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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 17

[ Page 5041 ]

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like the members of the Legislature to recognize a very special guest in the members' gallery, His Excellency Alexander Belonogov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Canada. He was involved with the Vancouver summit last weekend, which was such a great success for British Columbians. I had the honour of having a traditional breakfast with Boris Yeltsin and a number of other British Columbians, where he described the summit meeting as, in all senses, out of the ordinary.

At that same breakfast I had the pleasure of meeting His Excellency, and I am looking forward to meeting with the ambassador this afternoon to discuss a number of ways in which British Columbia can cooperate with Russia as the Russian people modernize their economy and their democracy. I would like to also recognize, along with the ambassador, Mr. Andrei Seratov, who is the first secretary at the Russian Embassy in Ottawa. Would the members of the legislative council give a very warm welcome to our visitors.

L. Reid: I'd like the House to join me this afternoon in welcoming Heather Keely, who is the chair of the legislative committee for Vancouver General Hospital, Marie Cousins from Terrace, Lorell Oshanek from Eagle Ridge Hospital, Sheila McIntyre from Quesnel, Brenda Jemmeson from Royal Jubilee in Victoria, and Jean Greatbatch from the B.C. Nurses' Union staff. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the precinct today.

Hon. E. Cull: The member for Richmond East beat me to that introduction, but I would like to add my welcome to the BCNU legislative committee, and thank them for the excellent meeting and briefing I had with them yesterday.

D. Symons: It's my pleasure today to introduce a group of 14 grade 11 students from Richmond Senior Secondary School in my riding of Richmond Centre. They are here with their teacher, Ms. Sharon Chen. Would the House please join me in making them feel warmly welcome.

Hon. A. Edwards: I would like the House to join me in welcoming today Ms. Donna Gregoire and her children: Marc, Danica and Nigel. The family normally lives in Stewart, helping their husband and father, Denis Gregoire, manage the Premier gold project. Please make them welcome.

L. Hanson: Would the House please join me in welcoming a good friend of mine and an ex-MLA, Harold Long from Powell River.

U. Dosanjh: It's my privilege to introduce to the House 56 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington. Would the House please welcome them.

Oral Questions

TAXPAYERS' PROTEST

A. Warnke: Today my question is to the Minister of Finance. Last year thousands of British Columbians, many of whom were seniors, acted in good faith by purchasing British Columbia bonds. That faith has been destroyed by the sloppy management and outrageous spending of the Finance minister, who is still learning on the job. My question is: before we have the embarrassment of a rumoured mass protest by redemption of B.C. bonds, what action will be taken by this minister immediately to restore this government's reputation?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, let me say first that I make no apology for pursuing an agenda of tax fairness. That's what we campaigned on; that's what we need.

Secondly, I make no apology for listening to British Columbians about their legitimate concerns and for reviewing tax measures. That's in the best tradition of this province. I would also say that the success of the B.C. bonds that we sold in order to diversify our borrowing portfolio is a success of this administration. We look forward to annual B.C. bond programs, and I think we can look forward to continued success.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I find that kind of answer just outrageous. No apology? The arrogance of this minister!

Yesterday the government finally got one message from the public and repealed one

section of their disastrous budget. Although they said the elimination of the surtax was not a backing down but a rational thinking through, I ask this minister: why did the government not think through the implications of its budget before imposing it on the people of British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Clark: I look forward to the debate on the budget, hon. Speaker. This is a fair and balanced budget that has the lowest spending growth of any government in five years. It reduces the deficit from the $2.4 billion we inherited from the previous administration to $1.5 billion. It has 28 percent of British Columbians receiving tax cuts. I want to see those members in the Liberal Party campaign against the tax cuts for 28 percent of British Columbians.

A. Warnke: Truly the Finance minister is a cynic, a person who knows everything about price but the value of nothing. The much-touted prebudget circus by this Premier and this Finance minister is now exposed for what it was: a shameless public relations scam. What we want to know is: why did the Minister of Finance not listen to the people then, instead of bringing us to the brink of a tax revolt before backing down?

[ Page 5042 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, during the course of this administration we have been open with the books. We have talked to British Columbians. I travelled this province, as no Finance minister has before the budget, to 11 public meetings. People said they wanted a fair taxation system. They said they wanted to see the deficit coming down. People are prepared to pay to protect quality health care and education, and we have done that in this budget.

HOMEOWNER GRANT

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Premier. According to the estimates last year, this government borrowed almost $83 million for salary hikes to direct government employees. The combined effect of those higher base costs will increase the debt by over $160 million this year. That's eight times the amount this government plans to raise by cutting the homeowner grant. How can this government possibly justify wiping out anyone's homeowner grant at the same that it uses $160 million for salary hikes to government employees?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member should go back and read the budget, and he will see that there have been increases in the homeowner grant for many hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.

L. Fox: My supplementary is to the Minister Responsible for Seniors. Is it the position of this government that all seniors throughout British Columbia should have equal access to seniors' benefits programs paid for by the taxpayers, or is it their decision to deny certain seniors their $745 homeowner grant? Is that a warning shot to indicate that this government does not believe in the principle of universality for seniors? What's next? Will the minister decrease Pharmacare?

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair has heard at least two questions in that, hon. member. I'd like the minister to answer, please.

L. Fox: I'll conclude. Will Pharmacare be denied to seniors who happen to live in West Vancouver, Kerrisdale or your riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head?

Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows full well, there are all kinds of programs that benefit seniors. Some of them are universal, and some of them are not. Some of them depend on the need of the senior who receives the service. What this government stands for is fairness for all people in this province: fair taxes and fair benefits.

L. Fox: How can the Minister Responsible for Seniors sit as quietly as a church mouse while her colleagues rob senior citizens by taking away their $745 homeowner grant? Does the minister have any idea how much stress this is creating for seniors in this province?

[2:15]

Hon. E. Cull: The member hasn't looked at the budget carefully enough, because 95 percent of homeowners got an increase in the homeowner's grant.

If you do some consultation with seniors' groups around this province, they will tell you that they are willing to pay more taxes to protect essential services such as health care and education for their children and grandchildren.

V. Anderson: To the hon. Minister of Finance. Last evening I met with 4,000 people who met in my riding from all over Vancouver and the lower mainland. Even after the government has said that they would cancel the surtax, I ask on their behalf -- indeed, it's a question put out by former NDP members: will the Minister of Finance now undertake to reinstitute homeowners' grants in full?

Hon. G. Clark: I can't help but mention the hypocrisy we hear from the other side. I saw a lot of signs in the member's riding. They said: "Tax Revolt" and "Save Shaughnessy Hospital." Those members have to understand that there are difficult choices to be made to protect health care and education spending in this province, and to insulate people. We have made those difficult choices, and we have no hesitation in saying to the public that we have to make difficult choices to protect our quality health care and education systems. We'll campaign on that.

V. Anderson: A supplemental question to the Minister of Finance. I'm sure those who are watching carefully today will note that the minister did not answer the question -- which was their question. Therefore I will ask the hon. minister their second question, which was plainly put forward last night, for they are angry at his incompetence. Will he do as they requested again and again last night, and resign immediately as the Minister of Finance?

Some Hon. Members: Resign! Resign!

The Speaker: Order, please. I'll wait until the House comes to order before I ask the minister to reply.

Hon. G. Clark: I've been on that side of the House, and I seem to recall calling for ministers' resignations in the past. It's a part of our parliamentary tradition, and I certainly expect it.

I want the member to know that 95 percent of homeowners in British Columbia receive an increase in the homeowner grant, and a few receive some cuts in the homeowner grant to pay for that. That's fair and balanced. We have no intention of making any changes.

V. Anderson: Again to the Minister of Finance, another of the many questions they wanted asked today. Hopefully, the minister has gained a little enlightenment over the last few days. So will he now undertake to withdraw Bill 6? They're asking if he will deep-six Bill 6.

[ Page 5043 ]

Hon. G. Clark: We're proud to stand with the 95 percent of homeowners who got an increase; the Liberal Party can stand for the 5 percent. We think those 5 percent know that in a fair and balanced approach to dealing with our fiscal problems and to protecting quality health care, they have to pay their fair share, and we stand by that.

PUBLIC RELATIONS EXPENDITURES BY THE PREMIER'S OFFICE

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Finance is starting to lose his temper, so perhaps I had better go to the Premier with this next question.

Hon. Speaker, the people of this province have been outraged over the last week by the spending of this government. Can the Premier tell us whether, in his opinion, it's appropriate for the taxpayers of this province to be paying $12,000 for an American image consultant to spend a day in the Premier's office helping him to prop up his public relations image?

Hon. M. Harcourt: What I'm more ashamed of is the level of spending that went on under the previous administration. I tell you, hon. Speaker, that is what the budget debate is all about. If the hon. members would focus their attention on the budget debate and see that we have brought spending increases down from 13 percent a year to 5.7 percent, the lowest in five years, that we have the lowest per capita debt in Canada, that we have the second-lowest taxes and that we have cut $35 million worth of waste and inefficiency.... That's what we should be talking about in this budget. I'm proud of this budget, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's clear from his answer that his image is as bad as it was before.

Some other little expenditures that have gone on in the Premier's office over the last while include $45,000 spent on an image poll for the Premier. Does the Premier think that is a good use of taxpayers' money?

Hon. M. Harcourt: One of the benefits of this new open government is that we make information available to the opposition. We have freedom-of-information laws, which we didn't have under the previous administration, so that they can finally raise those kinds of questions.

GOVERNMENT LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE CHARGES

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. The minister may not think it's a big deal that relatives of senior civil servants are abusing the system by making illegally charged telephone calls. She is the same minister who flew her family to Disneyland on frequent flyer points earned at the taxpayer's expense. Will this minister agree to immediately table the government telephone logs so that members of the public can determine the extent of the abuse?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm glad you've given me the opportunity to clarify some of the misinformation that was brought up yesterday -- and it is misinformation. The hon. member clearly stated that there is misuse by family members and various people within the government. There is no proof that such allegations are founded in fact.

There is a difficult situation in North America with third-party use of telephones. Since this government came in, in October 1991, there have been $300,000 worth of third-party calls. I'd like to clarify that it has nothing to do with the third party; it has to do with third-party billings of government members. We have implemented controls to try to deal with a lot of the issues around this information. We asked the telephone company to ban third-party billing of government; however, this is not possible, because we have two others on the phone-line system that we use.

F. Garden: I request leave to make a special introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Garden: It's my privilege to stand here on what has been proclaimed by this House as Tartan Day.

An Hon. Member: He's advertising.

