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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 18

[ Page 5073 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

R. Chisholm: Visiting us today are approximately 70 grade 12 students from Sardis Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. See, and several other adults. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the Legislature, where they will get a firsthand look at democracy in action.

Hon. T. Perry: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Ms. Tracy Farrell, a graduate of the great University of Victoria who has been working in my office as the front-line person handling the telephone calls and incoming mail.

P. Dueck: I am pleased to introduce a constituent of mine, Mr. Jake Thiessen. He is the sales representative of Westform. Would the House please make him welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: I have the pleasure to make an introduction on behalf of the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. With us in the gallery today are three of her constituents from Smithers. Would the House please join me in making Don and Marion Knoerr welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today are some students from Mount Douglas Senior Secondary School in my riding, along with their principal, Mrs. Gloria Metzger and some guests from Hong Kong. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two special ladies from our community: Corrinne Wright, director for electoral area A in the Central Fraser Valley Regional District; and Kathleen Tarabas, who has been employed by the Central Fraser Valley Regional District. I would ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today is a longtime friend of mine who is a teacher and a member of my constituency executive, and I'd like you to make her welcome: Betty Ann Russell.

D. Jarvis: I'd like the members to give a rousing hand to a former member of this House who is in the precincts, Mr. Gordon Gibson.

Oral Questions

PROPERTY SURTAX

F. Gingell: By backing down and eliminating the surtax, the Minister of Finance has cut budgeted revenues for this fiscal year by $37 million. Will the Premier commit today that he will instruct the Minister of Finance to cut budgeted expenses by $37 million instead of looking for another pocket to pick or bank to borrow the money from?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the question was directed to the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance has already spoken on this matter. What the Minister of Finance has said is what this side of the House believes: we will ask everybody involved in the government to tighten their belt.

HOMEOWNER GRANT

F. Gingell: This budget wasn't fair when it was brought down, and it isn't fair now. The Minister of Finance should appreciate that he has the same problem with the homeowner grant reductions as he had with the property surtax. Will the Premier recommend to the Minister of Finance that he amend the homeowner's grant reduction to be calculated only on the value of the buildings and not on the value of the land?

Well, I don't know what to say. The Premier has no response to a sensible, thoughtful, worthwhile proposal to make this more fair. When is the assault on the pocketbooks and the capital of seniors, who have lived in our communities for 40 or 50 years, ever going to stop?

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair does not perceive a question there, and the Chair has not heard....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please! Would the hon. member please address the question to a particular member of the executive council.

F. Gingell: The question I'm asking is: why won't you consider a reasonable amendment to make this fair, instead of continuing to waste the pension money of seniors?

SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL CLOSURE

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Vancouver General Hospital has now joined the thousands of concerned citizens challenging the wisdom, fairness and cost benefit of closing Shaughnessy Hospital. The government persists in using unaudited figures, proclaiming savings of $30 million. This is the same government that said the health accord would cost $50 million, when the hospitals say it will cost ten times more. Will the minister table any cost studies that categorically support the closing of Shaughnessy? If these are not available, will the minister admit that this is the wrong decision?

Hon. E. Cull: Once again we see that side of the House telling us to cut spending, and then as soon as we make a wise decision to move services closer to the majority of British Columbians and to move in new directions in health care, they start complaining. The decision to reallocate services from the old

Shaugh-

[ Page 5074 ]

nessy Hospital building will allow us to reinvest $40 million of savings in hospitals in the high-growth areas of the province; it will allow a much-needed expansion of Children's Hospital; and it will allow us to follow the commitment of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, which said we should move services closer to home.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would ask the cooperation of the House, as the Chair is having difficulty hearing the questions and the answers.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

L. Reid: A supplemental to the Minister of Health. In the throne speech, this government promised to take health care in a new and positive direction. With this government's newly discovered value of fairness, repeated at every opportunity in this House, is it prepared to provide B.C. doctors with the same access to fair dispute resolution mechanisms as is open to the unions in this province?

Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely. We have said all along that we are willing to negotiate wages and benefits with the BCMA, as we do with every trade union in this province.

L. Reid: No, minister, that is not the message you have sent out. You have said consistently that this issue is about dollars; the BCMA has said consistently that this is about process.

Is the minister today prepared in this House to tell all professional hospital....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I must ask the member to take her seat. I have not heard a word that the member has said, and I would ask the House to come to order so that we can have a somewhat orderly question period.

Member for Richmond East, could you please restate your question.

[2:15]

L. Reid: Is this minister prepared in this House to tell all the professional hospital managers that they are wrong about the cost of the health care accord and that the Finance minister is right?

Hon. E. Cull: I urge the member to have a look at the document that the HLRA is taking out to its members right now. She will see that the numbers correspond exactly with what the Minister of Finance and I have been saying all along.

HOMEOWNER GRANT

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. Senior citizens who own their own homes in British Columbia shouldn't be forced to defer their taxes; they shouldn't be forced to sell their homes. But that's what will happen if the government takes away the homeowner's grant. How does the government reasonably expect seniors to cough up another $745 in property taxes when they can hardly afford the taxes they have now?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If the hon. member would read the budget, he would see that most homeowners are going to get an increase in the homeowner grant.

R. Neufeld: Defer, defer. That's all this government can do. That's their approach to everything: defer the debt; defer spending cuts; buy now, pay later. When will this government realize that British Columbians want real spending cuts, like in Manitoba, not spending increases three times the rate of inflation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, if the member would read the budget, he would see that almost 30 percent of British Columbians are receiving tax reductions. He would see that MSP premiums have been eliminated for 430,000 families. He would see that there has been a real reduction in per capita spending as part of the GDP, and he would see that there has been a 25 percent reduction in the deficit: $415 million this year. This is a fair and balanced budget. It includes a reduction in the deficit, and it includes benefits for the vast majority of British Columbians. We on this side of the House are proud of it.

R. Neufeld: Mr. Premier, British Columbians are wise to your game. The first step was to wipe out the supplemental homeowner grant...

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: ...and the second was to wipe out the homeowner grant on higher-valued homes. Will the next step of this government be to wipe out the homeowner grant for all British Columbians?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As a matter of fact, we just increased the homeowner grant for most British Columbians.

B.C. FERRY FARES AND SERVICE REDUCTIONS

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. In speaking about ferry service cuts and fare hikes, the minister is quoted in this morning's paper as saying: "It fits in with our overall budget goal of trying to constrain the growth of government. And those elements of government that are spending, we would like to see them as efficient as possible." The government's own third quarterly report indicates a 45 percent increase in administration expenses for B.C. Ferries this year. Is this the minister's definition of constrained growth and efficiency?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I stand by everything that was said in the quote.

[ Page 5075 ]

D. Symons: Another quote. "It will entail service reductions in some areas...." Can the minister detail what reductions are required to pay for the fiscal recklessness of his ministry?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There they go again: speaking on one side of their mouth about constraint and on the other side about increasing costs and services. The service plan for B.C. Ferries for the coming year will be released in due course.

D. Symons: My supplemental is to the Minister of Tourism. The minister proved her ability to change the minds of other ministers on the budget when she realized that her own seat was in the sling, yet she is now silent. Does the minister have any idea what impact these increases in service reductions will have on tourism, and why has she done nothing about it?

The Speaker: The Chair is having difficulty with that being a supplemental.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Supplementals must be supplementals to the answers given on the same topic, hon. member, and the Chair is having difficulty finding that link. Could the hon. member demonstrate how that supplemental grows out of the previous question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

D. Symons: One of two things, hon. Speaker. The previous question was talking about ferry service reductions. In that sense this is to the minister, because it's going to have some effect upon tourism, and that would be the connection. Otherwise, I would simply rephrase it as a new question to the minister. Either way....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I do appreciate the Chair is somewhat taking up question period and I will extend it accordingly. With that explanation, perhaps the minister would like to address the question.

Hon. D. Marzari: The member is quite correct in suggesting that ferry fares and tourism do go together. However, the member is quite incorrect in assuming that there have been any announcements whatsoever about ferry fares. I would suggest to the member that these issues and this particular issue will be responded to in the fullness of time.

HEU CONTRACT

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Finance. The health care unions have been strangely silent on the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital since the minister paid them off with a contract that could cost this province up to $500 million. Can the minister confirm that that silence was an unwritten proposal of the negotiations, or does he deny that that was part of the discussions at the negotiating table?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I will ask the minister to answer. However, I'm not sure I heard what I heard, because there is too much noise in this House. But I will give the member the benefit of the doubt and assume that the minister did hear a legitimate question, and I ask him to answer.

Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm sure I heard a speech in there somewhere, and it deserves a speech in response.

The Minister of Health met with members of that union from Shaughnessy Hospital, and it was news to us to hear that they are silent on this question. But let me tell you very clearly that we have protected all of the services at Shaughnessy Hospital and have moved them closer to home in the community and in other parts of the growing region. We have protected the workers at that site so we can make the transition smoothly and so we can have workers participate in implementing health care reform. All that's happening is that the building is coming down.

Yet on that side of the House, we hear repeatedly: let's save that old building; let's spend $40 million more on that site, rather than on more cost-effective methods of health care reform, on efficient use of tax dollars or on moving health care closer to home, as the Seaton royal commission recommended.

L. Fox: As I'm quickly learning in this House, this is question period; it's certainly not answer period, because we don't get the correct answers to any of the questions.

This negotiated contract between the Finance Minister and those unions has an impact on the budgets of those hospitals that will far exceed his estimates and the estimates of the Health Minister. Who is going to pay the bill when the impact on the hospitals is 4.1 percent and the increase is less than 1 percent in most of the hospitals in this province? Who is going to pick up that bill?

Hon. G. Clark: This is the same member who gets up in the House and demands we cut and slash spending on health care. These budgets are challenging, but they're manageable. The Hospital Labour Relations Association is recommending acceptance of this deal. It saves the taxpayer money, smooths the way for efficient health care reform and gets the workers in the health care field to support reductions and utilization and to work with the hospitals -- for the first time, I might add -- to improve health care outputs and to save the taxpayers money.

[ Page 5076 ]

EFFECT OF THE BUDGET ON THE AUTO INDUSTRY

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The budget is an assault on the auto industry: exemptions for trade-ins are removed; taxes are hiked on new cars; rental car prices will be increased by a new tax; car repairs are hit with new taxes; fuel prices are increased. Did this Finance minister consult with the 10,000 people employed in the car business before introducing these measures? Or were these workers, like property owners, on the NDP's invisible tax list?

Hon. G. Clark: I didn't have to consult, because they're represented very ably in this House. One in four British Columbians received a tax cut in this budget. After this budget, we will have the second-lowest taxes overall in Canada. We have reduced taxes for 600,000 households with a sales tax credit. This is a fair and balanced budget.

HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR FOR DELTA

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to respond to a question taken on notice on my behalf on Friday, April 2; it was posed by the leader of the opposition.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: I know the hon. member wants to hear this answer, since he posed it. The hon. member asked if my ministry and the GVRD had issued permits for a hazardous waste incinerator in Delta. My ministry has issued a permit to Enviro Desorption Inc. for storage and treatment of specific types of contaminated soils. The GVRD has also issued an air emissions permit to the company. The soils that will be treated at this facility consist of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel fuel and fuel oil. No other types of contaminated substances will be treated.

The soils will not be incinerated. They will be heated to a point where the gasoline or oil will be vaporized, and the vapours will be treated. There will be no ash byproduct.

The hon. member also asked if public hearings had been held on this issue. My ministry has a very comprehensive procedure in place to ensure proper notification of all parties. In this case this procedure was followed to the letter. When the company first applied for the permit, over a year and a half ago, notices were placed in appropriate newspapers. As well, neighbours on adjacent properties were informed. We received responses from only three members of the public. Each of these people were consulted, and their concerns were addressed to their satisfaction. No further public hearings were needed.

[2:30]

The normal appeal process was also available when the permit was first issued in January of this year. No appeals were filed, either by this member or by anybody else in the community. Delta council and other involved agencies have been consulted. Over the past year and a half a very careful assessment of the proposal was undertaken, and the GVRD issued an air emissions permit.

The permit that was issued under the special waste regulation has extremely strict conditions placed on the permittee, and before full-scale operation of the facility will be authorized a trial demonstration must be successfully completed. The site has had to meet very strict safety and containment standards, and the company has been required to post substantial financial security for any soils stored on site.

The member also inquired whether this was the same type of facility that was turned down by the federal government for the Sumas Indian reserve. Yes, this is the same type of facility. It is my understanding, however, that the reason the federal government rejected the Sumas proposal was because the proponent in that case wanted to be able to treat soils that were contaminated with substances other than hydrocarbons, and that was unacceptable.

The hon. member made reference to a fire at the Sumas site. My staff are not aware of any such occurrence, especially since construction on the proposed facility never even began. I believe the facility in Delta represents a safe and effective way of dealing with these types of waste soils that are being generated in the lower mainland.

Hon. T. Perry tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology for the year 1991-92.

Presenting Petitions

Mr. Lali: I'd like to present a petition bearing 137 signatures. It is from Mr. Bennett's grade 6 class at Ashcroft Elementary School and is promoting world peace. It reads:

Dear Mr. Lali:

"We had a war protest on Monday, November 30, so that we could keep peace in the world. We got people to sign a petition. We are sending this to you so that you will convince the government...to talk to other countries so that we can have world peace. Thanks for your time."

Ministerial Statement

NAFTA PARALLEL ACCORDS

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish to update the House on an issue of critical importance to British Columbia.

K. Jones: Have you given notice?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I have. I've given copies to the opposition; they were delivered.

As you know, the United States, Mexico and Canada recently commenced negotiations on NAFTA parallel accords on the environment and labour -- issues that the current U.S. administration considers to have been unsatisfactorily dealt with in the North American free trade agreement.

[ Page 5077 ]

This government has raised a number of substantive issues about NAFTA. A primary concern deals with the protection of British Columbia's water resources. Regrettably, the federal government has never responded to our request to negotiate an exclusion for bulk water exports in the NAFTA.

The current negotiations of NAFTA parallel accords are being driven by the United States, which has set a deadline of June 1, 1993, for completing negotiations in order to implement the NAFTA by January 1, 1994. These parallel negotiations are of particular concern to Canadian provinces, because they deal with subjects -- labour and the environment -- that are primarily areas of provincial responsibility, and they are important public policy issues for British Columbia.

Officials from my ministry, from Labour and Consumer Services and from Environment, Lands and Parks were in Ottawa in late March to be briefed on the first session of the trilateral discussions. Provincial officials are also in Ottawa today for another federal-provincial meeting on the parallel accord negotiations.

Despite the lack of progress to date, and despite provincial advice that the negotiating time frame is too short to reach acceptable parallel agreements, it is clear that the federal government is determined to meet the U.S.-imposed June 1, 1993, deadline for reaching parallel agreements. While this government is supportive of initiatives to improve the quality of the environment and labour conditions in North America, the process of negotiating these parallel accords in the context of the NAFTA and under a June 1 deadline is a matter of mounting concern to British Columbia.

The events to date suggest that a situation is rapidly developing wherein a bad deal could be made even worse by poorly negotiated parallel agreements on environment and labour.

Accordingly, I wish to inform the House that I have sent a letter to the Hon. Michael Wilson, Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and International Trade, to advise him of our concerns with the federal approach to participating in the parallel accord negotiations. In particular, I informed the minister that the federal government's decision to proceed with passing Bill C-115, the NAFTA implementing legislation, before completing negotiations on the parallel accords, risks further impairing Canada's negotiating position.

I also told him that in our view parallel agreements on such vitally important areas as labour and the environment cannot be done properly before the imposed completion date when so little informationsharing has occurred between the three countries and when the federal government hasn't put in place a meaningful process for provincial participation.

Accordingly, I have expressed our serious reservations about the ability of the federal government negotiators to protect the public policy interests of Canadian provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure to rise and reply to the ministerial statement.

As the minister recalls, when we had debate in this House on the NAFTA, I think it was my suggestion that we support parallel accords. As a result we've seen that this proposal has come forward from both the United States and Canadian negotiators. I think the minister will also recall that water exclusion was another issue raised by this critic, and it was acknowledged that that was an omission from the agreement that we felt should have been negotiated as well.

Labour and environment were also issues that we felt should be addressed through a parallel accord, and I'm still of that view. At this point in time, the U.S. does have some concerns over these two issues in particular, and I would suggest that it is premature, that there will be ratification of this agreement in June 1993, given the objections the United States government has expressed over the labour and environment issues. So it's not a done deal. I would suggest that what the minister said today is nothing new; we heard it in the NAFTA debate.

I think we will see some further consultation and negotiation between the federal government and the U.S. government, and I would support further consultation between the federal government and the provinces in relation to these issues. I encourage the minister to put forward that position to the federal government. It's something that needs to be addressed, and I support his efforts to do that.

H. De Jong: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to this ministerial statement. However, we received this five minutes before 2 o'clock, which is a bit late. So is the government late with responding. If I recall correctly, the Premier and his government were invited to participate in the negotiations last summer. The Premier said: "No, we will not participate in the discussions or the negotiations, nor will we do anything to comply with the NAFTA."

Well, that was a real comfort to British Columbians and, in particular, to the business -- as well as labour -- community in the province. Instead, a committee was appointed to go around the province and find out the pros and cons of the NAFTA. Prior to the committee being established, there was a short discussion in the House. Basically the whole concept of the committee was seen -- at least by this side of the House -- as nothing but a dog-and-pony show for the well-being of Audrey McLaughlin's bid to get re-elected as the leader of her party.

Had the government, in fact, taken a positive stance when the opportunity was there, I don't think this government would have presented Bill 84 in the House last fall, which was an attempt to make it more difficult for business to survive in this province. But neither would they have imposed a corporate tax on the business community. The business and labour communities have known for a long time that the NAFTA was going to come about and that there would be discussions, but it's not the right time to close our ears and eyes to it. Certainly, as I said at the beginning of my talk, it's not a little too late; it's much too late.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Just before we call budget debate, I'm sure members know -- perhaps some don't -- that

[ Page 5078 ]

we will be sitting this evening in committee to discuss the Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to wrap up quickly. For people on the other side when they want to tell the good news of the budget, I'll just remind them of some of the points that we heard earlier today: one in four British Columbians will benefit from tax reductions; the overall B.C. tax rate is the second-lowest in Canada; taxes will be reduced for 600,000 households through a sales tax credit; the basic homeowner grant is increased by 4 percent for most homes; MSP medicare premiums are eliminated for 430,000 families; there will be a reduction in real per capita government spending; and finally, the deficit has been reduced 25 percent, a total of $415 million.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a pleasure to rise in support of the 1993-94 budget presented by the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. It's a budget in which one in four British Columbians benefits from tax reductions. It's a budget in which the overall B.C. tax rate is and continues to be the second-lowest in Canada. It's a budget in which taxes are reduced for 600,000 households through a sales tax credit. It's a budget in which the basic homeowner grant increases by 4 percent for most homes. And it's a budget in which MSP medicare premiums are eliminated for 430,000 families.

It's a budget in which there is a reduction in real per capita government spending. There's a reduction of $415 million in the deficit, down 25 percent. Hon. Speaker, that's a pretty good budget. It provides a sound balance between the very difficult fiscal choices that we have to make and a recognition of the need to foster long-term managed growth throughout the province. It is a budget that is going to facilitate just that.

I would like to use the time I have to comment on some of the goals we have and on some of the progress we have made to date, especially in the area of Environment, Lands and Parks. I believe that our plan is right for the province and for the times in which we find ourselves. We have a budget that includes measures that are essential to a dynamic and prosperous economy.

[2:45]

There are signs that the economy is turning around and starting to work into a cycle that is going to be more beneficial for all British Columbians. So there's a real reason for optimism. The growth rate will be 3.2 percent this year and 3.4 percent next year. There will be 35,000 new jobs created. Capital investment will grow by 31.1 percent. The annual inflation rate has stabilized below 4 percent. And our provincial deficit is down by 40 percent from two years ago.

We have made good changes that will benefit all British Columbians. We are leading British Columbia into the new century with a growing economy that will ensure all of us a safe, healthy and prosperous future. That is the continuing goal of the administration and the achievement of this budget. It is a major step in a long journey towards social and economic security for all people in B.C. These are steps that should have been taken decades ago, and they were not. We are addressing tough choices in this budget in a way that is appropriate, balanced and fair.

I would now like to turn to some of our achievements of the past fiscal year. When we came into office in October 1991, the government was in a serious state of disarray. In the area that I was assigned to, many urgent issues were being ignored, and we had a lot of catching up to do. There was no real vision for some of the very critical management issues in the province, especially land use planning issues. There were conflicting principles and processes, with no clear focus on the possible outcomes.

We realized early that we could not stand still on these issues. We moved quickly on them, knowing that our quality of life would be determined by our ability to find answers that will serve us now and in the future. To succeed we need an integrated and cooperative approach which builds partnerships and which recognizes the strength, vibrancy and vitality that is out there in the community and enables that to be incorporated into the resources needed in order to enable our province to function well.

One of the very clearly focused parts of that process is in getting to decisions, and that has to be inclusive, not exclusive. That principle has been firmly entrenched in the kinds of processes that we have brought into being. It has to be one that serves our vision of the balanced use of our precious natural resources that we take pride in for the beauty of the landscape and for the richness of what has been provided within that landscape.

