1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 8

[ Page 13107 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Streifel: Touring the precincts today is Rollie Keith, the candidate for the New Democratic Party in the upcoming by-election in Abbotsford. I would bid the House make him welcome.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

U. Dosanjh: I'd like to introduce to the Legislature the interns who have been assigned to the government caucus this session. They are Linsay Curry, Brent Mueller and Megan Reiter. We feel very fortunate to have the assistance of such talented people. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker and members of the Legislature, I would like to welcome, and have you join me in welcoming, a member of my constituency -- she is also the mother of our Whip: Maria Janssen. Welcome back, Maria.

H. Giesbrecht: I have four guests visiting in the gallery today: my mother, Mary Giesbrecht -- and I want to assure hon. members that I am in no way responsible for her grey hair -- my sister Mary Giesbrecht, my nephew Tim Locken and my daughter Shelley. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

T. Perry: With us in the gallery are 50 or 60 grade 11 social studies students from Eric Hamber Secondary School in the great riding of Vancouver-Little Mountain, along with their social studies teacher, Mr. Rob Ferguson. Would all members please join me in welcoming these very bright students.

M. de Jong: Mr. Robert Gertz is not a candidate in the upcoming by-election in Abbotsford, but he's certainly anxious for that election to take place. He is here in the precincts today watching democracy unfold in this House. Please join me in making him welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have John Anatooskin, who was the first administrator of the carpentry workers' welfare and pension plan. John is currently retired and is an active individual in the riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. In the gallery with him is Bill Anatooskin, who runs a number of businesses and lives in North Burnaby. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

CAPITAL COSTS OF COMMUTER RAIL

G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. When commuter rail was first announced, the capital budget for that project was $103 million. That amount was confirmed in yesterday's budget. I have in my hand a secret B.C. Transit document dated March 2, 1995 ...

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: ...which clearly shows that three weeks prior to this budget this government knew there was going to be an additional requirement of $81.7 million for commuter rail in 1995-96. Can the Premier explain why the people of British Columbia have to rely on leaked documents to find out the true costs of NDP promises?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer this question on behalf of the Premier.

We have always indicated that the capital cost of commuter rail that the government is incurring -- in other words, what we'll be borrowing to pay for commuter rail -- is in the vicinity of $100 million to $110 million. In addition to that, we would be leasing rolling stock from Bombardier and/or for the locomotives for that project. What the member is referring to is that if you capitalize the lease costs of both the locomotives and the railcars, the number does become higher than the $100 million. We've indicated that our intention is to lease those products, if possible -- if that's the lowest price. That's what we said.

But in addition to that, by leasing from Bombardier the construction of those costs, we have negotiated with Bombardier offsets which will generate millions of dollars' worth of work for British Columbians. Not only have we invested over $100 million in the capital costs of the station -- and created jobs by doing so -- and leased the rolling stock from Bombardier, we have continued to pursue the government's jobs and investment strategy by creating jobs here in British Columbia through a creative lease.

G. Campbell: Clearly the minister doesn't get it, and the Premier doesn't get it either. The fact of the matter is that the minister's staff had in their hands on March 2 a memo saying that the capital costs would be up $81.7 million. All of that fancy footwork does not belie the fact that the memo goes on to point out that the Minister of Employment and Investment has found potentially $70 million from other ministries and other Crown corporations. The Transit people are saying: "What's going to happen with the other $11 million?"

The question is: why must there always be leaked documents? Why must we always have leaked documents for the public to find out the true costs of NDP spending?

Hon. G. Clark: We know that this Liberal Party is opposed to commuter rail. They're opposed to these kinds of investments. We know they stood up in the House and said: "Don't build it. Don't build schools in Richmond." We know they said that they're opposed to the government's investment strategy. They said, "Cut, cut, cut," with a capital K.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: It's Preston Manning over here and "Preston Lite" over here. [Applause.] Hon. Speaker, I can't tell -- it might be Preston Manning over here and "Preston Lite" over here.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister get back to the question.

[2:15]

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, commuter rail is an important investment in infrastructure which will improve traffic congestion in a very important part of British Columbia and will lead to a long-term strategy to create jobs now in construction, now with offsets with Bombardier and now in terms of building the infrastructure for the twenty-first century.

[ Page 13108 ]

Some Hon. Members: More!

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the minister and the Premier don't understand is that people aren't as concerned about the infrastructure itself...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: ...as they wish that for once the Premier and the Minister of Employment and Investment would tell them the truth about the cost.

CHAIR OF B.C. TRANSIT

My question is to the Premier, and I hope that's the Premier who has been appointed as Premier and not the other Premier. When Derek Corrigan was appointed part-time chair of B.C. Transit on April 26, 1994, he was given a stipend of $4,000 a year plus $500 a day. Even though he has attended only 11 Transit board meetings in the last nine months, Mr. Corrigan has claimed to work 145 days out of a possible 188, for a total of $73,000. That's part-time. We have been billed almost six days a week for his part-time job. My question is to the Premier -- the real Premier: why has Mr. Corrigan been billing the taxpayers of British Columbia over $73,000 for part-time work?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As you and every member of the House knows, though we have a lapse of memory from the Opposition House Leader, the question should be addressed to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. I know that the opposition is more into gossip and slanderous allegations against people's integrity than in focusing on the real issues that are important to the people of British Columbia: creating more jobs, as we are doing with commuter rail and new transportation improvements, and protecting medicare against Liberals.

G. Farrell-Collins: I too am concerned about jobs for British Columbians, but seeing as this was a job for an NDP hack, I referred the question to the minister responsible for jobs for NDP hacks.

One of the perks received by Mr. Corrigan as the chair of B.C. Transit is the full-time use of a '92 Buick with a monthly lease cost of over $650 for part-time work. Can the Premier -- the real Premier -- tell us why someone he appointed to B.C. Transit is getting a car, paid full-time for $650 a month, for part-time work? Why can't the chair of B.C. Transit take the bus?

Hon. G. Clark: When we took office, the Leader of the Opposition was on the board of B.C. Transit. At that time, the chair was full-time, and he was paid well in excess of $150,000. This is a big job. When Derek Corrigan was appointed, he was a vice-chair of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. When the Leader of the Opposition was the chair, he supported his appointment, and now he's trying to besmirch the reputation...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: ...of an individual who is doing a superb job for British Columbia, both at the council....

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his remarks.

[The Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Derek Corrigan is doing a superb job as a city councillor for the city of Burnaby, he did a superb job when he was vice-chair of the GVRD -- when the Leader of the Opposition was the chair -- and he's doing a superb job for us as chair of B.C. Transit.

BUDGET INCREASE FOR MULTICULTURALISM

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Environment, the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. The minister has cut his budget for parks by $1 million at a time when he has committed to doubling the parks in British Columbia, and at the same time he has increased the budget for Multiculturalism and immigration by 74 percent, or $5 million. Can the minister tell us where his commitment lies: with parks for British Columbia or with currying favour in the multicultural community when coming up to an election?

Hon. M. Sihota: Two points: first of all, we have a commitment, on the part of our government, to double the number of parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia. We make no apologies for that; we're proud of our record of creating parks throughout British Columbia -- second to none in any jurisdiction in the world.

We also take pride in the fact that we in British Columbia have the strongest economy in Canada. One of the reasons we have the strongest economy in Canada is that we are seeing investment: first of all, from other parts of Canada -- people moving here -- and secondly, people moving from the Asia-Pacific and investing here in British Columbia. We are proud of the kind of investment we're receiving from the Asia-Pacific markets.

I want the hon. member to understand that one of the reasons the Asia-Pacific markets are investing so aggressively in British Columbia is that we have a multicultural policy that says to people from all over the world that they are welcome right here in British Columbia.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Many taxpayers in British Columbia think we're spending too much on multiculturalism and think that that program should be scrapped as it relates to grants. Indeed, leaders of the various ethnic communities tell me that they don't want grants from government; they want the ability to support their own culture and do it within their own community. What evidence does the minister have to suggest that there is support in British Columbia for this increased spending?

Hon. M. Sihota: For that $5 million investment in multiculturalism we have the evidence of a 20 percent increase in exports, we have the evidence of a 10 percent increase in retail sales, and we have the evidence of a 23 percent increase in non-residential capital investment in British Columbia. B.C. is growing because of people coming to British Columbia from

[ Page 13109 ]

the Asia-Pacific markets, and they are coming here in part because we're making an investment and saying to people that we value their language, their culture and their traditions. They're going to be feeling welcome here in British Columbia, which gives us a competitive advantage over our counterparts to the south of us.

TENDERING OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

F. Gingell: On Monday the official opposition released a list of contracts given out by the Minister of Employment and Investment, the vast majority of which were untendered and many of which went to longtime political friends of the minister. The minister accused us of being inaccurate, but later that day he returned to this chamber to apologize for misleading the House and stated that our facts were indeed correct. Will the minister please table in this House all those untendered contracts for consulting and other services, along with an explanation of the reasons why he has systematically broken his own government's tendering guidelines.

Hon. G. Clark: I've done a review of all the Crowns and my ministry, and something like 97 percent of the contracts over $50,000 have been tendered.

I want to take exception to the naming of individuals in a press release by the opposition: Alistair Crerar, who worked for the Conservatives in Alberta, as some kind of an NDP hack; Hal Halvorson, who works for mining companies and Cominco -- you know, that socialist organization, Cominco; Jim Green, who the Leader of the Official Opposition said in the newspaper is an excellent advocate for the neighbourhood. He did his job well -- and will continue to do excellent things -- when he was appointed by contract here. But naming individuals and trying to besmirch their reputation is third-rate McCarthyism and first-rate Campbellism, and it should not be accepted by British Columbians.

Interjections

The Speaker: Order.

[The Speaker rose.]

[The Speaker resumed his seat.]

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: I must admit I am surprised that the minister believes that naming someone as a member of the NDP is besmirching their reputation. I have never believed that. The issue is dealing with the question of when the guidelines on contracts that are tendered are being broken.

My supplemental is to the Premier. Can he tell us if the practice of the Minister of Employment and Investment -- we were talking about the contracts in his office, not the contracts in the Crown corporations -- of giving out contracts without tender to his friends is an unusual occurrence. Or do all his ministers, including himself, follow this same pattern?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Once again the opposition is taking the new high standards that our government has established for conflict-of-interest laws, for freedom-of-information laws, for the letting of contracts and for advertising and marketing -- the tough new standards that we have established -- and then creating new standards above those new high standards.

I want to say, hon. Speaker, that the people who have been hired on personal contracts are the best talent in this province, whatever their politics, as the minister has made very clear. They have helped organize the Crown corporations into the economic development tools they should have been, instead of the personal fiefdoms full of patronage and full of friends of the ministers in the previous Social Credit government. We've cleaned up that rats' nest.