F. Garden: I've been taking some insults about my kilt all morning, and I've brought my friends to defend me.

We're very proud that, in the cooperative spirit -- after the little noise we just had -- the House did proclaim Tartan Day. We have a very active organization in this area, and there are people in the gallery from as far away as Chemainus. They represent the Victoria Joint Scottish Council, the Highland Games Association, the Royal Scottish Country Dance Society, the St. Andrew's and Caledonian Society, the Sons of Scotland, Vancouver Island Scottish Country Dance Society, and the Gaelic Club. They're all up in the balcony, and I'd like you all to wish them a very special welcome on Tartan Day.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, this is National Wildlife Week. I'm not inviting any comments about wildlife inside this House; I'm referring to the wildlife in the great outdoors.

National Wildlife Week was created in 1947 by

an act of Parliament to raise awareness among Canadians about the importance of wildlife and conservation. It takes place every year during the week surrounding April 10 to commemorate the birthday of the late conservationist Jack Miner, who devoted his life to the cause of wildlife conservation. The Canadian Wildlife Federation sponsors National Wildlife Week in cooperation with participating federal, provincial and territorial government wildlife agencies. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is an active participant.

[ Page 5044 ]

This year the habitat conservation fund is funding the distribution of 16,000 educational kits to schools and youth groups across the province in order to encourage youngsters to create conservation projects.

This year's theme is: "Community Action Makes a World of Difference to Wildlife." We have many examples to draw upon in order to show how this theme is alive and well in British Columbia, such as the cancellation of the shore hunt of brant geese at Boundary Bay, the ban on trading in bear parts, the implementation of the protected-areas strategy, the implementation of the Commission on Resources and Environment and the corporate resources inventory initiatives, the protection of the Khutzeymateen for grizzly bears, and the announcement of the Johnstone Strait killer whale committee in cooperation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

As well, last week I designated the Parksville-Qualicum wildlife management area. This is the largest coastal wildlife management area in British Columbia, stretching 17 kilometres from Craig Bay south of Parksville to Little Qualicum River. The abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife in the area is outstanding. This is an excellent example of how far community action can go to acquire and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitats. Given the work of the citizens of Parksville and Qualicum in planning and promoting this project, I congratulate them.

Wildlife plays an important role in shaping the cultural, social and economic fabric in British Columbia. History tells us that explorers came to our province in search of wildlife. History also tells us that when they came here, the first nations were already so knowledgable of the ways in which to live in harmony with nature and wildlife was so much a part of their lives.... Recent surveys have shown that more British Columbians participate in activities that focus on wildlife than any other Canadians. I would like to encourage all members of the House to participate in National Wildlife Week, which began April 4 and continues through April 10.

Many of us will be with our families on this Easter weekend, and it will be an opportune time to explore our exciting provincial park system. There are a number of projects that you can do at home with the family, such as planting trees, shrubs or flowers to help wildlife. We all have the opportunity to make a world of difference for wildlife in British Columbia.

J. Tyabji: I'm happy to stand up in support, obviously, of National Wildlife Week. I would like to commend the minister for some of the initiatives through the Ministry of Environment with regard to the most recent examples of setting aside the shoreline for protection. Some of the conservation measures that have come in terms of the philosophy of the ministry are very encouraging. Most particularly, I think the educational initiative for the schools is something that we can really look forward to, because we have to have the participation of all parts of the community to promote conservation.

[2:30]

The issue that gets to the heart of wildlife these days is conservation. We have some conservation problems that would not be addressed simply by the poaching issue. The minister has done an excellent job of trying to curtail that in the last year -- or the cancellation of the shore hunt.

I'm referring to conservation issues around such things as the fishing strategy that's coming out of the federal government, where jurisdiction for conservation is something that lies in the balance and where the Ministry of Environment's ability to conserve the very resources that the minister is encouraging our participation in is being compromised. We have problems not only with fish, but also with elk and deer in some parts of the province.

We have a growing number of examples of legislative jurisdiction coming into conflict, where the provincial Ministry of Environment is technically responsible for conservation but its ability to conserve is impeded because they don't know where the lines are drawn on the map in terms of legislative authority. That's a major problem that we in this Legislature must grapple with. We must meet the issue of conservation jurisdiction head on before we lose the ability to deal with it in any kind of preventive manner.

I would urge the minister, because I believe that it's not just rhetoric when he talks about having a commitment to conservation and that he does have a sincere commitment to see the very resources that we value in this province safeguarded.... If that is true, then he will work very directly and very hard with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the federal departments that are involved to ensure that we continue to have legislative jurisdiction in the province to conserve the very wildlife that he refers to in his ministerial statement.

C. Serwa: I certainly appreciate the opportunity, and I thank the minister for his consideration in providing me with a copy of his text prior to this.

National Wildlife Week is important for all British Columbians, Canadians and people around the world. British Columbia is richly endowed with a huge number and diversity of big-game species. Outside of a few jurisdictions -- perhaps Africa and Alaska -- we're the best-endowed jurisdiction in the world. Along with that comes a tremendous responsibility.

Jack Miner was a member of the early family of conservationists who recognized the finiteness of our environment and our wildlife heritage. He certainly did a great job with the Canada goose. He probably introduced the concept of conservation to a great many Canadians. A staunch disciple of his happened to be the automobile manufacturer Henry Ford, who visited his sanctuary many times.

The minister spoke briefly about the habitat conservation fund. I want it to be clearly understood by all members of this House and by all British Columbians that that fund is a voluntary contribution from hunting and fishing licences by every sportsman in the province. They are the largest environmentalist and conservationist group in British Columbia. They voluntarily contribute something like $3.5 million annually to the habitat conservation fund. About 70 to 80 percent of those funds are directly used for habitat enhancement,

[ Page 5045 ]

which was the purpose of the fund. They have also agreed that a percentage of the funds may be used for purposes such as wildlife viewing and educational kits for school students. So it's significant to recognize the conservationists in the province who have put money up front to support their concept of conservation.

I have heard a number of indications from the minister.... I have no difficulty with the minister and his commitment to the Ministry of Environment, but I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the current government's commitment to the environment. For example, the Ministry of Environment's budget has been reduced, and reduced quite substantially. The implications for the green side and for conservation are not very pleasant.

There are altogether too few conservation officers in the province, and there's a great deal of concern about that. But what are the other concerns? Again, the government has indicated that conservation officers have to back off on a certain class of poachers. Poaching accounts for the consumption of about 50 percent of our game population. Under the government of the day, conservation officers have been instructed not to prosecute poachers of native origin. Mountain sheep shot in the Fraser Canyon, full-curl rams -- is this for sustenance? No, that's because that trophy head is worth $20,000 to $30,000 to $40,000 on the market.

Another ram was shot in the Kootenay area near a feeding station. Charges have finally been laid, but it will be interesting to see if there is any prosecution, because they were also native individuals, and again it was not for sustenance. In the Vancouver Island area elk have been shot in the wintertime, when the animals are concentrated in winter feeding grounds, by people in four-wheel drives utilizing high-powered rifles with telescopic sites. That is not done for sustenance.

The current definition of the Ministry of Environment is very close. They are not going to be concerned about conservation until the animal is almost on the endangered species list. There are continuing concerns over the slaughter of elk in the Princeton region, as well as on Vancouver Island. Moose of any sex and any type of animal, antlered or not, of any age classification may be shot at any time, anywhere in the province, by native people.

Conservation is very important, but there has to be one set of rules for all British Columbians. If we truly believe in conservation, as most of the sportsmen in this province do, I hope that the government will get the message and give the minister an ample amount in his budget so that we can ensure that the wildlife heritage that we have in British Columbia is preserved. We must be the stewards of that for ourselves and for upcoming generations.

Hon. J. Cashore tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Environment for the 1990-91 fiscal year.

Hon. J. Cashore: That report is for part of the period during which the member for Okanagan West, who just spoke, was the minister.

Hon. A. Charbonneau tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

D. Symons: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Symons: I see that he is just leaving, but I just happen to recognize an old friend and colleague I taught with for many years: Mr. Ron Pajala. I believe he is with a group of students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School. Ron has dedicated many years of his life to education, to bands and to social studies. I wish you'd all show appreciation for this gentleman and his class.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to be able to rise in response to the budget and to provide what I know the Minister of Forests wanted prior to our adjournment at lunch hour: a constructive presentation of what we may be and perhaps should be looking at in terms of the kinds of choices that need to be made on behalf of the people of B.C. I think it is true to say, if one looks at my remarks in last year's Hansard, that there is no such thing as a good budget or a bad budget.

There are only choices that have to be made, with limited resources, in terms of projects that we're going to undertake as government, of programs that government is going to fund and of the kind of government that we wish to build for the people in the province to enjoy. It is also clear if one looks at the estimates that there is a limited amount of money available for all of us to apply to the programs we wish to put in place.

If I can use an analogy for the purpose of this speech, let me say that the budget is not unlike an automotive engine. The efficiency of that automotive engine has to be looked at in terms of its structural components and its ability to transport the goods and the population that are inside the vehicle. There is only so much you can do to improve efficiency by tinkering with the fuel that the engine will try to burn. It would seem that as we start to look at the operation of this budget, we are seeing the tinkering of the fuel for an engine that needs to undergo some major reform.

Members within this government would say that you cannot expect to have increased expenditures in health care, education and social services. I think that is quite true. You can't expect to meet rising population demands if the revenue that is available to government is at a limit or has some kind of restriction. It's clear that there is a limit to which government can continue to go to the taxpayer and expect the taxpayer to continue to finance its operation. I would not argue that those who make the most should pay their fair share; I believe they should.

I certainly would not argue that there is not an obligation of government to look after those who, for reasons quite beyond their own abilities, do require assistance and government service.

[ Page 5046 ]

We need to find a balance between the dollars we have available to us, the programs in which we're prepared to commit those dollars and the expectation we can have with respect to revenue from taxation. Let me come back to my analogy of this engine; we are at the point in this province -- indeed, I would argue, in Canada -- where the engine itself is no longer able to undergo simple tinkering through increased efficiency of fuel, and we need to construct a new engine.

We need to do nothing short of sitting down and of starting to analyze where we are in the 1990s and where we expect to be in the twenty-first century and in the year 2000. What kind of a budget and programs should we put forward with respect to operations that government are prepared to finance? It is time for us to recognize that there are limits not only to our ability to tax, but also that there are severe limits to our ability to spend. We have to understand that a restructuring of government must have a component part of a greater efficiency and a greater delivery of service to the people who we take the dollars from to provide such services.

As we start to look at what is included in this budget, we have seen that this government has tried to provide a more efficient fuel for the kinds of programs that this government has put forward as important for the people of B.C. But the net consequence of that is a significant increase in taxation, to the extent that we saw the kind of protest last night with the 4,000 people concerned about the impact that it's going to have on urban residential homeowners. They may be a relatively small percentage of the population; nevertheless those people believe that this is something that is of grave consequence to their ability to be able to maintain and live within their homes.

