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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 14

[ Page 13217 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to welcome Professor Balmer of Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, who is here with 15 undergrad students to observe our parliamentary system. Let's try not to disappoint them today, folks. Would you please join me in extending a warm B.C. welcome to our visitors from Oregon.

L. Reid: I, too, would like to bring greetings to the three representatives of the physiotherapy association. I'd like to make a special acknowledgment that this year is the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association. I would like the House to acknowledge both events.

M. Farnworth: In the precincts today is a delegation led by the chair of the Coquitlam School Board, Maxine Wilson, who is soon to be a Liberal candidate in Coquitlam. She is here today lobbying for an increase in school funding and an increase in capital construction funding.

W. Hartley: On behalf of my colleague from the riding of Yale-Lillooet, I'd like to introduce three residents of Hope, B.C.: Tosh Mukadaida, Frank Araki and Chester Pielik. Accompanying them today are Richard Pollard of Victoria, Marianne Hartley and Bill Hartley, whom members will remember and recognize as the four-term MLA for Yale-Lillooet from 1963 to 1975. He also ran as a candidate for the CCF in 1945 in the Mission-Dewdney constituency. Please welcome them.

F. Garden: In the gallery today are two very dear friends of mine from my constituency: Naomi and Don Randall. Naomi is an honorary life member of the New Democratic Party. She was telling me that she has been involved since she was 16. I'm not going to tell anybody how old she is, but she's now retired and enjoying her retirement. One of the main reasons I'm here is because of the work of Naomi and her husband. Accompanying them is my wife, Margaret. Would you please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Joining us in the gallery today is Chief Ron Ignace of the Skeetchestn Indian band from the Kamloops riding, and his partner, Marianne Ignus. They have been very active in the Secwepemc Education Society in partnership with SFU, and have done some very fine things with respect to aboriginal education. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

J. Dalton: I have five visitors to introduce today. In the gallery are Betty and Garry Cyr of Mission. Mr. and Mrs. Cyr are the parents of Sherri Bell, who was tragically killed in a traffic accident two months ago. With the Cyrs are Marilyn and Ken Lafond, also of Mission, the aunt and uncle of Sherri Bell, as well as a very good friend of Sherri Bell, George Veslemes of Delta. Would the House please make them all welcome.

D. Mitchell: We have with us today in the public galleries a group of visiting legislative interns from Ontario. They have come to British Columbia to see what the House is like when it's in a more relaxed mood, not nearly so close to an election as in their own jurisdiction. I had a chance to meet with this group this morning. They're a very good group, and I welcome them here and I hope all hon. members will also welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST ACT

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Columbia Basin Trust Act.

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 7 is a unique example of the government's ongoing commitment to promote and create long-term jobs and investment in British Columbia. In particular, this bill addresses the long-term needs of the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region whose interests and desires were not adequately considered in the original negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty. It does this by creating a regional corporation with unprecedented autonomy to work with the people of the Columbia Basin, to ensure that benefits derived from the Columbia River Treaty will help to create a prosperous regional economy with a healthy, renewed natural environment.

It is most fitting that this unique regional corporation, a corporation comprised solely of representatives from communities throughout the Columbia-Kootenay region, is to be known as the Columbia Basin Trust. This act, in an unparalleled spirit of trust, will ensure that the people of the Columbia Basin will be involved in decisions that affect their daily lives and determine their future. The trust will work with the province to create opportunities for regional involvement in reservoir and water management in the basin.

It is our hope and intent that the trust, in partnership with the province, will invest in three power projects at existing dams in the region, generating thousands of jobs for basin residents.

I am proud to note that the introduction of Bill 7 fulfils a promise made by our Premier personally to the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region in Castlegar on March 19, 1995.

Bill 7 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

TRADE MISSION TO MYANMAR

V. Anderson: We understand that as of 11:30 this morning, the Premier has cancelled the trade mission to Myanmar, known as Burma by many people, one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes. However, yesterday the minister of economic development is reported to have said that just because a country's government is repressive, doesn't mean that B.C. won't trade with it. The question is to the minister: does he stand by his comments of yesterday, or has he, hopefully, changed his mind?

Hon. G. Clark: The mistake of the hon. member was relying on that noted paper of repute, the Province, for ascribing my position. I might remind members that that was not in quotations. I was answering a generic question, and the reporter referred to it in the specific.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

[ Page 13218 ]

V. Anderson: While we understand that B.C. is a trading province, we must also understand that our actions must be clear to all concerned. The person in charge of the trip said that for Myanmar, in particular, it is to concentrate on the mining industry. However, the Premier's press release this morning cancelling the Burma stop said that "this leg of Exell's business trip was related to coastal management and silviculture." Would the Premier explain what was the real purpose of this mission, if he knows?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: As you can see, the CEO of B.C. Trade Development Corporation, which is the best trade and development corporation in Canada, was going to Southeast Asia to review progress with the trade representatives that B.C. Trade has in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, and to look at trade opportunities, building on the Prime Minister's trip into Indonesia. The original intent was to go into Myanmar, which we all know as Burma, on a trade reconnaissance stop, taking our lead, as we should, from the federal government.

The federal trade and external representatives would not offer assistance; they didn't think it was appropriate. As Premier, I agreed that it is inappropriate to be going on trade activities involving Myanmar.

B.C. INVOLVEMENT IN FEE-FOR-SERVICE HOSPITALS IN CHINA

L. Reid: My question is to the Premier. The B.C. Liberal caucus has received an internal B.C. Trade report which clearly indicates that B.C. Trade is looking into fee-for-service hospitals in China. According to confidential freedom-of-information documents, Wilson Parasiuk was in Dalian to consolidate planning for the Dalian-B.C. project consolidation. According to the B.C. Trade report, Dalian is one of three Chinese cities targeted for American-style hospital management. How can this Premier pretend to be the defender of medicare in British Columbia while his office is participating in American-style health care in China?

Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, the Liberal member for Richmond East, the Health critic, is more critical of medicare than she is of health care in other countries. Quite frankly, if she and her colleagues in Ottawa spent more time defending medicare than attacking it, British Columbians would be a heck of a lot better off.

We are proud of the Canadian health care system. We believe it would be of tremendous advantage to have the Canadian health care system, the medicare system, available in China on a basis that would return jobs and benefits to British Columbia. Our number one economy would grow even faster, and we would create even more than the 110,000 jobs that we have created in British Columbia in the last two years.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: Such hypocrisy! B.C. Trade is clearly identifying medical joint venture opportunities in China. According to the Premier's research office, Chinese health care reform will "put the onus on individual citizens to pay more for medical services." China wants to Americanize their health care system, and this Premier is helping them do it. How can the Premier try to be the great defender of medicare in B.C. while promoting American-style medical care in China?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Liberal Health critic seems to have.... Just as they can't get debits and credits sorted out, they can't get exports and imports sorted out. We want to export the greatest health care system, the medicare system we have here in British Columbia, to China. And she and the Liberals in Victoria and Ottawa want to import the American two-tiered system into British Columbia. I want to tell you that New Democrats may be the only party in Canada still defending medicare, and we are going to defend medicare against Liberals in Victoria and in Ottawa.