Those Crowns are now serving the people of British Columbia very well in creating new jobs and in making sure that we have the resources to protect medicare from the Liberals over there and in Ottawa.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Presenting Petitions

C. Serwa: The petition of the undersigned states: "We, the citizens of British Columbia...are requesting a full public inquiry into the affairs of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House take such action as may be deemed appropriate."

Presenting Reports

J. Beattie: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Child, Youth and Family Advocate. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Beattie: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: I move that the report be adopted.

Hon. Speaker and hon. members, today British Columbia is embarking upon a new and uncharted route. It's a historic day. It's the first time in British Columbia that this committee will be recommending -- and that recommendation hopefully will be accepted -- to have a child, youth and family advocate for the province. Not only will this advocate be breaking new ground in this jurisdiction, but the rules under which that person will act will be significantly different than in other jurisdictions in this country.

The advocate will be an officer of the Legislature, which will give her special freedom and responsibilities to act as a strong spokesperson and defender of the rights of children in this province.

[2:30]

When the committee embarked upon its task of selecting this person, we were looking for one who would be a strong voice for children in this province and who could help government be caring and sensitive to our greatest asset, our youth. The selection process was rigorous and exciting. The nine candidates we finally interviewed brought to the committee a range of views and diverse approaches to the task at hand. I believe that all of them were worthy of consideration. Almost any one of them, I'm sure, could have done the job.

However, I was overwhelmed once again with how marvellously the democratic process worked in the embodiment of the select standing committee. Members of the opposition, the third party and the government caucus worked as a team to come up with a unanimous recommendation to this House, one I think we can be very proud of. Our work was exciting and invigorating.

[ Page 13110 ]

Before I introduce to the House the selection of the committee, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Clerk of Committees office, particularly Craig James and Joan Molsberry and their staff, for the excellent work they did on behalf of the members of this Legislature, the members of the committee and the people of this province.

I would like to conclude by taking this opportunity to introduce to the House Ms. Joyce Preston, who is in the audience. I think she is accompanied by Justice Bruce Preston. So hon. members, please make welcome the recommendation to this House of a child, youth and family advocate for the province of B.C.

V. Anderson: As a member of the committee from the official opposition, it is my privilege to affirm the opportunities that this committee had to view and read resumes of many people in this province and from across Canada, to interview the nine final candidates and have a very difficult decision, but to unanimously agree that Joyce Preston is the person who can move into this position with imagination, experience, creativity and enthusiasm. She comes with experience throughout British Columbia, with over 30 years of experience in the field of social work. She brings an opportunity for us to move into a new era of supporting children within this province.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has given us a standard and a challenge that we may support children in the wholeness of their lives. It was this convention that Joyce Preston, among others, brought to our attention again, and I'm sure it will lead her and us as we move forward in the choice of the new opportunities for children and their welfare and that of their families within this province. It is a privilege to support and commend Jim Beattie and the committee in the decision that has been made.

R. Neufeld: It is with pleasure today that I congratulate Ms. Joyce Preston on becoming our child, youth and family advocate in British Columbia. I think Joyce brought forward some real qualities when we interviewed her, and certainly there was unanimous consent. With her experience and knowledge of the north, of which I am very appreciative, I think she will bring to this position some real qualities that British Columbians will come to be thankful for. So on behalf of the Reform caucus, I would like to congratulate very much Ms. Joyce Preston, and I look forward to working with her.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I, too, can't miss the opportunity to rise and congratulate the standing committee that selected Ms. Preston and to offer my own congratulations. Ms. Preston is the perfect person to fill this unprecedented job of independence in protecting children in our province. I want to assure all of the members of the House that I know Ms. Preston will take her job very seriously and do whatever is necessary to make sure that the paramount consideration of my ministry is the protection of children.

G. Campbell: I was fortunate enough to work with Ms. Preston when I was mayor of Vancouver. I'm proud to say we hired her away from the provincial public service to Vancouver to be director of social planning. Now that I'm in this venue, I'm glad that the province has shown the good sense to hire her back so I'll be able to work with her again. Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, and congratulations.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton closes the resolution.

J. Beattie: I'd like to thank all members who spoke in support of the recommendation. I would like to read into the record the members of the committee: from the New Democratic Party caucus, the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, the member for Parksville-Qualicum, the member for Mission-Kent, the member for Port Coquitlam, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds; from the Liberal caucus, the member for Matsqui, the member for Langley, and the member for Vancouver-Langara; and from the Reform caucus, the member for Peace River North.

Finally, I'd like to thank the government for choosing me as convener of the committee, and I'd like to thank the members of the committee for selecting me as their Chair. It was a job that I undertook with a great deal of honour, and I certainly feel extremely pleased with the results the committee has come to.

Motion approved.

J. Beattie: By leave, I move that this House recommend to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Ms. Joyce Preston as a statutory officer of the Legislative Assembly, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the child, youth and family advocate for the province of British Columbia, pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act.

Motion approved.

H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Lali: I notice that up in the galleries....

Interjection.

H. Lali: You'll have your chance in a minute.

To my left up in the galleries, I notice a personal friend of mine, Mr. Don Olds, who is also a member of the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission. Would the House please make him welcome.

L. Krog: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Krog: Randi Kocher, former chair of the Nanaimo School Board and one of my constituents, is in the gallery today. Accompanying her is her mother Mrs. Ballard, a constituent of the member for Nanaimo. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. de Jong: My comments will be brief. During the course of debate on the budget yesterday, I made certain remarks regarding a report concerning the Leader of the Third Party and a document that had been forwarded. That report was erroneous, I have learned, and I therefore correct the record and offer my apology to the Leader of the Third Party.

L. Reid: I rise today in response to the budget for this New Democrat government. I would submit to this House that the two strongest themes running through this budget

[ Page 13111 ]

look at blaming the Socreds or blaming the federal government. That is not a debt management strategy.

I would also submit to this House that this government comes to what they would term a debt management strategy from a very flawed premise. The premise happens to be the notion that somehow there is good debt and bad debt. I can assure you that when I visit my bank manager, we don't have the luxury of compartmentalizing debt into the columns "good debt" and "bad debt." There has to be some understanding that this government's attempt to simplify this budget for the public is misleading. It is not appropriate to suggest that there is a surplus when you're bringing in a $27 billion debt.

That is playing fast and loose with the taxpayer. More money will be leaving the pockets of average working British Columbians in this fiscal year. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

What we in the Liberal opposition have called for is truth in budgeting. We need to know the real numbers around how this government does their books -- or, to be fair, does our books. All of us in the province are taxpayers. All of us have some necessity to learn about the income and expenses of this government. I'm not convinced that this budget covers those bases in any reasonable form. I would suggest that there is no significant debt management strategy. I would also suggest that the growth of government is threatening our health and social programs; it's not the other way around.

It's simply that the growth of government will threaten and is threatening our social programs as we know them.

It's not appropriate to suggest, as this government repeatedly does, that they are interested in downsizing and streamlining when they are bringing more employees into the public service of the province.

An Hon. Member: How many?

L. Reid: At least 500 more. My colleague will suggest thousands. At least 500 this year will come into the employment of British Columbia and have the opportunity to receive a salary from the taxpayer. We have some issues around that kind of reporting. When this government stamps their feet and asks everyone else in this province to downsize and streamline their operations, we're not convinced that that message carries to their own operations. I would submit that it simply does not.

I would also submit that we will see more dollars in the coming months move into Crown corporations and government agencies and not receive fair and intense scrutiny in this chamber through the estimates debate. I don't believe that is the way the average taxpayer would have us proceed. I believe they truly do wish to see truth in budgeting and honesty in how that information is reported to the public. I believe that the average British Columbian wishes to see this government make a commitment around cutting government spending, debt and taxes.

I think that is the direction that all British Columbians would have us proceed. They're not interested in any more smoke-and-mirror exercises about how to report government spending to the taxpayer.

This NDP government is running a $500 million deficit. They've attempted to show a budgetary surplus by hiding expenditures for transportation under a Crown corporation. That's exactly my point: it's not about truth in budgeting. The $250 million from the Columbia River downstream benefit is a windfall. It should be held up as that, and it should not form some kind of magical illusion that this was a surplus that the government had any responsibility for reporting on.

If I need to encapsulate my remarks this afternoon, they will touch in great detail on truth in budgeting and what I perceive to be the main themes in this budget document, which is: find somebody to blame it on. Rreturn to the scapegoat politics of the 1950s, or return to this government over the last three years when they repeatedly talked about the mess they were left by the Socreds, and now they are attempting to transfer some of that blame to the federal government. As a taxpayer, neither of those two statements warm my heart in terms of believing that this government has my best interests at heart.

I don't believe that, and I'm not convinced they can sell that message to the average British Columbian.

[2:45]

The Certified General Accountants' Association also has some questions regarding this government's ability to convey truth in budgeting. I quote:

"Unfortunately, both the budget forecasts for 1995-96 and the debt management plan are based on very optimistic predictions of growth in the provincial economy. We would have preferred that t[his Minister of Finance] follow the lead of her federal counterpart and build into her budget a contingency plan against an economic downturn."

Without the contingency plan, it's another attempt to blame somebody else for not having done your homework.

"We also would have preferred that the government pursue a more aggressive program of debt reduction. It proposes to take 20 years to reduce a debt that was created in 11. Perhaps governments should start to apply the same diligence to paying our debts that they do to creating them."

That comes from the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia.

That advice needs to be heard, needs to be heeded. There has to be some sense on behalf of this government that they indeed recognize the financial constraints placed on every single British Columbian by yesterday's budget; there has to be some sense that they understand who does pay the bills in the province of British Columbia.

I consistently make the point that there is one taxpayer. There is one pool of dollars in this province. It doesn't magically become government money. It is always taxpayer money, and that line of responsibility somehow seems to be broken by this government. They bring it in-house and forget how those dollars were collected and, indeed, the hardships that many, many, many British Columbians endured in order to provide those dollars to this government. There aren't many people in British Columbia today who will tell you that the government knows better how to spend their money than they do. That's the bottom line.

There aren't many British Columbians who will tell you today that adding more decision-makers to the exercise will necessarily result in better decisions.

That is part of the dilemma with this government. Consistently more individuals, more public servants, more agencies and more committees are brought into the exercise, and somehow we're to believe that that's in our best interest. I would submit to you that it absolutely is not. We are paying the salaries for those new individuals, and we are not receiving value.