Accordingly, we have created the Commission on Resources and Environment. While we have come into criticism from time to time with regard to some of the delicate issues that we are addressing, no one in this House, or anywhere else, can point to a more appropriate, hopeful and creative land use planning process anywhere in North America than the one we have crafted right here in British Columbia. We have crafted it with the input of British Columbians, in keeping with a promise made while we were in opposition. It's a process that we know is working hard to serve many land use issues in the province.

The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has again ensured that this process will continue to unfold by increasing CORE's budget by over 3 percent in very tight fiscal times. He recognizes that the commission is important to the economic and environmental future of this province.

Tight fiscal circumstances have required all ministries to work closely in a more integrated way. This includes funding; some ministries, including mine, have had a small reduction in budget. We must reduce duplication and overlap; for example, environmental quality and public health issues are closely linked, and we can work together to resolve many of those issues. It should also be noted that last year the Ministry of Environment received almost a 6 percent increase. Over those two years it has enabled us to undertake some very worthwhile initiatives to serve the environmental

[ Page 5079 ]

needs of the province. We are working smarter to achieve many of our urgent priorities.

The new protected-areas strategy, a commitment by government to double the park and wilderness areas in the province by the year 2000, is working in tandem with CORE. This will allow British Columbia to reach its goal of protecting 12 percent of the province. It will fulfil the expectations of the environmental community and address a very significant environmental need: our jurisdiction will ensure that future generations are able to experience most of the representative ecosystems that existed in this province during the time of European contact.

At the same time, the establishment of these areas will bring stability for the business community by making it very clear what areas are available for integrated planning.

We are now in the process of completing provincewide inventories of undeveloped watersheds. We received $10 million in last year's budget for the corporate resources inventory initiative. During a time of having to recover costs, we managed to cut that down to $9 million, but it was still a tremendously important input to deal with the need for resource inventory. In this year of having to do some very careful planning, we had to cut that back to $6 million, but $15 million of new money is being used over two years to address corporate inventory needs on a wide range of issues that are vital to the economic development of the province.

I'm very proud to say that in recent months we have designated nine new coastal parks within the province. Many of these sites are along British Columbia's Inside Passage. We have a package of further park announcements that we'll making in the near future.

Having walked in the valley of the Khutzeymateen as long ago as 1963 -- I lived in Port Simpson, the home of the Git'tsiis people, who claim the Khutzeymateen as part of their territory -- I'm especially proud to say that here it is 30 years later, and I have had a major role in permanently protecting the entire Khutzeymateen, for the protection of vital grizzly bear habitat. We have established a logging moratorium in the lower Tsitika Valley to protect killer whales and to enable a study on them to take place.

We've appointed the Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee to attend to that task; it's an issue that has been of great concern to British Columbians.

So often on a day-to-day basis these issues seem as though they are the only issue that really counts. There is a great deal of interest and consternation. When an issue is a seemingly negative story, it's right up there in the headlines and as the lead item on the various television media. When we resolve some of these issues, they do get play, but it tends not to be quite as prominent.

That's the way it is; we know that's the way the stories are handled, but we're very proud of the fact that we have followed through in a major number of commitments in regard to environmental initiatives and promises we have made. We have promises to keep and miles to go before we sleep, so there are many more that we are going to be working on. This has been done in the context of responsible fiscal management. There's no better example than the protected-areas strategy to indicate how it's a win for the environment and a win for the economy.

To combine habitat protection with the economic driver of tourism, we have purchased a significant portion of the Parksville flats, causing my colleague the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum to be very happy and enabling me to recognize the role that member played in helping us to secure that decision. I announced further moves in the area of Parksville this past weekend, when I attended the annual Brant Festival. If you're wondering what a brant is, a brant is a small goose, and it is a very beautiful species.

While Yeltsin and Clinton were dining on caviar and champagne in Vancouver, brant from Siberia were feeding on eelgrass and herring roe -- also as our visitors. It may interest you to know, hon. Speaker, that because I banned the shore-based brant hunt in Boundary Bay, 200 more brant were registered by the Brant Festival this year. Two hundred additional brant checked in, so I'm very proud of that too.

When we became government, there was a very serious and severe need for environmental legislative reform. Indeed, all the major environmental legislation is in need of reform, and we have been attending to that very diligently. As a result of extensive consultations last year by the MLA for Nanaimo, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, we will be tabling new environmental assessment legislation this session.

Hon. Speaker, our new polluter-pay regulations are aimed at reducing pollution through a market-based approach.

I'm proud to say that the British Columbia conservation officer service is among the very best in the world. We have managed to increase the numbers in that service as a result of last year's budget, and we are maintaining that program at a level of 140 conservation officers. At the present time, I think, four or five of those positions need to be filled.

I would also point out that we now have a handful of women in the conservation officer service, and I personally intend to take every opportunity to speak to high school guidance counsellors about employment opportunities for women in ministries such as the Ministry of Environment. I would certainly like to see more young women who attend Malaspina College and the University of Lethbridge consider careers in this field.

This government is dedicated to developing lasting partnerships with the aboriginal community. Doing this will be a win for the people of British Columbia and a win for the environment. We've signed numerous joint stewardship agreements that will help us to address British Columbia environmental concerns together. I was very pleased to be part of the agreement with the Nisga'a Tribal Council to establish the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park, where we unveiled a plaque that had both the logo of the provincial government and that of the Nisga'a first nation. It was a very proud moment.

I stood there with Alvin McKay, with whom I attended the University of British Columbia over 30 years ago. It was quite a wonderful experience to stand with him as we dedicated that park, which is

[ Page 5080 ]

on sacred ground in that territory. It's a clear example of how we can work together in harmony rather than in conflict. It's a perfect example of the kind of leadership that my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs brings to the issue of government-to-government negotiations with first nations.

I would like to touch briefly on several issues that relate to funding in my area of responsibility, and especially within my riding. There is the Coquitlam dike project, which remains a high priority for this administration. Negotiations are continuing with the various parties, and I am hopeful that this project will be 30 percent completed this year.

The budget clearly is a reflection of many of our values in the area of human services. I think it's important to recognize the response to need that has been reflected in Social Services in this budget.

The administration is currently reviewing all the options concerning Riverview Hospital, which is in my constituency. As many members know, the process of deinstitutionalization continues, and government is currently preparing a list of objectives for the property. In conjunction with the British Columbia Mental Health Society, a number of government agencies are working together and will soon be seeking public input on the future use of the lands and buildings on the Riverview site. I would point out that there are some incredible trees on that site.

Some of them exist nowhere else in British Columbia, and some are from places throughout the planet. It's therefore my intent, working with the municipality of Coquitlam, to give very special attention to the protection of those trees.

Across the Lougheed Highway is Colony Farm, which is partly in the riding of Coquitlam-Maillardville and partly in the riding of my colleague from Port Coquitlam. Again, government is embarking on processes there, through the B.C. Buildings Corporation, to ensure that the public has input into the ways in which that green space should be protected. I say green space because that is what it will be at the end of this process. We believe that the agricultural and wildlife values there must be upheld. It is an island of emerald green in a sea of urban sprawl. It is up to us to protect it, and we intend to do so.

Government is reviewing all the possible options to ensure that we make the best possible decisions with regard to air quality in the lower mainland. I would just point out that I have recently been in California -- part of the time in southern California, where they realize they must put regulations in place to deal with a very serious air quality problem involving half the state population of 32 million people. As a result of that, there are some tremendous economic opportunities right here in British Columbia.

[3:00]

I came back from that trip with a letter of intent from the South Coast air quality management district, in which they have agreed to financially support Ballard Power Systems of North Vancouver -- which, by the way, has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Daimler-Benz. The technology that's being developed right here in British Columbia by that company is exemplary. It's the hydrogen fuel cell technology, the wave of the future.

They will be producing zero-emissions buses, which will mean that we will be able to get into that California market on a partnership basis with some companies in California, enabling that technology to replace those buses now discharging a great deal of particulate into the atmosphere.

We recently unveiled the most comprehensive regulation in the country to help protect the earth's ozone layer. Again, I am very proud that B.C. is leading the way in protecting the ozone layer. We know that's still a serious problem, because CFCs that leave the earth's surface today are travelling for 50 years and more up to where the ozone layer is being destroyed. But we are very proud that we have taken a responsible position in this regard.

We are also proud that we have taken the toughest stand with regard to pulp pollution and organochlorine content. We are calling for zero discharge by the year 2002 -- again, a very exemplary stand taken by this environmentally friendly government.

This government has chosen to dedicate provincial revenues so that the people of the province can more clearly see the benefit of their tax dollars. For example, revenues from tires, batteries, diapers and waste permit fees are dedicated only to pollution prevention and environmental renewal -- again, a success story. Where we were fearful of tire fires a few years ago, I can tell you that 80 percent of tires are now being removed from the waste stream. These tires are going into the production of ceiling tiles, stair treads, traffic markers and a variety of other very worthwhile products.

That means we've taken something out of the waste stream and turned it into a profit centre, and it's upholding the values of reduce, reuse and recycle, which is far superior to having to resort to other more dramatic means of dealing with waste.

I know that time is moving along, so I wish to conclude my remarks. With the kind of direction and vision, the kind of cooperation and partnership that is being built by this government, we are moving into an era when we will see some tremendous developments that will be very helpful and hopeful for the sustainable future of our province. This budget is one step towards that goal.

It is going to be because of the wise choices made within this budget that we are going to be able to afford those kinds of expenses that are so necessary to continue to support environmental initiatives in future generations, because we are not just dealing with the situation in this particular year and time; we are dealing with the situations of our children and of our children's children.

With continued perseverance and wise choices, British Columbia will remain the envy of Canadians from other provinces, and indeed, of people throughout the world.

Hon. D. Miller: I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5081 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, in the galleries, with his parents, who were introduced earlier today, is Jamie Knoerr, whom I understand is one of your constituents. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

D. Symons: I notice that the previous two government ministers who spoke referred to tax reductions for three out of four British Columbians. I suppose the people of this province will have an opportunity over the next year to test that claim and see whether that is indeed the case. I'm sure they'll be waiting to find out the answer to that. I rather suspect they'll be disappointed.

An Hon. Member: Are you complaining?

D. Symons: I'm not complaining at all. I just think there is a bit of hyperbole there.

There is, however, only one way to describe this NDP government's 1993-94 budget, and that is that it is a disaster for the people of British Columbia. They deserve better. There is a theme that will keep repeating like a refrain throughout my budget remarks -- a refrain I believe this government must continue to hear until it understands: the people of British Columbia want tax reform, not tax increases.

