economy to provide jobs for British Columbians. It reduces the taxes for 28 percent of B.C. taxpayers, and it offers a sales tax rebate to 600,000

[ Page 5002 ]

households in British Columbia and tax relief to small business. Most importantly, it offers hope and jobs for families in British Columbia hardest hit by the recession.

When I went home this past weekend, a small business person came to me and said: "This is a good budget. It will stimulate the economy. It will bring customers back into my business, and I want to thank you for that." That's what people in the regions are saying. Ordinary British Columbians are saying that it's time the status quo changed and taxes came down. This budget brings down taxes.

I want to repeat to members of the opposition that if they want to come to the regions, to ridings like mine in Alberni, and say that this is not a good-news budget, that we should not be spending money in the regions and that we should not be creating jobs, I welcome them to do it. They want us to cut spending on education, health and social services. We will provide for those people in need. There are people in my riding that do make $60,000 a year and better, but they are more than willing to pay additional taxes to support their brothers and sisters who aren't as fortunate.

This budget is a fair and balanced approach to economic planning in British Columbia. I stand and support it, my constituents support it and I'm sure at the next election the hon. members of the opposition will find out that the people of British Columbia support it and this government.

D. Schreck: This budget is not just a good budget; this budget is a great budget for the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. That the opposition would introduce amendments -- which I must rise and oppose -- to attempt to sandbag this budget, which benefits all of my constituents, shows the lack of thought that this opposition has for them. Many people stereotype the North Shore as being full of $1 million houses and high income people who are different than those in the rest of this province. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In my constituency, 65 percent of my constituents rent; people live at below-average provincial incomes and benefit from the fact that 430,000 British Columbians will no longer have to pay medical care premiums and that 135,000 British Columbians will pay reduced medicare premiums as a result of this budget.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

In North Vancouver-Lonsdale, like everywhere else in the province, no one likes to pay higher taxes. But when the widely expected 1 percent increase in the sales tax was introduced, my constituents benefited from the fact that we also introduced a $50-per-person, $200-dollar-per-family-of-four tax credit. In North Vancouver-Lonsdale, well in excess of that provincewide average of 28 percent will actually pay lower taxes under this budget.

In a constituency like North Vancouver-Lonsdale, it's probably closer to 35 or 40 percent of my constituents that will be paying lower taxes, because many of my constituents don't have the money that would amount to over this $50 per person, or $200 per family of four, that they would be paying through the extra sales tax. What this means is that the credit they get is more than the amount of money they would be paying in the extra 1 percent, with the net effect of actually being better off and paying lower taxes.

The people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale are winners in this budget, and they benefit from this budget.

Let me talk about just two of the four elements of the B.C. 21 program. The people in North Vancouver-Lonsdale look at the B.C. 21 program and they see $80 million going to stimulate jobs, to help people get off income assistance, where they don't want to be, and take a job opportunity and training that is being offered by this government. My constituents look at the B.C. 21 program that puts dedicated tax funds into transit and highways options. They say: "We need the Lions Gate Bridge repaired or replaced, and we can see that that's where you're going to get the money, and we don't mind paying the dedicated taxes that will give us a safe Lions Gate Bridge."

I have to say that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is going to have my ear on that fund as I lobby for the benefit of my constituents on the Lions Gate Bridge, on the Westview interchange, on the low-level road linking bridge to bridge in my constituency -- where we need the transportation along Marine Drive, where 60 percent of the port of Vancouver economic activity is generated in my constituency.

I look at our local community paper, and I see that the independent Liberal member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has had his constituents say: "Don't build highways or any other transportation projects until you can pay as you go." I must confess that as soon as I saw that, I rushed a copy of it to the Minister of Highways. I said that if the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi doesn't want to look after his constituents, please spend the money in North Vancouver-Lonsdale, because I want a safe bridge, a new intersection and a low-level road.

I am here, first and foremost, to look after the needs of my constituents. My constituents see that this budget is a winning budget. It's not just a good budget; it's a great budget for the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

A central theme of this budget is fair taxation. I am proud to see that unlike the right-wing Thatcher government of the U.K., which made a massive tax shift with the poll tax, taking taxes off higher-income earners and shifting it on to the poor, or unlike the Mulroney government in Canada, which introduced the GST, took taxes off income and increasingly shifted them on to low-income consumers, our government has looked at tax fairness, with the consequence that 28 percent provincewide have got lower taxes as a result of this budget.

In a constituency like mine, with below-average provincial income, with 65 percent tenants, an even higher percentage benefit directly with lower taxes as a result of this budget.

My friends opposite heckled on a couple of points. Let me talk about property taxation. It takes courage to listen to the people and make a change.

Interjection.

[ Page 5003 ]

D. Schreck: The heckler opposite uses very negative words, some of which may not even be parliamentary, in this chamber.

I was speaking to a reporter from the North Shore News earlier today, and that reporter said to me: "David, is it a sign of weakness, is it a sign of a mistake, for the Minister of Finance to stand up and say: "We've listened to the people and have changed our direction"? Hon. Speaker, I say to you, as I said to that reporter, that it takes courage for a government to be open and honest and to listen, that it shows commitment to doing what's right. Far from listening to those naysayers opposite, we now have a budget that not only benefits the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale, but people in West Vancouver and Deep Cove also have their concerns addressed.

I went into my office on Sunday morning to clear the answering machine. Of 14 calls, two were from constituents, whom I immediately phoned. They congratulated us on the budget because it helps them. The other dozen were from West Vancouver and Deep Cove to say that they have special problems and wanted relief. I can now say that our government has the courage to ignore those naysayers, to listen to the people and to set a course that benefits all British Columbians.

We honestly are committed to fair taxation. Let me take a moment to talk about what fair taxation is. Some of my friends -- and I think some of my friends on the opposition benches -- would say that fair taxation is when somebody else pays. For years we've seen right-wing reactionary government implement their concept of fair taxation. That's when you shift taxes onto the poor so that the people at the top get off lighter. We need to get beyond rhetoric and look at underlying concepts of what really is fair to the people we represent.

Many of the members opposite argue that any form of property taxation is inherently unfair. But I have trouble when 65 percent of my constituents are renting, many making not too much over minimum wage. Not many of my constituents are making over $30,000 or $40,000 a year and are unable to get a deposit together in order to attempt to purchase a home. Picture this, if you will: in the middle of the block in which I live are some half-million-dollar homes.

D. Jarvis: You live in my riding.

D. Schreck: I live in the riding of North Vancouver-Seymour. I have to use an example such as North Vancouver-Seymour; there aren't very many half-million-dollar homes in my own constituency. In my block there are half-million-dollar homes in the middle, and there are tenants at the end. Why should a tenant at the end of the block who is making $30,000 a year pay higher taxes than someone in the middle of the block who makes more in annual appreciation on that half-million-dollar home than the renter makes working for a living in a year? Why should the person making $50,000 or $100,000 or more on the appreciation of their house be subsidized by my constituent who is a renter?

I can accept the argument that many people may have bought their home 20 years ago and, like me, probably couldn't afford to buy the house they live in today. That's reason to make some exceptions. Many people are living in their retirement investment, and they couldn't bear the increased difficulties. It is those complications that provide so many difficulties to work around which has led my colleague the Minister of Finance to say yes, we need to make some changes to accommodate people in North Vancouver-Seymour and in the two West Vancouver ridings. But if we look at the phase-out of the homeowner grant for those in homes over $400,000, I conclude that this is fair taxation.

There are fine restaurants on the North Shore and in Vancouver where it's possible for six people who enjoy such dining to spend more on dinner than the amount of the entire homeowner grant. My constituents, by and large, don't go out for $450 dinners; my constituents make $30,000 or $40,000 a year. My constituents say that they want an opportunity to buy a home too, and they don't see why they should pay more taxes in order to subsidize someone in my neighbourhood in a $500,000 house.

[3:00]

I conclude that it's fair to do what the Minister of Finance has done: listen to the people and modify the harshest aspects of the school tax surcharge. At the same time, if we are to have fairness, my constituents should not pay in order to lessen the property tax burden for my neighbours in $500,000 homes. My constituents should be given a tax break, as they have been in this budget. Therefore fair taxation is what we have in this budget. Fair taxation is taxation in which the poor do not continually bear the burden for those who make more by living in our homes than they make by working for a living.