The auditor general in this province has spoken many, many, many times of value-for-money audits consistently performed on all ministry operations. There's no excuse for not proceeding in that direction. When you and I manage our household accounts, we have some sense of bringing some common sense to bear on those issues. A value-for-money audit, I believe, would give the taxpayer some sense of whether or not the government was making useful decisions, making decisions in their best interests. We need to come back to that contention repeatedly through this afternoon's debate on the budget, because unless we believe that this government

[ Page 13112 ]

is making good decisions, the premise for this entire budget is flawed.

And again, I will re-visit their two contentions that I spoke of earlier: that somehow it's possible to have good debt and bad debt. It's simply not possible.

I would also like to make reference this afternoon to a release from the B.C. Health Association. They make the case in terms of health spending.

"...the allocation for acute care and extended care and provincial programs of only 3 percent will make it difficult for many facilities to deal with increased labour costs and other requirements in the system, and many will continue to face financial crises."

That is a quote from Mary Collins, the current president of the B.C. Health Association. This association has estimated that an additional $121 million would be required to meet the committed expenditure. You must think back to the expenditures that this government has committed our hospitals to in order to realize that they're not meeting their own commitments. Ms. Collins continues: "...and this does not include other priority items. With an $82 million increase, there will be significant deficiencies."

So my earlier contention that the growth of government is threatening health care delivery in this province is valid; it's not the other way around. It's not that the cost of health care cannot be sustained. We must make prudent spending decisions. Indeed, as a government, if you are going to commit anyone to a course of action, kindly have the decency to stand by your word. There are some issues around the labour accord where individuals in the hospital sector were promised that those commitments would be met by government.

They've been sadly disappointed, and that is why you will see hospital beds closing around this province. They simply do not have the resources to operate. That's a significant issue and one that comes back to truth in budgeting. This government made a commitment to hospitals in this province that they would fund the accord. They have reneged on that promise, and yesterday's budget does not allow that commitment to come to fruition.

The average British Columbian does believe that better spending decisions can be taken and that government debt and taxes should be cut. We saw a budget yesterday where everything somehow receives a new name: "We're not going to call it a tax, but we're certainly going to take more money out of your pocket. We're going to call it a licence, a fee or a surcharge." When is a tax not a tax? This government is still taking more dollars out of British Columbians' pockets. At the same time, they're trying to convince them that somehow it's not really a tax.

The average British Columbian -- any British Columbian -- will spend more money this next fiscal year to exist in the province of British Columbia. Their direct government costs will go up. There's no doubt about that.

Again, we talk about this government looking at a debt management plan of 20 years. We're talking the year 2015 before this government believes they will have a handle on the existing debt load. They have done more damage in the last three years to add to that debt load -- $27.9 billion debt for a population of 3.7 million people. That is not sustainable. In fact, their own internal memo talks about the debt being absolutely unsustainable and how it will crowd out spending on social programs. They know in their heart of hearts that they haven't presented truthfully around this budget.

This internal memo of theirs even suggests that if the government ran an operating surplus for the next ten years, the provincial government would not be able to reduce significantly its debt because of excessive NDP spending. It said: "Unsustainable debt and spending is crowding out services to people." That is the message for British Columbians today. The rosy picture painted by yesterday's budget speech is not valid. It's not about reporting truthfully to the public. The best approach, in my view, is that this memo should have formed part of the budget remarks -- it's exactly the truth in this situation.

They hired this person for his financial expertise, he reported on it and they tried to bury it. It's not appropriate, hon. Speaker. There has to be some honesty in the process.

Jerry Lampert from the Business Council of B.C. refers to it as "a quicksand budget" and says that their economic assumptions are, in fact, faulty. I will build that argument throughout my remarks today, because I too believe that their presentation of yesterday has come from a very faulty premise. I would also make reference to David Bond, when he talks about foreign investment in British Columbia. In fact, foreign investors hold more than $2 billion of our debt, both national and provincial, and play a dominant role in determining Canada's monetary and fiscal policy.

If they begin to believe we are prone to inflation or unwilling to tackle the ever-mounting debt, not only will they refuse to lend us more, they might begin to sell off what they have. So when Jerry Lampert talks about quicksand, individuals who know a great deal about foreign debt, foreign borrowing and foreign lending would concur that we are on shaky ground.

Again, I will make reference to this individual. I think he makes some excellent points. He says:

"Reducing Canada's overall indebtedness to foreigners will not come in the form of some new gimmick or bond. What's required is an elimination of further borrowing, foreign or domestic, period. Our past unwillingness to pay for the government services we wanted, plus our unwillingness to make choices, left us with a monumental debt. Consequently, we have lost financial sovereignty."

That is an issue for British Columbians today, but it is also an issue for Canadians. We're intensely proud of this country. We have to manage our resources much more effectively and communicate that management much more effectively to the taxpayer if we're going to win. And we need to win back control of government in this province, at both the provincial level and the federal level.

"Foreign investors now and for the foreseeable future will determine our fiscal and monetary policy. The traditional government response -- some form of smoke and mirrors -- will not hide that fact." That's an amazing contention, and it's one that needs to be addressed in a great deal of detail.

I wish to make a number of points this afternoon, and I will move to a comment about the debt-rating agencies, which have pointed out that B.C.'s debt growth is setting a scorching pace: up 35 percent since 1992. Last year we saw this Minister of Finance vow to limit spending in 1994-95 to 2 percent; it came in at 2.9 percent. Had this target been met, it would have saved us $180 million. So we do need spending targets in this province, but we need to meet them. We need to assume responsibility for delivering on such a product.

To talk about promises: both the Minister of Finance and the Premier have promised to remove the corporate capital tax. I believe that getting rid of that tax would have removed the constraints placed on business in this province. There will be the inevitable downturn in the business cycle -- there's no question. However, we didn't see that promise in yesterday's budget remarks, and I know that on two separate occasions that promise was freely given by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier. There has to be some accountability.

I made the point yesterday that the only thing a politician has in this life is their word. When the Minister of Finance and the Premier gave their word that they would cancel the corporate capital tax, we took that to mean that they would act on

[ Page 13113 ]

what they had said. I can only assume that they will return to that decision in the very near future.

Yesterday we heard the Minister of Finance talk about cutting spending on items such as advertising, travel and consulting. It doesn't warm my heart, and in fact, out of the entire contents of this budget, it almost amounts to petty cash. We look at a government that needs to downsize -- no question -- but needs to make a significant decision around ministry operations and the size of government. Again, I will contend that it is those operations that are threatening our social programs; it isn't anything else.

To continue on an examination of the budget: based on projections for the coming fiscal year, taxpayer-supported debt will have increased by 56 percent from the fiscal year 1991-92. We all know that is absolutely not sustainable. We all know that British Columbia taxpayers are now paying far more than they can afford.

[3:00]

I would contend that credibility is an issue around these budget projections. In setting out a plan to eliminate the debt in 20 years, the Finance ministry predicts nominal economic growth of 5.1 percent for 1995, an average of 4.2 percent from '96 to '99 and 4 percent to the year 2015. An average interest rate of 8.5 percent is assumed for the same period. It would take very little to throw these assumptions out the window, and if indeed that transpires, where is plan B? We do not see a contingency plan in place on behalf of this government. No one agrees more than Jerry Lampert at the B.C.

Business Council when he talks about a quicksand budget. There is no plan B, and there truly needs to be.

I return to my earlier contention when I talk about fees being taxes, too -- more dollars out of more British Columbians' pockets. That's all that average British Columbians are concerned about: how much will it cost them to have dealings with government next year? I would suggest that the promise of no new taxes is hollow. Consumers -- which we all are -- will be squeezed for another $3 million in this fiscal year. That is a great deal of money for all British Columbians, no matter the income.

"Rather than making significant spending cuts, the government has used creative accounting to manufacture a $114 million surplus." That is from Richard Allen of the B.C. Central Credit Union. It is his quote and his contention. Again, our contention would be that the Columbia River downstream benefit is the windfall. To manufacture it as anything else is simply insubstantial.

From Troy Lanigan of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation: "This government is paving the road for future tax increases once the tax freeze is over because of its lack of leadership in making the needed spending cuts." That speaks to my call for a plan B.

The government's economic forecasts are tremendously optimistic, and their predictive abilities take us all the way to the year 2015. It's remarkable that someone could commit to know 20 years from now what will be happening in this economy.

So what is plan B for the years this government might have some control -- up next year perhaps? What have they done for the previous three years, other than drive up the debt?

My colleagues who used to be Socreds and are now members of the Reform Party would suggest to you that they share no responsibility for this debt. I would submit to you that $17 billion of the current $27.9 billion debt is the direct result of Social Credit administration in this province. The remaining $10 billion is definitely the responsibility of the NDP caucus. Again, $27.9 billion for a population of 3.7 million is absolutely ridiculous. It's not appropriate that the level of funding required over the next number of years will fall to our children and our grandchildren. There's no question about that.

The Canadian Bankers' Association talks about capital spending, and we continue to think that the corporate capital tax sends the wrong message to the international business community. Governments survive because of people paying taxes and because of an ability to generate some revenues. If we are not interested in inviting people to do business in this province, this government is sending exactly the right message.

As Liberals we are interested in having people come to this province and do business. That is the only way this province will survive. I have tremendously high hopes for this province. I believe we can be self-sustaining. I believe we stand a better chance than any other province in this country at taking some personal responsibility for our actions, for our reporting and for our ability to bring this fiscal House in order. I believe it's doable, I believe it needs some vision, and I certainly believe it needs some leadership around that question. We've not seen it, and we need to see it.

The contention that somehow we can downplay Mr. Trumpy's memo is not fair when it comes to the taxpayer. I think he has made some of the most factual comments around spending and the debt load in this province. We all need to take his comments to heart and understand that his look at the inner workings of government is probably the most factual we will ever receive.

We will all stand in this House and talk about preserving medicare, because it is the most important issue for Canadians. We will all talk about education as an essential service in the province. We believe in educating our young people; we believe in having medical services available. But I would agree with Mr. Trumpy when he talks about fiscal mismanagement crowding out the ability of government to provide social programs. That's a very real contention. There is a very real fear that mismanagement of the budget will allow government to downplay their commitments to taxpayers in this province.

We as Liberals are not prepared to tolerate that. We will always have health care as our number one priority, and our other essential service will always be education. It's absolutely important to deliver on those promises to the taxpayer. But more important than the talk that has gone on around those issues is to act, to deliver on those promises. It is not appropriate for this government to continue to blame the Socreds and the federal government.

It is appropriate for a Liberal government to stand and deliver on a promise and somehow divorce itself from the rhetoric that allows for the scapegoat politics of the 1950s. In the 1990s it's not about blaming anybody; it's about taking responsibility and doing the job. That is what we believe needs to happen.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 13114 ]

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have a very special guest in the gallery today, but I'd like to welcome all of the special guests who have come from Margaret Stenersen Elementary -- a class of grade 7 students. This is a French immersion school, and along with them are a number of exchange students from Quebec.