During the election campaign the NDP promised: "No new taxes." Since they took office we've seen new taxes, old taxes increased, and excessive fee and licence increases that would make the Biblical tax collectors look like saints by comparison. The Premier also promised: "We won't spend money we do not have." Of the many promises that were made and then broken, these are the two that the people of this province most firmly believe must be kept. The government has failed to understand, and therefore failed to act on, what is most obvious to almost everyone else: the government must hold the line on spending.

It cannot continue, as it has in this budget, to ask the people of this province to make sacrifices and to dig deeper into their pockets while the government continues to spend more. We need tax reform and a freeze on government spending, not tax increases. The taxpayer is not appreciative of a government that makes public sector contract settlements that are higher than the increases in the private sector. The public is not appreciative of a government whose workforce continues to grow while they do not face economic realities by downsizing and spending smarter.

People do not appreciate the large number of patronage appointees feeding at the public trough. Never before in the history of this province have we seen a commissioner of patronage to dole out positions to the party faithful. The government has failed to control spending and its desire to reward its friends, all at the expense of the people of this province.

The government plans to spend $19 billion this year, a 5.7 percent increase over last year. The government's direct debt, as a result of its operating deficits, is now $10 billion. That's a 59 percent increase in the last two years of this NDP administration.

D. Streifel: It's a legacy of Social Credit.

D. Symons: The last two years were NDP, and it is an increase of almost 60 percent for those two years. You can't blame the previous administration for that; that's your responsibility and your choice of spending priorities.

The government's claim that it's making difficult decisions to control spending and reduce the deficit is totally false. This year the NDP is going to spend another $1 billion and will raise another $600 million from beleaguered taxpayers to partially pay for the increased spending. Of course, some of the cost of this spending will be passed along to future generations as increased debt. When will the government learn that if we are to really address the deficit and debt problems facing us, they must keep the rate of spending below the rate of economic growth and not increase taxes?

The Finance minister is fond of saying: "We have reduced the rate of the growth of the deficit." Reassuring words, but let us see how words can be used to mislead and misinform.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Listen to this, hon. member. Suppose, for instance, that you owe $1,000 and you borrow a further $500. The increase in your debt is 50 percent; that is, 500 over 1,000 gives you 50 percent. You now owe $1,500. Borrow a further $500, and your rate of debt increase is now 500 over 1,500 -- your base has increased -- and that's 331/3 percent. So hocus-pocus, by borrowing the same amount, your rate of increase has been reduced. Isn't that marvellous! Except that you still owe the money; and to B.C. taxpayers, that is one huge sum.

A further example of the Finance minister's fun with figures is his claim about the size of the previous deficit. He keeps referring to the massive deficit of the last year of Social Credit. We heard that from the hon. member to my left -- quite far to my left -- a few minutes ago. Yet the NDP were in office for five months of that fiscal year and took no real interest in stemming the flow of red ink. Indeed, the Finance minister fraudulently added $43 million to that fiscal year, in substantial wage increases to the health care unions, when it actually belonged to the year just completed.

If you take that $43 million from where it does not belong and add it to where it rightfully belongs, the difference between the deficit of the last year of the Social Credit debacle and that of the first year of the NDP's reign of terror is not that great.

What fiscal sleight of hand is the government using this year in order to cook the books? Voil�! Out of their magic hat they pull B.C. 21. This new Crown corporation is nothing more than a shell company. It's akin to a carnival barker asking you to guess under which shell the pea is hidden. In this case the pea is the debt that the government is ringing up, and B.C. 21 is the shell under which to hide that debt. Capital costs for highways, along with some other expenses, disappear like magic from the yearly budget estimates to be hidden in B.C. 21. While I have no difficulty supporting the long-term

[ Page 5082 ]

planning and financing of a limited number of necessary projects, it must be done in an open and accountable manner. It must not be done simply as a method of hiding a bloated deficit.

Twenty-one is the number in a card game called blackjack -- a number that you must not go over; otherwise you are broke. If this farce of B.C. 21 carries on for more than a year, the province will be broke long before the twenty-first century. Blackjack is also the name of a bludgeon that thugs use to beat their victims into submission while they rob them. At least the name of this scheme is appropriate and honest, even if its intent is not.

Interjections.

D. Symons: Well, you're threatening the people of British Columbia. The government would like us to believe that such spending is an investment. Let there be no mistake about it, the significant sums of money to be spent on these projects will add to the deficit and the provincial debt. They are sums of money that will, along with interest, have to be repaid by taxation in future years.

Schools, hospitals and highways are not self-liquidating -- as this government would lead us to believe -- in the same way that investments in B.C. Hydro or B.C. Rail are. At least those corporations have the potential of raising revenue to repay the debt. When was the last time a hospital turned a profit or a highway has been sold off?

Government must learn to control its spending to the level at which the taxpayer has the ability to pay. You cannot continue to defer the day of reckoning by mortgaging the future of our children. No new taxes, no new debt -- that is the message the people of this province have for this government.

School costs have gone up 67 percent, welfare costs 54 percent and health care 37 percent over the last five years,

whereas the cost of living has increased by only 20 percent. The increase in each case is greater than the government's increase in revenues. Despite its tax increases, its spending is greater than the growth in the economy. It's obvious that the government has not done enough to control the prime issue facing this government, that of too much spending. Government must be streamlined and downsized. The taxpayers of this province can no longer support the cost of an overly large civil service and its attendant bureaucracy. The message must be loud and clear: no new taxes.

[3:15]

Lest one conclude that my remarks so far are just amusing -- as does the opposition member, who does not know much anyway -- let us look at the reaction of some knowledgable British Columbians, whose opinions cannot be dismissed so lightly. Mr.

Bruce McConnachie, president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia, says: "The NDP government will never get the deficit under control until it brings increases in spending into line with the growth in the economy." He further feels that: "This budget could make wealth-creating British Columbians an endangered species." I think maybe the Minister of Environment should hear that. Its emphasis on increased corporate income, property and sales tax will discourage investment in B.C.

These are the very people that would be creating the jobs and paying the taxes that British Columbia so desperately needs. It won't be coming.

David McLean, chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade says: "To tax people who are producing in our economy at a time when we need job creation is just nuts."

Jerry Lampert, president of the Business Council of British Columbia says: "Business is prepared" -- hon. members, listen to this -- "to pay its fair share if government is prepared to reduce its spending." We just don't see that in this budget.

Without quoting more authorities, I think the message is quite clear. This budget is a testament to this government's failure to recognize the problem, much less address it in a meaningful way. Their only reaction to the economic mess they find themselves in is to increase taxes, increase fees and licences, increase the size of government and increase spending.

The Premier is proud to say: "We're leading the way by freezing MLAs' salaries and cutting cabinet ministers' salaries by 5 percent." Since the cut was only to the salary portion of their income, not the tax-free allowances, it translates into a real cut of a little more than 2 percent.

Also, spending in the office of the Premier -- that paragon of restraint -- is to increase by $1.1 million this year. That certainly sets a good example. A comparison of spending in the Premier's office in the last seven months of the Rita Johnston administration and the first five months of this bunch of freeloaders shows a whopping increase, and the increase to the Premier's office in this budget continues this disgraceful trend. He should be ashamed. Instead, what's he doing? He's preaching about what courage it takes to address our fiscal challenges while reaching deeper into the pockets of homeowners and others.

Every time I hear the Premier and the Finance minister refer to spending as investment and to taxes as a revenue source, I'm reminded of Orwell's novel 1984, where, with doublespeak, words lose their meaning and often mean the opposite. Indeed, the Premier insists that accelerated capital construction projects will cost nothing because it's money that would eventually be spent anyway. Sounds like something from Orwell's ministry of truth.

The real problem is the philosophical and ideological bent of this socialist government. They are not evil people; they are simply consumed by a traditional socialist doctrine that is out of date and out of touch with the situation in Canada today. They continue to fight a class war of 50 or 100 years ago. Because someone owns a home -- shelter for his family -- in an area where real estate prices have gone wild, it does not necessarily mean they are wealthy. That same home located somewhere else in the province could be worth half as much.

The person living in the lower mainland is most likely spending a far greater proportion of earnings on shelter. So in a sense they are poorer, not richer,

[ Page 5083 ]

than their upcountry cousins, since their disposable income is less.

An Hon. Member: Move out of the city.

D. Symons: You think the answer to B.C.'s economic problems is to have people move throughout the province? You think that will help the industry, help the economy of the province? The member is nuts.

The Speaker: I'm sure the hon. member would like to withdraw that last statement.

D. Symons: I suppose I can say that he's greatly confused and withdraw the other statement.

The Speaker: The hon. member is aware that personal attack is not appropriate in debate, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement. I'm sure it was unintentional.

D. Symons: A bad choice of words, hon. Speaker, and I withdraw them.

Anyway, I was about to say that in my area, $400,000 does not buy a rich man's home; it buys a workingperson's dwelling. Since when has the desire to own a home been a sin? For many people in the lower mainland, the Finance minister is punishing them for working for, and achieving, their dream. Some reward. Some government.

Many members of this House are on record as telling us what a wonderful budget this is. The hon. member for Alberni: "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." I'm sure he's not reading the minds of British Columbians very well, as they will find out during the next election.

The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale repeats the same sort of thing: "This budget is not just a good budget; this budget is a great budget for the people of North Vancouver-Lonsdale."

In the last few days we have seen people in the lower mainland area meeting in large numbers -- in the thousands -- and believe me, the words they are saying are not the words of those two members.

Interjection.

D. Symons: You will find out, hon. member.

Do not believe for a minute that since the Finance minister has withdrawn one aspect of this punitive tax on homeowners, he's seen the unfairness of the tax. All he has seen are the political consequences of his action. He and his socialist comrades still believe in the class struggle, the we-against-them attitude, and that those who have worked and saved and invested deserve to be taxed back to a common denominator. It is the ideology that does not encourage incentives and effort, but rather discourages them. It is a philosophy that believes that those at the public trough deserve to stay there.

Why are we continuing to go into debt? A year ago the B.C. Federation of Labour stated: "We believe it to be inappropriate for a social democrat government to adopt a conservative fiscal policy." There you have it. Conservative -- read that as a balanced budget -- is inappropriate. If anyone believes that the agenda of the NDP government is different from that of the B.C. Fed, then they just don't understand the political realities in this province.

Thou shalt not reduce the size of the public service; thou shalt not control public service costs; thou shalt not bring control to hospital, school, college, university or income assistance budgets. After all, those involved in those areas of society are potential supporters.

There are some points that I feel need repeating, and some facts that must be taken into account when considering the finances of the province. These are some that were not taken into account in this budget. The first is that the government does not create jobs; business does. Government must create the climate so that business can do it. Next, fair profits do not exploit consumers or workers. Without profits, business cannot survive slow times or expand in good times; without profits, business cannot pay taxes to support government spending. Also, what government thinks is fair is to a large extent irrelevant.