Taxation is fair when we listen to the concerns of our neighbours in West Vancouver and Deep Cove, and we adjust to their needs -- as we have, also.

My constituents benefit directly from fewer people paying medical care premiums, by sales tax credits, by job stimulus programs and by fair taxation. More than 28 percent -- the provincial average -- of my constituents have lower taxes to pay.

Hon. Speaker, what alternatives are offered by those naysayers on the benches opposite? Nothing. I was shocked today when I turned on the noon news -- after my colleague the Minister of Finance had the courage to listen to the people and do the right thing by all the people in this province -- and the mayor of West Vancouver immediately said: "That's not enough. We want more, more, more." That's just like those opposition benches. There are those who will criticize what government does, regardless of what government does.

Rather than being concerned about the people in this great province or about fair taxation, all the naysayers have on their minds is partisan politics and how to destroy this good government.

Hon. Speaker, what are the alternatives offered by these naysayers? These naysayers would eliminate 15,000 jobs -- or more jobs than exist in some entire communities in this province. That's about the number

[ Page 5004 ]

of jobs one would find in a community of 40,000 people, and we have many communities with fewer than 40,000 people. If one goes through Hansard and looks at the Liberal opposition campaign promise of a blind 5 percent cut across the board, and you couple that with their reference to the broad public sector of 300,000 jobs, what you see is that opposition party threatening to wipe out the equivalent of entire communities in this province. Shame!

What this province needs is a fair and balanced approach.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The member should not be interrupted in the process of making a speech. All members will have the opportunity to take their places in due course. Would the member please proceed.

D. Schreck: It's not just the elimination of 15,000 jobs that the opposition offers as an alternative; it's far worse. It's stepping on the backs of the poor. When we go through Hansard and we listen to the question periods, we find that both opposition parties distilled the same lowest common denominator. When we ask, "What is your alternative?

How would you deal with the legacy of close to a $3 billion deficit left by that former government?" they would say: "Attack the people on welfare, and attack people working in the public sector." On the face of it there are many constituents of all members in this House for whom those arguments initially have some appeal, and because they are so damning, so negative and so destructive, it is important to go to some length to look at those negative alternatives versus the fair and balanced approach of this budget.

On the matter of social assistance. The members opposite would join with all people of British Columbia, I'm sure, and the members on this side, as we do every Christmas in donating to the various charities to feed the poor.

C. Tanner: I do it all year round.

D. Schreck: The hon. member opposite says he does so all year round, and I say, "Good for you, member," through you, hon. Speaker, because it is that spirit of looking after the less fortunate in our community that we need to take to the program. We do not need the antics of the former Premier of this province who, when he was Minister of Social Services, was in the news daily, breaking the back of someone in the poor. He was characterized as even willing to tear the wings off a fly. What we need in this province is firmness and compassion.

I am proud to be the colleague of a minister of social services who is both firm and compassionate. The Minister of Social Services has achieved $80 million in this budget to assist in job creation for people on assistance. No one that I'm aware of wants to be on income assistance. Yet, when we say there are the deserving and the not-so-deserving poor, and the not-so-deserving poor tend to be characterized as single males on welfare, I must admit even my neck gets a little Archie Bunker-red sometimes when dealing with single males on welfare.

I find that when I look at what that single male is actually paid, it's about the same amount of money that the homeowner grant is for this person in Shaughnessy, who we read about in the newspaper over the weekend, crying about her 20 bedrooms and her $4 million home. What kind of heart does a society have that would say to that person receiving about $500 a month that we're going to take that away so the person in the $4 million home in Shaughnessy will keep her homeowner grant? To me, that is not fair. That is, as the teenagers would say, gross. That is obscene; that's fundamentally wrong.

I expect that single male on welfare of $500 a month to get out and to try to find a job. I say bravo to the Minister of Social Services, who has come up with an $80 million fund to offer that young gentleman a choice.

There's another reactionary attack from those benches opposite on people in need. They would characterize tens of thousands of people in this province as lowly crooks, trying to abuse the system. I am proud of a colleague who constantly fraud-proofs our welfare system, who views welfare fraud as the crime that it is: a crime not only against the taxpayers and the people of this province but a crime against everybody in need of social assistance, because the people who abuse that system are destroying the reputation of all in need.

But worse than that are the opportunistic politicians who ride on the backs of those and who characterize the tens of thousands of people in need as equal to the few penny thieves who are trying to abuse the system. They are, in my mind, not much different from those who would defraud our welfare system. We all have an obligation to root out fraud, to create jobs for those on assistance and to get off the backs of the poor.

I've mentioned that the alternatives offered by those naysayers are alternatives which eliminate what amounts to small communities in this province; they are alternatives which step on the backs of the poor; and they are alternatives of attacking public sector employees, for we hear from those opposition benches time after time: "Eliminate their job security, reduce their wages, cut." If a person is taken from the private sector and does exactly the same job in the public sector, should they be less of a human being for it? Who are these public sector workers?

The majority of these public sector workers are people making $30,000 or $40,000 a year -- some of them making wages that are so low that they qualify as the working poor -- where even that former discredited government agreed to implementing a pay equity program because of the historic discrimination against women in the public sector.

Nurses make less than $40,000 a year. The people who are having their homeowner grant phased out make more in annual appreciation on their house than a nurse makes toiling 2,000 hours a year. Is it not unreasonable that a $470 grant should be removed from someone to contribute to paying down our deficit rather than firing that nurse? The nurse making less than $40,000 a year wants fairness too, not to be attacked by those members of the opposition who say that she makes too much.

[ Page 5005 ]

Those members of the opposition attacking those public sector workers are, in many cases, attacking women and the working poor, and they should get their feet off the backs of those workers. This budget says very clearly who speaks for whom. This budget says it speaks for the benefit of my constituents, the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. This budget says it speaks for tax fairness. This budget clearly rejects that very sad alternative offered by the amendment put forward by those naysayers -- that unfortunate opposition.

This budget is not only a good budget; this budget is a great budget.

R. Chisholm: Isn't democracy wonderful? Even naysayers get to speak, and maybe the truth will come out.

The NDP government has delivered a budget that will head British Columbia into bankruptcy: by bankrupting the individual, by bankrupting business, and eventually bankrupting the province. British Columbia's provincial debt will hit an all-time high of $26.4 billion this year, nearly double the debt in 1991, and 32 percent higher than last year's debt. This is despite the fact that this budget includes higher personal and corporate surtaxes, higher medical premiums, a 1 percent sales tax increase, plus taxing more items: higher tobacco and liquor taxes, and a hike in gasoline taxes.

This is on top of the massive increase in last year's taxes, which included corporate capital tax, tax on legal services and taxes on telecommunications. This government increased existing taxes such as personal income tax, jet fuel tax, surtax on high-income earners, corporate income taxes, small business tax rates, rural property tax, and the list goes on: non-residential property taxes, remove supplemental homeowner grant, which raised property taxes. This government increased hidden taxes such as fees and fares. ICBC rates went up 29 percent. Water licence fees and commercial transport fees have increased.

B.C. Ferry rates increased. Birth, death, marriage and licence fees have all increased.

This tax assault is bankrupting business and individuals. In February 1993 there were 407 bankruptcies in British Columbia. This was up from 365 bankruptcies in January. Some of British Columbia's main employers are closing or having massive layoffs, such as Woodward's, Cassiar, the forestry and fisheries industries. Farmers are hurting, hon. speaker, from this poor economy. There is no market for their produce. The Minister of Agriculture, in his reply to this year's throne speech, claimed that farmers are thriving. This same attitude was reflected in the budget speech. Agriculture was not even mentioned.

Yet on May 23, 1991, less than two years ago, the Minister said and I quote from page 12174 of Hansard:

"...you'd better ask the wheat producers of the Peace River country, or the berry producers of the Fraser Valley, or the orchardists of the Okanagan-Similkameen and Creston areas. These people have their backs to the wall.

"I know individuals on their last mortgage. They cannot even hold on to their farms together."

[3:15]

Yet, hon. Speaker, last year the Minister of Agriculture and his government cut the agriculture budget by $16.17 million. Now this budget reveals more cuts. What do you suppose happened to those farmers, who two years ago the Minister of Agriculture knew were in need? Probably due to the minister's attitude, many of them are not farming now. Could it be that many of them are on social assistance? Could this be why the social assistance demand has blossomed so dramatically? Let me assure the minister that many of those farmers he spoke about the year he became minister went broke, and he did nothing to ensure their success.