So, hon. Speaker, we saw the Minster of Finance take action yesterday and say that he was essentially going to reverse the position of the government and put in place some guidelines. To that we can say that if the Minister of Finance is prepared to rethink that one aspect, then perhaps he needs to rethink a sizable number of the other aspects of this budget which I believe need to be looked at.

We have seen a certain unfairness in the manner in which this budget has been applied against certain commodities in production. While there has been a great deal of focus on homeowners, let us simply take a look at the question of new car purchase. As we get into estimates, I'd like to have some debate as to why it is we are going to have a cutoff of $30,000 in the value of a new car. Some would say that the wealthy who can buy a car valued above $30,000 should pay incrementally increased taxation.

We should ask ourselves: what is the philosophical basis upon which we would argue that, if we say that between $30,000 and $31,000 we go to 8 percent; between $31,000 and $32,000 we go to 9 percent, which is essentially a net increase of about $40 -- and if you look at the amount of accounting and paperwork that is going to have to go in to get that $40, one would argue that it's not necessarily appropriate; and above $32,000 we go to 10 percent? Doesn't it seem logical, if you're going to say there is going to be some kind of surtax on high-priced commodities, that that surtax kicks in after the base amount?

In other words, would it not seem logical for this government to recognize that we should effectively be paying 7 percent on the first $30,000 and then a flat increase of 8 or 9 percent -- or whatever this government thinks is reasonable -- beyond the $30,000 dollars, rather than simply saying: "We're going to tax at whatever an increased rate amount would be on the incremental values above $30,000"?

[2:45]

I would say also that there seems to be a grave inconsistency with respect to the question of whether or not the $30,000 is indeed a logical way to cut off. What prompted this government to use that $30,000? For example, if you have a two-, three- or four-car family that is now able to purchase vehicles at $28,000 per vehicle, you can have a family affording five vehicles at $28,000,

whereas one family at $30,000.... And if the family vehicle is not the argument, then perhaps we should look at specialized vehicles such as farm implements, farm vehicles, and many other kinds of vehicles that are required which cost over $30,000 and which are necessary to complete and conduct the work that they are designed to do. That is now going to significantly disadvantage farmers, loggers, foresters, people involved in the mining sector, people involved in primary resource extraction who need to buy those vehicles which cost more than the $30,000 base price. These are not luxury vehicles.

We're talking about vehicles that are needed for work in order to conduct and do the jobs. As we start to look at these kinds of values, we have to ask what is, philosophically, the reason this government wishes to involve itself in that process. As we talk to the dealers around the province, they are not happy, and neither are the people who wish to purchase the vehicles.

The question of double taxation is a fundamental principle we should not be adhering to or putting forward. And yet this government's budget allows there to be incremental values that are assessed against purchases and trade-ins that will allow this government to tax twice on one good. I think that's a fundamental principle this government might want to rethink, as they are rethinking the question on residential tax. One has to rethink whether or not there should be taxation against value on a trade-in and also have taxation on the purchase of a new vehicle. I think that's inherently unfair.

You should pay tax on a commodity once, not twice. And I think most British Columbians would adhere to that thought.

Similarly, if we're going to tinker with the fuel to try and get this engine running more efficiently, we have to start to remove duplication and waste. We have to recognize that the increased cost of government is unacceptable and that we need to put more money directly into the programs that are being delivered to the population. I think we can argue that effectively with respect to the provision of health care. Let us put more money in the direct delivery of service to health care.

We must see more of the money actually go to the delivery of education in the classroom, directly to those who are recipients of the programs we attempt to provide, and not to those who administer the programs

[ Page 5047 ]

or will facilitate the development of new curricula and programs.

B. Jones: How do we do that?

G. Wilson: I'll be happy to give you some suggestions as to how we could do that if you will give me the benefit of letting me conclude my remarks.

We also have to recognize the growing demand for government to increase its concentration and focus on three primary provisions. Law and order will become a fundamental tenet of any government in the province as our population expands and our cities grow and we start to see the kind of social constraints that are a product of density and population. There is going to be a high demand for the delivery of social services. British Columbia has many homeless.

In his remarks the Minister of Advanced Education commented on the extent to which President Clinton of the United States is concerned about the homeless, and we had guests in the gallery from Russia, where there are grave problems with increasing poverty. You don't have to look to the United States or Russia for examples of decline. Right here in British Columbia there are rising numbers of homeless, not just in large urban centres but in many of the rural communities as well.

It is particularly troublesome to find that the homeless are often young people who are despondent over their options in society. They seem to lack vision, direction and motivation to become productive members of our society. Nothing is provided in this budget to get people from that set of circumstances into more positive and productive circumstances. That must be a priority of government, because it is the people that this government seeks to serve. It is the people that this government must invest its money in. The people of this province must direct and govern the kind of policies that we get from the government opposite.

It is all too easy for us to simply examine the bottom line and say: "Are we in a profit, or are we in a loss?" Before the break, the Minister of Forests said that he welcomes debate on the differences between deficit financing and debt financing. That is indeed a noteworthy point for me to now take up.

Deficit expenditures in government have increased and are demonstrated clearly in these estimates, notwithstanding the fact that we can inflate anticipated budgets or, as occurred last year, allow expenditures to go beyond our expectations. Last year there was a $2.4 billion deficit. This year we're at $1.5 billion in deficit spending, which is nothing to crow about for 3.3 million British Columbians. This is a travesty; it's something we cannot afford.

We have to be much more vigilant in recognizing that if we're going to invest in the people, we have to start doing it in a constructive manner by which long-term debt servicing is looked after in a sensible and planned manner. That's what those of us on this side of the House are talking about when we say that we want an economic plan. We're talking about a plan that will allow for the implementation of long-term financing so that we can construct our hospitals and schools, so we can build the new roads that are necessary, so we can expand our coastal port facilities.

Such a plan will allow us to build a more vibrant and vital population in the province. But there must be a principal tenet to that plan, and the tenet that is needed, which is lacking in this budget, is an overhaul of the government that demands from the people. The efficiencies of the fuel in the engine that drives us are only so valuable, if the engine now finds itself unable to provide the kind of delivery that we expect.

We not only need to reduce the size of government -- and I say that in terms of the size of government, in terms of the number of elected members, right through to the administration and size of budget that governs us -- but we must also look toward the reduction and duplication of government in terms of the layering upon layering upon layering of governments and subgovernments that affect and govern us around the province of British Columbia.

In British Columbia we have tax demands that come to us from our municipal governments, from parks boards, from hospital boards, from school boards and from regional boards. We have tax demands that come to us from the provincial government and the various agencies within the provincial government, and yet again we have another group that is federal and all of the agencies within the federal government. All that comes to us, the individual, for increased tax demands.

We are beyond our ability to pay. We are beyond the point where we can expect that we are going to get value for our dollar. Therefore we need to have a more valued approach toward government. I would argue that now is the time for us to reform this institution, to reduce the size of government, to reduce the numbers and layers of those that are elected members in this province, to reduce the size and layering of government from various school boards through to the federal levels, so that we can have a more efficient delivery of government services, so that we can keep our costs much more effectively in place.

In order to do that, we must have a commitment to reform the democratic institutions that we start to look at within government. The engine itself needs to be rebuilt. We need it redesigned so that it can in fact be smaller and more efficient, so that the fuels we put into it are effective in delivering us not only the power and speed that would be required from that engine to be able to right the social injustices that exist in this province, but also the aggressiveness that we need to be bullish in being able to expand the markets and the market potential we have in the United States and in the Pacific Rim trading nations, where we can make ourselves more competitive.

We can't expect that our economy will grow and expand if we are shackled by debt servicing. We can't expect that our communities will flourish and that our people will prosper if every time they make a dollar, the government is there with its hand out to take a portion of it away. We cannot expect that we will have a vital and important role to play in the building of this great nation, Canada, if every time we see the revenues increase in the so-called have provinces, they are stolen from the have provinces to feed the have-nots in our rather large bureaucratic central government that

sim-

[ Page 5048 ]

ply cannot and will not be able to provide the kind of balance and sharing that is necessary.

The members opposite in this government are right when they say that a large percentage of the deficit is a problem with respect to a loss of federal moneys. That is correct, but we have had on two occasions now an opportunity to change that. One was when the Meech Lake accord came forward; the second was most recently when the Charlottetown accord came forward. We had an opportunity to restructure the financial systems within the institutions of this government, and sadly, nobody spoke out for free trade within Canada. Nobody spoke out for an equal and balanced payment

schedule within Canada. Nobody spoke out for equality of the regions and of the people within the regions. And sadly, nobody said that the provinces need to have a greater role in development of the national economic policies and structuring of the monetary and fiscal policies of this country that provide us a greater opportunity to self-destiny within the provinces themselves.

What we need is reform of our institutions. We need to reform the very systems of government that govern us if we're to get serious about the reduction of deficit -- if we're to get serious about the reduction of debt. Until such time as we are prepared to move with bold and more aggressive attitudes toward the reforming of our institutions.... It means we have to challenge the status quo; it means we may have to challenge certain elites; it means we may have to challenge a certain set of parameters that we have taken for a long time to be very much a part of our social order.

Unless we are prepared to do that, then I suggest it really makes no difference which government has power in British Columbia or what political stripe it will be. If we're not prepared to rebuild and redesign the very engine of our economy and our government, then all we're doing is simply shuffling priorities, continuing debt expenditures and disappointing the vast number of British Columbians who thought they were getting real change.

Hon. Speaker, what I hear when I converse with members of the public is that they thought they were going to get something with this government that would be very different from the previous government. They see that little has changed, and that is a grave disappointment to many British Columbians.

For example, one of the most tragic moves, in my judgment, that was made by the previous government was to take the very heart of our largest city, Vancouver, and literally give it away at bargain-basement prices to a buyer from offshore. It could have been the most incredible development that this province had ever seen. It could have been invested in by British Columbians for British Columbians, which would have enhanced the lives of British Columbians.

We could have taken the heart of our largest city and made it a showplace for all British Columbians with B.C. dollars, which would have made British Columbians wealthier in terms of the money they have and, more importantly, the pride they show for their city. Sadly, that is not the case.

[3:00]

Today we see this government, at a time when we have record deficits in the province, embarking upon the sale of Crown assets at bargain-basement prices. We see that in the Tod Mountain development, for example. Instead of following the directives in the Crown land mandate that says that Crown land will be sold at the market value of the unimproved land, this government is continuing with the same policies of the former government by the disbursement of Crown land at somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 an acre. That, I'm told by those who are in the business, is 2 percent to 5 percent of the total market value.