INTERIM AGREEMENTS IN ABORIGINAL TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. A week ago last Monday I called for the suspension of any new interim measures agreements until there is a framework for assessing the costs of these agreements in consultation with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. On Friday, the government got an earful from TNAC, because they, too, see this government out of control and, indeed, being blindsided by interim agreements that they had no input into. The minister has refused to hear my calls.

Will the Premier today order a moratorium on any future interim agreements until the government has a framework in place that can allow us as British Columbians to assess the costs -- the substantial costs -- that interim agreements are imposing on all British Columbians?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We are going to carry out our responsibilities according to the agreement on the Delgamuukw decision. We're going to carry out the responsibilities that are contained under the Treaty Commission we established. We are going to take the path of negotiations, open and transparent negotiations, with aboriginal people, whether it be on the issue of treaties or on other measures. That's why we have full consultation going on throughout British Columbia. We're trying to be grounded in facts and grounded in the goodwill that it's going to take to get us through this historic opportunity to finally settle with the aboriginal people of this province.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: A supplemental to the Premier. The Council of Forest Industries is only one in a long list of TNAC members to write to the government expressing their dissatisfaction over the process that the government and the Premier take so much pride in. Is the Premier aware that many members of TNAC are simply considering walking away from the process in disgust, because they don't believe, any more than any other British Columbian, that the process is open, is transparent, or provides any opportunity for input from the people affected by these agreements?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Unlike the previous Minister of Native Affairs, who put a secrecy clause into the Nisga'a negotiations, I announced....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Harcourt: And who is an ex-Socred, now the leader of the Reform Party.

I made a commitment to the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and to the municipal governments of this province that we are going to have an open, transparent process for the negotiations that are just now starting. This should have happened 30 years ago. You get the impression from the leader of the Reform Party, who used to be a member of the Social Credit Party and used to be a Liberal before that -- it's hard to

[ Page 13219 ]

keep track without a program.... We are prepared to proceed with the orderly development of this province. I have said no to vetoes for the aboriginal people, as we move through interim measures and into treaties. I am saying that the orderly development of this province is going to proceed with the aboriginal people, so they can move away from reserves, welfare and poverty to what all of us would like to see for our families, which is prosperity, working and running their own communities, instead of bureaucrats in Ottawa.

COST OF DISMISSING PRINCE GEORGE REGIONAL HOSPITAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

G. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Health. According to freedom-of-information documentation, the executive director of the Prince George Regional Hospital, Dennis Cleaver, was fired without cause, as a result of a number of comments he'd made with regard to the government's policies. Mr. Cleaver, it was pointed out, had done a good job in his previous position. The severance for the firing of Mr. Cleaver was $196,000. That would pay for over 300 patient-days at Prince George Regional Hospital. Would the Minister of Health tell this House how his government can support taking resources away from patients so they can silence his political critics?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Leader of the Opposition has it partly right. Indeed, the former CEO of the Prince George Regional Hospital was dismissed by the board of that hospital. They felt that they needed new leadership to move on to the next phase of the work they needed to do, to serve the people of Prince George and the region and to make sure we had a regional referral centre that would serve all the people of the central interior. The terms of Mr. Cleaver's contract were negotiated by the board of the hospital.

I must say we do have hospitals and school districts across this province that have signed contracts with senior administrators that are too rich and that, I believe, bring those positions into disrepute. That is why the Minister of Finance has set up guidelines under PSEC, to make sure we get a handle on that and get these large settlements under control.

G. Campbell: By the admission of the people in Prince George on the regional health board, Mr. Cleaver had done a "good job." In spite of that, he received $540,000 for two and a half years of work, and as a result of that kind of payment you can't get even basic medical services at Prince George Regional anymore. Certainly Debby Simmons would be able to attest to that, hon. minister, when she breaks her ankle in Prince George, and you have to ship her out to Alberta to have her ankle fixed. Does the minister not agree that health care dollars should be focused on patient care, as opposed to silencing his political critics?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Nothing could be clearer about the distance between these two benches than the attitudes on protecting medicare in this province. Last year I was pleased to be able to announce that Prince George Regional Hospital was receiving an additional $4 million to make sure that we had those services in that region for the people of the region. I would contrast that with the leader of this opposition, who says that his federal counterparts got it wrong when they only cut health transfers by one-third over the next two years.

The only difference between this leader and the leader of the Reform Party is that at least the Reform leader is honest enough to admit that he wants user fees and two-tier health care. This Leader of the Opposition would simply slash budgets and walk away from medicare. [Applause.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

C. Serwa: It was certainly nice to hear that resounding round of applause from the government benches for medicare, brought to British Columbia by Social Credit Premier W.A.C. Bennett.

COMMUNICATIONS SITE FEE STRUCTURE

My question is to the Minister of Environment. The Environment, Lands and Parks ministry has brought out a new fee structure for a communications site increase on Crown lands. Would the minister indicate to the Legislature the present rental rate and the proposed rental rate in 1995 for the tenure holder's own use?

Hon. M. Sihota: Inasmuch as that question has nothing to do with jobs or medicare, I'll take it on notice.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Hon. A. Edwards tabled the 1993-94 annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, and the 1993-94 and 1994-95 reports of the British Columbia Energy Council.

Hon. D. Marzari tabled the 1993 report of the British Columbia Assessment Authority and the 1994 report of the Assessment Appeal Board.

Presenting Petitions

J. Dalton: This petition contains the signatures of 3,008 British Columbians and other Canadians calling for the vigorous prosecution of impaired-driving laws. This petition was unfortunately precipitated by yet another tragic death on our streets. The petition demands to know how many injuries and deaths must occur before the prosecution of impaired drivers will reflect the public concern.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Continuation of the budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Campbell: I have been listening to the budget debate for the last week. Like many other British Columbians, as I listen to the comments that are made in the House, I often wonder whether people in the House understand what it is they are discussing. This is in fact the most important debate we can face in this House. We're talking about what we're going to do and what the government is going to do with other people's money. We are talking about how much we will take out of B.C. families' household incomes to support public services. This is not a game.

It is about the impact of government decisions on people's lives across this province. Let's start by asking ourselves in this House what people actually expect from us as we deliberate on this year's budget. Let's

[ Page 13220 ]

move away from the accounting tricks and playing with the books, and let's ask ourselves, as we debate this budget, what people in British Columbia want to know.

[2:30]

First, it's clear that we are in dire need of truth-in-budgeting legislation in British Columbia. We should not be arguing about how our books are being kept. We should be debating policy; we should be discussing the direction of the government; and, most importantly, we should do our best to let the people of British Columbia know where they stand with regard to this budget.

For the last three years, the average take-home pay for the working families of British Columbia has gone down. The average British Columbian was worried before this budget, and the budget provided no relief. Even the government's own story, even their own books, even their own budget and even their own drafts tell the story of decline. The government expects economic growth to decline by 30 percent next year, and they expect job growth to decline by 35 percent next year.