I must continue to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture that the situation has gotten worse since he has been minister. I encourage him to talk to the grain growers in the Peace River. We all saw the lettuce demonstration here on the steps of the Legislature last spring. Let me remind the minister that the reason for the demonstration was because the lettuce growers did not have a market for their lettuce. The same scenarios still exist among the berry growers in the Fraser Valley.

Obviously the comments the Minister of Agriculture made last week in the Legislature about farmers in British Columbia can only lead to one conclusion: the Minister of Agriculture is out of touch with reality. He does not know the concerns of the British Columbia farmers.

But the government continues to attack the farmer and other struggling taxpayers by further increasing their tax burden. Yet while this tax assault is bankrupting business and individuals but doesn't even make a dent in our debt. Why? Because the government's spending will soar 5.6 percent, more than twice the current rate of inflation. We still have a yearly deficit. This year the government says it is overspending by $1.5 billion. The debt is even higher and would have been revealed except that the government hid the debt in its creative accounting with B.C. 21. The real overspending is $3.1 billion.

B.C. 21 allows the government to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to Crown corporations. At the same time, this sneaky policy allows the government to skirt the normal legislative process by funnelling money into political blacktop projects.

Here is how it works. B.C. 21, in the newly created British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority, will artificially reduce the 1993-94 deficit. Only $100 million in B.C. 21 spending will actually appear on the books this year -- as an appropriation to the Build B.C. special account. Another $80 million in borrowing power for the Transportation Financing Authority will show up as part of the province's accumulated debt, which will be reported apart from the annual deficit.

Another $166 million for the educational institutions building authority, $93 million for the Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority and $281 million for the School Districts Capital Financing Authority will be borrowed this year but not included in the deficit.

The fact is that the total accumulated debt of our government, Crown corporations and agencies will increase this year from $23.2 billion to $26.4 billion, a 32 percent increase since 1991 when this government took office. This is the largest debt increase in the entire

[ Page 5006 ]

history of the province. The NDP calls this a more efficient method of governing; I call it anti-democratic. Here is a scan: only half of this year's $3.1 billion in new debt will actually be credited to the minister's so-called $1.5 billion deficit. Not quite offsetting the burden of the new B.C. 21 debt will be $33 million in revenues to the transportation authority from taxes on fuel and vehicle rentals. Now the minister claims that much of the accumulated debt is secured. The argument is nonsense. When was the last time a provincial government sold off a stretch of highway to cover a loan?

The plain truth is that the NDP is running up debt at a historically fast pace, and no amount of creative accounting can hide that fact. Our debt is not being reduced or even held in check. This government believes in higher taxes, bigger spending and more debt -- just the opposite of their election platform, I might add.

H. Giesbrecht: Do you believe all this stuff?

R. Chisholm: I wrote it. I must believe it.

The government proudly announced its elimination...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This one should stir you up, too.

...of a jet fuel tax for international air cargo carriers. What a farce. This won't cost the government lost revenue. Do you know why? There are no international cargo jets currently using British Columbia airports. Imagine that -- another farce.

The budget indicates that various fees and licences will be increased during the year, without giving any details. But I found out some of these details: in agriculture alone, there are astronomical increases. For example, in one area of agriculture -- ranching -- irrigation rates are going up by 56 percent, and Crown leases are going up by 100 percent. Some of the leases are going up as high as 2,000 percent on ranches. Yet at the same time farm income on ranches is down by 19 percent since this government took office.

Truth, justice and open government are absent in this budget. The Finance minister tries to make us believe British Columbia is in great shape and that we're better off than other provinces. What he doesn't tell us is that the bond-rating agencies have put B.C. and all other provinces under a credit review, with a negative outlook for the future because they're in a debt spiral. That debt spiral cannot be stopped until provinces start running surplus budgets and begin paying off their debts. The government hasn't awakened to the fact that we must deal with this deficit.

This is a novel budget. Several of its main features were signalled long before budget day. It's good psychology: if you have bad news to deliver, why not deliver it in bits and pieces rather than in one blow on budget day? It's amazing. There is not a single mention of the environment, and the budget chops Environment ministry spending by 35 percent. So much for this government's commitment to the environment.

The same can be said for our important resource industries, which we should be concentrating on to fuel the economy. Fisheries, agriculture, forestry and mining were absent in the budget speech. The only areas cut in the budget were the most important areas for the economic recovery and the growth areas that would create jobs.

Agriculture was reduced by 9.9 percent, and this is a wealth-generating industry. Economic Development is down by 56.8 percent over two years -- another wealth-generating industry. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is down 4.1 percent this year. Tourism is down 15 percent over two years. These are all wealth generators. Do you notice that, hon. members? Forestry is down 2.0 percent over this year.

In reality, this budget is more a social agenda than an economic blueprint. British Columbia needs to build the confidence of consumers, business and investors. The budget speech gave no indication that the minister realizes that British Columbia is a player in the international market. If the province were competitive, it would attract investment and jobs, and the minister would have the taxes he's looking for. But competition and the minister certainly didn't seem to mix in this budget speech.

Instead, the minister kept saying that if we want to save universal medicare and educate our children, we'd have to pay higher costs. He failed to mention that increases in those ministries were dwarfed by the increase of almost 17 percent for the Ministry of Social Services. And he forgot to mention the 73,000 single men on British Columbia's welfare rolls. The minister plans to pour money into retraining. What the minister doesn't realize is that even the trained can't find jobs.

This government's priority must be to ensure industry survives. The industry will then train the people to do the jobs. This budget doesn't address investment, globalization or competitiveness. The budget attempts no major surgery on the basic structure of government. Instead it increases the bureaucracy, adding 300 new employees and two new agencies. It is not much comfort knowing that our tax dollars are being managed by a Premier who is letting his office budget go up by $1.1 million this year -- and he calls that restraint.

There is every evidence that excess spending will continue. Giving the new head of ICBC a $50,000 increase over and above the $125,000 salary is awful. If he gets an extra $50,000 to take the job, I shudder to think what the bonus will be once he's in the job for one year. This type of irresponsibility in government must cease; this type of government mentality in British Columbia we cannot afford.

In a spirit of constructive criticism, I applaud the minister for taking measures to ensure that those in a high tax category of over $100,000, who have not paid any income tax to date, will now pay their share. I also applaud the minister for listening to my constituents by not putting a tax on restaurant meals. This would have had a devastating effect on tourism. I do not criticize for criticism's sake; rather I criticize where I feel criticism is due. I am concerned about the future of our province.

[ Page 5007 ]

Therefore I urge this government to consider these alternatives in their task of coping with these difficult economic times.

Since taxes steal from today and debt robs tomorrow, this government should reduce taxes, reduce the debt and reduce the spending. How? Let's consider a few of these examples. It is interesting to note that MLAs' taxable salaries of $32,812 have been frozen for two years, yet for civil servants, only those over $100,000 will have their salaries frozen. I suggest that all civil servants with salaries of $30,000 and above should have their wages frozen. Spending on wages and benefits for government employees has gone up by 25 percent in two years -- well ahead of the rate of inflation and the growth of the economy.

All ministries must cut their budgets, not increase them. This includes the Premier's office. One way the Premier can do this is to stop taking expensive, non-productive junkets to other countries and far-off lands. He doesn't accomplish much with them.

[3:30]

The subsidy for the legislative dining room has gone up by 67 percent -- from $105,000 to $175,000. Why? Cut the subsidy completely. Make the users pay for its total expenses, just as in any other restaurant. Collect PST at the border from Canadians who shop outside of Canada, just as is done with the GST. Alberta has no sales tax. Why? Because they promote their resources. British Columbia must ensure that our resources survive and create jobs. As an example: encourage value-added industries in fisheries and other resource sectors to create jobs in global competition.

We must have balanced budgets to prevent further debt. Develop a long-term strategy for paying off our current debt. Help the environment and our grain growers by legislating that ethanol be used in all British Columbia gasoline. This would use all the British Columbia grain and assist our troubled grain farmers. No more government jet use by MLAs, ministers, the Premier or, especially, by civil servants and bureaucrats.

An Hon. Member: When did MLAs start using the government jets?