When I said that there was a very special guest, there are actually two: my niece Danielle Langford, and my sister Leslie Langford. Could the House make them all welcome.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to take my place in the budget debate today. I would like to begin by talking a little bit about the plan that the Minister of Finance put forward as the government's agenda for the coming year.

The minister talked about eliminating the deficit, a balanced budget for '95-96, managing government debt and, finally, the government's debt management plan. Let us look at what has really happened over the last three years of this government and what is likely to happen over the next year of this '95-96 budget.

Government spending is up and the debt is up in this budget. The government wants us to believe that they are seriously trying to address the fiscal problems of this province, but what they are doing is increasing tax revenue by more than $1 billion, increasing the debt by more than $1 billion and increasing spending by 2.9 percent in the next year. They want us to congratulate them on their debt management when it will take 20 years to undo the damage they have done in the last three.

As the member for Delta South pointed out in his budget reply yesterday, the NDP budget is actually running a $437 million deficit. They have hidden these expenditures on transportation under a Crown corporation called the Transportation Financing Authority and by including $250 million of the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits in the consolidated revenue fund.

As we all know -- and hopefully every single voter in this province knows -- a leaked confidential Treasury Board memo stated that even if the government ran operating surpluses for the next 10 years, the provincial government would not be able to reduce its debt significantly. This memo warned that government spending is out of control and that the debt is unsustainable and crowding out core government services like health and education.

When members of government talk about this so-called balanced budget, they should at least have the decency to blush. The hypocrisy of this government is astounding, and they just don't get it. This government is irresponsible in the extreme to saddle future governments and our children and grandchildren with the level of debt this government has accumulated in just three and a half years. This is a travesty of mismanagement, and a 20-year debt reduction plan is just not going to cut it.

We have already said that we will review every Crown corporation. We would be committed to selling B.C. Rail and B.C. Systems Corporation, and every nickel generated by these sales would be used to pay down the debt.

"No new taxes," the Finance minister said. But what about fees? In my question to the Minister of Finance in question period yesterday, I asked her: "Will the minister commit to no new fee increases or to not raising existing fees in the upcoming fiscal year?" And, surprise, the reply was that there would be a 0.6 percent increase in fees. But our Finance critic says it is closer to 3 percent, not the 0.6 percent that the minister stated.

Since taking office, this NDP government has introduced 637 user-fee increases and 170 new fees. That means a grand total of 807 new fees and fee increases. During 1994, one quarter of all taxes -- $3.5 billion -- were collected in fees and licences. Hydro fees have increased. The ferry fares have increased. The farmers have had numerous fee increases. In three years the NDP have raised farm vehicle fees three times; other fees relating to livestock are as much as 50 percent higher.

The luxury tax on cars has been matched by four new fees and has increased to seven other licences for manufacturing, transporting, demonstrating and repairing motor vehicles. British Columbians are not fooled. They know the true cost of hidden tax increases.

A closer look at the numbers shows two things. First, our debt is increasing for the '95-96 year by $1 billion, up from '94-95, to $27.8 billion. The government talks about having a surplus of $114 million in '95-96. This is not a serious commitment to getting government spending under control. This ridiculous statement, where the government is trying to flimflam the voters, simply isn't acceptable. People understand when they are being scammed, and this budget has got to be the biggest scam of all time in this province.

The government will spend $450 million more on interest costs than when they formed government three and a half years ago. Currently this government is spending almost $1 billion a year servicing our debt.

If we paid down that debt, more of that $1 billion in interest payments would be available for other priorities, such as eliminating the portables in every schoolyard in this province. Every member of this assembly, and particularly the government side, asks: what schools wouldn't you build? Well, the answer is that if you were committed to paying down this debt, the money that you spend on interest payments would go a very long way in providing those valuable schools that every one of us in this assembly would like to have. But there has to be commitment from the government, and at this point in time it's not in this budget.

[3:15]

There is no magic in paying off the debt. We can either sell assets or run a surplus. The opposition has clearly said that we intend to do both. In the government's submission, when the Minister of Finance went around the province asking for input into her budget, she was presented with a suggestion from the Vancouver Board of Trade. I won't bore members opposite with some of the suggestions, which are certainly valid.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Particularly the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, who bores easily and should probably take a nap, if that would suit his purposes more.

But I will just say that one of the recommendations the Vancouver Board of Trade brought forward.... It was interesting to see their analysis of the B.C. fiscal performance since 1990: "Budget expenditures since 1990 have increased by 31 percent; direct debt has increased by 126 percent; total direct and guaranteed debt since 1990-91 to 1994-95 has increased 59 percent; and direct debt-servicing costs" -- and this one is a kicker -- "...85 percent." An 85 percent increase in direct debt-servicing costs. That's money that's gone and that isn't building schools.

An Hon. Member: What do you want to cut?

L. Stephens: I just told you. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain doesn't listen. I just told him what they can do

[ Page 13115 ]

to cut and reduce the debt-servicing costs of government. The member should speak to one of his colleagues on the other side who has some understanding of economic issues.

The Canada West Foundation, in their "Red Ink II: Executive

Summary." This was interesting, and I particularly like their paper and their analysis here. They talk about the consequences of government debt. I will quote from their paper, and members opposite should perhaps pay attention to this.

"As debt continues to grow, so do interest payments. Less and less tax revenue becomes available for social programs as interest swallows larger and larger portions of the government budget pie." That is the sad reality, and a very sad fact of life in British Columbia today.

"Interest rates may also rise as lenders begin to question government's ability to sustain the current fiscal pattern. This may compound the deficit problem by leading to even higher government interest payments and larger deficits, or even fewer dollars yet for health and education.

"Higher interest rates limit opportunities for economic growth and job creation, thus slowing growth in the government's revenue base -- and leading ultimately to a reduced standard of living for many British Columbians, as taxes either rise to finance the growing debt or governments drastically cut spending"

There are four critical elements to a successful debt-management strategy: taxation policies, spending priorities, economic development and government restructuring. I'd like to speak about this government restructuring for a moment. We have to find new ways of providing efficient, effective and economic government. There is a crisis of confidence in this government today. In British Columbia today we have the wrong kind of government. We do not need more government; we need better government. Today's environment demands institutions that are flexible, adaptable and that deliver high-quality goods and services.

We need entrepreneurial governments. Entrepreneurs are not risk-takers; they are opportunity-seekers. We all understand that you can't run a government like a business, but you can bring the principles of entrepreneurship to the management of government. These entrepreneurial governments promote competition between service providers, empower citizens by pushing control out of the bureaucracy into the community and measure the performance of their agencies not on the inputs but on the outcomes -- the results. Imagine that. This government needs to learn that.

They have to make their decisions based on the results they wish to have. Government should be driven by their goals and missions, not by their rules and regulations. They should define their clients as customers and offer them choices. They should prevent problems before they emerge, rather than simply offering services afterward. They should put their energies into earning money, not simply spending it. They should decentralize authority, embracing participatory management.

They should prefer market mechanisms to bureaucratic mechanisms and not focus simply on providing public services but on involving all sectors -- public, private and voluntary -- into action to solve community problems.

As I said, our problem is that we have the wrong kind of government. Governments must become more customer-driven and results-oriented. We must adopt policies which will strengthen our economy and allow the private sector to create jobs. We can do it by dramatically and fundamentally changing the government and how it works.

The position of the B.C. Liberal opposition is that we need to reduce the number of ministries. We must make ministers accountable for their budgets and for achieving goals. We must enact legislation which requires the government to balance the budget every single year. We must open our books to the public so that taxpayers can see how their contributions are spent and how well the government is performing, and we must change the tax system so that it is not punitive. It should support private services but not reduce choices.

By this year, increased per capita taxes in this province are more than five times the rate of increase in personal income. Since 1991 taxes have increased by $2.5 billion. During the two years ending March 31 of this year, corporation capital tax revenue will have increased by six times the increase in capital investment in this province. Just witness the recent town hall fiasco, where the government wasted our money and was then unable to defend their own monetary policies. This one was the laughingstock of the province.

We need to look at every ministry of government -- every department, program, practice, procedure and policy -- and determine whether they still serve a useful purpose. The question is: does the program policy procedure provide the service to the people to whom it is intended to assist? If it doesn't, then we have to look at either making it work or eliminating it. If the members opposite would adhere to that principle, the government would probably work a lot better, be more effective, efficient and economic and deliver services to the people of this province who expect them.

From what I've seen in the three years I've been in Victoria, there are lots of programs, practices and policies that don't serve the needs of the people of British Columbia.

We need to restructure our institutions of government to serve the needs of the emerging information and technology society. The first thing we have to do is cut the cost and size of government. The second is reduce government debt, and third, ultimately reduce taxes. This budget clearly does not address these three crucial elements: cutting the cost and the size of government, reducing government debt and ultimately reducing taxes. We must get government spending under control. This government has clearly shown that they have not been able to do that, nor do they have the will. A leopard does not change its spots.

This government is asking British Columbians to believe that they finally understand there is no such thing as good debt and bad debt, and that they are prepared to put the interests of British Columbians first, as opposed to their own self-interest and those of their friends and insiders. Debt service costs are growing faster than expenditures in health, education and social services. The NDP have increased taxes per capita by more than five times the rate of the increase in personal income. But the people of British Columbia will not be fooled.

The people of British Columbia know that smoke and mirrors when they see it. I have great confidence that British Columbians will remember the attempt by this government to fool them into believing that the NDP have finally realized that their taxing, borrowing and spending policies are simply not acceptable. When the next election rolls around, hopefully sooner rather than later, I am sure all British Columbians will remember that.

D. Schreck: In commenting on the budget speech, I would like to divide my comments into three sections.

First, I'd like to talk about what the essence of budgets is, as a plan for the future, and how, in looking at that plan, we have contrasting visions. We have the visions offered by the government and the alternatives offered by the opposition. Second, I intend to talk about those areas of confusion that the opposition is attempting to create, about how accounting is done, how taxes are measured and the standards by which we judge the budget. Third and finally, I'd like to talk about the reasons why we have a budget, and about how the restraints are not an end in themselves but a means of accomplishing

[ Page 13116 ]

what British Columbians want to accomplish, by creating jobs in the private sector and protecting

medicare.

Let me turn to my first topic, that of contrasting visions. As members know, I spend a great deal of my hobby time cruising the Internet, and I'm pleased to say that this budget is up and available on the Internet at the address I've mentioned before -- bbs.qp.gov.bc.ca. We have some extensions there, too. For members or the public who want to go on the Internet and see this on the World-Wide Web, the budget is available in full hypertext. It's linked to all the supporting documents, and there are pop-up graphs and charts.