British Columbians work hard. They will work long and hard in the next year to generate a 3 percent growth in this economy. Unfortunately, that hard work will be taxed away by the government; that hard work will be spent by the government. All that new wealth will be absorbed by government spending. So the B.C. workers' refrain will continue: "I am working an awful lot harder, and I am not getting any further ahead." When hard-working families work harder and watch their income drop, they know that there is something wrong in the province of British Columbia. More importantly, they know there is a serious problem with this government's tax, borrow and spend policies.

The problem, as people see it, is clear: the government is taking more than its share of their income. People are not getting value. They are looking at the education services we have, and they are saying: "We are not getting the results we expect." They expect to have a health care system that is there for them when they need it. If you break your ankle in Prince George, you have to be shipped out to Alberta to get your ankle set.

People expect our education system to put students first; they expect our health care system to put patients first; they expect our justice system to put safety first. We want to help those in need in British Columbia, and we want to be sure we can support our children. But to succeed in these things, we must level with the people of the province. We have to apply some common wisdom to our financial affairs in the province. Common wisdom.

It's time we were straight with the people of B.C. People are very straightforward about what they demand from this government. They believe that all of us have to live within our means. Even the NDP government should be living within its means. There is no question. If you ask people in British Columbia, they will tell you clearly: it is time we had balanced-budget legislation in this province. It is time that we made it illegal for government to spend more money than it takes in.

On this side of the House, we know this is not a balanced budget. With the fancy bookkeeping and bringing in of some one-time revenues, the Finance minister has tried to make it look like we might be getting a balanced budget. But you know, even the Premier doesn't believe this is a balanced budget. We know that because the Premier assured British Columbians and investors around the world that we would be removing the corporate capital tax in British Columbia as soon as the books were balanced.

So there is one of two choices that we have: (1) the Premier was not going to be true to his word, or (2) the books are not balanced. We know, the Premier knows and people in British Columbia know that the budget this year is not a balanced budget.

Let's say for just a minute that we accepted the claims of the NDP Finance minister. What then? What would we have learned from this budget document? We would have learned that we were only able to balance the budget at the peak of the financial performance of the economy. At the peak of the business cycle, we were barely able to balance this budget. The government has said itself, and has shown itself with its own documentation, that we are past the peak of the economy. In fact if you look at the books, what you'll find is that at the peak of the economy this government was only able to generate a 0.5 percent so-called surplus, a bookkeeping surplus.

If you're an average family in British Columbia, what does that mean to you? Say you make $40,000 a year. That's equivalent to the average family making $40,000 a year saving $230 to pay down the massive debt that this government has accrued over the last three years. The tax, borrow and spend policies of this government squandered the prosperity of British Columbians. They squandered the prosperity that British Columbians have worked so hard to earn. Since the NDP took office in 1991, government revenues have grown by 50 percent. The government has spent our prosperity in the last three years.

No, they haven't just spent it; they have wasted the prosperity that hard-working British Columbians generated. I ask the government to change, not for me but for the working families of British Columbia.

The minister says that B.C. has the strongest economy in Canada. Let me remind you that the New Democrat government inherited the strongest economy in Canada in 1991. This government's policies, again by their own admission, are slowing down what was the strongest economy in Canada. As their own finance officials warned, the debt load this government created is unsustainable and is leading B.C.'s economy toward a worsening condition as other economies in the country are improving.

We heard about a balanced budget, but we know we have over a $400 million deficit. We heard there would be no new taxes, but we know that $1.2 billion additional in taxation will be removed from the B.C. economy next year. We heard during the presentation of the budget that there was now going to be a debt-management plan, but we know that the government will be borrowing an additional $1 billion in debt in the next year alone. Clearly, when this government was faced with the difficult choices we must make to protect our health care service and our education services, the big spenders won.

We heard that the government wants to protect health care, but unfortunately we know from the experience of British Columbians, whether they're on Vancouver Island or in the north, that our health care services are deteriorating across the province. We heard that the government cares about education, but we know that our kids have lost 311 days in the classroom due to strikes because of this government's policies. We hear that the minister joins us in wanting to reduce school boards, but we have his political masters saying: "No, you cannot reduce school boards so you can focus resources on the classrooms and the students of British Columbia."

There are solutions to these problems. The government just has to learn from its mistakes and, to be fair, from the mistakes of a number of governments over a number of years in Canada. In fact, we have to learn from three decades of mistakes. The NDP does not have exclusive ownership to the tax, borrow and spend policies that were pursued in the past. But in B.C. they do have the exclusive opportunity and the

[ Page 13221 ]

exclusive right to change course. Unfortunately, this government believes it's easier to borrow money to buy votes than it is to make the right decisions for British Columbians, to earn votes.

Remember, the entire time this government has been in office, the average incomes for British Columbians have gone down. B.C. families have a right to expect us to know the impacts on their lives of our decisions in the Legislature. They understand that we cannot continue borrowing. Debt-service costs have increased by 84 percent since 1991. The government has borrowed $7.8 million a day since 1991. The warning to the government about their borrowing could not have been more clear. But the borrowing just keeps on coming.

As the Minister of Employment and Investment said: "We have made a conscious decision to incur debt. We make no apologies for our spending." That's one of the big differences between this side of the House and the government. We believe it's time we cut back on our borrowing. We believe it's time we cut back on spending so that we can protect our health care services, our education system and the core services that are essential to the quality of life in British Columbia. Everyone should understand what a sham this budget has been and is.

There is a whole series of looming liabilities which the government clearly must deal with and which the government has deliberately not accounted for. They have deliberately left those costs off the balance sheets, out of the financial considerations and off their so-called debt-fantasy plan.

The fact of the matter is the government knows that compensation is going to have to be paid for their decision on the Tatshenshini; there will be compensation for the KCP project; there's going to have to be compensation for our aboriginal land claims; and there is going to have to be compensation for the 23 parks that the government announced last year. Nowhere in the documents, or in the debt management plan, or anywhere in the government's budget, do you see those dollars accounted for.

Obviously the government was trying to hide those looming liabilities from British Columbians so they didn't know what the financial position of this government and the province was.

This year's debt-fantasy plan is in the tradition of three previous plans generated by this government, however. We all remember the Peat Marwick report done in 1992. It cost taxpayers $1 million. The Minister of Employment and Investment trotted it out, and the Premier came and said: "See how responsible I am. I asked people who knew what they were talking about to tell me how to manage this government." Unfortunately, the Peat Marwick report was shelved. This government didn't even read to page 29 of the Peat Marwick

summary report, because their political supporters -- their friends and insiders -- said: "You are not allowed to do what the Peat Marwick report directs you to do. You are not allowed to keep wage costs under control in the province." Instead, we watched as they went up four times the rate of inflation.