R. Chisholm: Ask the government side of the House. They'll answer.

Hon. Speaker, these are just a few examples of how this government must proceed in order to ensure that the debt is reduced and that our citizens are not taxed further. British Columbians are taxed to the max. Tax increases discourage investment and cause bankruptcy. They can no longer be tolerated. This year the provincial debt has increased by $3,000 per family, and the cumulative debt is $26,000 per family.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: The government side should be very proud of themselves about this.

We are in trouble. We must stop and set goals for ourselves. I urge the government to revamp this budget in order to reflect a decrease in spending, a balanced budget and a long-term repayment plan for our debt to ensure a prosperous future. If we don't, I'm afraid the road is downhill from here.

D. Mitchell: It's my pleasure to rise today and speak on the amendment to the motion. This is not a well-thought-out budget. It's the wrong budget for British Columbia. This budget has no vision for the future of the province of British Columbia, except for a continuation of the tax, borrow and spend policies of this administration, which has clearly demonstrated that it cannot manage the affairs of this province.

In the Speech from the Throne that started this session, there was talk of the need for courage.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. It seems as though we're forgetting that we have standing orders in regard to respect for members who are making budget speeches -- or any other speech, for that matter. I would ask that the members extend the same courtesy to those who have the floor as they would expect when they have the floor. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi continues.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, we must forgive the members if they get a little excited. There is a lot to get excited about in this budget document. Unfortunately, it's not positive excitement; it's the kind of excitement that leads to depression.

When we reflect on the Speech from the Throne that started this session, the speech referred to the need for courage. I agree; there is a need for courage in British Columbia today. But British Columbians want their government to demonstrate the courage of their own convictions and to deliver on programs in a way that can be met on an ongoing basis. What kind of courage has been demonstrated with this budget? I think we have to ask that question. In fact, the government begs us to ask that question with the Speech from the Throne. Has the budget demonstrated courage? No, it hasn't. Hardly.

In fact, it's a cowardly document that the Minister of Finance has already been forced to back down on. It is unprecedented in the history of budgets delivered in this Legislative Assembly for a Minister of Finance to have to back down on a major revenue measure introduced in his budget within days of delivering it. He's backed down already, and one can only hope that he won't stop there and that he'll come back to this House with more announcements, backing down on some of the punitive measures that he's implemented with this budget that lacks courage. It's a cowardly document.

We have a government that speaks of courage, but it practises cowardice.

Why hasn't this government given the people of British Columbia what they want? British Columbians are fair-minded people; they're willing to make sacrifices for the right cause. My constituents are a good example. I represent a geographically, socially and economically diverse constituency. I know what my constituents want from this government, because they've told me. I know how they feel about British Columbia's budget deficit. Prior to the budget being

[ Page 5008 ]

introduced, I polled my constituents -- it's a scientific constituency poll. I've already shared the results with members of this House. My constituents are not confused about the issue. In fact, when I polled them -- and the government is hoping that most British Columbians aren't really aware of the budgetary deficit that is being run in this province -- 90 percent of my constituents said they were aware that the government is running a deficit. Sixty-three percent of them said they were very concerned about the budgetary deficit.

When they were asked whether or not there should be yearly balanced budgets in British Columbia, almost half of them said yes. You have to think about that, because we know that municipalities are required to balance their budgets every year; school boards are required to do the same; so are colleges and universities. We have to ask if it is time for that idea to arrive here in Victoria with the provincial government.

A key question on the poll was: "If the government was to act to reduce or eliminate the deficit, which of the following would you support?" My constituents from this diverse constituency were given a range of options, and 72 percent said they would be prepared to maintain current tax levels, to take a hold-the-line approach on taxation, as long as the government reduced spending to balance the budget. There's a strong message there. I don't think that this result would be different outside of my riding; those results would likely apply throughout the province.

It's not easy to decide where you would cut. That's a difficult decision that the government has to make. My constituents have told me what their priorities would be. This has to be put into the context of having a goal of balancing the budget so that we can finally start to deal with the provincial debt which has accumulated rapidly. When it came to education, 83 percent of my constituents said: "For heaven's sake, don't cut spending on education." When it came to health care, 78 percent said: "Don't cut spending in health care. It's very important. It's valuable to us. We don't think that spending can be reduced there."

A controversial part of the poll relates to social services. The minister will be interested in this: 63 percent believe that there is room for reductions in social service spending. We have to think about that. I don't believe that it suggests for a moment that my constituents are hardhearted. But there is a strong sentiment in my constituency that there is overspending in social services and that it's an area that requires stronger discipline.

Transportation and highways is an interesting one -- the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale misrepresented this poll earlier -- because transportation is very important in my constituency: the sea-to-sky highway, the Lion's Gate bridge and a number of other issues -- the Bowen Island ferry run, the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal. Transportation is vital in my constituency, yet slightly more than half of my constituents said they would be prepared to see a spending cut even on transportation and highways, so long as the government was committed to balancing its budget and reducing debt. That's a big sacrifice.

My constituents are willing to make that sacrifice if the government has the right motives, the right intentions and the right programs.

In this poll I also asked my constituents if they would support legislation that made it against the law for the government of British Columbia to run a deficit -- a harsh measure, perhaps. My constituents were split roughly fifty-fifty on that, and there was some concern about how that would be implemented. I think the final question on the poll might be instructive for members of the government: "Would you support a law that required the provincial government to obtain approval by referendum before raising taxes?" Fifty-seven percent said yes. They thought there should be a provincial referendum before the government should be allowed to raise taxes.

One wonders whether or not the government's recent measures for a school property surtax would have passed that kind of a referendum test. One wonders whether or not the reductions in the homeowner grant would have passed the referendum test. One wonders whether the increase in the sales tax -- or so many of the other taxation measures that are punitive and regressive -- would have passed the test of a provincewide referendum. I think not, hon. Speaker.

I know how my constituents feel, because I have polled them on this. It's a technique that other MLAs in the House might want to consider using from time to time. I know the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale should poll his constituents, and the reason I know why he should is because he actually has the gall to stand up in this House and say that this budget is a great budget for his constituents. He's so out of touch with opinion on the North Shore that he should hang his head in shame. There's no question that this member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is a one-term member.

He will never get re-elected after declaring this budget to be not only a good budget but a great budget. Shame on him for being that out of touch with his constituents!

What my constituents want likely reflects public opinion well beyond my riding. They want fairness and a little bit of courage on the part of the government. But that's not what the government has delivered. They've delivered a government spending program we can't afford, and they've raised taxes to levels that can't be tolerated.

The government is taking $1 billion in new taxes out of the pockets of British Columbians at a time when our economy is fragile; at a time when we should be thinking about increasing the purchasing power of British Columbians so that they can spend a little bit more to keep the economy growing, to keep retailers in business. It's the wrong budget for British Columbia.

The only thing that's growing with this budget is the provincial debt, and it's growing rapidly out of control. The government's new budget features another huge projected deficit of $1.5 billion. We don't know what the actual deficit will be. And based upon last year's projections from the Minister of Finance, we know that we can't trust his forecast, because he overestimates revenues and underestimates expenditures. His last year's budget was totally out of control; this year he's telling us he's going to run a deficit of $1.5 billion. Now, what does that mean? That means this government is

[ Page 5009 ]

going to be spending almost 10 percent more than they're taking in in revenue. Think about that when you apply it to your own personal finances. Think about how long you can sustain that. When you add that $1.5 billion to the accumulated debt, the direct operating debt of our province is going to be more than $10.5 billion at the end of this fiscal year. And when you add in all of the Crown corporation debt, it's going to be a staggering $26.3 billion, according to the minister's forecast, if he's right. It will probably be higher.

Over two years, that's a growth of almost 30 percent in the accumulated debt of British Columbia since this government came to office. What does that mean? Is that something we should be concerned about? Some people might ask that. The government certainly doesn't seem to be very concerned or agitated about it. But it is something that we should be concerned about, and I'll tell you why. The interest payments on our accumulated debt are now becoming the fourth largest ministry of this government.

After Health, Education and Social Services, the next largest spending priority of this government is interest and carrying charges on our total accumulated debt, and it's growing faster than any other ministry of government. In fact, the only other ministry that comes close to this kind of growth in interest charges is the Ministry of Social Services. The Ministry of Social Services spending went up by more than 17 percent in this budget; interest on the debt went up by 21 percent. Those are the two highest spending priorities of this government.