Why would we sell Crown assets at such low prices in order to enhance and develop much-needed facilities? Why would we not do it at fair market value and make it open for all British Columbians to invest in? When we look at the low market value that is being charged -- it's 2 percent -- we find that not only is it being marketed at far below fair market value, which is revenue that is desperately needed by this government, but it's being marketed abroad. It isn't even being marketed to British Columbians. Crown assets are being sold offshore at far below market value, when we have a massive deficit.

The government seems to think that that's A-Okay.

We see a movement not only in terms of assets from Crown land, which, of course, belongs to all the people of British Columbia.... Not only are they engaged in the bargain-basement sale of our Crown assets, we now see that they are undertaking to put up for public auction that which has traditionally been common property: foreshore leases. This government, in the next few weeks as we start to see what is taking place, will have to account for why traditionally common property resources that belong to all British Columbians is being moved into private hands by auctioning off Crown assets and foreshore leases.

This is not going to generate revenue. It's going to put revenue into private hands at far below market value, furthering the losses that we have in this province and lessening our ability to control our economy.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

There is no question that what the people wanted when they elected a new government was significant change. They wanted reform and an opportunity to know that their tax dollars were going to be wisely spent. Instead, we see an ever-increasing growth in government through patronage appointments and in those who seek to serve government through various committees and reporting agencies -- all of whom have an expense account on a daily basis. Yet the delivery of service to the public is lacking.

Hon. Speaker, let me give you a more tangible and direct example of what I'm talking about. We hear the government members ask of us in opposition -- and legitimately so: "Well, what would you do differently?" Let's take health care as an example. I don't believe there is anybody in the Liberal opposition who would argue that a movement toward a more community-based health care system would not be a useful and proper way to move -- provided there is demonstration that it can be done in a cost-effective and cost-efficient

[ Page 5049 ]

manner and will provide to the people of British Columbia better value for their health dollars. But let me use an example from my own riding, Powell River-Sunshine Coast, of how this is not so.

We have a group that is involved in care-share for seniors. Essentially it is a group that provides in-home care for senior citizens right now. Their total annual budget is less than a few thousand dollars, because many of the people that are providing this needed in-home care for senior citizens are doing it on a voluntary basis. Many are doing it at extremely low wages, because they're not there for profit but for service. It is something that was born within the community, that provided within the community the services that were needed.

Hon. Speaker, do you think this government would give them the money required to continue their service? The answer is no. They couldn't even get the limited amount of money they needed to continue what was already being done. At the same time the minister came out and said: "But we want to provide in-home care for senior citizens." This group was already doing it -- doing it cost-effectively, cost-efficiently, in a community-based way; and doing it extremely well.

Why not simply provide community-based organizations with base funding, allow them the opportunity to base long-term expenditures on dependable core financing and let the communities determine those services? It's the members in the community that benefit and know what they need.

Instead, what are we getting? We're getting a private company coming in at increased cost. We're getting a promise of future revenues, once this minister has completed yet another study to see how in the community of Powell River she is going to implement in-home care for seniors, which already exists. Members opposite wanted some tangible examples of how they could save money in health care, and there is one very small example. There are many more, in many communities all over the province.

The Minister of Forests said he wanted some constructive debate. Let me say that a constructive debate might have taken place if the mandate given to the Commission on Resources and Environment had provided that commission with two necessary components. One is the inclusion of aboriginal land settlements as a proportional amount of what they would have to take into account, given that much of the land they're supposedly going to make decisions on is now under land claim. That they are not able to include that in their deliberations is, to me, ludicrous.

Second is to have given them a mandate to actually do something. They were given a mandate to spend $3 million in self-creation: to travel the province and design these areas in which they were going to work. Now that they have completed that, we find there is no mandate for them to put in place any tangible development. It's quite clear that CORE has been a failure -- not because of the personnel involved in it, but because of the mandate provided it by this government. It's an expensive experiment that has been a failure.

In concluding my remarks today, let me say that if the members opposite want an honest, productive and constructive debate on this budget, then we need to start talking about reforming the institutions of government. We need to start talking about long-range economic planning. We need to talk about the fact that there is a limited amount the people can be expected to pay. We need to start reducing the size of government, reducing our tax demand, and allowing British Columbians to keep a little bit more of the dollars they earn.

Trust in the spirit of the people. Invest in their entrepreneurialism. Invest in the people of British Columbia, and in particular in our young people, so that they no longer sit with a despondent view of their future in terms of jobs in the province. Invest in our youth to allow them an opportunity to engage in the most productive research and development available wherever possible, where they can have access to post-secondary education with limited fetters, so that despite the fact that they can get in because of their marks, they can't get in because of their pocketbook.

We have to reform the student loan system so that we don't indebt our students to the degree that when they finally come out of university with a degree that will get them a job, the first thing they find is that they are out of money. Not only are they out of money, but they are in debt; they find themselves already in our debtor society.

These are the kinds of things that should have been addressed in this budget -- the kinds of reforms of government, the kinds of changes. It is with respect to those changes that I have my greatest disappointment and cannot support this budget.

P. Dueck: Hon. Speaker, it's certainly a privilege to get up in this House and speak, whether one speaks in favour of legislation or against it. However, today I have to speak with a heavy heart, because I am not overflowing with joy about this budget that has just been presented.

It was soon after the NDP won the election that people began to ask questions. They came to me and said: "How will it affect me with this new government? Should I take any particular action? Should I perhaps scale down my business? Should I move out of town?" I assured them that this was a different NDP government than had been in place in the Barrett era; that this government was more moderate, the now Premier was a moderate person, and they should not fear. Furthermore, I said they're not going to do too much too suddenly because they'd never win another election. How terribly wrong I was!

When the budget was first presented, before I had a chance to look at the details, I heard Georgetti and Shields tripping over each other congratulating the Finance minister for this budget. I knew right there and then that we were in trouble, that this was not a good-news day, that it was a terrible thing that had happened to British Columbia. And I was right.

How many times when the now Premier was the leader of the opposition did we hear him say: "No new taxes"? Tell me, how many times did he say that? It was in the paper, on television, on the radio: "No new taxes." How many times did we hear him say: "We will not spend what we haven't got"? Again and again: "We

[ Page 5050 ]

will not spend what we haven't got. We will have a balanced budget within our business cycle." We know that's a pipe-dream, and it's gone; there is no possible way that can happen.

He also said: "We will spend smarter. We will downsize government. We will control waste." Was there any downsizing of the civil service? Of course not. There was a big, huge increase. They blamed the previous government; they blamed the federal government; they blamed everyone in sight but themselves. This budget shows that they have not kept their promises. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, they actually misled the public.

I also want to say that in three years out of four the former government, which has been blamed so terribly, had balanced budgets -- in three out of four years.

Interjection.

P. Dueck: Look at the record, my friends. All you have to do is look at the record, and you'll see that that in fact is the truth.

Interjection.

P. Dueck: But I hear words from the Finance minister: the rich should pay their fair share; the rich should participate. What kind of system do you think we have? The income tax is certainly geared to catch the ones who make more money. That's why we have this system. Do you then say, not only should they pay their graduated tax, but they should be penalized because they've saved some money? Are we going to start taxing assets, which in fact is happening? I say heaven forbid; let's not go down that slippery road.

Interjection.

P. Dueck: We all pay our share. We pay our share on property taxes, because someone who has a house that's worth $30,000 or $50,000 certainly doesn't pay the taxes of someone with a house worth $600,000. But should we then penalize those people and say: "Ah, ha! You were frugal, you saved money, and now we're going to get you." That is absolutely wrong.

In grade school we learned a little fable about the fellow who killed the goose that laid the golden egg. I'm sure it's not a true story, but it certainly applies. There was a farmer who had a goose that laid golden eggs. One day he thought: "I should have a big party." So he killed the goose, and they had a wonderful party, but the farmer no longer had golden eggs. That's exactly what happens when you kill the individual who contributes to the welfare of this province. The socialists have not learned that you cannot do that.

[3:15]

This budget is a classic 1920 socialist document. It has no basis whatsoever in reality. The socialist approach was tried by the Barrett government, and it failed miserably. At the first opportunity the people of B.C. turfed them out, and they were out for 17 years. Before the last election the NDP said that they had changed, that they recognized the value of business, especially small business, which creates most of the jobs. This was said again and again during the election by both sides of the House. Oh yes, small business.

But as soon as they got into power they said: "Let's kill them right now; we don't need them." They promised to be different and said that they understood the need to support investment and initiative. During the election campaign, the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant promised no business tax increase other than on corporate profits, which I wholly endorse. By all means on profits. He said that his government wouldn't favour unions: "No way. We're all the same. We're all in the same boat. No privileges for any special group."

The actions of this government prove that you cannot trust them. They will say anything to get into power, and once they're in power, forget about the promises -- even taxing assets. I believe that this has happened because the NDP and the socialists really haven't changed one iota. They still see politics as a form of class struggle, a war against the rich. They want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. They live in a world of jealousy and self-pity. They have misled the people of the province. The evidence can be seen throughout this budget.

Somewhere in their perverted socialist minds they believe that the world owes them a living. That kind of thinking went out decades ago. It has proven to be perverse and destructive to the progress of free people. They are so hung up on dogma and doctrine and their socialist philosophy that it's pathetic.

The evidence of this bizarre thinking is spelled out all through the budget. For example, the budget punishes those who work hard and save money and invest in their future. It punishes those who take risks and start up a business. It punishes those who buy their own homes. It subsidizes non-work. It increases public sector spending in relation to the overall economy. Take a look at the government's response to small business. Lower mainland businesses have been suffering from a combination of recession and cross-border shopping, especially in my community.

Many have closed their doors for good or laid off good people, or perhaps are having a hard time meeting their payroll. What is the government's response? Tax them to death. Increase the sales tax. Increase the gasoline tax. Introduce a provincial GST on labour costs, such as on the repair of machinery and cars, even to the point of taxing kids to have their skates sharpened. How ridiculous can it be?

We know that gasoline prices and the GST are the two primary reasons for cross-border shopping. This government makes it worse by maintaining an unfair corporate capital tax which punishes those who invest in the growth of the economy. Even on debt you pay and pay -- tax upon tax upon tax. What this government doesn't realize is that higher operating costs for businesses eliminate jobs and acts as a disincentive for investment. And how does the Minister of Finance respond? He cites that we have the second-lowest business tax in Canada. That's like comparing apples and oranges.

By his reasoning -- just imagine -- Somalian businesses are undertaxed, if you accept that philosophy. Many input costs are higher in the west than in the densely populated east, so it makes sense

[ Page 5051 ]

that inflation, transportation costs and wage costs are higher in British Columbia.