Every budget document that's available to members of this Legislature is available to anyone in the general public at the click of a mouse through the World-Wide Web page of the budget on the Internet.

When I engage in discussion on the Internet.... It is the custom on the Net to end one's E-mail or posting on a news group with what's called a signature. By convention, a signature includes a quote or phrase the individual is fond of. I invented my own, and what I say in that signature is that one should compare between shared ideals, but choose between available alternatives. As it happens, just last night a friend on the Net was engaging me in debate, asking what this really means.

My response is that rather than engaging in the muddying of waters, name-calling and the kind of smear campaigns that the opposition frequently attempts, the standard we should adhere to is the debate and exchange of alternatives, of real ideals, of the vision and practical program that the government offers versus the options that the opposition puts forward.

Through the budget and the accomplishments of the government over the past three years, we can see what our plan is. We are doubling our park area to 12 percent. We are protecting our forest and our environment. We are creating jobs through the private sector for British Columbians. We are protecting medicare. But what do we see as the alternative? What has come forward from those opposition benches?

I have to compliment the leader of the Reform Party, the Leader of the Third Party in this House, because in his response to the throne speech, he went into considerable detail about what the Reform Party would do should the voters of this province grant them the privilege of forming a government. Personally, I find that a terrifying vision, but that's something for the voters to choose between.

[3:30]

The Reform Party has at least put forward some clear statements about what they would do. But when we look at the official opposition -- those people who call themselves the B.C. Liberals -- what do we hear coming from those benches? As I go through every one of those speeches, all I hear is naysaying; all I hear is criticism; all I hear is evasion. I challenge anyone to find much of substance by way of an alternative vision from that official opposition. The one clear statement we can find is the promise by the opposition leader that in the first year they form a government, if they would ever be granted the privilege, they would make $1 billion in tax cuts.

I've got to say that the federal Liberals are cutting funding for health, education and social services by $800 million two years from now and every year thereafter. If those B.C. Liberals were to form a government, that would mean that between their federal cousins and the provincial wing we would have $1.8 billion in reduced revenues -- $800 million from the reduction in the federal transfer payments and $1 billion by the sudden and immediate elimination of property taxes on business, plant and equipment and of the capital tax.

Let's keep this in some proportion: what does that amount to? It amounts to about a 10 percent cut in revenues across the board, not accounting for the fact that there would be a 10 percent loss in revenues at the same time that we would have continued population growth and other pressures that are the demand-driven side of government spending.

I ask those opposition members, sometime before we get out of this House, sometime before the public makes a choice as to whether they would ever grant the B.C. Liberals the privilege of governing, to say what is going to be cut to make up for that $1.8 billion. Are we going to eliminate every tenth school? Are we going to eliminate every tenth hospital? Health, education and social services amount to 75 percent of all spending by government.

I know it's cute to say: "We'll eliminate a hack here or a patronage appointment there; we'll eliminate some spending on advertising, and that will make up the difference." But no one can get anywhere close to $1.8 billion on this cheap rhetoric that the opposition throws forward.

If we're going to have a serious debate of alternatives, that opposition party had better come clean and say who they are going to fire, which hospital they are going to close, which school they are going to close and whose paycheque they're going to cut in half. Just what are they offering as an alternative vision? What we've seen is a vague and threatening promise with nothing to back it up.

Interjection.

D. Schreck: My friend and colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain points out that the Liberal opposition is not much different than the disgraced Brian Mulroney. Maybe that's the case. I actually think they are far, far worse.

What we've got in this province is a government that has a record of leading a province through the best of times. We have a province where, in 1994, we had the highest growth rate, 4.3 percent, over the last 25 years; we have a province where retail sales were up by 10 percent; we have a province where exports were up by 20 percent. We have a province which, although we represent only 12 percent of the population of Canada, last year accounted for one out of every four new jobs created in Canada -- more than twice our representation in Canada on a population basis.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

B.C. is where the action is. I cannot claim that our government is responsible for all of that, but I can say -- contrary to those naysayers in the opposition benches -- that our government has not in any way spoiled that atmosphere. If our government were nearly as bad as the naysayers would have us believe, could we possibly accomplish the best economic record in North America after three and a half years in office? I put it to all hon. members that what our government has done is sustain and build on an economic climate of growth and prosperity, and our government has a vision of this province going forward.

The alternative, sketched out as fuzzy as it may be by those opposition benches, is to emulate the worst, to drive us to the bottom.

We frequently hear the opposition benches talking about their hero in Alberta, Ralph Klein. They try to compete against each other -- the Reform Party and the B.C. Liberal Party -- on who can do the best job of being a mini-Ralph Klein to cut with a capital K. We should have some more information about exactly what is going on in Alberta and how that compares to British Columbia. Where would people want to live? After all, I do not see British Columbians flocking to cross the border to live in Calgary or Edmonton. If it's such a great place, why is it that the movement of the population is to British Columbia rather than to Calgary or Edmonton?

[ Page 13117 ]

Well, we can compare some of the financial data. I noted that the opposition Education critic in her speech immediately before mine was fond of quoting the Canada West Foundation. The Canada West Foundation tells us that the debt in Alberta on a per person basis is almost 50 percent higher than the debt in British Columbia. That government of Alberta, led by successive Conservatives, has amassed a debt 50 percent greater than the debt in British Columbia.

Yes, they have a crisis there, and they are taking drastic action -- unlike British Columbia, where we have sustained the economy by not going to the extremes of the Bill Bennett 1983 restraint period or of the Ralph Klein slash-and-burn period in Alberta. We have maintained economic growth in British Columbia and provided for health and education while eliminating a deficit and capping our debt.

Let me turn to the second area where the opposition is trying to say: "Ignore the outstanding accomplishments of the New Democratic government and get your mind confused." Instead of looking at the fact that we have the second-lowest taxes in all of Canada, the lowest debt servicing in all of Canada and the lowest per capita debt in all of Canada, and instead of dealing with creating jobs in the private sector and saving medicare, they're saying let's wrap our minds around fuzzy accounting concepts. Well, I'm happy to do that for a few moments, because the confusion sown by those opposition benches requires a little refuting.

The opposition talks about truth in budgeting. They try to create the impression that somehow the books are cooked or the numbers aren't quite clear. Since Confederation, the public accounting in this province has been done on what the auditor general calls the consolidated accounts basis. There is a different set of accounts, the

summary accounts, which defines a larger public sector. It would include B.C. 21's Transportation Financing Authority, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail and other Crown corporations. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, we have a Minister of Finance, through a New Democrat government, who has tabled a budget document and financial statements on both sets of accounting.

Those books are available to anyone, at the click of a mouse, through the Internet. Nothing is hidden; it is all open. There are no secrets. No matter how you do the accounting, the answer is the same. There is a budget surplus. The debt is going down, the debt is capped, the debt servicing is capped. No matter which methodology you choose, you see nothing but good news.

The opposition should stop trying to confuse people with a shell game and come clean. If what you want to do is slash and burn, you should come out and say what school you're going to close. Don't try to hide your agenda by confusing people with alternative sets of accounts.

The opposition also attempts to create a lot confusion around the notion of comparative tax rates across the country. They're fond of defending the $100,000-a-year school superintendents. They're fond of ignoring the folks who work in my constituency whose incomes are at $30,000 or $40,000 a year. We frequently hear them ask: "Is there something wrong with having the highest marginal tax rate in the country?" I am confident that many of their friends and supporters for whom they want to slash taxes have that concern. But on an average basis, British Columbia has the second-lowest tax rate in all of Canada.

On an average basis, my constituents who make $30,000 and $40,000 a year have had tax cuts and increased homeowner grants under this government.

Again, no one has to take my word for this. This is income tax time. Anybody with a home computer who buys one of these tax preparation programs can put their income tax together on the program, then simply change the province in which they live. By changing the province in which you live, the actual taxes you would pay in that province will pop up on the screen in that program. You can do your own comparison of whether you're better off living in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario or the Maritimes.

Time after time, real people in my constituency -- not the $100,000-a-year school superintendents that the B.C. Liberals want to defend -- will find that they are better off in British Columbia, because we have lower taxes for average, real people in British Columbia. The books are open. They are available on any accounting basis, and the good news is the same regardless of how you look at it. The taxes are favourable to real British Columbians, no matter how you want to look at it.

We have the debt and deficit under control on a level that has not only met the standards set by the financial community but bettered those standards. What am I talking about when I mention standards? We know that whatever this government does, those wannabes -- who are out to grab power for the sake of apparently nothing more than slashing and burning; and we haven't seen any positive vision -- are going to say it's not good enough. They are going to give a negative vision.

So how do we objectively measure the performance of our government? Well, one way of doing that is to turn to some of the financial leaders in British Columbia. At the Premier's summit, the working group which was put together included none less than the chair of the Investment Dealers' Association, the vice-president of the Hongkong Bank of Canada, the vice-president and director of Richardson Greenshields of Canada Ltd., the president and CEO of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, the managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade and other leaders in our community.

[3:45]

They issued a report, fortunately, just a few days before the budget came down. In that report, they said that the government should balance the budget, reduce taxpayer-supported debt from its current level of about 20 percent of provincial gross domestic product to 15 percent, cap the interest cost of debt as a proportion of provincial revenue at 9 percent, and undertake public education to explain debt and how the provincial debt compares with other parts of Canada. Those are outstanding recommendations.

I would only hope that those opposition benches would take advantage of some of that public education and stop their misleading attempts to run away from offering alternatives and hide behind muddying the water.

What did we see in that budget? We did not see a cap of debt servicing at 9 percent of provincial revenues; we saw a cap at 8.5 percent of provincial revenues. We bettered that recommendation from the investment community. We did not see a cap on provincial debt at 20 percent of gross domestic product; we saw a plan that will reduce debt to 10 percent -- half of the level set by the investment community. I am pleased to say that the so-called problem from which we start is already two points lower than the recommended cap set by the investment community.

It's very useful to have non-partisan, independent, market-driven standards to measure this government, because by the standards of the marketplace, this government has exceeded every standard set. It is a fine record.

I've talked about alternative visions. I've talked about the race to the bottom offered by those opposition parties versus the standards of excellence set by this government. I've talked about the standards of confusion set by those opposition parties versus those objective standards met and exceeded by

[ Page 13118 ]

this government. But let me talk a little bit more about what that opposition may be hinting at.

We have talked about the need to invest in renewing our natural resources, in rejuvenating our forests. We've talked about the need to invest in our infrastructure and build transportation projects like the Westview interchange. We've talked about the need to invest in the information highway and the need to invest in people, because we have a growing province with a vision of the future. We've also talked about the need to make British Columbia continue to be one of the best places -- if not the best place -- in the world to live.