What happens when we spend almost a billion dollars a year on interest and carrying charges on the debt? That's a billion dollars that each and every British Columbian who I know would rather see spent elsewhere. There isn't one British Columbian I know who wouldn't be able to come up with some other priorities for spending that billion dollars rather than spending it on interest charges to banks -- many of them foreign banks outside British Columbia and Canada.

That spending is growing. Interest charges on our debt is now the fourth-largest ministry of government, and at this rate, it's going to become the largest. If this administration is allowed to spend a few more years in office without cutting growth and debt and increasing debt the way it is, at this rate that will become the number one spending priority of government. That would be a tragedy. It would mean less money to spend on education and health and on the valuable social priorities that all British Columbians want to see fulfilled. That's why this budget is so wrong.

[3:45]

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

The big lie of this budget is that the Minister of Finance didn't have the courage to talk, in very frank terms, about the deficit and his plans to balance the budget and deal with the debt over time. There is no plan. I've read through the budget document frontwards and backwards a hundred times, and I can't find a plan to balance the budget.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: Let me tell you, hon. member, that it has given me nightmares.

I cannot find a plan in this document.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: The member opposite is waiting for the movie, but I encourage him to read this document and see if he can come up with a plan to balance the budget. It's not there. The Minister of Finance should hang his head in shame, because he hasn't got a plan to balance the budget. British Columbians are saying that balancing the budget and dealing with the public debt is the number one issue in public administration in our province -- as it is in our country -- so that we can spend more of the taxpayers' precious dollars on valuable government services, not simply on interest charges on the debt.

What is the vision of this government? Is there a vision for the province of British Columbia in this budget? Again, I've searched the document, and I can't find the vision, other than the fact that the two highest spending priorities are interest payments on the debt and increased payments to recipients of social services. That's a pretty grim vision, when you think about it. Is that the vision that we as British Columbia aspire to: paying more and more for interest on the debt and for welfare recipients? We need to see a plan to deal with both of these spending areas, because they are the two areas that are running out of control.

We can't find a vision. Where do the spending priorities of this government lead us? It's very clear to me that we need a plan to balance the budget, and I think that can only be provided by the force of law. I believe we need balanced-budget legislation in British Columbia that will require the government to balance its budget on an annual basis. That might sound like strict discipline, but it already applies at the municipal level in British Columbia. I think it has to be applied to the provincial level as well. We can't get there overnight; it would take a few years to phase it in.

But once we get there, we would never have to worry about this again, and we could finally start to address the public debt of this province and start reducing that, rather than adding to it every year.

With a balanced budget plan, such as the one I will be proposing in the House in a private member's bill within the next few days, members opposite, including the member for Nanaimo, will be able to scrutinize this plan and discuss it with me. I look forward to the debate that he will undoubtedly want to have on it in this House. I think the member for Nanaimo will actually agree that it's a plan that can work and one that will address some of his concerns.

We need a special discipline, and it can only be provided by the force of law. We can't trust governments that come in and say that they're going to balance the budget over a five-year business cycle. No one even knows what a business cycle is anymore; economists cannot agree on that. We can't talk about balancing the budget over some multi-year period; that just doesn't work. Elections intervene, new governments come in with new priorities and the budget simply becomes less

[ Page 5010 ]

of a priority. So we need the special force and discipline that can only be provided by law. We need balanced-budget legislation. Many American states have balanced-budget legislation, and the time has come for us to face it in Canada as well.

The very best intentions of the politicians of any party simply can't be met because of the increasing demands of pressure groups in society to spend more and more. The appetite of these groups is insatiable. We need to curb that appetite. We need to put governments on a special diet, and that can only be provided by balanced budget legislation.

One of the best-kept secrets of this budget is the $1 billion slush fund that has been prepared for Crown corporations in our province. The budget contains a special fund for Crown corporations of $1 billion in spending for this year. At a time when we're not balancing the budget, at a time when we're not addressing the debt, Crown corporations are going to spend $1 billion with very little accountability to this Legislature. The previous administration had something they called a BS fund for budget stabilization. This administration has a BW fund -- for Bob Williams.

It's a Bob Williams fund for expanding his growing empire of Crown corporations with little accountability. Mr. Williams doesn't come to the House and answer questions, and no one will answer them for him.

The BW fund is going to increase the empire of Crown corporations. How is it going to do that? We don't know. It's hard for us to find out, because this government hides revenues, taxing, spending and borrowing powers increasingly in the corporate form of government -- in Crown corporations -- rather than allowing them to be within the line ministries, where the ministers perform the drudgery of public administration on a daily basis in full public scrutiny. Bob Williams is not exposed to that kind of scrutiny. He has been given $1 billion to play in the market and compete with the private sector and expand the tentacles of government into the private sector on an increasing basis.

I'll give you an example. Just last week B.C. Rail purchased a Vancouver company, Vancouver Wharves Ltd. I have to raise some questions about the mandate of a Crown corporation such as B.C. Rail. It used to be a rail utility servicing customers on its rail line. That Crown corporation is expanding aggressively into telecommunications, real estate development and now, by purchasing Vancouver Wharves, into cargo terminal products. One has to ask: what service does that give to the public in a direct way? B.C. Rail is going into direct competition with its own customers.

Can it do that without embroiling itself in conflicts of interest? These are the kinds of investments that I suppose we can expect Bob Williams to make with his $1 billion slush fund for Crown corporation development, expanding the reach of government throughout the private sector in B.C.

When combined with the B.C. Endowment Fund investments in Westcoast Energy, MacMillan Bloedel and other companies, we can see that the strategy of this government is to increasingly intrude into the private sector of the economy and increase its control, influence and power. It's inviting a future government, which will inevitably replace this government in a few years -- at the time of the next election -- to reverse those decisions, to reverse those investments, to reverse those unnecessary and, in fact, negative incursions into the private sector of our economy.

That's unfortunate, because it creates instability in our economy to have the pendulum swinging back and forth with a government that's taking an unnecessary activist, interventionist role. It should be focusing its attention on the reduction of debt. Why is it spending this money on purchasing companies in the private sector and going into competition with private businesses? Why isn't it asking those Crown corporations to provide dividends that can be used in a much more constructive way -- to reduce debt? I think it's extremely inappropriate, and Bob Williams needs to be called to account in this Legislature.

We need a legislative committee on Crown corporations to review annually, in a thorough manner, the activities of all Crown corporations, similar to the way the Public Accounts Committee functions for ministries of government.

I know I don't have too much time, but I would like to address a matter of grave concern in my riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi: property taxation and the way this government has proposed handling it in this budget. I've already referred to the fact that the Minister of Finance has backed down on one major aspect of the budget. This is a key question of confidence. The Minister of Finance today tried to suggest that he was actually just being responsive; people were calling for his head, and he decided to deliver it to them on a platter in the form of giving them back the school property surtax.

That's not good enough. When can you think of a precedent when a Minister of Finance has been forced within days to backtrack, to renege on a major budgetary revenue measure? It's a question of confidence in this government.

By bringing in a budget that was simply a trial balloon, this minister can no longer inspire the confidence of this Legislature. Budgets are not trial balloons. He was supposedly engaged in a process of consultation prior to the budget being brought down. How meaningful could that consultation have been, if he hadn't even thought through the impact of one of the major taxation measures that formed the basis for his budget? This minister no longer has the confidence of this assembly. That's why this amendment should be supported by all members of this assembly.

This amendment to the budget motion is a question of confidence. It's an amendment that raises a motion of confidence in this government. I call on all members to support this amendment, because this minister can no longer have the confidence of members of this assembly, who represent the people of this province, who have protested about the unfair, inequitable approach that this minister has brought in with his budget.

There is an element of protest in the province of British Columbia today; there is an element of a tax revolt that's brewing in the land today. We've seen the minister back down, but he should back down further. He still hasn't addressed the issue of the homeowner's grant reduction. He still hasn't addressed the issue of

[ Page 5011 ]

whether or not he's trying to foment some kind of class conflict in our province. At a time when we want to be constructive in bringing people together and mediating disputes, this government is seeking to drive people and communities apart, and penalize people on the basis of property owned, not income earned. And that's a major issue of confidence in this government. Reduction in the homeowner's grant still penalizes longtime residents of many parts of my constituency -- many of whom are senior citizens, who live on fixed incomes, and who have built up equity in their homes.

Now the NDP wants to penalize them, to raise their taxes to the point where they have to consider selling their homes. Why? Is it fair? No, it's mean-spirited, that's what it is. That's why a tax revolt is brewing.