In 1994 there was another debt-management plan. I'm sure you remember it, and I'm sure members of the government remember it. Just last fall the Minister of Finance was saying how tough she was going to be. She was going to be sure that we kept spending increases down to 2 percent across the board. And what do we find in March 1995? We find that the minister has missed, by 45 percent, targets she set just last fall. She overspent by 45 percent, according to her own target. That is not something that gives anybody any confidence in the government's new 20-year debt-management plan.

[2:45]

The problem with ignoring the facts and not keeping a containment on the costs is that our children are going to have to pay those debts in the future. This government hasn't been willing to make the kinds of difficult choices that are clearly ahead. Debt is the silent killer of all our core services. It is the silent killer of our health care services; it's the silent killer of our education services; it is the silent killer of the essential services that people in British Columbia believe should be provided to them for their hard-earned tax dollars.

If the government had just maintained the debt levels they inherited in 1991, there would have been enough dollars to build 5,000 new classrooms in British Columbia. If they had just maintained the level of debt that they inherited, they would be able to provide the operating costs of seven hospitals in the province. The fact of the matter, as Chris Trumpy and Treasury Board officials have said, is that as debt costs go up, you start to erode the essential services and program expenditures of the provincial government.

Let's understand that debt is just another word for taxes when you're someone from the next generation. Working families are watching as debt drives up their taxes. Working families are watching as their excessive tax load drives down their take-home pay. Working families in B.C. are paying an average of $3,000 more per year in taxes than the average Canadian family -- more on taxes than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined. In fact, under the NDP government, taxes have gone up at five times the rate of incomes for British Columbians. Clearly this government has not learned the first lesson of economics: you cannot tax your way to a healthy economy.

In the last 30 years in Canada, economic growth has been 200 percent, growth in taxes has been 300 percent and growth in the deficit has been 500 percent. As a result of that real-life experience, most governments understand that when sales taxes go up, sales go down; they know that when employment taxes go up, job growth goes down; they know that when tax rates on investment go up, investment and job growth go down. The same evidence is clear in British Columbia. This government's own records, their own projections for the next year, show that they expect a 35 percent reduction in job growth.

That means more unemployment. It means that with this government's policies we will continue to see record numbers of people on social assistance.

Instead of following the tax, borrow and spend policies that have characterized this government, we suggest that we get to a strategy that encourages job growth. We believe it's time that we encouraged investment, encouraged jobs and encouraged people to work and get ahead. Today B.C. is losing its competitive advantage. Indeed, for a business to set up and operate for one year in British Columbia costs 20 percent more than it does for the same business with the same activities to operate in Alberta.

We all know that already over 100 businesses have relocated immediately south of the border, with 1,700 new jobs that British Columbians could have had if this government had reasonable taxation and regulatory policies. All this taxing and borrowing and spending hurts. In fact, instead of attracting investment and securing jobs, the government is attacking investment and reducing jobs.

Let's look at some of our bigger employers in British Columbia. Let's look at forestry. Unfortunately, the uncertain fibre supply in the forest industry has already led to significant layoffs across the province. The overlapping processes which are in place have led to insecurity and have led to communities wondering about their future. While we watch

[ Page 13222 ]

as private sector jobs decrease, we've also watched as almost 1,000 new public sector jobs have been put in place to try to sort out the regulatory labyrinth this government is trying to lay over the land base.

In mining, there was $220 million of private sector investment the year prior to this government taking office. That number is now below $50 million. In fishing, the aquaculture industry struggles under regulatory uncertainty, and rather than helping the aquaculture industry solve its problems and getting on with creating jobs, this government has created obstacle after obstacle. What's the result? Investment and jobs are leaving the province and going to Chile and the United States. Jobs are disappearing from our coast.

Taxing, borrowing and spending just doesn't work. It certainly doesn't work for the ordinary families of British Columbia.

I believe it's time for sound economic policy to replace experiments in social engineering. The government tried to borrow and spend, and it didn't work. Look at its own trendlines. Just look at the trends. The economic trends are down, and job growth is down. Read the staff memos. If the government could read their own staff memos, they would find that borrowing costs are eroding their program spending.

I urge members of the government to think of their own children. What's happening is that those children are being left with an enormous debt they'll have to pay. British Columbians don't like leaving their children with enormous debts. I have been elected locally for some time, and, as you know, there is a policy in place in the province that allows homeowners to defer their taxes. When people were in very difficult economic times, they would often phone the office, and I would tell them they could always use the tax-deferral program. Do you know what they'd say?

They'd say: "I don't want to use the tax-deferral program. I worked hard to put myself into a position where I could own my home and leave it to my kids without encumbrance."

The fact of the matter is that British Columbians don't want to leave enormous debts to the next generation. If the government would bring in a budget that reflected the values of British Columbians, they would have a budget that would leave our next generation with a free, clear and respectable financial record so that they could build even stronger prosperity in the future.

It is time that the government cut back on its spending and on its ministries. It's time they worked to protect health care instead of paying off their friends, and it's time they moved to improve our education system by focusing resources on the classroom instead of on bureaucracies.

People in the province do not demand very much. They certainly want to be sure their neighbourhoods are safe so their children can go and play in them without fear. They want to be sure we have an education system that gives our children the job skills they need for the real world. They want to ensure that we have a health care system that's there for them when they need it. They want to be sure there are jobs for them and jobs in the future for their children, and they want a government that takes care of those who are most in need.

At the end of day, they would like to benefit from their own hard work and have a little more money left in their pockets so they can build a better future for themselves.

It's time we eliminated the debt in British Columbia. Let's sell B.C. Rail and B.C. Systems Corp. Let's carry out a full review of Crown corporations, then look at the possibility of disposing of them and taking all those dollars to pay down the public debt. Let's eliminate waste in the province. Let's scrap the fixed-wage policy and save taxpayers $200 million a year. Let's go back to open tendering in British Columbia. Let's go back to making education an essential service in the province of British Columbia.

Let's reduce the number of school boards and focus our resources on classrooms, students and teachers so that we can be sure we're giving our young people the best possible education they can get. Let's cut out the abuse in our welfare system and encourage job creation. Let's encourage job creation so we can cut back on the 67 percent increase in welfare caseloads since 1991. We can do that if we will just cut back on the costs of government, eliminate debt and start shrinking the tax burden that British Columbians labour under.

B.C. Liberals want to put students first in education; we want to put patients first in health care; we want to put safety first in the justice system; and we want to put working families first in the economy. Let's bring in truth in budgeting; let's bring in balanced-budget legislation; let's eliminate the subsidies to businesses; let's start paying off our debts; let's start reducing people's taxes instead of continually increasing them.

That's what British Columbians had hoped to hear in this budget. They had hoped to hear that the government would listen to their voices. They had hoped to hear that the government would start to cut spending, instead of increasing it by another $500 million. They had hoped to hear that the government was going to cut back debt, instead of increasing it by another billion dollars. And they had hoped to hear that the government was going to start the process of reducing and cutting their taxes so they could build a better future for themselves.