Part of the environment that makes British Columbia such a fine place to live is our outstanding medicare system and our need to defend that medicare system against withdrawal by the federal Liberal government of any commitment to public health, education or social services.

We hear something from those opposition benches when we check old news clippings -- actually, it's not all that old; it's only the Times-Colonist from January 18, 1992. That was before the current Opposition House Leader became Opposition House Leader. The Liberal Opposition House Leader of today was then the Liberal Transportation critic. He was attributed as having said, on January 18, 1992.... He was critical of the NDP government for slashing transportation budgets to pay for education, health and social programs. In other words, what he was saying was that we should slash health, education and social services in order to build transportation.

There must be some confusion here, because what did we hear today? Today is March 29; this is Wednesday; this is the sixth sitting day. For the first time since we've been here, the B.C. opposition leader finally got on his feet in question period and asked the question. And what magnificent leadership did we see out of the B.C. Liberals? The question was: why are you creating jobs through transportation? Why are you building light rapid commuter rail up the north side of the Fraser?

So we have the Opposition House Leader saying slash health, education and social services and put it into transportation, and we have the opposition leader -- when he finally gets the courage to get on his feet for the first time in this House in question period -- saying: let's slash commuter rail instead. They don't know whether they're coming or going, and at some point they better figure out which way is up and which way is down.

There are real alternatives. There's the alternative of believing in the future of this province, and there's the alternative of joining the race to the bottom. There's the alternative of recognizing that this is the best place in the world to live and of providing the environment that will continue, within the constraints of a budget cap on debt and a surplus budget, to invest in our future. Or we can go the way of slash and burn, cut with a capital K, and above all things, keep it hidden.

The one thing we know about that official opposition is that they have promised to reduce revenues -- primarily for their corporate friends, through the capital tax and the property tax on plant and equipment -- by $1.8 billion. A billion dollars in their giveaway; $800 million taken by their federal friends. I challenge those opposition members to have the courage to get on their feet and ask.... Whose school are they going to take away? Whose hospital are they going to take away? Whose doctor are they are going to remove? It's time to compare alternative visions, and I will always opt for the vision of optimism and excellence.

J. Pullinger: On behalf of the Speaker, I would like to make the following introduction....

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. We need to ask leave, if you would.

J. Pullinger: I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. I would like to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: I think we've made this a dramatic moment. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to introduce some guests in the House today. I'm doing so on behalf of yourself, or the Speaker. With us today from Wishram, Washington, we have Ms. L. Swisher, teacher at Wishram High School, and 15 students. Would the House help me make them all welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure today to rise to speak on a budget that brings hope and prosperity to the future of our province.

Ask any individual on main street throughout this province what the most important thing is to them. Is it the Leader of the Opposition's new suit? No. Is it his new hair style? No. It's jobs -- jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what the people of this province want. They want jobs to support families, to buy homes, to make investments, to secure a future for themselves and their families, and to make this province grow. That is the most important thing in this province -- the number one issue.

Ask somebody if they'd want to be unemployed, and the answer is no. Ask somebody who is unemployed what they want, and it's a job. This government has tabled a budget that does that. Budget '95 provides hope for thousands of people in this province -- hope for a future and hope for their families -- and contrasts it with the pathetic, outdated policies of an opposition who I believe takes more advice from people like Nicholas Leeson, who brought down Barings bank, than they do from the people of their own province, who say time and time again: "We want employment."

We've heard from the opposition that the most important thing in this province is the debt, that the debt is out of control, that the government must do something about the debt. Time and time again that's all they harp on. Yet at the same time, in their constituencies parents are demanding schools for their children. And do we ever hear a peep out of that opposition on schools for Richmond? No, because if they did, it would expose the hypocrisy which they stand for.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I have touched a nerve. I stand by what I just said. The people of this province understand that the investment in a school, in a road, in a hospital, is an investment in their children and in the future of our province. They know....

A. Warnke: Are you making a commitment?

M. Farnworth: The hon. member asks if I am making a commitment to build a school in Richmond. Well, I have news for him. If he cannot stand up....

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I certainly don't mean to impede or otherwise interrupt the flow of debate, but it seems to me that the temperature is in danger of rising, and we will all be uncomfortable. I would therefore ask for a little moderation in heckling -- and speaking, for that matter.

[ Page 13119 ]

M. Farnworth: If the hon. members for Richmond-Steveston or Richmond East or Richmond Centre feel that they have difficulty in standing up in this House and asking for a school to be built in Richmond, that is their problem. I have stood up in this House on occasion after occasion to demand school construction in Coquitlam, and this government has responded. This government responded to a 20-year freeze on construction in School District 43 -- 20 years when the population of our district more than doubled.

During that time not one high school was built, because governments previous to this one did not believe that capital spending was of value. They felt that somehow children didn't need decent schools and that it was an ineffective use of money. We've taken office, and in three years we've addressed that backlog for the people living there, and we're addressing that backlog for the 100,000 people a year who are moving to this province in search of jobs.

This opposition wants to slash capital spending, yet they don't want to say what that means. It means no schools in Richmond, and it means no schools in Langley. They don't have the guts to stand up and say to people what school they are going to cut and which family they are going to throw out of work. If this opposition was on this side of the House, would they cancel Citadel Middle School? Would they cut Town Centre middle school and 148 jobs? Which 148 families would be thrown out onto the street because of their policy of believing that investment in infrastructure somehow doesn't create jobs?

We hear time and time again from this opposition that somehow only private sector investment creates jobs, not public sector investment, and that somehow public sector investment is a drain on the economy. What drain is it on the economy to build a school and create 958 jobs, such as Douglas College is doing? What drain on the economy is it to provide opportunities so that the students of this province have the up-to-date technology that is required to make this province an economic powerhouse into the next century?

[4:00]

Which courthouse would they cut? The member for Chilliwack has stood time and time again, asking when we will be building a courthouse in Chilliwack. At the same time, they don't want the public investment, because they say that public investment doesn't create jobs.

We are building a courthouse in Port Coquitlam, and that's 500 jobs in construction and 500 families getting bread on the table because a mother or a father is working in the construction of that courthouse. But does the member for Chilliwack stand up? No, he doesn't, because it would expose again the hypocrisy of the Liberal party. They want it both ways, and they are not willing to recognize that investing in the future means having to spend today.

Investments spent today are paid back over ten, 20 or 30 years, over the life of the asset. I know they don't like to hear this. I know it really grates on them somehow, but I am going to grate on them one more time. It's like your house. You don't put the money up front the day you buy the house; you pay it off over 25 or 30 years. That's what we do with schools, because the school that's built today doesn't serve just the students who are there today. It serves the students who will be there five, ten and 15 years from today.

It's just like the courthouses, where felons are tried, convicted and then sent to jail. We build them, and people who are a menace to society are taken off the streets. If the Liberals would realize that and stop hammering at us about construction of things like courthouses, maybe there would be fewer criminals wandering the streets of Chilliwack and those streets would be a bit safer. These are practical steps for reducing crime instead of pious platitudes from an opposition that wants to have it both ways.

As I said, this budget is about jobs -- jobs, jobs, jobs -- and the best way to ensure that is to have a balanced budget. When this government took office three years ago and inherited a $2.4 billion deficit, one which has come down each year, we said we were going to balance the budget. We have done it a year ahead of schedule, but do we get thanks from the opposition? No, we don't. You would think they could applaud, but no, they criticize. They criticize by saying that somehow there is double accounting, that somehow the books are cooked or the government is hiding something.

You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take the Reform Party's word; you don't even have to listen to the opposition. What you do is to go to an unbiased source, and you know where everyone seems to go these days? Not to Bay Street, not to Howe Street; . they go to Wall Street.

We saw how pathetically low the media has sunk in this country when after the federal budget, after they had hyped everything up for weeks, they didn't go running to Canadian analysts to see what they thought of the budget. No. They didn't go to the Canadian bond-rating service. No. What did they do? They went running to Wall Street.

They went running to the money brokers who really mattered, in their opinion. They went to Moody's -- and I'm not talking about Jim. They went to Wall Street, asking if the federal budget was good enough for the barons of Wall Street. Would it stop the run on the Canadian dollar? They wanted their blessing. They knelt before the barons of Wall Street, kissing the rings, to get their approval to ensure that the Canadian dollar would somehow be safe.

You know what? The verdict isn't in yet from the barons of Wall Street. The federal Liberal Minister of Finance sits in his office wiping the sweat from his brow, waiting for that magic phone call from the barons of Wall Street and from the House of Moody's -- again, I'm not talking about Jim's house in Whistler. The minister waits by the phone for that phone call, hoping and praying that the credit rating of this nation is not downgraded.

An Hon. Member: Who is Jim Moody?

[The Speaker in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: I'll come to that in a few minutes, hon. member.

He stands by that phone, waiting and praying for a phone call to come that doesn't downgrade the credit rating of this country, see interest rates rise and people thrown out of work -- and they've done enough of that in the budget. Forty-five thousand families out of a job -- that's the Liberal way. But that's what they're waiting for.

Those same financial institutions have for three years in a row confirmed that we have got the highest credit rating of any province in this country. We have put in place an economic plan that has kept people working and that is building an economy that takes us into the future. We're not waiting with bated breath to see whether or not the credit rating agencies of Wall Street will give their blessing. We know they will, because every target benchmark that has been set up for this government by business and labour has been met.

Targets were arrived at in think tanks to ensure that we can continue an economy that provides jobs. That's what we've done. We have put in place investments in infrastructure, and we are putting in place investments in working people to ensure that they can meet the needs of their families and that their children can take advantage of educational opportunities.

[ Page 13120 ]

I know that the opposition for some reason seems to think that's the wrong thing to do. Their approach to the financial problems of this country and to the finances of this province is that nothing good can be accomplished unless there is blood on the floor. They're not willing to look at the fact that if everybody pays their fair share, we can avoid blood on the floor and families don't have to be in fear of losing their jobs. The biggest impact on our social system is the fear and anxiety when someone loses their job, and the strains and the stresses which that places on a family.

That's the real problem in our society. That's where government really has to address things, not in extending tax welfare to a mining industry whose reaction today to the budget was: "Well, it doesn't have tax incentives for the mining industry."

I find it somewhat incongruous that certain segments, which the Liberal Party supports, demand a balanced budget: "The government's got to get its financial house in order." We put in place a tax structure and spending controls and a deficit plan that will do that. And what happens? "Well, that's nice. It's not a big surplus. But by the way, where are my tax breaks? How come I don't get any tax breaks? It's a terrible budget. I haven't got any tax breaks. Yes, you've balanced the budget.