If the business community believes that a policy is unfair, they will react accordingly by not investing or by moving elsewhere. We're seeing that happen in this province. It should be remembered: money knows no boundaries. And cross-border shopping proves that daily.

Finally, deficits constitute theft from our children. In all of this the government must remember there is only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer, hon. Speaker, has had enough.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It gives me great pleasure to stand here and defend an excellent budget. For the average British Columbia family, March 30 was a very good day. It was a good day because the Minister of Finance brought in a fair, balanced-approach budget and addressed the needs of the average British Columbia family, while representing and respecting their ability to pay.

The average family values its children above all, and as such, they know that they need a sound education system. This budget maintains quality education at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels. This budget in fact provides about 2,800 additional full-time positions at our colleges around British Columbia.

From time to time the average family requires health care for their children or grandparents, and this budget maintains an adequate funding level for health care. I'm particularly proud of what we've done on this side of the House for less-well-off families, in that we have entirely eliminated the MSP premiums for 430,000 British Columbians and reduced the premiums for another 135,000. That's progressive government. While our health care system is being further improved by moving away from the acute care sector and closer to home, this budget ensures an orderly and cooperative downsizing of the acute care sector. The opposition would probably prefer the slash-and-burn labour

[ Page 5084 ]

management practices that typify the third party, but this government will never treat its employees so callously.

Some members of the average family might, from time to time, fall upon misfortune and require a helping hand. A young single mom might require some support; an older couple might have to rely on GAIN payments to get by. This budget allows British Columbians caught up in hard times to get by with dignity. In such a well-to-do society, we should do no less.

And what about the homeowner grant for the typical B.C. family? Ninety-five percent of British Columbia families will see a modest increase in their grant.

While maintaining all of these essential services, we have actually reduced spending per capita in constant dollars. With a 3 percent population growth and about a 3.5 to 4 percent inflationary increase, we have brought in a budget with an overall increase of 5.7 percent, which is 1 percentage point beneath a full budget on a per capita basis. At the same time, we have also reduced the provincial deficit from $2.4 billion to $2 billion and now to $1.5 billion.

[3:30]

But the opposition howls: cut, cut. Slash expenditures, they cry. They would have us fight this deficit on the backs of our children, the sick and the poor. This government won't do that -- ever. Slash expenditures, they say. I sat through estimates last year, and through many question periods, and many times the air from the other side was heavy with hypocrisy. Half the time that hot air was emanating from the Liberal side; it was some hon. member urging the government to spend more money. Day after day in Highways estimates the same members who are now howling "Cut, cut," were then crying: "Spend, spend.

Why aren't you spending more taxpayers' dollars on this road in my riding? Spend on this bridge in my riding. Spend on this interchange in my riding." I get letters from them urging me to spend. I'm visited by them and their delegations urging me to spend.

Some marvels of nature can change their colours; they can change their plumage with the season. The species opposite, both Liberal and Socred, keep their colours, but they sure can change their tune. I think we should notify the local bird-watching society, and perhaps any noted ornithologists in the area, to be on the alert. In a few weeks, when estimates arrive again, we may well see these same birds changing their tune again. Listen to the feigned outrage about the modest tax proposals that the Minister of Finance has put forward. "Liberals would never tax at those levels," they say, and they're right.

Everywhere in this country where Liberals govern, average families are taxed much higher. I just happen to have a few figures handy.

Sales tax: British Columbia, 7 percent; P.E.I -- a Liberal bastion, I believe -- 10 percent; New Brunswick, 11 percent; Newfoundland, 12 percent. Oh my, how they've devastated their economies there. What about the provincial tax as a percentage of the federal tax? Well, we're at 52.5 percent, I see. What about our brethren in P.E.I.? It's 59.5 percent -- oh, what a tax grab! What about New Brunswick? Sixty-two percent. Newfoundland, 69 percent. All of them, I think, have Liberal Premiers and Liberal majorities. What about the 1992-93 deficit as a percentage of gross national product -- the fairest way of looking at it?

J. Beattie: Give us some figures.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Shall I? I happen to have some figures right here.

In B.C., 2.2 percent of our gross national product is represented by deficit; in P.E.I., 3.7 percent -- about 80 percent higher than British Columbia; New Brunswick -- get this -- 4.1 percent, nearly double our rate of deficit; Newfoundland, 3.1 percent. The average of all these good Liberals? They're running deficits close to 70 percent higher than ours -- not too bad for fiscally responsible people. What's worse about it is that these Liberal spendthrifts have drawn up much worse relative deficits, while receiving equalization payments from British Columbia.

Just think how well we would be doing in this province if, instead of having to subsidize four rampantly spending Liberal jurisdictions, we received revenue from them? Wouldn't that make an interesting picture in our deficit and our budget debate?

One of the most exciting developments in the present budget is B.C. 21, and that includes the introduction of a transportation funding authority. We have had, not only in this jurisdiction but in almost all jurisdictions in North America, an underinvestment -- yes, I said "investment" -- in transportation infrastructure. I would pause, in passing, to note that the member opposite in his previous statement said that governments don't create employment and don't create jobs. I wonder who is going to tell the folks at B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail that they don't have jobs. Isn't that amazing? We don't create jobs. I'm dumbfounded.

We have had chronic underfunding of transportation. I would point out to the members opposite, if they'd like to help a little on this, that the feds currently extract from British Columbia taxpayers about half a billion dollars a year in gas taxes, and they remit nary a cent back to the taxpayers of British Columbia. If the feds would carry their end of the burden, we could be doing much better.

The situation in transportation at the present time is that we have congestion in various parts of the Island, in the lower mainland particularly and in parts of the Okanagan. Over the next five to eight years we're going to have continued growth, and if we are not careful we will end up in gridlock. The congestion on some of our bridges and tunnels is already to that point now. The people of British Columbia are paying enormous hidden tolls in that congestion.

They are paying the toll of time lost to and from work, the toll of time lost as it applies to commercial vehicles, which means that all the costs of not only the driver but the vehicle itself are tied up in congestion. That gets added to the cost of our consumer products; that's a toll. We're paying an environmental toll with stop-and-go driving in these jams that is adding to the worst pollution, in the lower mainland particularly.

All of these are a burden on our economy; all of them affect our competitiveness nationally and

inter-

[ Page 5085 ]

nationally; and all of these tolls exist now. There are a number of other major tolls we pay: accidents, the desperate loss to families related to accidents, the economic loss and the health care costs -- another toll that we pay right now. The overall economic cost of gridlock is something that I'm sure none of us on either side of the House wish to bear. So we must come up with a new and more rational funding method for solving the transportation problem.

I have spoken over the past year of capitalization and debt financing with an element of user-pay, and I was pleased to see that a year ago my critic indeed confirmed that this was a good way to go. The key is that the revenues we receive, be they from a toll or gas tax, must go into a dedicated fund. That dedicated fund must be spent only on transportation, and it must be accountable to the public. That will be the case. So we should now get on with the job and derive the long-term benefits that will come from a more efficient transportation system. And to boot, we'll create some jobs now.

But they're not senseless make-work jobs; they are legitimate investment jobs that will give us long-term benefits as well.

When a few weeks roll by and we're into estimates, it will be very interesting to see whether the rarae aves -- the birds on the other side -- change their tune again. I can hardly wait for estimates to start. I'm looking forward to it.

I will conclude by just making a few comments about my home in Kamloops. We've had good year. We've had some strong economic recovery in the area and some major developments in housing. Unfortunately, there's a downside to that: the vacancy rates are so low that rental rates have gone sky high, creating hardship for many people. We are trying to deal with that situation, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is bringing forward some quite interesting and what I think will be fruitful policies for affordable housing. We had the announcement that Unitel would be locating in Kamloops, creating about 400 jobs.

That's good news for the interior generally, because for a long time we've had a depressed economy.

Last but not least, I will again extend to each and every one in the House an invitation to come up to the Canada Summer Games. Kamloops is the smallest community to ever host the games, and approximately one out of every three residents of Kamloops will end up being a volunteer, one way or another, in that two-week period. It is truly an incredible outpouring of support from the community. I compliment those people to the maximum degree, and I invite all of you to come up and visit during that time in August.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm pleased to rise in support of this budget as the vice-chair of the Treasury Board, as the Minister of Women's Equality and as the MLA for Surrey-Newton.

The budget that we are debating reduces taxes for 28 percent of British Columbians. This budget reduces the deficit by $415 million from last year, and is down $820 million from October 1991, when this government was elected. It increases homeowner grants for 92 percent of British Columbians. This budget is a fair and responsible budget. This government has made some tough choices in order to present a budget that supports the needs of families, seniors, children and communities.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

This government has made a commitment in this budget to equality for women. The voices of women in British Columbia have been ignored for too long.. The voices of women have gone unheard for many years in this province. The previous government failed to listen and to address the urgent needs of 52 percent of British Columbia's population. This government values all of the work that women do in this province.

It values women who work for wages outside of their home; women who work inside their home, not for wages; women who work in their communities, not for wages; and women who run small businesses inside their homes for wages or for income. It is different work that women do, but it is all valuable work and needs to be acknowledged as such.

[3:45]

This budget has continued and expanded the government's commitment to women and children. To do less would be disrespectful and would indeed be breaking a trust. The budget protects and secures the gains made by and for women in the last year, and it preserves vital services that in many cases have only just begun. As I've travelled British Columbia and listened to the experiences of women in urban areas, in rural areas, in the interior, in the north and in very isolated areas, I know how critical it is that these services and supports are preserved.

It's not only about statistics and about numbers, but it's also about the personal stories that women tell: women who've been beaten; women who've been raped; women who can't find work or can't get training because there is no child care; and women in rural and isolated areas who have few or no supports where they live.

That is why this budget has preserved services and supports such as: 80 new counselling services for women who are victims of violence in over 100 communities in this province; 11 new sexual assault centres, which triples in one year the number of sexual assault centres in British Columbia; money for research, education, awareness and training projects to help end violence against women -- because we must break that cycle, and we will only break it through education and through early work with children; teacher training in school curriculum that has the goal of preventing violence in its early stages by promoting non-violent ways of resolving conflicts; 145 new spaces in transition houses across this province -- these are all part of preserving, protecting and securing services; top priority for non-profit housing unit placements for women who have left abusive partners and are living in transition houses; a new policy to address violence against women in relationships, which ensures that prosecution is vigorously undertaken and charges are laid.

In communities across B.C., 5,000 new child care spaces are being protected and preserved: 11 expanded child care programs; 23 new child care centres; 13 centres expanded through capital funding; the first

[ Page 5086 ]

operational 24-hour day care in this province and the first 24-hour hospital-based day care in Canada that provides child care support for staff, community and patients.