This government says that wealthy British Columbians are those who earn $60,000 or more a year as a family. We all know that families where both spouses are working often earn more than $60,000 a year. We have to ask ourselves: are all the families we know who on a combined basis earn $60,000 considered to be wealthy British Columbians? We know from the Minister of Finance's own budget documents that the average family income in British Columbia is $54,000 a year, so there's not much of a margin there from the average to becoming wealthy.

And yet he wants to penalize this new definition of wealthy British Columbians by raising taxes on them. British Columbians don't want to pay these taxes, because they don't see the government willing to take the same tough medicine that they're asking British Columbians to take.

And when we take a look around the country today and see what other governments are doing, we have to wonder how British Columbia can be so far out of step. Take a look at what's happening in Newfoundland, where the government has brought in a budget that's trying to address their huge budgetary deficit; and they're asking their public servants to have their pay frozen for two years in order to help meet the needs of the province.

Take a look at what's happening in Nova Scotia: the government there has had to consider privatizing a major Crown utility, Nova Scotia Power, in order to meet the demands of balancing the budget and addressing provincial debt. Take a look at Quebec, where the Finance ministry has suggested user fees for health care, higher university tuition and school taxes, privatizing Crown corporations, as well as freezing civil service pay, simply to try to balance the budget, a pressing need of Quebec.

Take a look at Ontario, where the NDP government has driven that province into total chaos, where there is now going to have to be massive layoffs of public servants in Ontario simply to meet the needs of trying to balance the budget, which they'll never do in the time that's available to the Rae government before they're kicked out of office. Take a look at what's happening in Manitoba, where all public servants are being asked to take ten unpaid days of leave in order to try to help make a contribution to the crisis in that province. Take a look at all these other provinces, Mr.

Speaker, where severe measures are being implemented, severe actions are being taken by governments -- probably too little, too late.

We like to think that we're better off in British Columbia than anywhere else in the country. But are we really? Or is that simply a mythology that we're living? We like to think that we don't need to take such drastic measures here, that we don't believe in them. But is that true, Mr. Speaker? Isn't it time that this government showed the courage of its own convictions, withdrew this budget and brought back a budget that met the needs of British Columbians and had a vision for where we could go, a vision of how we could develop into a strong, competitive, enterprise-based society in the twenty-first century?

[4:00]

When you talk about the twenty-first century, another one of the lies in this budget is B.C. 21, the so-called innovation that the minister spoke of in his budget speech. B.C. 21 is an acronym for something, but it's supposed to suggest where British Columbia could be in the twenty-first century. And what does B.C. 21 consist of? Does it involve a new approach to the service industries of the province or talking about technology-based industries and how they're going to be attracted here, or where the jobs in the future are going to be? No. It doesn't talk about that at all.

It's simply another part of this Crown corporation slush fund. It's going to pave some highways in the interior, which is good. We're going to plant a few trees with silviculture programs, which is great; but where is the twenty-first century part of the vision? Where is the vision in the document? There is no vision in this budget. We all know that where there is no vision, the people will perish. And for those reasons I ask all members of this assembly to support the amendment put forward in this budget speech.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I welcome the opportunity to take my place in the House, speak in favour of this budget and oppose the amendment brought in by the opposition. Not only does this budget meet the realities of today, but it provides some vision and some direction -- indeed, some hope -- for the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to start by talking about the reality today, and then speak a little bit about how we reached that vision in British Columbia by working together, rather than in the most opportunistic way trying to erode the good attempts of people in this province to meet the challenges that are facing all of us, not only in this province but in Canada and in North America generally.

In the last number of years we have seen a federal government that has, without the support of Canadians, negotiated a trade deal with the United States, and that is again rushing to sign an agreement with Mexico. In those last number of years we've seen a country -- not only as reflected in British Columbia but in many other provinces in Canada -- go from a growing, prosperous country to one that is referred to as provinces that are being deindustrialized, as we are seeing in Ontario.

We saw a federal government, in that process of signing the deal with the United States, making commitments to stand beside workers and businesses alike in the kinds of adjustments that they recognized were

[ Page 5012 ]

necessary. But what has happened instead is that we have seen the prosperous, so-called have provinces capped. We have seen the social policies across Canada come to the point where they have more in common with the United States than they have with the traditions of Canada. I think that that is not only mean-spirited, but also shortsighted.

In the last number of years we've seen Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia capped, because the federal government foresaw the increasing need and saw an opportunity to download their deficit, their irresponsible management, onto the provinces. In British Columbia alone the cap on our cost-shared social programs, while it was only 5 percent, actually represented a full 39 percent of the federal government's deficit. And I ask you: is that fair?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

The shortsightedness is indicated when you look at what is happening in other advanced industrialized countries: when you look at the OECD countries, of which we are one; when you look at Germany, which spends 441/2 percent of its gross national product on social spending; when you look at Japan, which spends nearly 43 percent of its gross domestic product on social services. Here in Canada we spend 35 percent, and that is decreasing.

When you look at the mentality that is implicit in the free trade deal, not only with the United States but with Mexico, you see that it is driving Canada to the lowest common denominator -- whether it's the lowest common denominator in wages or in social spending. Quite frankly, where the opposition talks about this budget as a social agenda, I for one don't separate the two. This budget shows the need for balance between a social agenda and an economic agenda, and I'll speak more about that.

The United States spends less on its citizens by way of investing in social spending, and as an economy, it is not doing as well as some of the stronger economies like Germany and Japan, which invest more in their workforce. The United States spends 34 percent of its gross domestic product. When you look at Mexico, which spends 12 percent of its gross domestic product on the people of Mexico, it becomes clear that this downward divesting of social spending and investment in the workforce has real economic consequences on the standard of living of its citizens.

This budget represents the realities of today, and it clearly makes choices to invest in people, in families and in children. It sees that investing in the strengths of British Columbia provides an opportunity for growth and stability, and it provides for the hope of years to come. It rebukes the Social Credit and the Liberal calls for punitive actions, for cutting services and for divesting the support of future generations and of the children, families and communities that, through no fault of their own, find themselves facing the stresses and strains of the restructuring of our economy in British Columbia, as well as across Canada.

This budget recognizes those realities and makes a choice to continue to stand beside children, families and communities. It recognizes that divesting social infrastructure is divesting our economy. It recognizes that business is looking for well-trained workers, for community stability and for the quality that British Columbia has come to expect of its workforce.

By bringing in the B.C. 21 program and by investing in people whom the federal government has written off and thrown away, this budget clearly makes a statement that only through that investment will we be able to turn around the downward spiral that the Social Credit government left as a legacy in this province.

If we look at the bigger picture and at what has happened when people put their minds to change, one of the optimistic things is what has happened to seniors' poverty in the last decade. Ten years ago a full 22 percent of seniors across Canada lived in poverty. But because of the lobby by senior citizens, the community pressure and the acceptance from governments, whether national or provincial, we were able to put together a package that provided security for senior citizens. Today we see only 8 percent -- still too many -- of senior citizens living below the poverty line.

That is optimistic, because that shows what people can do if they fully put their minds to the kinds of reform this government is talking about and to the partnership that is required among communities, families, businesses, working people and government. It's time we got on with the job; it's time that we saw the strength that we have by standing together, rather than by dividing one against the other.

It's time that we stood up and said that the kind of society we wish for British Columbians and for Canadians builds on strengths and on supporting each other, and will not tolerate 10 percent of the population being victimized by the economic restructuring and barriers that exclude people from the opportunity to be full, productive citizens in our communities.

I believe there are models and opportunities across this great province of ours to put people back to work. This budget says the government is prepared to enter into partnership with working people and families to put people back to work. It says we are prepared to invest because we understand that that is good for the economy, it is good for families, and it is good for business.

It also recognizes that the kind of road followed by the Social Credit government -- and now the Liberals so quickly chime in with it -- has cost this province too much. It's not only the loss of leadership they have so pathetically abandoned in not standing by people in this province, but also the very real costs that we are now incurring in corrections and social services, the very real costs of the loss of potential -- because there is real loss of potential when you marginalize 10 percent of the population -- and the very real costs that we are now incurring by having to support families that can no longer stay together.