Now that you've balanced it, hey, how about giving us some tax breaks?" That's what got us into the problem in the first place: not accepting the fact that if you want to provide services it costs money, and that if you want to provide schools and roads and bridges it costs money. That means investing, as I said before.

Out where I live, we are asked by the private sector to make land available for private development, to employ private sector contractors so they can make a profit, so land developers can make a profit, and so engineers and planners and all the people associated with development can make a living. That's great. That's what is driving our economy, and it attracts offshore investment -- something we've been extremely good at, something the opposition doesn't want to give us credit for.

At the same time, those of us who live there and welcome these new people and recognize the benefits of growth and development and the jobs that they bring with them are also concerned about our quality of life and the fact that the roads get plugged and it takes longer to get to work, which creates mental strain, which creates problems in our health care system.

So we're asked to take all this development, but at the same time the private sector doesn't want to build the roads. They'd like to build the roads, but they don't want to be the ones that fund them. They want all the amenities put in place. They want the government to do something about the traffic jams and the land use problems. So people stand up and say: hey, what are you doing about the Mary Hill bypass? Why haven't we got the Johnson-Mariner overpass? Why haven't we got the counterflow lanes on the Pitt River? Why haven't we built the south perimeter road in Surrey?

Why haven't we built the Westview interchange? Why haven't we put in commuter rail? We need to put in a rapid transit line to Vancouver. We need more bus service. We need a Quesnel bypass. All these projects need to be done, and for 20 years not one of those road projects has been done. Listening to the people in my constituency, this government has said those are priorities. We understand that long-term borrowing builds roads, because those roads don't just serve today; they serve for 25, 30 or 40 years.

So our government is investing once again. The Mary Hill bypass created 330 jobs in its construction and removed a major bottleneck on the highway between Maple Ridge, Port Coquitlam and Vancouver. That bottleneck was brought about by idiotic planning by the previous government that was based not on the needs, but on the political realities as they saw them in their own ridings -- ridings which they weren't going to win. So they started in the middle, but they didn't get rid of the bottleneck, which creates huge economic problems. It costs people money. It costs jobs.

People don't want to relocate across the river, because of the horrible traffic. This government, as part of its strategy of investment in infrastructure to create jobs, is removing that bottleneck.

They are accomplishing a number of things. They are meeting the needs of my constituents, responding to the economic conditions of a province and a growing population, and making sound, strategic investments resulting in long-term economic benefit to Port Coquitlam and Maple Ridge. At the same time, during the construction of that bypass, they created 330 jobs -- 330 people collecting a paycheque, which they in turn will spend in the economy.

And they are investments we can afford, because we recognize the need to spend only what we can afford. So we have capped debt costs at 8.5 cents -- the lowest of any province in this country....

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member for Peace River North says that that has increased -- and do you want to know something? He's quite correct. Why has it increased? Because we as a government are doing what his government should have done ten or 15 years ago, which was to make the investments in infrastructure that are needed to take this province into the twenty-first century. That's what is needed, because they go by the false economy that somehow if you don't spend, you never have to accomplish it.

I get the feeling sometimes that they think somebody must come along who waves a magic wand and an overpass somehow appears, and it doesn't show on the balance books -- that somehow you don't have to pay for it. Well, you do.

[4:15]

If you don't make those investments on a gradual basis, when they are needed, as they are needed, in the name of false economy you end up with a backlog where everything comes together, it breaks and you have gridlock. You have the situation that you had in the Coquitlam School District where 1,200 people were packed into a gymnasium saying: "Why, oh why, are we not building schools? Why would you allow a system to be in place that encourages growth at 5 percent a year and not build a high school? Why would you allow growth at 5 percent a year and not build a middle school or an elementary school? Why would you encourage developers to come and build houses and not put the schools in place?"

At some point you have to do it, and it means borrowing the money. But they don't want to talk about that. Instead, they want to throw out specious and spurious arguments that somehow commuter rail is a waste of money, when every mayor up and down the line from Mission to Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam to Port Moody is saying it must be built.

We've listened. We've brought in a budget that accomplishes what people have said, which was: "Make those investments, protect our services, and at the same time address the deficit and debt concerns." In this day and age, when governments are under attack everywhere, I think that's a pretty good accomplishment and something I'm quite proud of.

Finally, I want to touch on one area of the budget that will get more attention in the coming days, and that is medicare.

[ Page 13121 ]

The largest expenditure in this budget, at over 33 cents out of every dollar is on health care. Our health care system is the envy of the world; it's certainly the envy of south of the border. We spend 3.5 percent less of our GDP than they do in the United States. Yet it is under assault as never before.

It is under assault from a federal Liberal government in Ottawa that has effectively ended universality in this country, putting in place what will result in a balkanization of health care throughout this country, where some provinces will have Albanian levels of health care and others -- such as British Columbia, with a government in place such as ours that will protect it -- will work and fight to provide the health care that the people take to be a right and, in fact, is a right.

We are seeing the elimination of the federal government commitment to the funding of health care over the next six years. It is placing the health of the people of this province in jeopardy. The federal Liberal government is doing that. They are aided and abetted in their work by their provincial brothers and sisters who sit across the floor from me today. They are doing it with the collusion and the connivance of the Liberal opposition.

One only has to read the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the resolutions of the Liberal Party, to see the depth to which that connivance and collusion has sunk. Gur Singh, the handpicked candidate of the Leader of the Opposition, has stated that he thinks health services in this province should be administered by the doctors. Talk about putting the mice in charge of the cheese! We are watching a Liberal Party on that side of the House put in place plans to bring in a two-tier health care system in this province.

They are doing it in their policy resolutions and through handpicked candidates who are being directed to run in ridings, people with connections to a health care industry and to those in health care professions who want to see the establishment of a two-tier health care system.

This side of the House will have no part of this. This side of the House stands for universal medicare and for equal access for all British Columbians. This side of the House will fight to ensure that never in this province will we see a situation where someone with a fat wallet can jump to the head of a line before a needy British Columbian -- that everybody is treated the same when it comes to health care.

This government has brought in a budget of hope: jobs for today and for the future, protecting medicare today and for the future. It is a budget that I believe every British Columbian can support and that I ask every member of this House to support.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Today in the precincts we have Mr. Earnest Johnson, who is a member of the House of Representatives, visiting from Birmingham, Alabama. I'd like the whole House to make this gentleman welcome.

D. Jarvis: We have just listened to a bunch of government backbenchers criticize the way things are going. I want to tell them that the federal Liberal Party, as far as I'm aware and from what I've read and been told, does not believe in a two-tier system. They believe in medicare. As for the Liberal Party of British Columbia, which is separate and apart from them -- just as much as this provincial NDP party is separate from the federal NDP party, which is now voting on the gun question -- I want to say that we in the Liberal Party of British Columbia are in favour of a one-tier medical program.

I rise today just to talk about the budget and not to listen to the rhetoric put out by the NDP party over here, the backbenchers. I'm certainly glad to see that this government has finally realized it's necessary to address the financial mess that this province is in -- that is to say, the mess that this government has got itself into over this last three years. They exacerbated the debt left to them by the Social Credit Party, which is now represented in this House by the Reform Party.

In any event, what I can say about the state of affairs of this government is that we see hypocrisy and arrogance. And when it comes to this budget, perhaps it's not so much hypocrisy; maybe deception would be more in line.

As I listened to this budget speech, it became quite obvious to me -- and I'm sure it did to many others in the House -- that this government doesn't understand that we need to cut spending, and we need to cut it now. Only by cutting government spending and waste will we be able to eliminate this huge debt that we have. It is acting like a dead weight around this province's neck. Only by cutting spending and reducing the debt will we be able to cut taxes in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: what is this budget doing for the average British Columbian, who has seen their after-tax income drop steadily year after year after year for the past three years, ever since this government has been in power? I guess I'll have to answer myself. This government has done absolutely nothing -- this budget has done nothing, as well -- to improve the lives of hard-working British Columbians.

Under the NDP -- the numerically deficient party -- taxes have grown five times faster than personal incomes. Since 1991 the NDP have implemented 807 fee increases. Taxes for the average British Columbian, for the average family, have increased $2,000. I'm not sure that this has really helped the average British Columbian at all. I'd like to mention how higher business taxes have helped 100 businesses cross the border into the United States of America. This government doesn't understand what we're creating: an environment that is not conducive to economic growth in this province. All it knows how to do is stifle it.

Over the next year spending by this government will continue in the outrageous fashion that it is used to. Spending is due to increase by 2.9 percent, and the debt will continue to soar, and our debt service costs will continue to grow faster than spending on health, education and social services. So much for the government's debt management plan -- or lack thereof. I have to assume that this government skipped Accounting 101. How else can we account for the creative -- and I use the term for lack of a better word -- accounting techniques that this government has manufactured to hide its debt?

There is really only one issue in this province, and that's the leadership and governance which are highly lacking in the party that represents the government side of the House. The demand from the public was for a lot fewer taxes, not a little more. This government was looking for praise for a little more tax, yet the public wants fewer taxes and less government.

One wonders. The budget leak: was it a leak, or was it a distraction by this government perhaps? Was it a purposeful leak? One never knows nowadays. We probably never will know. It could have been a distraction, a masqueraded distraction, so that by raising taxes a little instead of reducing them a lot, they would get a little praise. It's hard to imagine, but that's a way you can look at it.

[4:30]

You borrow $1 billion this year, you borrow $7 billion in the two previous years, you borrow $8 billion, and you're

[ Page 13122 ]

asking for praise for your budget. This is not growth. This is not leadership or governance. This is not what the public wants. When I talk about leadership and governance, I see the lack of it on the other side of the House. There are three personalities responsible for this budget: the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Premier and the Minister of Finance. One keeps trying to slide money into unaccountable agencies or shovel it off the back of a truck. One is looking both ways and not knowing where it's coming from or when, and what will be coming next.

The other one can't keep a secret, whether it be in the downstream benefits or the budget. It's a question of leadership, so I wonder if these three personalities should not be called Sneaky, Geeky and Leaky.

This government suggests in its budget... I quote from the fact sheet in the budget report entitled "British Columbia's Fiscal Plan": "Budget '95 builds on the progress after the past three years to strengthen the province's finances." The budget speech says: "Investing in the Natural Resources of B.C.'s Regions." There were 14 paragraphs of rhetoric pertaining to the resources of B.C.

There were statements such as "creating the climate for economic growth" in this province, "the greatest benefit from our natural resources" for this province, and protecting jobs and "ensuring...prosperity." The natural resources of this province, essentially, will pay into the general coffers an estimated $2.45 billion. This is not counting any portion of the corporate capital tax of another $700 million-plus nor is it counting any portion of the personal income tax of $4 billion which well over 130,000 people in the resource industry pay.