Changes to the day care subsidy program are secured. Core funding to 28 women's centres in this province is secured, with the potential of expansion this year. Never before in their history have women's centres had stable funding so that they can say to women: "You can count on us being here." Funding and regulations are secured to improve a woman's access to contraception and abortion. There is more than $17 million in new money for additional job and training opportunities for more than 25,000 British Columbians on income assistance.

These are some of the services that the budget has secured and protected. I am proud that this government has stood up and said that these are important services for women and children in this province. There's much more work to be done. The government has a good start on new priorities, which are protected and expanded in the budget.

But can any of us imagine how women who have benefited from these new services that they've never had access to before -- women who are victims struggling to become survivors -- feel when the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale says in his local paper that women's services should be the very first thing on the chopping block? I reject completely any thought that this is an acceptable statement. I promise that this government will ensure that the voices of women are heard and the needs of women are met.

First and foremost I'm the MLA for Surrey-Newton. What does this budget mean to the people who live and work in my community? It's a rapidly growing community of almost 60,000 people -- families and children and seniors, and people from many backgrounds and cultures who bring the diverse skills and talents that we need.

Reflected throughout this budget is a commitment to securing and protecting vital services as they affect Surrey and Surrey-Newton, and to providing job stimulus. In Surrey-Newton and Surrey this means that initiatives directed to health care and health care close to home will benefit people. Too frequently, adults and children in Surrey have had to leave their family and friends in order to access the health care that they need. The protecting of vital services means there will be new acute care beds and multi-level care beds for Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Surrey deserves its fair share, and although this budget will make a significant difference, our bed ratio will continue to be well below the provincial average. A cancer clinic in Surrey will proceed, meaning that people who live in Surrey can have treatment close to home, close to the families and friends that all of us need at such times. And it means that in such a rapidly growing community, site plans for a new ambulatory care facility can go forward.

Surrey's unique needs as a growing district have been ignored for far too long. Surrey's needs are beginning to be acknowledged by this government, and it is beginning to receive its fair share. There are 45,000 students in Surrey, and as those of us who read of the numbers of students coming annually to classrooms in Surrey know, it is growing rapidly. This budget protects, secures and expands the initiatives for new classrooms to eliminate the portables in which children have had their education.

Indeed, there are children in our school district who have spent so much of their school life in a portable that they think they went to Britco Elementary. This moves closer to eliminating those portables. This government has acknowledged that Surrey has unique needs in education. Some steps have been taken to address those, but there is more to be done. The Minister of Education has pledged, with Surrey and with other growing districts, to find a way to ensure that those needs are met.

Also secured, protected and enhanced are the areas of advanced education. In a rapidly growing community and rapidly changing work world, skills and knowledge acquired after high school are vital in building our future and ensuring economic security and self-sufficiency for adults today. In Surrey we have 2,400 students finishing grade 12 this year who will need access to post-secondary institutions.

The new Kwantlen College campus in Langley, which will be able to proceed this fall, will have almost 900 new spaces -- more than in any other place in British Columbia. Work will be able to go forward for Surrey, phase 2, on 72nd Avenue, which will eventually have almost 1,800 new spaces, and necessary planning work will proceed on a new campus for trades and technology for 1,400 students. Trades and technology will play a vital

part in meeting the jobs that will be created as a result of the job stimulus, as part of B.C. 21 and other initiatives in this budget. Again, hon. Speaker, a fair share for Surrey. This budget believes that education and training are critical. This government believes that skills will be needed to fill the jobs created by the initiatives that the government is taking.

I have said that Surrey-Newton is a community of families as well. Because we welcome families that have chosen to move to our community, this budget speaks of fairness to families. It ensures that 92 percent of homeowners in this province will receive an increase in their homeowner grant. This is fairness for families. The reduction or elimination of MSP premiums for almost 600,000 British Columbians who need that kind of support is a support for families. Everyone must know that they can access health care. Knowing that they can access health care when they need it for their children is fairness for families.

This budget also protects and secures initiatives around women's issues in Surrey. Surrey has one of the highest rates of sexual assault in British Columbia. There has never before been a sexual assault centre in Surrey. As a result of securing these services and enhancements, there will be a new sexual assault centre in Surrey. We see an increase in the rate of violence against women, and that centre will reach out to women in our community. This budget continues to support and expand the work of organizations working with immigrant women, and will support and continue core funding for the women's centre in Surrey. Again, fairness for Surrey.

Surrey-Newton, by the way, is not only where people work but also where they live. Small business is

[ Page 5087 ]

a vital part of the economic strength of our community, and we have many excellent small businesses in Surrey that are active partners in their community. They are not simply businesses in the community; they are active partners who contribute in significant ways to the health and well-being of Surrey. This budget places a freeze on small business income tax and, as well, raises the exemption level of the corporate capital tax for small businesses. A number of those 2,000 businesses in B.C. that will benefit from that are small businesses in Surrey.

I am proud of this budget. I am proud of the fact that it continues to support the people in this province who need assistance. I am proud of the fact that it continues to support education, services for children and women and small businesses that are a part of their community. This budget and this government stand both with and for women, workers, small business and families. I am proud of that. This budget is fair and responsible, and it says to people in this province that this is a government that recognizes and responds to the needs of British Columbians.

C. Tanner: In reply to the budget address. On March 30 of this year, the Minister of Finance tabled his second budget with the remark that this budget continues a process of deficit reduction, and that they have accomplished this by "shifting the government's spending priorities." That statement is only partially correct, Mr. Speaker, and one word in particular is wrong. Instead of shifting, shading or shifty would have been a better description. I would rewrite the remarks as follows: "The minister and his shifty cohorts have fudged their figures and shaded their accounting practices to deliberately confuse the taxpayers."

A few years ago, under that masterful manipulator, the Socreds used the technique they called "contingent liability." This was a method....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry to have to interrupt you, but I would just like to check. Did the hon. member make reference to "shifty cohorts" with respect to someone on the government side? I'm sure that upon reflection the hon. member would agree that language such as that is unparliamentary. I'm sure the member would not wish to offend any hon. member with language that is inappropriate for the House. Would the member please withdraw, if that was the case.

C. Tanner: Which particular word was the Speaker referring to?

Deputy Speaker: The quote I just referred to, hon. member, was "shifty cohorts," I believe.

C. Tanner: Shall I read it...?

Deputy Speaker: No, it's not necessary. If those words are in your text, then I would ask the hon. member to please substitute more appropriate language.

C. Tanner: Other than "cohorts," Mr. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, "shifty cohorts"...

L. Fox: Are you challenging the Chair?

C. Tanner: No, not at all.

Deputy Speaker: ...is, in the opinion of the Chair, highly unparliamentary. I ask the member to simply withdraw those words and find more appropriate terms to make his point.

C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if I said they shifted their figures around....

Deputy Speaker: That's not what you were saying before, hon. member. But it's up to you how you wish to speak. Referring to anybody in the assembly with those words is inappropriate. I'm sure the member would agree.

C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I assume that when they got together and started to fudge their figures, they weren't in the assembly. They did that in their offices.

Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member challenging the Chair's request to withdraw those terms?

C. Tanner: No, not at all, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Then if the member would withdraw, it would be most appropriate, and he could get on with his debate.

C. Tanner: Okay, I will withdraw the word "shifty."

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

C. Tanner: I don't know what I'd replace it with, because that's the best word to describe what happened.

A few years ago, under that masterful manipulator, the Socreds used a technique they called "contingent liability." This was a method of disguising their fanciful footwork by passing off public debt to Crown corporations and then claiming that the government was debtless. You may even recall that in Kelowna they had a barge-burning. It was a typical Socred gimmick. The Premier of the day shot a burning arrow into a barge full of bonds. It was great theatrics and a popular entertainment, but it had nothing at all to do with responsible accounting or with the reduction of debt. But at least you could say this for the Socreds and Mr. Bennett: it illustrated a little flair.

This government and this minister, with their sleight-of-hand deficit reduction, portray only deceit with their pale imitation of the Bennett brigade and what the NDP are pleased to call B.C. 21 a comprehensive multi-year plan to invest and improve the province's economy. The minister travelled around the

[ Page 5088 ]

province, he says, stopping many times to talk to the public. He must have done a lot of talking, because he didn't do any listening.

[4:00]

This past Monday people were taking a survey in my constituency. They took every second page of the telephone directory and phoned the third name on the list. They made 17 phone calls and asked three questions. Of the 17 calls they made, they got 16 responses. I would like to tell you some of the comments they got. First they were saying: "We need a new Premier." Then they were saying: "There's an insensitivity to people on fixed incomes. There are not enough cutbacks. There is no concern shown for people on fixed incomes. They said they would not raise taxes, and they did -- is this becoming the norm?

They understand more about taxes on income, but not on non-income-generating property. Why is the government borrowing money while attempting to bring down the deficit, spending too much money on studies rather than actual work, and paying too much based on patronage? The NDP suffers from short-term thinking. It's more and more difficult to absorb tax increases on fixed income. Not happy with where the increased tax moneys go. Not too happy with tax increases on services, like the GST." I guess they don't have to take responsibility for that one, but it's the only one they don't. "We pay too much tax already.

We cannot afford this provincial government anymore. Property taxes is the wrong system. Government members should be tightening belts along with the rest of us."

That's the sort of comment we've been hearing on this side of the House. Where have those members been when the public has been talking to them? Certainly not in the same country that I live in.

Interjection.

C. Tanner: And I'm enjoying it, compared to the world that you people live in.

If the minister had been listening, he would have heard the public saying: "Cut the taxes, cut the costs, cut the crap, and give it to us straight." The public understands what this minister, this Premier and the NDP caucus do not know -- that the overriding fiscal need in British Columbia is cutting debt. And to cut debt, one must honestly state the case. The public debt in this province is inclusive of everything, including B.C. 21. Perhaps since the NDP are not so fond of bingo, particularly in the bastion of socialism in Nanaimo....

It was the member from that city who inadvertently came up with the misnomer B.C. 21. Could it be that he had gambling on his mind when he suggested to the Minister of Transportation and Highways that driving the Island Highway is a crapshoot? Could the member for Kamloops, following that line of thought, suggest to the Minister of Finance: "How about calling our scheme B.C. blackjack? Couldn't we call it B.C. blackjack instead of B.C. 21?" Can't you see this aspiring young Premier jumping to that brilliant suggestion until, of course, the Premier called off the hotheads and insisted on another misnomer: B.C. 21?