Unfortunately, the working families of British Columbia heard none of this from the NDP -- none of it. I believe that it is time that this government went to work for working families in British Columbia again, and the only way to do that is to cut the costs of government, to start eliminating public debt and to start reducing people's taxes, so they can decide -- as opposed to the government deciding -- what they will do with the fruits of their labour.

[3:00]

D. Lovick: It's always disappointing, of course, having to follow the Leader of the Opposition, simply because the audience in the chamber is usually reduced so much by the time he finishes speaking. You have an uncanny ability to drive them out in large numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I just received a note from the opposition benches that says: "Please remember that you" -- i.e., me -- "will be sitting in the Speaker's chair later today. Control yourself." I want to say that I am going to try, believe me, but it may be a little difficult after listening to those comments.

I come from a tradition of some interest in debate. When I used to be a college professor in another life, one of the things I did was coach debating teams, and therefore I had a little experience in judging what debate is and is not supposed to be. One of the things we always learned that you really should do in debate was to interact -- not to function in parallel streams but rather to listen to what the other side said and respond, and, above all, to report accurately on what the other side said, as opposed to simply making it up and exaggerating. Indeed, you would lose points for misrepresenting the other side.

In this chamber, indeed in parliamentary tradition, that does not obtain or apply. To judge from the leader's speech, you're apparently allowed to say just about whatever you want without fear of challenge. I am going to violate parliamentary tradition and actually respond to a couple of points that the member who just finished speaking had to raise. I'm

[ Page 13223 ]

only going to take about nine points from roughly the first nine minutes of the speech, because I also have some things I want to say, and therefore I don't want to spend all my time in rebuttal.

Let me start by congratulating the Leader of the Official Opposition. He said that what we should do, above all, talk about the impact on people's lives, and we shouldn't spend our time "arguing about how our books are kept." But you know what? The first promise he made was unfortunately broken within the next 11 seconds, because the rest of the speech was arguing about how the books are kept. What an omen; what an augury; what an indication of where he is going from here.

Then he tells us about the average take-home pay having gone down. It's one of those things....

Interjection.

D. Lovick: The member opposite says, "It has," and she's right. But, you know, what she hasn't thought of is the fact that that is true in every country in the western world. What are you suggesting, members opposite -- that there is some magic chemistry, some magic bullet, some magic potion we can take and suddenly a new economic reality will appear? It just ain't the case.

Also, this Leader of the Opposition, who apparently wants to wrap himself in the mantle of concern about the average taxpayer, is the same leader of the same opposition whose principal argument in this chamber in terms of how we solve our economic problem is to -- get this -- scrap the fair-wage policy, scrap the labour accord, scrap the Vancouver Island Highway project labour agreement. What do they all have in common, friends? What they all have in common is paying decent wages to workers. That's what they're taking on: decent wages to workers.

The same member who wants to talk about the poor, average family and how they're suffering under the ravages of taxation quotes the figure about the average-income family paying something like $3,000 per year more in taxes. Friends up there listening, I say this for your benefit and for anybody out there in the bigger world who is listening: that $3,000 per year increase only obtains if your particular average family happens to earn $125,000 a year. That's the average family we're hearing about, friends. That's the average family.

Let's go to another one. The only other measure....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

D. Lovick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It does seem true that opposition members are like ships: the bigger the noise, the greater the fog they're in. It happens.

The other key point that the Leader of the Opposition makes -- and he's not alone; obviously the entire caucus embraces and loves this one -- is the notion that what they're going to do to solve all the world's problems is -- you got it -- abolish the corporate capital tax. If that doesn't give us a pretty clear indication of which side they are on, surely this one does.

How about the argument -- I quote him again -- that this government has "squandered our prosperity." We have the best-performing economy in the country; we have more people employed than anywhere else in the country. We started with an inherited deficit of $2.4 billion and an inherited debt of $10.2 billion, and they're telling us that we have squandered our prosperity. What patent hypocrisy, in a word.

We also heard the Leader of the Opposition say that debt load is unsustainable. Nobody else has said that.

Interjections.

D. Lovick: And the people that are screaming and caterwauling and crying are all saying that it's because of the Treasury Board document, the so-called leaked document. The reality is that the Treasury Board document said this very clearly: if the current trend were to continue, if you don't put in a debt cap, if you don't put in a debt management plan, this could be your Achilles' heel; the debt load could be unsustainable. It didn't say it is; it said it could be. And guess what the government did. The government did precisely what the Treasury Board minutes recommended. So what, then, is this silly argument, I ask you?

I love the other classic line we get from the right wing, and indeed it is the right wing, because this sounds like Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan all over again. We thought we had buried those two spirits. Sadly, they're back alive and well. We get the old line from the right wing, and they love to cry this one. They love to say: "What about the horrible debt you're leaving to future generations, to our children?"

Well, we're saying: "What about our children right now? What about kids living in poverty right now? What about kids in substandard schooling right now? What about children not getting health care right now? What about jobs for our children right now?" Don't talk to me about the next generation; talk about today.

I think I'm only on point 7. I think I have two more.

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Are there no poorhouses?

D. Lovick: "Are there no poorhouses?" my friend says, referring to Dickens.

Let me see if I can tone this down somewhat, because I want to take the opposite member's good advice about maintaining cool and control. I have a couple of simple examples, just to finish off with what the Leader of the Opposition had to say.

It is patent nonsense to offer as a kind of economic theorem that when sales taxes go up, sales go down.

Interjection.

D. Lovick: The evidence is the opposite. The province of Alberta doesn't have a sales tax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. I would like to appeal to the hon. members to try and restrain themselves when the member who has the floor is making his presentation. I hope that you would be paid in kind when you have your place in the debate. Please proceed.

D. Lovick: Thank you kindly, Mr. Speaker.

The empirical evidence -- it's not about opinion -- is very clear that we in British Columbia have, in fact, the highest retail sales. Our sales have gone up 10 percent in the last year, significantly more than Alberta's with no sales tax. What, then, do we make of that kind of utterance on the part of the opposition? What, then, can you say about that?

[ Page 13224 ]

Because I promised nine, I have to refer to the last one, the reference to what this government has done to create uncertainty in forestry, because we are not sure about fibre supply -- I believe I have it right. You know, there's probably some truth in that. The reality, however, is this: what happens if you don't have a government with the courage, foresight and wisdom to do something about fibre supply for the long term in this province? We wouldn't only have uncertainty. We would have the end of forestry in this province as we know it if we hadn't done something about fibre supply.

Members opposite know that as well as we do. They continue, however, to pretend that there is some kind of magic solution and that the short term is the only term.

That leads me to a point I want to make in the time I have left. In our quiet moments, when we are not on one side or the other of the House playing our parts for the television and crowds, I think it's fair to say that there truly is a legitimate division and difference between the two sides. It's an ideological division. It has to do with how we view the economy, society and individuals within society.