I want to share with this House some numbers that I find very staggering. When we're looking at income assistance -- and all too few people truly understand that when we're talking about 10 percent of the population, we're talking about over 300,000 men, women and children -- a full third of all those people

[ Page 5013 ]

on income assistance are children. Think of that future for this province. As a society, what do we supply to those children as support for their future? When we hear from the opposition side, we hear them talking about cutting social service costs -- cutting welfare.

We give a child on welfare $150 a month to live on. That is the reality in this province. That is the kind of legacy that we have come to in this province after 15 or 20 years of Social Credit administration. What kind of opportunity does that child have to succeed in their education, in their future-building? As a government, we have recognized that those children need a society that is more supportive, that understands and believes in their future and is prepared to stand beside them. We have done that in a very small way, and I would like to do more.

We have done that by meeting the needs of children in schools, by bringing in a lunch program last year. In those schools where the children are able to take advantage of those lunch programs the teachers are telling us that those kids are becoming more attentive and more able to tend to their studies, and that bodes well for the future of this province.

But I want to go back to that $150. The previous Social Credit administration put in place in my ministry a policy that was called forced employment. That forced employment policy said that as soon as the youngest child was six months of age, a single parent then must go out and look for work. The reality is that many single parents were unable to support their families, find a job that could meet the needs of their children, and accommodate their children's safety by finding safe and reliable day care in this province.

Indeed, the reality is that by that kind of punitive action, families were forced to break down. We saw more and more children having to rely on our foster care network in this province, and that costs real dollars: $150 to support a child with a single parent; $600 for a foster placement; and for some children who became so damaged because of the stresses of poverty and of family breakdown and because of abuse and neglect, we are now paying $5,000 in some instances for a placement to provide care for them.

Not only is that inhumane, not only is that the legacy of this previous government, but it is fiscally irresponsible. It is far cheaper to support children and families in real choices and in real opportunities. This government has made that choice, and we are prepared to stand and meet those challenges of the increasing need in this province.

We have done that in two ways. We will be bringing a bill into the Legislature -- it was referred to both in the throne speech and, I believe, the budget speech -- that sees government supporting families in staying together. It has also met the requirements of families to work, in support of the personal dignity of people being able to support their families with a decent paycheque. We have done that, in this ministry alone, by providing an increased amount in the budget for employment and training opportunities. We in this ministry intend to meet the needs of not only single parents but also, as one of the previous speakers said, single people on income assistance.

[4:15]

I spoke about the kinds of optimism that I share with people who have seen what a commitment can do to alleviate seniors' poverty. The other reality that we have seen in the last decade is that the real standard of living in this province has not increased, yet at the same time we have seen a phenomenal increase in the number of women who have entered the workplace. It now takes two full-time wage earners for families to qualify for a mortgage. That means there is a need for increased support for families. It also means that if there are not two full-time wage earners in a family....

A single person is that much more vulnerable, whether supporting children or living on their own. Those statistics are StatsCan statistics. That's the reality that we are dealing with in this province. This budget presents a commitment from our government to meet that challenge and to stand beside people in real job creation, because it's only when we get people back to work that we will see a real turnaround in this province.

There is also a commitment to fairness in this budget. There is a recognition of the reality of today, and there is a commitment from this government not only to support those most in need but also to bring fairness to the tax system. When you compare the tax fairness initiatives of the last two budgets in this province, you see a shift away from lower- and middle-income taxpayers to those taxpayers who indeed have the ability to pay and who have not been paying their fair share. People in this province are welcoming that trend, are encouraged and would like to encourage the federal government to do the same.

It's about time that those who are most able to pay their fair share indeed paid it. When we look at the kind of balance that this budget has brought, and the challenge that we have in facing a federal government that is all too quickly dismantling not only the social programs but also the economic infrastructure in this country, it's time for all of us in this House to put our minds to what we're going to do in this province to turn this around and get on with the real task of getting people in this province back to work, rather than playing petty politics in these hallowed halls.

I talked in the throne speech debate about balance and the need for more balanced decision-making tables. In the past, when governments have looked at economic development opportunities, they've looked to business, whether it's been small business, large business or, indeed, the multinationals and trade opportunities. But what has been missing from those tables is working people.

It's the New Democratic government that allows and encourages the broadening of those decision-making tables, that encourages representation not only from men and women, but from all walks of life, from working people who have been the backbone of this province, who have built this province, who bring their talents and skills to the kinds of challenges that we see in this province. That is the difference that a New Democratic government and a New Democratic budget proposes.

I understand that for a number of hon. members in this House this does look a lot different than the kinds of budgets they have seen in the past, but I believe that is welcomed also. It's the kind of reality and the kind of

[ Page 5014 ]

recognition that budgets are more than simply numbers, more than simply speeches, and are a statement of values that reflect the needs of people, that include people in the solutions and meet the challenges of today. It's that sort of vision -- the recognition of the reality we are in today and the kinds of tools that are provided in this budget -- that allows people to move on with the task of building this province. We have a wonderful province here in British Columbia, but unless we British Columbians embrace the task ahead of us and stop looking for someone else to fix the problem, I despair.

I think I will leave it at that, and only say that this budget provides hope. It provides opportunities for those who often are victimized at a time of recession and change. I'm proud of the record of this government. I'm proud of the record of my ministry. In the last number of months we have seen those so-called have provinces, like Ontario, deindustrialized by shortsighted federal initiatives, with an increase in the welfare caseload of 21 percent. We see our most conservative neighbour, Alberta, embracing the Social Credit policies and now the Liberal policies -- punitive, mean-spirited policies.

They are now rejecting the support that families and children need on welfare, and their caseloads are up 26 percent. So here in this province, where we also are being impacted by federal initiatives -- whether it is the downloading of the federal deficit or the kinds of trade deals that this federal government is now engaged in and has signed in the last number of years -- we, through our support of the strengths of British Columbians, are seeing opportunity and hope. I find that not only a privilege to represent, but I am indeed proud of this budget and of the direction in which this government is headed.

J. Pullinger: I, too, am pleased to take my place in this debate and to speak in favour of a budget that's a good, fair and balanced budget. It's one that I believe most or all British Columbians can take some pride in because it is fair and balanced.

First of all, as I speak about this budget, I want to look a little bit at just what it does in terms of fairness, what we see in this budget and why my colleagues and I can say unequivocally that it's a fair budget. What does it do? This budget cuts taxes for a great chunk of British Columbians. About the lower third of British Columbians will realize a net tax decrease, and so will small businesses. It shifts the burden of taxation ever so slightly to those more able to pay.

It reverses the trend of the last decade in British Columbia and across this country of lowering costs and taxes for those with the largest incomes, and increasing them -- because it has got to come from somewhere -- for the average working family and those least able to pay. We've seen over the last decade that as a result, there is a gap growing faster than in any other decade in our history between those who are doing just fine and those who are no longer making it very well.

We have decided to reverse that trend and make taxes a little more fair, and to return to that social contract we've had in this province since World War II that says that you should pay on your ability to pay, rather than on your ability to lobby government. We have brought in some tax increases, and nobody likes tax increases. But the reality is that if we're going to pay for our programs and for the things that we want and hold dear in this province, we have to raise taxes. We've done it in a very fair way. I think that's something that we can all feel pretty comfortable with.

The budget also eliminates further waste. It reduces the deficit. It cuts spending in real terms per capita while protecting important services. It's about balance; this budget is balanced. We've had a difficult challenge facing us as British Columbians. We took up that challenge, we made some tough choices, and we have decided to protect those social services. We heard the member from West Vancouver saying that people don't want to see those services cut. If anything, they want to see them improved. So we've done that. The budget finds that balance between reducing the deficit, limiting government spending and protecting social services.

The budget also contains a very clear economic strategy. I am amazed when I hear the opposition members asking what our economic plan is. The only conclusion I can come to is that they don't want to recognize, or can't recognize, an economic plan when they see one, because we certainly haven't had one in this province for quite some time. The fact that we've got an economic strategy, a means to begin renewing our economy and building for the future, is certainly a feature of this budget and one that we can be proud of.

We have heard a great storm of protest from the opposition benches in the wake of this budget. I want to look at that for a minute. First of all, we hear the Liberal benches screaming that we should be cutting spending drastically; at the same time, at different moments in the day, they're saying that we should increase spending on hospitals, on education, on tourism and all of these things. Then they change their hat around and say we should cut spending.