But I prefer B.C. blackjack: your chance to pay more for gas, pay more to drive the toll highways -- more debt incurred, more interest paid for. And for what? To play B.C. blackjack with the Minister of Finance. At least if you go to a casino there's a chance, albeit small, to win. When you play with an NDP dealer, with Sleight-of-hand Clark or Double-shuffle Harcourt, they keep all the cards and they tell you what the hand reads. You put up your wager but you'll always lose, because in B.C. blackjack, even if you win the hand, you lose the interest on the previous accumulated losses.

Can't you visualize it: this circus shill culling the crowd for suckers, giving them that old socialist doubletalk about fair taxation, particularly if you have a buck in your pocket. Services for all, irrespective of cost, free to everybody. All you have to do is play B.C. blackjack, and voil�, we have roads, we have hospitals, we have schools, we have highways, and best of all we have no debt -- courtesy of Sleight-of-hand Clark and Double-shuffle Harcourt, and conceived by Williams the mole.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. I'm sure by now the member is fully aware that referring to members by their personal names is entirely outside the rules of the House. I would ask the member to please rephrase his references to members of the Legislature.

C. Tanner: I would rephrase and say that we have no debt, courtesy of the sleight-of-hand Finance minister and dealt by the double-shuffle Premier.

But friends, I suppose we should be thankful. At least they didn't insist that we play Russian roulette. They're going to leave us our miserable lives, having fleeced our pockets.

An Hon. Member: We're not looking for a letter of reference from you, anyway.

An Hon. Member: You wouldn't understand it.

C. Tanner: You couldn't read it.

I would like to turn to other aspects of the budget. This minister has introduced two budgets, and he's managed to trip over his own feet so many times it's becoming embarrassing. Against the advice of all members in both opposition parties, he attempted to tax one of the professional groups in this province -- the lawyers -- to pay, as he said, for legal aid. That was his justification for attacking a particular profession. He didn't want to tax all the professions; he chose to victimize the widows, the single mothers, the disadvantaged -- because lawyers will pass onto their clients the costs of their advice.

Companies, on the other hand, can include them in the cost of doing business, and it doesn't come out of their personal income. The courts threw out this novice Finance minister's discriminatory tax on lawyers, and they threw it out because it was ultra vires and unconstitutional. This minister is at it again. Now, not content with discriminating against lawyers, he's going to make it retroactive.

This minister is the same one who brought in a corporate capital tax, which was so obviously misdirected that their own members are now standing up

[ Page 5089 ]

today and boasting about the fact that they're changing it. He blew it; he had to correct it -- and these examples of fiscal mismanagement are ones that they're proud of. They're using it as an example of this Finance minister's business acumen, his fiscal ability. So here we arrive today, when this minister in three short days has completely reversed himself. What sort of mismanagement would be so incompetent that he didn't know the consequences of the tax that he was imposing?

I have a letter from a constituent of mine who has an assessment on her home of $458,000 for the land and $130,000 for the house. This is her most recent property assessment: total cost, $588,000. She said I could use this in the House. I'd like to just tell you what she said. She and her husband live on yearly pensions of $24,000. They bought this land in 1968 at a price of $37,000. This so-called $130,000 building is in fact a little two-room cottage. These people want to tax this family of two, who have an income of $24,000, because they're living in a home for which the assessment and retail sale value today is $588,000. And they're representing the little person?

Please don't tell me that he didn't look at what would happen to the thousands upon thousands of people who want to live out their lives on pensions and had the foresight to buy a piece of property which has since increased in value. This poor excuse for a budget was produced by a poor excuse for a Finance minister in order to attack what his party calls the rich. I suppose he is fulfilling that great NDP principle in the

preamble of the New Democratic Party constitution. It reads as follows:

"That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not for profit;

"To modify and control the operations of monopolistic, productive and distribution organizations through economic and social planning towards these ends and, where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership."

The manager of this province's finances should resign -- he's incompetent; and if he doesn't want to go, I've got something to make his life simpler. I have in my hand the New Democratic simplified tax form. It's really simple; even your Finance minister can handle it. On the top, it says:

"Individual Tax, 1993.

1. Put your social insurance number and how much money you've got.

2. How much money did you make last year? Fill in space.

3. Send it to us."

I think that the Minister of Finance could handle that. You know, that's fairly straightforward. Incidentally, if you've got any problem with this, or you can't handle it or you've got a comment, there's a little box here that you can fill in. That's about all that Finance minister is capable of.

There is only one objective this government should strive for, as every other government in Canada is, and that's the reduction of debt. It's time, fellow members over there, to come down from the socialist clouds in the skies of reality to today's fiscal reality. We're broke! We're overspending, and we're not cutting costs. It's time, fellow members, to look around in your ranch over there and find yourselves a new, experienced Finance minister before this one runs us into the ground.

L. Fox: I am pleased to take my place in this budget debate. It's easy to see in this budget that socialism is alive and well in the NDP government. It's very obvious by this budget that this NDP government knows nothing more than to tax, tax, tax -- to the point where the business community is fed up, because this government doesn't realize how important that community is in the restructuring and the rebuilding of the economy of British Columbia.

Nothing could better state the position that this government took when formulating this budget than if you read Hansard and you refer to the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. Both of those people stood up and firmly said they were pleased that this government reached into the pockets of the rich and forced the homeowners out of their homes in order to add to the social programs of this province.

I would much rather have seen this government's first priority be to cut its spending and to look very closely at where it's spending its dollars. I'll get into some of that a little later. But this government continues to tell half-truths about the financial state of this province. Day after day in this House, we hear the Premier and the Finance minister say that they've cut the deficit.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. Just a moment, hon member. The conversation that's taking place across the chamber is quite distracting for the Chair. I will ask hon. members to show the courtesy that they would expect if they were making a presentation. Would the hon. member please continue.

L. Fox: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll note that it wasn't coming from our caucus.

As I was saying, day after day we hear from both the Premier and the Finance minister that they've cut the deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth; they have not cut the deficit. They are trying to play on that very expensive report that was generated by Peat Marwick some 18 months ago in order to provide the necessary background for this government to lay its claims. I'm sure there are many partners within the Peat Marwick Thorne company who are ashamed of the day their corporation produced that very fictitious and misleading report.

[4:15]

The fact of the matter is that this year this government is spending $3 billion more than it's collecting in revenue. That's true: $3 billion more. We've heard from the government benches, as part of the rationale to suggest that this government is in fact reacting to strong fiscal management, that the previous government created this deficit. Let me tell you some facts, taken right out of the auditor general's report.

The consolidated debt in terms of the accumulated deficit, beginning in the year of 1988, was $3.5 billion.

[ Page 5090 ]

By 1990 that deficit had dropped to $2.2 billion, a paydown of $1.3 billion over those three years. In 1991, admittedly, it went up $6 million to $2.8 billion. Even with all the skulduggery that the Peat Marwick report and the Finance minister created during the first six months of their administration, this deficit was still only $4.9 billion -- or $5 billion, to round it off. That's a $1.5 billion increase in the deficit from 1988 to 1992.

I recall very clearly, as do all members of the House -- and certainly most of the province -- that right after he took office the Minister of Finance laid blame on the feds for decreasing their provincial share of the revenue by $1.4 billion. So if we assume that the minister was correct and that was indeed fact, then even with the fictitious budget that was brought in at the end of 1991-92 -- the responsibility of the provincial government -- there was still only $1 million more deficit in 1992 over 1988.

What we have before us, last year and this year, is accumulated deficit equal to that which has taken place in this government over the last 40 years. In two years alone this government has equalled the total deficit of the province of British Columbia. Those are the real facts.

When I listen to some of the speeches on the government side about what this government would have to do in order to react to the input from the opposition, they use scare tactics. They suggest they'd have to cut health care, education and all those issues that are really dear to the hearts of British Columbians. But in fact that's not the case. This government is reacting rather than being proactive.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Some of the government backbenchers are now asking what I would cut. If they will wait and allow me the time, I will get to what they should cut.

Over the last year this government has done just the opposite of what it should have been doing. The budget for Agriculture in 1991-92 was $101 million. This budget has it dropped to $89 million. As I've tried to point out, this government is reactive rather than proactive.

But in order to get to the final point, let me list a few others. Energy, Mines and Resources is one of the major producers in this province and has contributed wealth throughout the province -- certainly to the coffers of this government. The budget has gone down from $73 million to $68 million. I see that that minister is in the House, and really she should be ashamed of the way she's represented that particular industry in this province.

Transportation and Highways has a major impact on the economy of British Columbia, and plays a major role in getting our resources to their delivery points. That budget has decreased from $969 million in 1991-92 to $762 million now. That shows what kind of reaction this government has to development.

Although the budget is small, a very key area is one that in fact should be diversifying the economy of this province. We should be utilizing tourism to shore up the incomes of rural communities and of Victoria itself. Tourism is becoming the number one industry in many areas of the world. I hear debates from this government every day about how we should protect this area and that area with respect to the land base to enhance tourism. Those are only words, because in real action they cut the tourism budget from $68 million to $58 million in just two years.

This government does not recognize the economic opportunities before it in the tourism industry. There are many people in this province who recognize that this government does not understand the importance of that industry; they'll do something about it.

Yet where do we see the budget increase? Where do we see the government emphasis?

An Hon. Member: Education.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I hear a man say "education." That's a joke. Education hasn't kept up with the growth in this province, never mind the inflation. That's what the education budget has done.

Social services: there's a good one. That has increased substantially. This year we see a social services budget of $2.9 billion. In 1991-92, before this government got into power, that budget was $1.9 billion. What has it done? By being non-proactive in encouraging economic development and in putting a heavy tax on business and on industry -- policies which are driving both of those out of this province -- it's created 57,000 more welfare recipients in one year. That's what this government's financing policies have done.

We've gotten to the point where one out of every ten people in British Columbia is on welfare; one out of every ten is on UI; two out of every ten people in this province work for some level of government. That leaves six out of every ten people trying to pay the bills of those other four. It's impossible. Those kinds of economics will not work, and this government continues to expand the amount of dependency on government rather than reducing it.

Let's take a good look at what's happened in health care. Everybody in this province welcomes the opportunity to review the way we deliver that service; everybody also understands the importance of a good health system for the low-income as well as for the high-income. We all enjoy those services. But what has this minister done? She refused to implement a key part of the royal commission that would have put a provincial health council into place and that would have developed a plan for how this new close-to-home process would work.

During that time, it would have also allowed a look at how we are going to re-educate displaced people from the acute care system and how we are going to place them into the closer-to-home system. It would have done away with the need for the Finance minister to buy off the three unions because of the Shaughnessy closure.

If there had been consultation between all the stakeholders in this province, we would never have seen the need for the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the Finance minister's very expensive buyout of the unions that were extremely upset about the Shaughnessy closure. That one bit of courtesy, to negotiation on how

[ Page 5091 ]

we are going to shift from acute-care to closer-to home, could have saved this province up to $500 million. It would have done a few other things. That particular process could have identified some pilot projects around the province -- one in an urban area, one in a combined urban-rural area, one in a rural area itself, along with other kinds of settings -- to see whether or not this concept was going to meet the objective that the royal commission set out for it, which is to provide a high quality of health care at a lower cost to British Columbians.