As fairly as I can, I think I can describe the two sides in this way. I can say that one side truly, sincerely believes that you should pay as you go, that ideally you should reduce taxes to the maximum extent possible, that you probably should reduce services, too, because most of them probably are not necessary, and above all that you should leave it to the unregulated private sector to be the driving engine of the economy. They would also add to this that the balanced budget and the end of debt and deficit are almost next to godliness. I think that's the right-hand side of the political spectrum, in

summary form.

On the other side is a different view that says yes, you pay as you go as far as you can. What you do is pay operating expenses out of current revenue, but you also recognize that, for the long term, you have an obligation to invest in the future.

Interjection.

D. Lovick: Because nobody out of current revenue....

The Speaker: Order, please.

D. Lovick: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. members, on a number of occasions the Chair has had to intervene because members have been inconsiderate of the person who has had his place in the debate. While a certain amount of interjection is perhaps quite understandable, when a member raises his or her voice louder than the person who is speaking, I think that is unduly offensive. I would ask members to please keep in mind that we all have a duty in trying to maintain decorum in the chamber. Please proceed, hon. member.

D. Lovick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and certainly if I have provoked them unduly, I regret doing so.

I was suggesting that the other side of those two competing visions is one that again operates...but obviously we have obligations to live within our means. That doesn't mean that we don't borrow for the future. When we build assets that are going to have a life expectancy of 20 or more years, surely it is reasonable to talk about a debt and the long-term repayment of those assets. That's the way we have always built things in this province, by the way.

The other day my friend from Prince George-Omineca was suggesting the contrary, that never before had the province actually borrowed money for infrastructure. Absolutely not true. The history of this province, in fact, is borrowing to build things. To give old W.A.C. Bennett his due and credit, he knew it very well and he did it very well. Without that kind of vision, obviously much of what we take for granted we would not have. I have some difficulties with how they announced how much they had actually borrowed and with the ceremonial burning of the bonds on the lake and all those things that W.A.C. did.

But the basic premise of borrowing to invest in the long term is perfectly legitimate -- it's a perfectly legitimate approach.

We need to invest in the future; we need to do whatever we can to get rid of waste, to ensure that we spend wisely. But we also need to recognize that services are necessary in any modern economy. It's also important to recognize that in all of the analyses ever done since the Second World War, nobody that I am aware of -- and I'm happy to be corrected by members opposite -- has ever said that we can have an absolutely complete, full employment economy. There will always be a sector of people unemployed -- always will be, however much we try to do.

I don't think members opposite are performing good service to their constituents and to this province by continuing to pretend that's not the case.

[3:15]

On this side of the House, we feel rather good about our budget. We think we have accomplished a great deal, but we recognize that a great deal is yet to be done. I made reference a few minutes ago to the specific arguments that we hear from Reform members and Liberal opposition members. One of the things they would advocate doing would be to get rid of certain policies we have introduced -- namely, the health accord, the fair-wage policy and the Vancouver Island Highway project labour agreement.

I want to just touch briefly on each of those, because the evidence pretty clearly is that those things are not costing us more money. Rather, they are performing very useful and important service. They're about jobs above all. Let me touch briefly on each one.

The health labour accord, we estimate, has saved some $79 million in 1994. The accord, as we all know, was to effect and ensure the smooth transition from an acute care-based health system to one that was indeed closer to home -- the New Directions program. To the credit of the Social Credit government that came before, they knew we had to do that. They commissioned that report. They, again to their credit, have been less willing to leap on the bandwagon and attack the government for making these necessary changes, because they know the changes were necessary.

But to make that shift in health care, to save us money in the long term and to ensure that we have a medicare system that we can have into the future, we also need to make sure that some of the persons most directly affected are not scared to death of losing their jobs and their places in the system. That's what the accord was for: to make that transition. There's no evil plot; it simply says that you have an obligation to treat workers with some decency and some concern for their legitimate aspirations. And it saves us money.

The fair-wage policy essentially says that if you're going to invest government money on megaprojects, then you, as government, have every legitimate right to say that you're going to have qualified workers and in-province contractors doing the work, that you're going to have construction outfits which provide apprenticeships and training for their workers and that they get paid a decent wage.

Remember, friends opposite, that all the evidence we got during Coquihalla and other highway megaprojects was that even though the so-called open-shop contractors would come in with a lower bid, their actual cost was a fraction lower -- 3 percent lower was the highest figure I ever heard. But

[ Page 13225 ]

guess what? The contractor made significant money; the problem is that the workers didn't. We do not need, or want, a low-wage economy in this province. In fact, we can't afford it.

To suggest that the fair-wage policy is somehow bad economics is foolish, I think, and even more foolish is the notion that the Vancouver Island Highway project labour agreement is bad economics. That policy effectively says that we are going to have a local-hire policy and that we're going to make sure, because it's B.C. taxes and because B.C. taxpayers are financing the project, B.C. workers are going to get those jobs, not Albertans. And that's a defensible policy.

We're also saying that because it's a megaproject that's paid for, in effect, by taxpayers, we're going to ensure that the project pays for skills training development of those workers. Is there something wrong with that? It seems to me that that's good macroeconomic management.

Finally, the suggestion that that, too, is costing us a whole bunch of extra money is not supported by the facts. We still have fierce competitive bidding for all the Vancouver Island Highway project contracts. It's not as if there are only three contractors bidding. The statistical evidence we've been able to gather says that there is no appreciable difference in cost.

Now, I know that the independent business association and the independent contractors of the world, using two different studies -- the only difference is that I think it was the same study but they changed the names; that's more or less the way those guys seem to function -- are suggesting that the costs are inflated. Quite simply, I think they're wrong. Again, that is something we can have out in a very easy way.

The day before the Leader of the Third Party spoke in the House, he was accused by members -- I think it was the Liberal opposition -- of cosying up to the NDP. They were obviously having some fun and laughing. I think what happened is that that reformed Socred -- and I recognize that may be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms -- said thereupon: "Gosh, I'd better be even more right-wing than I usually am." And he took that extra step and gave us a kind of right-wing manifesto.

The problem is that the manifesto -- though it was courageous and though I admire him for telling his constituents what he stands for -- nevertheless is scary because it targeted some of the least advantaged in our society and said that that's who we have to get. It focused, for example, on single parents, welfare recipients and people who had maternity leave for six months, and said: "You know, they really ought to get back to work sooner." It suggested that welfare fraud was of epidemic proportions, and we should do something.

I just remind the member, before he raises that alarm and tells the world the sky is falling, that this government in a compassionate, sensitive and, I think, rational way has already done that stuff. Thanks to changes in our policy regarding social services, we have, in effect, achieved savings of $46 million in the last year. Similarly, in a crackdown on welfare fraud, we did save $16 million plus. So to stand up on the other side and say it's rampant and out of control, I think is irresponsible, in a word.

I note also that the leader of the Reform Party talks a bit about private health clinics and seems to think that's a good idea. I hope we will have a debate on the two-tier health care system in this province. I suspect it's going to happen in this session of the Legislature, and I hope everybody out there listens carefully to it. Because in the name of solving a short-term immediate problem and saying that what we're going to do is.... After all, if somebody can afford their own MRI or CT scan or whatever, let's let them have it.