The drafters of this budget are playing some sort of reverse economics that only socialists understand. In the real world, if you want business to grow, you help reduce their costs and increase their competitiveness. This budget does the reverse. The end result of this assault on small business will be lower growth and maybe even job loss.

The budget tried to tax those who sacrificed to buy their own home. Home ownership is the main investment for regular working people. It is by far the investment of choice for those who draw a simple salary or a pension. It provides security for families and for retirement. Most homeowners are not speculators. Again and again you hear about "those speculators." When they buy a home, they sacrifice to pay down the mortgage, and they pay two or three times the value of the home in interest.

Most British Columbians hope that by the time they retire, they won't have to worry about being able to afford to put a roof over their own heads and will perhaps be able to leave something to their children.

Home ownership has been assaulted over the years. It was assaulted by the Socreds, for example, who brought down the property purchase tax, which I certainly think was a bad move. Then municipal governments, which had bloated mandates, raised property taxes to excessive levels. Now this government believes that people who own their home somehow don't deserve to have one. They don't believe in private property ownership; they reject property rights.

The Finance minister stated in his budget address that without economic growth, a secure and prosperous economy cannot exist. These are true words; I agree with them. But does the minister understand them? Where is the evidence that his actions will result in economic growth? All I see are signals to the private sector that they are not needed and not wanted. As a matter of fact, my reading of the budget is that those people who have accomplished something and have contributed to this society and to the economy of the province are in fact the enemy of the government.

The government boasts a $2.5 billion spending program on public sector projects. The NDP megaproject is solely going to government-managed institutions, while the private sector will be taxed in excess of $3 billion. This is a massive ideological shift from the private sector to the public sector. The problem with this strategy is that it just doesn't work. It has been proven over and over that governments cannot induce economic growth through government spending alone. Many of these projects may be worthwhile.

Infrastructure development in modern health and education facilities is certainly needed and is something that we all want. On the other hand, if you put that $3 billion in the hands of the private sector and small business, it would create miracles -- thousands upon thousands of jobs. But oh no, we don't want to do that.

I see this $2.5 billion as a payoff to the big construction unions and those who supported the NDP. In fact, the fixed-wage program comes to mind, because that's where their heart is and where they're spending the money. There are some other problems with this strategy now that we are out of recession. These projects will likely inflate labour costs; private sector project costs will increase and will perhaps move elsewhere. But these people just don't understand.

There are many other aspects of this budget that really scare me. I speak with a heavy heart. The unapologetic increase to public sector workers, particularly in health care, will seriously jeopardize our ability to provide good health care and all those things that governments ought to provide. Incidentally, this deal was struck without negotiations; it was struck between the Finance minister and the unions. We talk so much about negotiations, about Bill 84, where this is supposed to work so beautifully, and the first time we get into a bit of a hole, what do we do? We go direct.

Never mind the HLRA; never mind the employer; we'll do it ourselves. We'll strike a deal, and we'll say it's a good deal. Never mind that it will cost $500 million more. Then we'll come to the House and have the audacity to say that it'll probably be $50 million over three years.

But we have to recognize the taxpayers' ability to pay. Government has no money. We all know that. It's been said ad nauseum, but we're mortgaging our children and our grandchildren, and that's what really worries me. Private sector wages have not gone up anywhere near the rate of the public sector wages, and this imbalance seriously threatens the future of our social programs.

The most hypocritical aspect of this budget is the transfer of spending authority away from the Legislature to Crown corporations and government agencies. For a party that calls itself democratic, this aspect is hypocritical, to say the least. This government will borrow $1.5 billion without debate, without coming before the Legislature, except perhaps to scrutinize it when they have their annual report. In fact, this government is not borrowing $1.5 billion; it's borrowing $3 billion.

The budget allocates close to $1 billion in interest -- evidence that the debt problem is seriously affecting our ability to serve the needs of British Columbians. When Barrett was in power not too many years ago, he said: "We have now topped the $1 billion total budget." Can you imagine? Now we have $1 billion of interest! How do we know that in a couple of years it won't be $2 billion? We'll have nothing left for social services, for health care or for any of the other services we should provide, because it will all be for interest charges.

It is obvious this government doesn't care about taxpayers' money. It is only interested in pursuing the class war agenda. It hides its true debt. It pays handsome salaries to its special interest friends, insiders and supporters. It even creates new departments so they can give their friends jobs. It punishes hard work and initiative. It fails to provide a realistic economic growth strategy. In fact, based on the disincentive in the budget, I believe that B.C. could easily fall back towards a recession.

The government talks about a 3.5 percent growth rate this year. At the rate they're going, they'd be lucky to reach half that. I have never seen people so angry in all the years that I've been in business, and even in

[ Page 5052 ]

politics, as they are this time around. They are angry at what has happened to them and to their household because of this budget. It zeroed in on a certain class of people, the ones that the government calls rich. They don't identify the rich, but they call them the rich.

The first miscalculation of this budget is the response of homeowners. We understand the homeowner taxes surcharge has been scrapped. Did they really think they could get away with it? I read in the paper that one woman paid $13,000 in taxes. Do you know that under this new program, she would have paid $65,000 a year in taxes? This is bizarre! How could anyone who has done any study of any kind think that people would really go for that? Sixty-five thousand dollars in taxes for one year? That's ridiculous! I call it absolutely stupid.

H. Giesbrecht: How much is the house worth?

P. Dueck: It doesn't matter, hon. Speaker, because if you have a $4 million house, you pay a percentage of taxes more than the person who has a $100,000 home. That's what that side doesn't understand. They don't understand accounting or anything about economics.

C. Tanner: They know how to spend.

H. Giesbrecht: Tell that to my constituents.

P. Dueck: You must remember, too, that the demonstrators against the government measures are not your typical COPE or NDP crowds that we used to see when the NDP was in power. These are people who stay at home and pay their taxes. They don't go out and demonstrate, but they were so angry that they said: "This is it. We can no longer be quiet and take this." So they came out and demonstrated.

It's the same with automobiles. Let's take the 7 percent. I don't think anyone is angry about the fact that they have to pay that percentage of the expense of a car. Seven percent of $30,000 is fine. On $50,000, 7 percent is that much more. But not this government. "If you've saved to buy a $50,000 car, we're going to charge you 7 percent on the $30,000. Not only that, we'll charge you 10 percent on the total amount. We'll fix you; you shouldn't be driving that $50,000 car." It's ridiculous; it's downright bizarre. I've never seen anything so bizarre.

[3:30]

These people who went out to march are so angry, and they are the silent majority of British Columbians who quietly go about their daily work and pay their taxes. And if it wasn't for those taxes, we wouldn't be able to pay for the health care, social services, education, advanced education or all the other services that government provides. People who earn big money pay big taxes.

I suspect that the NDP has gone so far to the extreme left with this budget that they have initiated their own demise. This government had better look over its shoulder, because the 60 percent who voted against it just woke up.

Hon. A. Hagen: A characteristic of our government's second budget is balance and, regrettably, I didn't hear a great deal of balance in the last speaker's comments to the House. He went to radical extremes; he talked about a measure that the government has withdrawn after listening to the public.

He left out some of the characteristics that I know he sought to bring to his former role as Minister of Health. I genuinely believe that he, as a member of government, tried to bring to his often-disgraced government a sense of cooperation and compassion. I worked with that member on a number of occasions and was struck by the fact that he was able to bring to his ministry something that was not characteristic of the administration which has thankfully gone from this province.

Hon. Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes in my contribution to the budget debate today talking about the people I have been speaking to and about the things we are celebrating in this budget. These are difficult times for many British Columbians. In spite of what all of us want to envision, these are difficult times. As the Finance minister, cabinet and caucus develop a budget, they have to develop it in the interests of the citizens of our province who are living, as we all are, with those difficult times.

I can genuinely say, having spent the weekend on the telephone, that the verdict is in that this is a good budget. It's a good budget for ordinary folk who are able to read between the hysteria and the radical proposals of the Liberal opposition and the third party, and read between the lines of the Vancouver Sun and some of the media. They're able to read between those lines and find the things in this budget that they say bring us balance, fairness and help for those people who need it in these difficult times.

I heard that from people who called my office expressing concerns about some aspects of the budget; I heard it from people who are longtime observers of budget, both Socred and New Democrat -- there never having been a Liberal budget in this House that any of them can remember -- and I heard it from people of all ages, of all diverse cultural groups and from both genders.

Let me just take a moment to talk about what they found in the budget that they liked. First of all, they recognized that this was a budget devised to help people who are having difficulty at this time. Twenty-eight percent of the population receives benefits from this budget, and they are, of course -- as all of us say we support -- the people who most need those benefits. So we have seen cuts in the Medical Services Plan, and we have seen assistance for people with sales tax, not only for the increase in the sales tax but for the sales tax as it will be applied.

A family of four will receive a tax credit of $200. They would have to spend something in the order of $4,000 before they would not get back every cent that they pay in sales tax in the province. We're seeing a second increase in each of the two years in the homeowner grant, so that 95 percent of the population who are living in ordinary homes in ordinary communities will see some further assistance in paying their property taxes.

Moreover, people found our government listening to the priorities of people. They know that this

govern-

[ Page 5053 ]

ment is taking steps to control expenditures while at the same time ensuring that expenses which are a part of our health and education system are met. It's not without challenge, because we know that in those sectors, too, people will be belt-tightening, and they will be looking carefully at how they manage those expenditures.

Unlike every other province in Canada, we are seeing that we are continuing to support health and education as the highest priorities of government. That support recognizes increases in population and the inclusive nature of our schools as more and more young people stay in school, recognizing the importance of education, and as more and more people look to taking responsibility for their health, so that we spend our health care dollars wisely.

Unlike the members opposite, we are not into the radical restraint of the early and mid-eighties, nor are we into extravagant spending. We're into a balanced approach which ensures that the resources that go to our most important services are maintained. And with all of this we are working to build a province. When I rise to speak in the House, seldom do I have an opportunity to look at that in relation to my own district. But I want to take a moment to do that, as is the prerogative of members as we rise in either the throne or budget speech debate.

One of the ways in which we are building for the future is in building schools: last year $582 million in capital construction; announcements soon about construction this year for new schools, for renovated schools, which provide essential jobs and, we hope, training opportunities as well for people in every region of the province. I'm very pleased that some of that spending is in my own riding, where in a couple of weeks I'll be opening the new Herbert Spencer school, a school that continues a 75-year history of service in the community and is in the heart of one of our heritage sections of the city.

Some of that money will also go toward building the new Justice Institute, one of the most unique and innovative institutions within our province, which trains some of the most important workers in our province -- our police, firefighters and ambulance workers -- and provides literally thousands of hours of short courses for people who are providing service in a whole range of human-service areas. Investing in buildings, programs and jobs is all part of building our province.