That doesn't even count the spinoff jobs that are at least on a ratio of 2 to 1. It's safe to say that the resource sectors paid well in excess of $5 billion to this province in 1995. Now I ask you: where does the money come from to pay for those basic core services that we require, such as health and education? It comes from the taxes taken in from the resource industries. It comes from the revenue produced by these resource industries. These are the ones that produce the wealth in this province.

I did not see one thing in the throne speech or the budget where this government was prepared to assist the mining industry. What has the government done to improve the environment for the major mining companies to return to this province? To create an economic climate we'll say to the investors and exploration companies, the large mining companies, the suppliers and the engineers that we educated in our universities.... What does this budget say that welcomes them back into this province which they have left for the three years since this government's been power?

There's an answer to what this budget has done: zilch. The NDP Party has ostensibly said: "Stay away, we don't need you." They have done nothing to assist the resource industries in this province. This socialist party is Guntonizing the resource industries of this province. They are trying to destroy the resource industries in this province.

Look at some of the things they have done. They've failed to get rid of the corporate capital tax, and they've increased the mineral taxes from this industry. The increase in taxes brought into this province will be 58 percent, and still nothing is done for them. Personal income taxes are up 7.1 percent. Corporation taxes are up 32.8 percent. Tax sales are up 5 percent. And this is in a budget that says there's no increase to taxes.

The only source that doesn't show a percentage increase is petroleum, gas and minerals. That's because most of the mining companies in this province have fled because of land use issues and because there is no security here for them, although the revenue they pay to the province that will go into general coffers will be in excess of $400 million. That's a shame, yet this government shows that the decrease in revenue from that industry will be over 14 percent.

As I've said before, the Guntonization of the mineral industry in this province is to overregulate, overtax and drive them out of the province so they can be run by this socialist government without having to pay any compensation. Don't just take my word for this. I suggest to all of you young socialists who are from resource companies to go into the library and take out some books by Thomas Gunton, your Deputy Minister of Environment. Read his books and you will see.

An Hon. Member: I look under my bed for communists all the time, too.

D. Jarvis: We're not talking about communists; we're talking about socialism.

During question period today the Minister of Environment and chairman of the green guard suggested there is evidence of a 20 percent increase in exports in this province. One of the pieces of evidence is that the export is of jobs. One hundred businesses left for Whatcom County; 1,700 jobs went down to Washington State. The Forest Renewal B.C. plan, which is essentially a supertax on the forest industry, is at the stage now where they are going to be losing more jobs. In the mining industry, as you know, jobs have left for every part south of this part of the continent. Jobs are leaving this province, and that's part of the minister's statement that exports are increasing by 20 percent.

When this government took power, I believe they felt that the mining and forest industry companies wouldn't leave. Why? You can't take your assets, which are rock and trees, and move them out. But the money and the jobs are leaving for South America, Mexico, the United States and other spots.

That same minister was talking a little while ago about jobs being created in B.C. The only forestry jobs being created are in Idaho, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Hundreds and hundreds of trucks are coming across from those areas into the province of B.C., bringing fibre to our mills. Even in the spotted owl country south of the border -- the toughest place to harvest timber -- there are trucks coming north with fibre for British Columbia. Here we are, a resource province with one-seventh of the world's fresh water at our doorstep, and we have to import electricity from Alberta and fibre for our mills. It's a sad state that we're in.

This government says it is resolving the land use disputes in this province. I recall reading in the budget about making sure everyone knows where they stand. Yet we are faced with the greatest disruption in the history of this province. Coalitions of coalition groups are forming all over the province and coming en masse down to Vancouver, and they will meet again next month in the Kootenays. People in this province are furious and frustrated with this government's dictatorial ways regarding the way to extract resources in this province.

On northern Vancouver Island, communities are crying for help and watching their jobs erode all around them. No agreements have yet been signed by the Vancouver Island CORE process. Everything is in a state of confusion with this government. The Kootenay CORE report -- both East Kootenays and West Kootenays -- is in complete disruption.

An Hon. Member: Where have you been? Have you ever been there?

D. Jarvis: I have been to the Kootenays a short while ago, and I know. For example, when the CORE process was in, 16

[ Page 13123 ]

of the 23 people sitting at the CORE table disagreed with what was going to be presented to this government, yet this government turned around and copied exactly what Colleen McCrory wanted on her map. And you know what she is: an environmentalist with one thing in mind, and that is to stop resource extraction of any kind in this province. Instead of stimulating the economy and creating confidence in the resource communities, this government is creating havoc. They are discouraging the communities, and stifling all incentives to create wealth, jobs and a future for British Columbians.

We are all environmentalists in this province -- regardless. We all realize that the past is past and that things have to change, and they have changed. We all have a responsibility to make sure that resource extraction is done in a responsible manner. That has to be paramount if we want to continue in this province, but common sense has to take some precedence for a change. We are faced in this province with environmentalists who have only one focus: to stop all resource extraction. This government has bought into this attitude. They are using it as a political weapon, in the hope that they'll get re-elected.

We see a marriage of paranoias, for sure. The pendulum has been allowed to swing too far to the other side. Moderation is called for, and we must be realistic for a change. The guidelines are too restrictive, and our resources are being limited because of an unrealistic philosophy that has little concern for what will happen to our resources or our resource communities and to our province's future. We must do some hard rethinking to prepare for a wiser way.

I think my time is almost up.

An Hon. Member: Not yet; you've got a few more minutes.

D. Jarvis: Well, I would like to talk some more about the resource industry and the budget.

An Hon. Member: That's Guntonizaton; I really like that.

D. Jarvis: The Guntonization, my friend, is ostensibly that the people's resources belong to the people. Mr. Gunton has said that the easiest way to get rid of the people who extract the resources -- the private enterprise -- is to overtax them, overregulate them and drive them out of this province so that he will not have to pay compensation. It's in pure black and white in any library you go to.

I think I'll close now before I get myself into trouble and say something that probably isn't proper in this House.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: I get all this encouragement, Mr. Speaker, but it's not right, is it? In any event, thank you for your time; that's appreciated.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: A year ago the Minister of Finance stood and delivered a 1994 budget. Remember? Jobs up, deficit down, taxes frozen. It was a good budget, a tough budget, and it had an estimated deficit of $898 million. How have we done? How did we deliver with respect to that? Let's look at the facts: 67,000 new jobs -- that's more than we promised; 4.3 percent economic growth -- that's more than we promised. The deficit came in at $370 million; that is over $500 million less than we projected. Borrowing is a billion dollars less than we projected.

The only thing that is more frozen than taxes is the face of the Leader of the Opposition when you mention Jim Moody. To the chagrin of the opposition, we in fact delivered more than we promised. And now, by popular demand, the Finance minister is back and has delivered an even better 1995 budget. This time it's jobs up and deficit gone, and the opposition is frozen.

You almost have to feel sorry for the frazzled folk across the aisle -- almost. For years they have been bleating and braying and barking about the deficit. Now they are like a deer caught in the headlights. They are about to get run down by a surplus of $114 million, and they don't know which way to run. They are desperate to complain about something, but what? Can they complain about the surplus? No. Can they complain about 43,000 new jobs? No. Can they complain about 3 percent economic growth? No. Can they complain about paying down the debt by $414 million?

Can they complain about a reduction of 2.9 percent real spending per capita? Can they complain about the lowest debt? Can they complain about the second-lowest taxes? Can they complain about a prudent and sensible debt management plan? Can they complain about the best economy with the best credit rating in the country?

Eat your hearts out, Liberals and Reformers, and listen to what the real financial experts are saying about this government's fiscal management. Hard as it might be for the opposition to believe, these quotes I am about to get to did not come from NDP-dominated organizations. The envelope, please. Goldman Sachs makes reference to "the province's improving fiscal profile, moderate debt burden and strong economic performance." Citicorp, that well-known socialist organization, says: "British Columbia is still the strongest credit....

Most of the increase in program expenditures, particularly in education and health care, is justified by the need to cope with a rapidly increasing population...." What about Nesbitt Burns? "B.C. is in the best financial shape of all...debt service absorbs just five cents of every spending dollar. By way of comparison, every other province devotes more than 10 percent...."

By the way, most of those other provinces whose finances are in a mess -- you guessed it -- have Liberal governments. Wood Gundy says: "...the government's commitment to balance the budget by 1996-97" -- and we did it a year sooner -- "underscores the market's view of B.C. as a top-notch credit." Colleagues, could we have written better reviews if we sat down to write them ourselves? I think not. Are there any tears over there yet? Anybody ready to throw in the towel?

Let me continue with these tough-minded reviews written by tough-minded international financiers. I quote Lehman Bros.: "British Columbia was the only...province to outperform its budgetary targets...in 1993-94...." We did it again in '94-95, and we'll do it again in '95-96. And what about the Credit Suisse First Boston report? "B.C. is a leader in budget deficit reduction. B.C.'s prospects are positive, based on the Harcourt administration's economic management." Doesn't that roll off the tongue nicely? We're going to give you that one again: "B.C.'s prospects are positive, based on the Harcourt administration's economic management."

Colleagues, did I mention how many jobs we've created? We created some 67,000 last year and 43,000 this year -- 110,000 jobs. I could go on, but I really don't want to be personally responsible for an outbreak of clinical depression on the benches opposite. All of this good news on jobs and the economy and, at the same time, protecting medicare and education is liable to drive the poor Reformers right round the bend.

You see what I mean about almost feeling sorry for them? After all, they're natural complainers who are utterly lost if

[ Page 13124 ]

they don't have something to complain about. When faced with success, they're speechless -- or at least if they had a little bit of decency, they would be. If they had an appreciation of good economic management, or if they had even a shred of enlightened social conscience, they'd simply stand up, congratulate us on a job well done, vote in favour of the budget and let us get on with the other important business of the House. But these nattering nabobs of neanderthalism are trying to outflank each other on the Right, the heartless Right. They're choosing to rant and rave, and subject us to gas attack after gas attack on their favourite complaint: the debt.

Who do we have over there? Well, there is a real Socred; there's the Reform retread Socreds; and then there's the Liberal wannabe Socreds. All of them are complaining about -- guess what? -- some 67,000 new jobs last year and 43,000 new jobs this year. That's 110,000 all told and a $114 million surplus -- all accomplished while increasing support for health care and education. This budget is so good it's driving them nuts, so they rant and rave about debt. And look who's talking about it.

The retread Socreds; they're the tattered remnants of the gang that drove the BS fund and put the whole budget into the ditch to start with. Then there's the grab-bag of Socred wannabe Liberals and their federal counterparts. They have just added $35 billion to the $600 billion debt that they and their Tory friends have created over the last dozen years -- every cent, every dollar of $600 billion of debt put in place by Tories and Liberals. And they have the nerve to carp at us a