In the name of doing that, what we are going to do, inevitably and necessarily, is reduce the level and quality of care for the rest of us. That's a fact of life. I would challenge any member on the opposite side of the House to argue that, and again I look forward to the debate.

I don't know how much time I have left because I got a little sidetracked in responding to the Leader of the Opposition, but I want to look briefly at this speech through my constituency's eyes.

In the last year my constituency has benefited hugely from investment -- the kind of investment about which people on the other side say: "We shouldn't really be doing it because, after all, it increases the debt." But let me tell you: that investment in my community has meant a tremendous number of jobs and an improvement in the quality of life for people, and it's meant infrastructure improvements, which will mean a better and more prosperous economy in the longer term. I don't think anybody in Nanaimo is going to argue very much with our spending.

When I was first elected in 1986, I went and talked to my hospital board, and they said to me at that time and ever since: "Nanaimo should get more money, because we were starved for 20 years; we didn't get our share, and we've been playing catchup ever since." They presented a pretty good case to prove that, by the way: "We were able to get some money, but we're still playing catch-up." I suspect every constituency in the province would make the same claim.

The reality, of course, is that we will never have enough money for everything we want to do in health care -- or education, for that matter. But this government, because it has had the courage to invest and to take the heat from members opposite -- who want to talk only about debt -- and because we have had the courage to invest in the future, has improved the quality of life. We have also improved the economies within our constituencies; I think that's something to be proud of.

I can say the same about the schools. I can name seven or eight schools in my constituency that have benefited significantly. I can talk at great length about infrastructure projects in terms of transportation infrastructure, all drawing the same point: we've invested in the longer term. And look what it does in the present: that investment trains people; it also produces good, decent-paying jobs; it keeps the economic pot a boiling; and it leaves a legacy for the next generation that is indeed important, while satisfying the needs of the present.

We continue, though, to hear that we shouldn't be spending. We should be reducing spending. I want to ask my friends across the way how they do their jobs as MLAs. Because when I deal with constituents of mine -- and I'm sure others have the same situation -- almost every visit cashes out to be that we need more resources -- i.e., more money. That's the reality. I want to ask members opposite what they say when somebody comes to them and says: "You know, gee, I've been waiting two months for this hip-replacement surgery, and is there any way you can help me out?" What do you say to them? Do you say: "Sorry, we're not going to spend any more money, go home and suffer, don't bother me"?

An Hon. Member: That's what they do say.

D. Lovick: Is that what they say? I wonder if they say that. Or is that what they say to parents who come to them and say: "Our particular area is dealing with portables; we've had them for ten years. We've been promised a decent school. When are we going to get it?" Do they say to them: "Take a hike. We don't want to spend any more money on schools"? What do they say when people complain about not getting government service and responses fast enough? Do they come in and say: "Back off, mister or ma'am, because after all, we

[ Page 13226 ]

have too darn many civil servants already and we're trying to reduce services and cut back"? Is that what they say to them? Or rather, do they say to them what all of us are, I think, morally bound to say: "We'll do what we can, but please recognize that the restraints under which we are working are considerable"? In other words, do they tell them the truth? I wonder. I hope they do. I suspect that some of them do.

I recently wrote a newspaper column talking about deficit and debt and the difficulties dealing with those tough problems. By the way, just as an aside, did you know that for the first five years I was in this legislature, nobody ever talked about debt? We never heard about that. The only thing we heard about was the deficit. Guess what. As soon as we got the deficit under control, we miraculously have this new problem. Isn't that amazing. I wonder about shifting goalposts.

I want to read into the record something I wrote in the column. It was about the federal government's activities. I said that the federal government's budget and its stated commitment to get rid of the debt is therefore welcome by just about everybody.

"It's when we turn to how the government goes about dealing with the deficit, however, that it gets very hard to find agreement. The basic problem" -- and I say this for my colleagues across the way -- "can be put this way: though we may all agree that spending should and must be cut, most of us do not want any cuts in spending that directly affect us. The problem, of course, is that one cannot have it both ways. If we want to tackle the deficit and debt problems, then we have got to freely accept that we will pay a price in reduced services."

That's my fundamental criticism of what I hear across the way. I continue to hear the argument, the suggestion, that you can cut all these things, you can get rid of a debt, you can deal with the deficit, and -- guess what, friends -- they tell us you can do it without any harm. It's the classic snake-oil sales pitch. You can do it without hurting people. That is simply not true. I think they know it as well as I do.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amount of time allotted to me has expired. I thank you for your patience and my colleagues for their attention. I would remind our listeners not to listen just to the opposition. If you've got questions about this budget, write to us, write to them and ask for copies of these documents. They're worth reading.

[3:30]

L. Hanson: It's been really interesting for the last few days to listen to the many speeches we've been blessed with. Some have been entertaining, some have been irrelevant to the topic and some included some questionable facts. I particularly wanted to congratulate the member for Nanaimo for his speech just recently completed -- not for the content of the speech but for the delivery of it.

I was particularly impressed by his definition of the fair-wage policy as it applied to megaprojects. Suffice it to say that if anyone in this House thinks that the fair-wage policy, or the fixed-wage policy, applies only to megaprojects, they should go back and read it again. I was also quite interested in the member's comments that they had balanced the budget and reduced the deficit -- I guess more appropriately, had the deficit under control.

I remember that some time ago a member who had sought nomination and was successful for the NDP here on Vancouver Island said something before the election along this line: "To be honest, if we do the things we say, it's going to cost money." I don't think the people of British Columbia had any idea of how much money it was going to cost. I think they do have some understanding now of how much it has cost and how much it will cost in the future.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

One of the election promises highlighted in the '91 election was that under a socialist government, operating costs of government would fall. I submit that they have grown in absolutely every area. Spending is up, and the long-term debt is up $1 billion.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I hear a member saying it's down. Go and compare the bottom line this year to the bottom line last year, and it's up. Go and compare it to the 1992 budget, and it's up considerably. As a matter of fact, if you added in the amount of money that has been shuffled off to B.C. 21 for highways construction, there would be an increase of about 22 percent since this government took over.

The main issue is that the public have sent a very clear message that they want government to live within its means. They want government to bring down the spending and bring down the taxation on their incomes and in other areas, but in this budget I don't think that message from the public has been heard. As a matter of fact, I don't think it has even been considered.

There has been no downsizing of any kind in the civil service, although the Minister of Finance did allude to the transfer of some 500 members to other parts of the province, and even though that wasn't the direct statement, suggested that that was a reduction in the cost of government. I submit that it will cost more than it did then. Also, 500 new ones are going to be hired on top of the transfer of those members.

It's my contention and my belief that this government's idea of debt management is to borrow until the lending authorities refuse to lend anymore. The expression that is sometimes used in cartoons and other jokes to the effect that we must have money left because we still have cheques in the cheque book, I think applies to this government and their fiscal management.