I'm also proud that in New Westminster we have a galaxy of hospitals that provide local and provincial services. Those hospitals continue to be supported in their new and old roles -- whether it be the Royal Columbian Hospital, one of the main tertiary hospitals in British Columbia; St.

Mary's Hospital, which is 112 years old and is moving to new challenges in serving seniors by providing palliative care and the new kinds of day services that are part of an efficient and effective health care system; or Queen's Park Hospital, our extended care hospital, which is reaching out in community programs to provide services and a community of care for younger extended care people. All of these are supported in a cost-efficient and balanced way. In my community we are spending dollars to build British Columbia, and spending dollars on our priorities that are reflected in every part of the community.

I look at the role of our community college, Douglas College, and of my school board, the New Westminster School Board. Together they are forging alliances to provide services for young adults and for people making career changes -- again, looking at ways in which the education dollars of my ministry and the Advanced Education ministry, in partnerships with business, labour and the federal government, can provide the necessary skills training and upgrading that are a part of the new economy.

There is no question that we are in a period of enormous change in British Columbia. When we talk about that and people ask why we are in this period of change, I say that we need to recognize that change is a constant in our society. It is something that will be with us daily, weekly, monthly and annually as we look ahead to building a vibrant and growing B.C. and the place we are going to take within our nation and the global society.

In this budget -- and with all that a budget represents in the way of programs, using our financial resources wisely and building on our human resources -- there's a recognition that we need to work consensually, cooperatively and compassionately to meet the challenges that our province faces. As a minister in this government, my commitment is that that approach of compassion, cooperation, working together and recognizing that our human resources are only going to be used in the best way if we plan financially.... We look at this budget and see the balance that is there.

That balance is in bringing down the deficit that the previous member, the independent member for Matsqui, refuses to acknowledge was a part of the legacy that all of us in this province inherited from the previous administration. We have brought that deficit down from $2.4 billion last year to $1.5 billion this year. I know that every member of this government hopes that, through good management, we will get it lower than that as we work through the coming year.

We have made significant changes to reduce our spending. Six ministries in this government are spending less than they had available to them last year. A number of ministries in fact have flat budgets -- no increases -- in spite of the fact that our population in British Columbia is rising at the rate of 40,000 to 60,000 a year. So there are more people in our schools, more people to receive health care and advanced education, and more people who are in need of assistance. Those budgets, which are either frozen at last year's level or reduced, are a part of our managing our ministry budgets and our government efficiently and effectively.

On behalf of my ministry -- and I know other ministers can say this on behalf of their ministries -- I want to say that we are doing more with the same dollars, because we have expanded clientele to serve and because we are adding to the programs and services we provide within our ministries. I'm looking forward to the estimates, when we'll have an opportunity to examine those initiatives.

We have taken initiatives to freeze administrative salaries, and we have talked to the broad public sector

[ Page 5054 ]

-- the schools, the colleges, the universities, the hospitals -- and encouraged them to take similar initiatives at an administrative level. In the public school sector I know that many school boards, in cooperation with their administration, are in fact seeing no increases in administrative salaries this year. I'm proud to see them taking that initiative and it's something that we should acknowledge as they look at ways in which they manage their budgets.

[3:45]

This budget is about working with people, communities and regions, building British Columbia, dealing with the challenges and with the people's priorities in a way that is responsible in our management of the funds that are entrusted to us by the taxpayers. Over one-quarter of the people are directly benefited by the measures taken by the Minister of Finance. Others benefit, as we all do, by the maintenance of the most important services in our province: educating our children, providing opportunity for young people to acquire the skills and education they need for their work and community living, and continuing to provide for an enriched and better health care vision for British Columbia.

It is a budget founded on cooperation and compassion and on working together, and that is the approach that we take as we build our budgets, as we go out and share with people what the challenges are, and how we will try to work with the community to build British Columbia, to stay with our high priorities, and to manage our finances wisely.

No government has done a better job of consultation with its public around the challenge. No government has listened to what people have said: that they want to maintain those services. And no government has been more responsive in trying to make the wise decisions between how we gain the resources that we need and how we provide for those in the spending programs that we'll be talking about as we debate the budget.

As a member of our government, I'm proud to support the work that went into developing this budget, its presentation to the people, and commit to managing that budget in ways that will ensure that people's concerns will be addressed and that their tax dollars will be spent on their priorities and spent wisely and efficiently.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm always eager to stand up and engage in debate, particularly when it relates to what, in all analyses, is the worst budget that this province has ever seen.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll get to what we'll do in just a few minutes, if you want to hang on a bit.

In this province we have seen the tabling of the largest budget deficit in the history of British Columbia, and the largest tax increase in the province. Despite what members opposite may say, despite the numbers that the Finance minister likes to throw around, and particularly despite the comments of the member for Burnaby -- I can't remember which Burnaby riding he's from -- the reality is that when all the taxes of this province are added up and divided by the number of people in this province, British Columbia has the highest per capita rate of taxation in the country.

H. Giesbrecht: No, that's a lie.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, that's the reality.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the members seem to be confused; they're isolating particular taxes. The Attorney General says to ask the Quebec hockey players what they pay in income tax, and the members over here mention other taxes where British Columbia's tax rate is lower.

But the reality is that when you add up all the taxes in this province that are applied to individuals, to corporations and to the whole province, British Columbia pays more taxes per capita than any other province.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Speaker, that's the reality. I prefer to use independent analysis of the budget as opposed to comments from the government members.

I want to comment for just a moment on some of the things that the Minister of Education mentioned. She talked about the things that people like about this government and this budget, and about the phone calls she's getting. I'd be thrilled if she would tell me who these people are who are phoning her office and saying that this is a wonderful budget....

Hon. A. Hagen: Ordinary constituents, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would be glad to phone them back to find out if they're for real. Of the people phoning my constituency office, not one has said that this is a good budget.

The Deputy Premier says that her government is taking measures to control spending. She says: "We will not participate in radical cuts or radical spending." Well, hon. Speaker, let's look at some of the radical savings and reductions the Deputy Premier and the Premier are bringing in. We don't have to look any further than the Premier's office. The budget estimates indicate that the Premier's office will spend $9,000 on new office furniture. What's wrong with the old office furniture? What's wrong with used office furniture?

When this government says that they're pinching every penny out of the budget and looking at every possible way to save money, why does the Premier need $9,000 in new office furniture? It's a question.

The Deputy Premier says that this government is saving money, and that they're being very conscientious in saving money. In fact, we've heard every single member of the NDP stand up and say the same thing. Hon. Speaker, why does the Premier spends $12,206 for

[ Page 5055 ]

an image consultant? He hires an American image consultant to come up for one day and help him with his image, and the taxpayers of B.C. are socked for $12,206. Is that a good use of money? I doubt it. The Premier is using $45,000 of taxpayers' money to do a public opinion poll on his image.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, we have the NDP back bench and its raving intelligence saying: "Gee, that $45,000 will go a long way toward balancing the budget." That $45,000 is better off in the pockets of British Columbians, so that they can save it or spend it by investing in the economy, rather than in the Premier paying his hacks to run a private opinion poll to look into his image problem.

How does this member think that he's contributing to the economy of B.C. in a constructive way when the government takes $45,000 from the taxpayers of B.C. and gives it to the Premier so he can hire his friends at whichever NDP polling company he used to do a public opinion poll? How does that contribute to the wealth of the province? How does that contribute to the economy?

We have B.C. Ferries.... I'm glad the new minister responsible is here, because it appears that B.C. Ferries spent $2,250 on a table for their senior executives at the Gorbachev dinner at Science World at a time when B.C. Ferries is running a $41 to $42 million deficit this year -- perhaps the minister can correct me if my numbers aren't right on target -- and at a time when this government is about to raise ferry rates.

How can you justify it to the taxpayers of this province when you're going to increase rates, increase fees, increase licences, increase taxation on just about anything that walks, talks, moves or lives on land, and yet the government is making these incredibly conscientious spending savings, or savings initiatives, as the Minister of Finance says?

I was at the rally last night....

An Hon. Member: I didn't know you were the auditor general.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, it's time somebody was the auditor general. Perhaps if you'd looked at these numbers when you were in opposition, you would have seen the spending that went on under these guys and you wouldn't have been straddled with their deficit.

An Hon. Member: Get on to policies.

G. Farrell-Collins: What is this government's policy? What is it? Everybody remembers the ad during the last election campaign -- I don't know how much it cost, but I'm sure it cost a lot. Remember the television advertisement with the piggy bank and the penny? The Premier drops the penny in the piggy bank and says: "We have to get back to the old style of politics. If we don't have the money, if we can't afford it, we won't spend it."

Hon. Speaker, we don't have it. The taxpayers of this province don't have it; the government doesn't have it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Why don't you close the jails?

G. Farrell-Collins: The inane, asinine comments coming from the government bench are incredible. Before the Attorney General closes a jail, in order to be a responsible minister of the Crown, I assume the minister would choose to look at his own budget and the budget of his colleagues and find every opportunity to save whatever money he could.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, then perhaps the Attorney General should leave the chamber, go up to the Premier's office and advise the Premier that his spending of that type of money is not appropriate. If he would save that type of money, he wouldn't have to close the jails.

I was at a rally last night with about four or five thousand people in Vancouver, and those people were angry. They were outraged by certain provisions of this budget; but more than anything, they were outraged by the whole concept of the budget -- that the government is spending money it doesn't have and is not being careful with the tax dollars. Nobody in this province minds paying taxes that are fair when they know the money is being used properly, when they know the money is either going to pay down the deficit or pay for things like education, social services and health care.

Nobody regrets paying money for those things. But they do expect the money contributed to those ministries to be spent wisely; that's all they're asking. That means we don't give public sector pay raises that are two, three times the rate of inflation or twice the rate of the private sector. It means the government looks for every possible way to save money. It means they don't bring in a fixed-wage policy that costs money.

It's interesting that the Minister of Education would mention the cost of constructing schools in this province -- $582 million she spent last year.

At the beginning of last year's budget process -- I believe it was February or March -- the Minister of Finance, in discussions about the fair wage policy that he was bringing in for construction workers, said: "Yes, it's true that somewhere down the line one or two or three more schools are not going to be built, or construction is going to be delayed or renovations and improvements will be delayed." The minister is shaking her head, but those were the words of the Minister of Finance. If there's a discrepancy between the two ministers, perhaps they should work them out.

Those are the types of things that are going on. I've talked to the treasurers of a number of school districts. They stated that in fact they have had to delay renovations and upgrades in their schools because they don't have the money they had planned on. That's because they're having to pay the fixed-wage policy of this government -- a policy that the government

prom-

[ Page 5056 ]

ised to debate in this House, and we've yet to see the debate.