My worst fear is that without that process in place we are not spending our health care dollars properly. We are making ad hoc decisions that end up costing this government more money and the people of B.C. more taxes. We did not sit down and design a program. We do not have any kind of accountability in the process to see whether or not it works. We're going on a concept that this Health minister believes is going to work, but I'm sure she is not able to tell us with a high level of certainty that it is going to work and at the same time save dollars for the province.

We continue to have dilemmas throughout this province. In one particular area the budget talks about reducing government's advertising costs. I have to ask: if the Minister of Health had consulted with the people of Shaughnessy, if she had consulted with the board, if she had consulted with all those unions, would she have had to spend millions of dollars on an ad campaign to try to cool off the populace of this province? If they were really sincere about cutting advertising costs, that's one area where they could have saved a considerable amount of money.

Add to that the tremendous number of dollars used by the Minister of Health to try to fight her battle with the doctors in the media, rather than sitting down and designing a process to accommodate everybody in a fair and honest way, not the kind of process that we've seen the minister enter into up until now.

We could also have cut costs in this budget in just a few areas and cut the need for taxation. Six percent to the BCGEU is going to have a significant compounding effect. The fixed-wage policy is going to cost the province between $2 million and $3 million this year. Those are some of the ways that we could have cut it. The minister spent a lot of time talking about the need to create new revenues. One of the biggest investors in this province is union funds. I don't see any mention of them paying their fair share to help pay down the deficit and control the economy of this province. No way. No mention at all.

Yet it's one of the largest businesses -- and it is a business -- in the province with tax-free status. Instead, this minister chose to tax the rich.

[4:30]

Let's look not only at the rich. This budget has implications for everyone. I'm really pleased that the Finance minister took a second look at the surtax on homes. It pleased me substantially, but I wish he would have looked with the same kind of logic at other aspects of this budget. The one I want to touch on is what I call the provincial GST. This particular

section of the budget flies in the face of all the environmental initiatives that this government has put in place, as well as the initiatives that the previous government put in place in terms of recycling. Let me explain it to them. The government doesn't understand the business community, so let me tell them how this particular aspect is going to impact recycling.

Three years ago there was an initiative in the Environment ministry requiring all service stations and garages that sell oil and do oil changes to pay a collector to recycle that oil. By taxing labour on oil changes, they are driving that economy underground. More and more people will do their own oil changes. At present we in the automotive business have to collect the filters and pay $1 a filter to have them destroyed. Where does this government think that used oil and those used filters are going to go when those oil changes are done in the back yards?

This government has driven up the cost of labour to the point that people will start to do more oil changes themselves or have them done by back-yard mechanics.

H. Lali: Not true.

L. Fox: "Not true," the member says. Hon. Speaker, I've been in this business for 20 years, and that young man should listen, because he has something to learn about the automotive business.

I'll tell you where that used oil and those used filters are going to go. They're going to be packaged in a way that's not identifiable, and they will end up in the landfill. Yet the initiative by the Ministry of Environment was to stop that process.

Let me talk a little about the impact this tax is going to have on ICBC rates. At present body shops don't have to charge tax on labour for repairs. Who pays for the bulk of the repairs in this province? ICBC. Who pays the premiums? We all do. What's this going to do to the cost of repairs? Well, hon. Speaker, when you take a typical automobile that's damaged, 50 percent is parts and 50 percent is repair. So if the cost of the repair is $1,000, there's going to be a 3.5 percent increase. That's going to directly reflect on ICBC's ability to pay and therefore on our ability to buy insurance. That's what it's going to do.

What's this going to do to small businesses? This government seems to think it's going to be the garages and repair shops that pay this. But it's not. Take an industrial truck engine in the logging or freighting industry. Right now these people are very marginal in the money they make; they very rarely make any significant profit over and above their cost of living. A typical engine repair on a large truck is about $15,000. The labour component of that repair is about 50 percent. Fifty percent of the 7 percent tax is 3.5 percent on $15,000. That's almost $500 extra on that repair. That's what it's going to do to small business.

It's not just small business. It applies to farmers who are presently having extreme difficulty with the increase in taxation on their property. Last year they paid an 11 percent increase in school and property taxes. This year those same farmers are paying 8 percent between school tax and property tax. This government doesn't seem to understand that they're hitting the same individual. It's compounding.

[ Page 5092 ]

I want to point out a couple of other areas where this tax is going to impact. I'm sure the members of government will not be aware that at the present time there are between 10 million and 12 million shoes repaired in this province annually. Fifty percent of that is done by home-based business. Appliance repairs are very similar. What this tax is going to do is drive more of that business underground. This government is not going to increase the amount of money it collects from that tax, because more and more of it is not going to be declared.

One of the most difficult things we have to deal with in landfills today is our white metals: old fridges, stoves, washers and dryers. Those, along with shoes, should be considered recyclable. We shouldn't be taxing them; we should be encouraging people to repair them. But no, here we are taxing an appliance repair. Go to any landfill site and see what creates the largest problem: it's those white metals; there's no way of recycling those white metals. We should be encouraging people to repair those instead of throwing them in our landfill sites. We should not be taxing them so that we discourage that.

We should not be driving that industry underground. That business is largely conducted out of the home.

Think about your own communities. How many businesses operate out of a car or a van? Most of them do. What this government's going to do with this taxation is drive that business right underground. It's encouraging people to cheat on the system, and therefore put more burden on the rest of the taxpayers in this province.

Let's look very closely at what the removal of the trade-in allowance for taxing purposes does to the car purchaser. Earlier today this government kind of laughed when it referred to car dealers. It really believes that it's taxing the car dealerships when they take away the tax credit for trade-ins. They're not. Automobiles are not a luxury in the rural parts of this province. There's no rapid transit. People need automobiles to get to work. In my constituency people drive up to 60,000 or 70,000 km a year just to go to work. It's a necessity.

What you've done with this piece of taxation is added $300 to $800 to that person's purchase of a new vehicle. I would be pleased to supply the Finance minister with those kinds of stats, because I have them.

It's no shame to be in small business. I'm proud of my record in small business. I'm proud of what I contribute to my community. I'm proud of the fact that I supply 14 high-paid jobs in my community in the automotive industry.

H. Lali: At $6.50 an hour?

L. Fox: That man should be informed, and I beg him to get informed, because I have many people working in my business that make more money than that individual's ever made on a yearly basis in his life.

I'm disappointed, because that's the kind of mentality that this government has. It doesn't realize what kind of contribution small business makes to the community and to the economy of this province. And I'm disappointed that that member hasn't got an understanding. He's standing over there ready to speak to the budget, and he doesn't even understand those simple basics. That disappoints me substantially.

I could go on and on, but I see my time has run out. I can only say that I hope this Finance minister looks at some of those issues that I've brought forward today with the same kind of compassion he showed for those homeowners in Vancouver and Victoria last Monday. And I hope to God that he sees the error of his wisdom. I apologize for that, hon. Speaker; I didn't mean to say that. I really do hope, and I meant it sincerely, that he sees the error of his wisdom with regard to this budget.

H. Lali: Unlike the naysayers on the Social Credit benches and the doom-and-gloomers on the Liberal benches, I stand here with pride, and I support this budget.

The member who spoke a couple of minutes ago seemed to imply that he's somehow better than I am because he has made more money than I have. Shame on him for demeaning people who make less money than he does.

In any case, unlike the Liberal opposition, who are masters of double-speak when they talk about this budget.... Some of my colleagues say they are actually speaking with a forked tongue. Somebody who grabbed me in the hallway said that they're actually speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time: out of one side they're saying that they want us to increase spending; yet at the same time, out of the other side, they're asking us to lower taxes and the deficit. Such hypocrisy!

Interjection.

H. Lali: The Socred member opposite is yelling and screaming right now. When his leader gave his speech on the budget, he said that the NDP government is blowing a billion dollars a year on interest payments on the provincial debt. I've got news for that same member. Hon. member, if your inept government had not mismanaged the economy and finances of this province and had not accumulated a $20 billion debt between 1975 and 1991, this government and the people of this great province would not have to pay a billion dollars a year in interest payments for the Socred's financial incompetence over the last 40 years. Shame on you and shame on Social Credit for robbing British Columbians blind.

He also said that the NDP has increased the overall debt. The Leader of the Third Party said that the NDP wants to build new roads and bridges by mortgaging our children's future. What in the dickens do you think your government, of which you were a member for six years, did when they had a $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla Highway? What do you think your government did when it had a $175 million overrun on the Alex Fraser Bridge and a $300 million overrun on Expo 86? You mortgaged the future of British Columbians.

He also said that he is against the introduction of tolls. He doesn't like the idea of users paying. Last year the Leader of the Third Party said in his budget speech that he wanted the government to introduce user fees in

[ Page 5093 ]

health care. I say that the Leader of the Third Party is a hypocrite for wanting to introduce user fees in one area but not in another.

[4:45]

Both the Liberals and the Socreds have made anti-union statements in their speeches. The member for Peace River South specifically said that public servants are being paid too much. As public servants are represented by unions, I'd like to ask: how many workers in that member's riding are making wages that unions fought hard for? How many of those people are spending money in the small businesses, restaurants, grocery stores and clothing stores in his riding and putting people to work? Union wages are keeping those small communities in his riding afloat.

I'd like to concentrate a bit on the highlights of this budget. This government has lowered the rate of spending growth from a high of 12 percent under the Socreds to 7 percent last year and 5.7 percent this year. In actual terms that's a 1.3 percent cut in spending. I would like to say that there is an increase of 3 percent in the population and 4 percent in inflation predicted for next year. In 1991-92 the Socred deficit was a record $2.4 billion. This government lowered it to $1.9 billion last year; and in this year, 1993-94, it's forecast to be a $1.5 billion deficit.

As you can see, we have decreased the deficit two years in a row -- unlike the Socreds, whose deficits for the last three years, in the three budgets under Bill Vander Zalm, were increasing astronomically.

An Hon. Member: Desperately trying to get re-elected.

H. Lali: That's right. If we would have kept the status quo, this deficit would have been $3.1 billion. I say to the Minister of Finance, sitting to my left over there, that he also should be proud of his budget and the fact that he is continuing to decrease the deficit. Now that's leadership.

We've maintained the critical programs in health, education and social services. Health will receive a 4.1 percent increase to $6.2 billion this year. This demonstrates the government's commitment to maintaining our excellent health system and will enable us to continue with the New Directions health initiatives.

We've also introduced a fair tax package, in which 28 percent