I find it a little bit difficult to comprehend where they're coming from on that, except that I remember that this is the party that had a platform with 272 election promises; they immediately ran away from all but two, and then raised some questions about the remaining two. Certainly those protests leave a lot of people scratching their head and wondering just what they're trying to do. They want to spend, spend, spend on the one hand and cut, cut, cut on the other. I don't know how you're supposed to do that.

We also hear Social Credit with the very familiar refrain, being echoed by the Liberals: don't increase taxes for those at the top; don't increase taxes for those who are able to pay; rather, increase them for those at the bottom. I'm sure they would be happy to see us.... In fact, the opposition benches have said so.

I hope the working people of British Columbia -- the health care workers, the single mothers, the teen moms, all of those people -- are listening very carefully to the opposition, whether Liberal or Social Credit, because they are making it very clear that what they would do is dump people out of jobs onto unemployment and then onto social assistance. They would cut the paycheques of government workers, who I'd like to point out are mostly women, mostly not earning a lot of money. They

[ Page 5015 ]

would reduce their paycheques further. They would make changes to the health care system without any kind of involvement by the health care workers. They would simply dump them out of their jobs and let it happen. They would probably go back to doing things such as those we saw in the last six years that were so reprehensible, like reducing incomes for single mothers a further $50, cutting supports to the people who need them most in our society.

I hope all of those people who were so badly affected under the last Socred government are listening, because they'll discover two things. One is that the Socreds, who are trying to argue that their party has taken on a new face and is being renewed and is going to thrive again, have not changed one whit. The other thing is that the Liberals are no different from the Socreds in terms of how they would balance the budget and on whose backs they would balance it. This government has looked at its choices and decided to bring about some balance and fairness. I'm very pleased about that.

[4:30]

We hear the opposition crying that we have increased spending, that we should cut spending. True, we have increased spending. We've increased it by just over 5.7 percent, to be specific. But in real net terms, the spending per capita has declined. If you add up inflation and the population growth in this province, you'll discover that the increase in spending is less than that total. It has declined. Also, the Socreds forget to mention that average spending over their term in government between 1988 and 1992 was something like 55 percent.

In our first year we reduced that annual increase of more than 12 percent to 6.5 percent, and this year to 5.7 percent. Because we've reduced government spending, because we've cleaned up government waste, because we've brought a different set of priorities to government, we're able to reduce the deficit.

Interjection.

J. Pullinger: Our Socred friend over there is grumbling. Let me remind the member opposite that we inherited the largest deficit in the history of B.C. from Social Credit. The right wing that is so able to deal with finances brought this province the largest spending increases we've seen for awhile -- over 12 percent year after year, resulting in a $2.4 billion deficit. If we'd left it alone, the independent financial review made it very clear that it would have been closer to $3 billion. It dropped to $1.95 billion in our first year and $1.5 billion this year, and we will see it continue to decrease until we get to a balanced budget.

This budget is clearly fair. It's based on the ability to pay, and it balances those conflicting needs to protect our services and reduce spending and the deficit. We've certainly done that. What I hear from the opposition -- and I'm hearing it right now -- is that we should cut, cut, cut and that we shouldn't have raised any taxes at all. We simply should have slashed government spending. A few minutes ago I listened to the member from West Vancouver say to slash government spending but don't cut health care and don't cut education. That's a huge chunk; that's the majority of the budget. Don't cut that, but cut spending.

Let's look at some of the options. I think the opposition needs a little reality check. If we wanted to balance this budget by doing nothing other than cutting this year, one option would be to close down 50 percent of all hospitals in B.C. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

L. Fox: Scare tactics.

J. Pullinger: No, that is truth; that is the reality. If we wanted to get rid of the deficit in one year, that's what it would take. But we have other options; you're quite right. We could close every single college and university -- that would balance the budget.

Interjections.

J. Pullinger: No, that's what it would take. Or we could shut down half of our K to 12 education system -- that would balance the budget.

Of course, what the opposition benches will argue is that we should look inwardly and that we could clean up waste. I find it surprising to see the Socred member over there nodding his head and agreeing when it's his party that's been in power for the last 20 years -- and that's a real kick at his own party. If he believes there's so much slack, why is it they didn't deal with it when they were in power?

But if we were going to look inward and say we'd balance the budget by cutting government spending internally, we would have to eliminate all of the following list: the ministries of Tourism and Culture; Labour and Consumer Services; Environment; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Forests; Finance; the office of the auditor general, the Commission on Resources and Environment, and the office of the ombudsman. And that would balance the budget. What a dumb argument we're hearing from the other side!

I heard one of the members on the opposite benches crying this morning, I think, because his salary had been capped. Isn't that interesting -- willing to force all public sector workers to take time off, to cut their incomes, to lay them off, to cut back their wages, and do all those sorts of things; willing to cut services to women and children and families who need those services, but crying about the fact that we also froze their salaries. Quite frankly, I am very pleased that we did that, because in my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues, government ought not to ask people to do something they won't do themselves. So we have tightened our belts, and that's good.

One of the things I want to address and which I think is one of the important parts of this budget is B.C. 21. It has not yet come to its full understanding, and we hear a lot of misleading comments about it, again from the Social Crediters and Liberals. It's one of the least understood so far, but one of the more important parts of the budget, because it contains an economic strategy for the future. We hear the Liberal opposition criticizing it. As I say, I don't think they know what an economic

[ Page 5016 ]

plan or an economic strategy looks like, because they can't see this one. It's there, it's clear, but they don't seem to be able to see it.

I think what else is interesting is that we have yet to hear any kind of an alternative from the Liberal or Socred benches. The Socreds were around for 20 years, and I didn't see an economic plan. I saw things like Music '91: $30 million. We saw the balkanization of British Columbia, which created little Socred czars in every region. We saw all sorts of wild ad hoc schemes under Social Credit, but we never saw a comprehensive plan.

What we clearly have here is the beginnings. It's not a fix-all, it's not a cure-all, and it's not going to fix our problems overnight. But it will begin that process of rebuilding, particularly rebuilding in the regions of British Columbia, which, under Social Credit, had been collapsing. Their economies were collapsing into the overheated economies of the lower mainland and Victoria. So we'll see a rebuilding of the regional economies and the economy of British Columbia under B.C. 21.

That plan is going to coordinate, focus and target government spending, and add some new money into a comprehensive plan that we can ultimately all benefit from. I'm certainly not saying that this is a cure-all or an overnight quick fix, such as Music '91 was supposed to be. Rather, it's a long-term strategy and a multi-year commitment to lay the groundwork for longer-term economic growth in the regions.

It will do four important things. First of all, it's going to increase capital spending in the regions of B.C. on vital projects, such as schools, colleges, community health centres and courthouses. Infrastructure of that nature will be built. We have to build that sooner or later. Sadly, we have a situation in this province whereby the misguided policies of restraint on the part of the Social Credit government have left hundreds of children in portables, in conditions that are not favourable to learning. Those children, their families and the teachers are trying to deal with that.

We want to see them moved out of those facilities -- and there are a large number of them -- into something that's more adequate and more conducive to learning, so that we get the full value out of our tax dollar that's spent on education. We're going to increase capital spending and move that agenda up a bit, as a first pillar of B.C. 21.

Secondly, we're going to renew B.C.'s transportation infrastructure. The Socred government had no plan for transportation. Their own study pointed out that we have a problem in that the transportation infrastructure is in trouble. It's in trouble because under the previous administration we overbuilt highways in some places and didn't keep them up in others. We've got strips of highway to some of the strangest places in this province, which few people go to. Quite frankly, it has been blacktop politics in this province, and that is going to cost the people of B.C. a significant amount.

The Socreds' own study pointed out very clearly that the infrastructure had been let go. While the optimum is to repair a piece of highway in about ten years, as you go beyond that, the costs escalate exponentially.

We have some problems. For instance, we have a 30-year-old promise for an Island Highway. I have a letter from 1962, from one of the many Socred cabinet ministers, promising that Ladysmith would be the next area to be worked on and that they would start on the Island Highway. That simply hasn't happened.

Under this plan we have an opportunity to have a financing authority that will raise capital. This year, 1 cent a litre on gas and $1.50 on short-term car rentals will be dedicated to renewing the transportation infrastructure. I know that a lot of people on Vancouver Island, certainly in my area, are very pleased that there is going to be a plan and a

schedule to get that highway finished, because it's imperative not only for safety reasons but also for the economy.

The third part of Build B.C., or B.C. 21, will be to use our Crown corporations a little better. Again, we h