The Minister of Education -- in fact, pretty well all the government ministers -- have talked about the fact that they've brought down the deficit, that they've decreased the deficit. What they did last year in order to try to bring down the deficit was go through the various ministries, and any ministry that had anything to do with generating wealth -- i.e., Transportation, and the Transportation minister is here.... Economic Development was cut by 40 percent; the minister is not here. I don't know what he does in his ministry these days; nobody seems to know. The Tourism ministry was gouged into nothing.

They went after ever single ministry that had anything to do with wealth generation in this province and sucked the money out of that and put it into Health, Education and Social Services.

Nobody is saying that those three ministries aren't important. But what the government has done this year, in order to further hide their deficit, is transfer the borrowing authority from the government, which would have to go in general revenue -- the borrowing that this government would engage in in order to pay for those types of things, particularly the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They have taken the money that they would use for those capital expenditures -- the borrowing that they would have to engage in in order to pay for them -- and shuffled it off to a brand-new Crown corporation.

They haven't lowered the deficit. All they've done is some fancy book work, a fancy BS fund similar to what the Socreds had, and they have transferred the debt, which they normally have to incur and would appear on the books, to a brand-new corporation that will carry that debt. The reality is that from March 31 of this year to April 1 of next year this government will put the taxpayers of British Columbia in debt by an additional $3 billion through their operating deficit and through the debt that is incurred through their Crown corporations.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Attorney General disagrees with that. But it's interesting that Peat Marwick, the very firm that he used to justify the spending that they had last year, arrives at the same figure. There are serious problems with this budget. Yesterday, due to the hue and cry of the public, the Minister of Finance had to back down on one of the key parts of his budget and decide that he wouldn't implement it. He discovered that there was no way to implement that property surtax in a fair manner that allowed for the people to pay that tax based on their ability to pay. As a result, he had to withdraw the tax.

[4:00]

It's the first time, I think, in the history of British Columbia that the minister has withdrawn a portion of his budget prior to it even being passed in the House. That's a momentous occasion in British Columbia, particularly since he leaves in place the reduction in the homeowner grant, which is based on exactly the same criteria as the property surtax. If one part was bad, why isn't the other part bad? If the principle in the property school surtax is flawed, why is the repeal of the homeowner grant not flawed also? It's based on the same process. Perhaps it's because the public had focused on one tax -- the property school surtax -- and was not particularly focused on the other one.

So the minister backtracked a little bit, hoping he could get away with it, put up a smokescreen, and said: "Gee, I made a mistake. I'm sorry. I've changed my mind." He hoped that everybody would be happy; that everyone in the province would cheer; that instead of 5,000 people showing up at rally to condemn the budget, they'd show up to commend the minister for his forethought.

The thing that none of the government members mentioned is the fact that the Finance minister has, for the last six weeks leading up to this budget, engaged in what he called his pre-budget tour, along with all the gloss and the print advertising, the rental of halls, the rental of facilities and the travel of his communications people and his staff all around the province, where he floated little trial balloons here and there to see what the public reaction would be to the budget. I don't know how much that cost. I wonder how much it cost.

But the real point is that he engaged in that process. He held hearings right around the province, and it didn't even clue in to him that people would be upset with that type of taxation. Was he listening to the public, or was he just trying to sell his budget? Was it consultation, or was he selling a product?

Why do the people of the province have to put up with that kind of garbage from a Minister of Finance? If he's going to have a dog-and-pony show and travel around the province to consult on his budget, why doesn't he at least listen to what the people have to say? Why do we have to get halfway through the budget debate before he realizes that he's made a mistake? He says that he didn't realize that a lot of people on fixed incomes just happen to live in houses that have accrued wealth over a period of time.

When this was brought to his attention by his fellow cabinet ministers, I was standing out in the hallway, and I heard him say absolutely that there would be no changes, that all they had to do, if the taxes were too high, was defer them. When they sell the house or pass on, then they can pay the taxes.

The NDP, which has campaigned so many times against regressive taxation, is now before the House with a budget that's full of regressive taxation. They've gone for an increase in the sales tax and a broadening of the base of the sales tax towards more of a provincial GST. They don't say that they're bringing in a GST over the next couple of years; they just say that they're broadening the base of the sales tax and upping the rate to 7 percent. When this government was in opposition we heard time and again that a sales tax was regressive.

The now Minister of Energy stated, when she was in opposition, that the most regressive tax a government can bring in is an increase in the gasoline tax because it stifles growth in the economy, yet in two successive budgets they have increased the tax on gasoline. Why the change? What changed in the intervening period of time? The provincial Finance minister actually said: "Balancing the budget is easy. It's absolutely the easiest

[ Page 5057 ]

thing I could imagine doing." We've now had two budgets from the Finance minister, and he hasn't even come close to balancing the budget. During the election campaign the Premier said that within a five-year business cycle he would have a balanced budget. He's nowhere close to balancing the budget over a five-year business cycle.

D. Streifel: Halfway there.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member doesn't understand. Perhaps I should explain to him how it works.

In order to balance the budget over a five-year business cycle, if the government runs deficits at the beginning of its mandate, then towards the end they must run surpluses in proportion to the deficit they ran at the beginning. The minister's own projections do not account at all for a surplus in the next three years.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Whenever the opposition starts to focus attention on the government's mismanagement and poor policy, all the government can do is refer to personal insults. Isn't that amazing?

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the member from Revelstoke might recall some of his comments.

There is absolutely no defence of this budget. If you look at any particular area, you will find that the government has engaged in regressive taxation. The government has not dealt properly with spending levels to try to decrease them or keep them under control.

D. Streifel: You think tax cuts for 28 percent of British Columbians is regressive?

G. Farrell-Collins: That's only part of the package. You have to look at where they got that money from. They've given a tax cut to 28 percent of the homeowners in B.C. -- I believe that's the one the member is referring to -- and meanwhile they're raising the money to pay for that tax cut -- or the increase in the homeowner's grant, which I believe is what the member is talking about -- by levying taxes not on people's ability to pay but on whether or not they happen to own a piece of property that's worth some money.

In my constituency there are lots of people who own land that they've had in the family for a long time -- ten to 40 acres in some cases. Some of it is not farmable, or marginal land at best. These people have a house on it that is appraised at maybe $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 maximum, but the land is worth $500,000 to $1 million.

F. Garden: Can't subdivide.

G. Farrell-Collins: They can't subdivide the land, which is fine; they're protecting the agricultural land. Because they can't farm the land, they pay residential taxes on a $1 million property with a $50,000 house, and when they inherited that land it may have been worth absolutely nothing. Why should those people be punished?

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: The thing that these members of the NDP from the interior don't seem to understand -- particularly the member from Quesnel, who's harping over here -- is that the type of home that a person in Quesnel can get for $60,000 is a lot different than the type of home that somebody in Vancouver could get for $60,000.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps it's been a long time since that member has purchased a house, but I happen to be in that age group where people are trying to garner enough money for a down payment on a house, hopefully in the area in which they grew up, or the area in which they've chosen to live. It's virtually impossible for people to save up the money to secure a down payment to buy property.

In 20 or 30 years, who knows what the property values are going to be in Quesnel? Maybe there'll be a mine discovered in Quesnel and the property values will shoot up. But does that mean that those people -- this member here, for example, who has purchased his house at whatever price -- should be penalized because of that? It has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to pay. That is a regressive tax.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The NDP member from Quesnel is just so out to lunch I can't believe it. He says: "Talk to your rich developer friends." We're not talking about rich developers here, hon. member. We are talking about the people who are living in homes that they may have had for 20, 30 or 40 years. They just happened to buy at the right time. Their income hasn't increased.

In fact, many of them are on pensions -- on fixed incomes -- yet this government assumes that because they own a piece of property that's accrued to some value over their lifetime that that's fair game: "Let's take it from them; let's steal it from them; let's go in there and tax it away. Boy, those lucky people, they just have this windfall profit, let's go get it from them." I've never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life.

F. Garden: Right-wing coalition.

G. Farrell-Collins: I really wish the general public could hear some of the comments that are made by the government members in this House as the debate goes on. I think they'd really be shocked at the types of comments and philosophy that comes from these members when they sit in the back bench and shout their comments.

[ Page 5058 ]

Here's another example of the way this government has sort of pulled these taxes out of the air in arriving at this budget. The government has brought in a 10 percent surtax on vehicles valued at over $30,000. That sounds like a lot. In fact, I've never owned a vehicle over $30,000; I haven't owned a vehicle even one-sixth of that, so certainly it seems like an awful lot to me.

I'm not a farmer. If I were a farmer or a rancher in this province, I would need appropriate vehicles. Since when did the rancher in the Cariboo find that an off-road truck became a luxury item? I thought that was part of what he needed to do his job, to run his business, to run his ranch. I know the Minister of Economic Development prefers to do logging by horse. I don't imagine he's ever bought a logging horse worth $30,000, but if he'd been in the real world of business.... It has always amazed me that the NDP would choose someone who logs by horse to be the Minister of Economic Development.

C. Evans: Sit down, you snot-nosed boy.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: The absolutely....

C. Evans: All my children have more manners than you.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: The hon. member for Nelson-Creston has proven once again that he's one of the most belligerent and obnoxious members this House has ever seen.

Deputy Speaker: On the budget, please, hon. member.

Hon. L. Boone: Point of order. I would ask that the member withdraw that. That's clearly unparliamentary language.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. That's a point of order that we should all consider today as we go on through this budget debate. Would the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove withdraw those remarks.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'd be glad to withdraw those remarks if I offended anyone.

On a point of order, I'd ask the member for Nelson-Creston to withdraw his insulting comments also.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nelson-Creston withdraws a remark?

C. Evans: Sure.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove continues.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's certainly unfortunate when the House falls into those types of scenarios. I bear my weight for the comments also, and for your comments in return.

[4:15]

We are dealing with a budget that has caused this government no end of grief. The Minister of Finance tabled the budget about a week ago. He said it was a wonderful budget and what a wonderful thing it was going to do for British Columbia. He turned around, less than a week later, to find that in fact there are some drastic faults with this budget. The people of this province are rising up and telling this minister that it's a devastating budget.

If the people who were at the rally last night follow up on their threat to trade in their $600 million worth of British Columbia savings bonds on April 15, the ridiculous, incredibly insensitive budget of this government will have brought down the wrath of the public, and he will be scrambling to find another $600 million somewhere in the foreign field to pay for his budget. That will drive our credit rating down and our taxes up; it will discredit the economy of this province.

Any Finance minister who brings in a budget as insensitive as this, one which causes the outrage in this province that this budget has, should be prepared to resign. The Minister of Finance should do just that.

N. Lortie: Like many members of this House, I arrived at this chamber following the election of October 1991, a short one and a half years ago. Already I find our deliberations to be very predictable. The government tables the bill; the opposition decries that bill; His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor delivers his Speech from the Throne; the opposition says it's vague and lacks substance; and on and on. Then the Finance Minister presents his budget and the opposition says it's terrible.

Sometimes I think they have their response written before they have any time to listen to the proposal or to study any measure that is brought down in this House. It's a knee-jerk reaction that does not serve the people of British Columbia well. Instead of reasoned debate, we have hysterical rhetoric; instead of the constructive criticism that we expect from the opposition, we have partisan posturing.

It wasn't easy for the Minister of Finance to meet the challenge that we are all facing in British Columbia. He was faced with the legacy left over by the mismanagement of the former government. He had to address the lingering recession that we're all suffering from here, the high unemployment and a stubborn economy. He met these challenges with the courage to face the tough decisions and make the tough choices for the long term.

We are meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century with this budget, for our future and our children's future. Hon. Speaker, that's leadership. Nobody likes taxes, but this budget is fair and balanced. It serves the hard-working middle class of my constituency. It protects the poor and maintains vital services. It plans for the future and reduces the annual deficit, and I think that's important. It rejects the radical restraint policy of the former discredited government, which was a misguided policy that shoved this province into a

[ Page 5059 ]

deep recession that took years to recover from. It was a policy that hurt many ordinary people and small businesses in our communities.

This budget shifts the tax burden to those who are best able to afford it: the rich -- the top 8 percent income-earners in our province. Those making $60,000 a year or more will pay more income tax. Those whose homes are assessed at more than $400,000 will have their homeowner grant reduced on an incremental basis. Those 8 percent are the constituents of this opposition, who the Liberals and the Socreds are trying to protect. Our party represents the other 92 percent, the average people of British Columbia.

Does this opposition have any constructive ideas on how to solve the serious financial problems facing the people of British Columbia and this government? I haven't heard any constructive suggestions in this debate. I'm sure the Liberals have some good ideas, and I'm sure they must have some new ideas. Unfortunately, none of their good ideas are new, and none of their new ideas are good.

We've heard criticism from the leader of the opposition about the cost of patronage appointments. I still haven't figured out how replacing a Socred appointment with a non-Socred appointment costs more money.

Interjections.

N. Lortie: I just don't know.

I believe that their criticism on the budget and the throne speech is all a part of their....

K. Jones: On a point of order, the member for Delta North is attacking individual members of this House, and I think it is most improper for him to be doing so.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your input, hon. member.

N. Lortie: Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was saying I believe that with their negative criticism, the opposition is just posturing for their leadership convention in September. So I discount that kind of criticism.

Speaking of hypocrisy, can you imagine this discredited third party criticizing the budget after the mess they left the finances of this province in? Shame on them! This is a good budget.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale come to order.

N. Lortie: It's good for the people of British Columbia and for the people of Delta North. The municipality of Delta will receive an increase in conditional and unconditional grants, and the vast majority of the residents of Delta will receive an increase in their homeowner grants.

With the B.C. 21 initiative, the people of Delta North are one step closer to a new health care facility to service our community, and they're closer to a solution to the traffic problems that have been plaguing our community for the last decade. The B.C. 21 program is also designed to promote regional development, prosperity and growth in all parts of British Columbia. Strong regional economies benefit the whole province and benefit my constituency of Delta North.

I am proud to support this forward-looking, fair and even-handed budget that lays the foundation for our future and our children's future. Once again B.C. leads the way with courage and vision: the courage to make the tough decisions to reduce the deficit; the vision to maintain vital services in health, education and social services. While doing this, we're able to make the tax system more fair while keeping B.C.'s tax rate one of the lowest in Canada. In this budget we have reduced taxes for small businesses and for most homeowners. There will be a tax rebate of $50 per person for low-income families. Hon. Speaker, that's leadership.

The opposition Liberals would have us spend more, reduce taxes and eliminate the deficit. Well, that is just not possible. You can't reduce taxes, increase expenditures and reduce the deficit all in the same budget. It just doesn't work. It would be a miracle if it did. This government has said that we don't promise miracles. We promised to be fair, and we are; we promised to spend wisely, and we are doing that; we promised to maintain vital services, and we are doing that. The Socreds and Liberals demand tax breaks for the wealthiest at the expense of the majority of British Columbians. We reject that.

Those best able to afford new taxes are asked to do their part to help this province. We opted for balance in the budget, and we've got balance.

[ Page 5060 ]

For those reasons and more I am pleased to support this budget.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm proud to stand here today and support the budget, one of the best budgets I've seen brought down in this House since I came here in 1987. This is a balanced budget. It's balanced with the needs of society and also balanced with the ability of the taxpayer to pay.

We've heard lots of talk about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. We did reduce the deficit: $1.5 billion is down from $2.4 billion, which is well below the $2 billion that was forecast. You know, it's easy to say that it's not as low as I'd like it to be, and it's certainly not as low as the public would like it to be, but I think it's as low as we can get without inflicting incredible pain on those in the public out there who use the services that we require.

It's fair to say that this is a schizophrenic society that we live in right now, and that people generally see reducing the deficit as someone else's problem. Everybody's always saying to me: "Reduce the deficit, cut the budget, don't increase taxes." All of those things. And then in the next minute they're either in my office speaking to me or whispering in my ear and asking about money for this particular project or one particular area. Everybody sees reduction of the deficit as being someone else's problem. This is not someone else's problem; it's our problem, and we all have to deal with it whether we like it or not.

No one likes new taxes -- certainly not me or anyone in my family. But no one likes reduced services either, and we all want to see the same level of services maintained in this province -- the same level of quality health care and so on -- but nobody seems to want to pay for it. Nobody wants to go into their pocket to pay for those services.

[4:30]

We need to protect the vital services we've got, and we have done so in this budget: a 4 percent increase in health care, a 3 percent increase in education. Now the opposition will tell you and the third party will say that that's too much, that we should be cutting those areas. But you know, in the next breath they'll be complaining about the closure of Shaughnessy, or they'll be claiming that we should be giving the doctors more money. They don't seem to understand that those two things don't match, that you can't cut those budgets and at the same time dole out money for some project or other.

Many will say that there's not enough money for health and education, and some may agree. I can agree that we could spend a lot more money on education and a lot more money on health care, and we could get wonderful service. But the taxpayers right now just can't afford that level of service, and we can't make any major changes in the budget without tackling those two things -- because 59 percent of the budget is in health care and education. I don't think the public would want to see any decreases in the levels of service in those areas.

Our challenge is not to make sure that we have more money; our challenge is to make sure that the money we have is spent more wisely. That's not an easy thing to do. It means challenging the status quo and looking at other ways of doing things. Nobody likes those types of things; nobody likes changes or having to deal with something that's a little bit different.

We have cut, and we are continuing to do so. In this budget alone, six ministries are spending less than they did last year. I can attest to this because mine is one of them: there is 8.2 percent less in this year's budget in my ministry than in last year's. Provincially over the past year we cut $40 million; $35 million was cut from this year's budget. MLAs' pay has been frozen for two years -- it's the second year in a row now. That affects all of us. Premier and cabinet received a pay cut, and we froze the pay of deputy ministers and Crown corporation heads.

There's been a tendency over the last little while -- I've heard some speeches -- to blame those who work for the government for our woes. This government will not repeat what the governments of the past have done or what Bill Bennett did: blaming the woes of government on those who work for it or trying to claim that all problems exist because of a bloated civil service, as the leader of the opposition said. It's absolutely shameful that the leader of the opposition actually stood in this chamber and referred to the people who serve British Columbians as a bloated civil service.

I would request that he go to our overworked conservation officers who are trying to deal with poachers and tell them that this is a bloated civil service. Talk to our social workers who are dealing on a daily basis with human tragedies; talk to our alcohol and drug counsellors and our mental-health workers who are stressed and burned out; tell them that they're a bloated civil service.

Talk to our health inspectors, building inspectors and compensation workers who try to make our province safer. Tell those teachers who are daily expected to meet more and more of society's demands; tell them that they're a bloated civil service. It's easy to pick on those who serve us; it's easy to say that it's someone else's problem and to say that those who work for the government ought to bear all responsibility. But it's not a smart way to deal with these things. We as a society must have the courage to change and to challenge the way we have been operating.

We must work cooperatively; we must develop partnerships. We must all become a part of the solution, and it can't be done when you're bashing those who work with you.

I would have expected that from the third party. We all know what the third party has done in the past in terms of treatment of their employees, but I never expected that from this Liberal opposition. However, I think it has shown us that it's less than just a few inches that separate them philosophically, and it's not just through a little division in the desks here. I think they're pretty close philosophically, actually.

Those who work on behalf of the government and of the people are dedicated and are there to provide quality service. As I said earlier, nobody -- not myself or the Premier -- likes taxes; however, most of us will be willing to pay more so that low-income people get some breaks. They have been given breaks in this budget: 28 percent of British Columbians get a tax cut. The wealthiest pay 8 percent more. The average family

[ Page 5061 ]

gets an increase of $3 per week. Most of us spend that much on videos, a lunch or even coffee and a doughnut. Three dollars a week is a very small price to pay for maintaining quality services in British Columbia. We've given tax relief to small businesses.

This budget is good for the regions. As someone who comes from the regions, I'm really pleased to see this budget, because it focuses on providing services to and on reaching out to the regions. B.C. 21, a program that will take us into the twenty-first century, will have $100 million worth of new investment that will be targeted to those regions that have suffered tremendously: the Kootenays, the Peace River areas and those areas that have really had a difficult time while the lower mainland has been somewhat cushioned. This government recognizes that the regions need to be acknowledged and that we need to put investment there.

We will put $80 million in transportation for highways into the budget. That's good news for us because the highways are our lifelines to civilization in many cases and to getting the services we require. Crown corporations will focus investment activities into regional development; that's not unheard of. In the past the Social Credit government moved the Lottery Corporation into Kamloops, recognizing that Kamloops needed some development. That's not unheard of. It was a good move. It should have been Prince George, but it was a good move to do that, and we have to acknowledge that some good things have taken place.

I want to focus a little bit on some of the major initiatives of my ministry, because I think what we do is try and save the government money. One of the things I'm really proud of is the B.C. Buy Smart program -- the program that links us up better to companies. It gives computer links to businesses through electronic tendering. This will open up the process, allow more businesses access to government and provide information to them. We will be leading our businesses into how they can do business in the next century, because it won't be long before all businesses will need that co