Let me talk about the Island Highway for a minute. I would like to quote from a member of the NDP who later became Finance minister. The member said: "The reality is that government spending is political. I wouldn't say we wouldn't use government spending for political purposes." Recently we have heard a number of excuses and reasons why the Island Highway is not only going to be slowed down but downgraded, in terms of some of the four-lane highway becoming two-lane highway. We have also heard that some of the exchanges are going to be downgraded into intersections to keep the costs in line.

The reason for that -- the published reason, at least -- is that costs have been higher than expected so they're going to have to slow it down. I suspect that a lot of the costs that are higher are because of the sweetheart deal that they made with the building trades unions, but let's forget about that for a second. I suspect that the real reasons....

An Hon. Member: Tell us about Coquihalla, Lyall.

L. Hanson: I expect that the member from Prince George has probably never even travelled the Coquihalla. It's a wonderful highway.

Interjections.

L. Hanson: Do they want to listen?

I suspect that there are two reasons why the Island Highway priorities have changed a bit. First, I think the increased cost has been caused by the sweetheart deal made with the

[ Page 13227 ]

building trades council. Second, I think the government has recognized that there are probably more votes in the lower mainland than there are on Vancouver Island. If you listen to the rather large projects that the minister and the Minister of Employment have been talking about for improving the traffic system on the Vancouver mainland, I think they see that the money should be diverted from the Island Highway to the Vancouver system, because when the election comes up, there are going to be an awful lot more votes in that area.

The Minister of Employment, who made the statement that government spending is political, said they wouldn't avoid using government spending for political purposes. I think that makes the case for that statement.

On the issue of debt reduction, let me quote the Minister of Employment again. In February 1989, he said that reducing debt wasn't a priority at that point. He said: "I think the priority is money being spent creatively and targeted to specific programs, not to pay off debt." I submit that this is probably one of the few promises that were made by the NDP that they really have lived up to, to the nth degree.

The budget is balanced, but it's balanced on a onetime windfall of $250 million from the downstream benefits and on a onetime windfall from cancelling the Endowment Fund of $400 million, which will not be there next year. I would like to know what kind of smoke and mirrors and magic this government is going to use to present a balanced budget in the session next spring, with the onetime-only $400 million and the $250 million that they will have to find someplace, and the $400 million that the federal government says it's going to reduce in the transfer payments.

I suspect that this fall is going to be an election time. I can't see any way that they can present a budget next spring that will be anywhere near balanced, and I don't think the government can see it. I honestly think that this fall is probably going to be an election date. I hope it is, because I don't think that the people of British Columbia believe any of this smoke and mirrors in the $114 million that they claim is a surplus in this year's budget. I think the test belongs to the people of British Columbia. When they answer that test, the members now governing this province will be looking for some other employment.

A. Warnke: Well, a week ago, I guess, we were all sitting around here listening to the Finance minister. I suppose the thought had run across our minds that the budget is sort of like a box of chocolates: you don't know what you're gonna get. Given that the Finance minister had all those leaks, she sure didn't know she was going to get what she got. But I guess that just goes to show ya: Stupich is as Stupich does. That's one response.

I do have one comment to make before I get into the main text. This is not a criticism of the Finance minister, but I am seeking clarification. I think it is extremely important that in the

summary comments given by the Finance minister she makes it clear that when a leak occurs, this is a very serious problem. I just want to make sure that there is no precedent set when financial information regarding the budget gets out, and that this does not mean that the Finance minister is not held responsible. I am sure the Finance minister did not intend this, and as a matter of fact, I am somewhat pleased that she said publicly that she did consider resignation.

I think it would be appropriate to reassure us that if another example occurs in the future where financial information regarding the budget is leaked out, this doesn't mean that from here on out it does not require the resignation of the Finance minister. Some sort of comment on that would be greatly appreciated.

Let me begin by saying that before the budget was presented, I was giving a lot of thought to the state of our economy and the government's role in it. Given that our economy allows for a significant reduction or replacement of the deficit, I believe this is an essential objective of the government. I believe that the federal government's attempt to reduce the federal deficit is also -- and even more appropriate. What happens in the national economy has a profound impact on each of the provincial fiscal policies and economies.

For anyone to suggest that the reduction of the provincial deficit or its elimination is an achievement for the provincial government to be proud of, but is also the basis for condemning the federal government, is not only inconsistent but indicates that the person either does not understand what we face or is even being slightly deceitful in a partisan manner.

Frankly, the Canadian people understand the essence of the fiscal challenges before us. This is indicated, I think, by the very unusual public support for the federal Finance minister after issuing the toughest budget we have seen in years. The challenges we face are real.

[3:45]

Often, comparison with the financial and economic fate of New Zealand has been mentioned. I believe that what we face is not exactly the same set of circumstances as those faced in New Zealand, given the fact that the two economies are quite profoundly different from one another. I would also add that those who look to New Zealand as some sort of model for how we solve our problems are being intellectually lazy. What we face and what we have as the tools to face our financial and economic problems are quite different and will require more innovative and profoundly different answers to meet the problems unique to Canada -- and to our country alone.

Some of the issues are the same. There are warnings from the New Zealand experiences and other experiences around the world that again we have some very bitter lessons to learn from. The challenges we face are very real. They're not the concoction by some sort of conspiracy abroad. I suppose on occasion there has been mention that Wall Street, Bay Street or even Howe Street are behind some sort of conspiracy here. There was this one nut case on Wall Street, I take it, who compared Canada to the Third World -- that we were an honourable member of the Third World nations or something like that.

An Hon. Member: Honorary.

A. Warnke: Honorary member of the Third World or something stupid like that -- and it was stupid.

M. Farnworth: If you were a university professor....

A. Warnke: Oh, I guess the hon. member for Port Coquitlam agrees. I want that member to hang around a little later if he would, please, because I have a few things to say about that hon. member.

I think we do face some very serious problems. Therefore the challenges that we face invite the following review of what the record has been in British Columbia and why some people are very, very conservative or very, very wary of what is being presented by this budget.

For example, in the budget year of 1985-1986, Hugh Curtis said -- and this is a promise: "We must continue to work toward reducing and eventually eliminating the deficit. The government is committed to halting and reversing the growth of the debt burden on our taxpayers." It was a noble promise indeed. The debt at that time was $16.5 billion. The

[ Page 13228 ]

same Finance minister said a year later, "The budget has been developed to continue reducing the deficit, to limit the annual debt service charges," and it increased to $17 billion.

Another Finance minister, Mr. Mel Couvelier, said: "The Social Credit government is determined to balance the budget and to reduce the outstanding debt within the next few years." The debt still remained high. He said it again in 1988-89 and in 1990, saying that that year's budget kept two promises: one was to balance the budget, and the other was to reduce the province's outstanding debt. This was in the age of the BS fund.

John Jansen, another Finance minister, said, "The budget is the first one developed under the Taxpayer Protection Act, which requires that government debt be reduced," while the debt was increased to $20 billion.

Then the present Minister of Employment and Investment -- or I guess Jobs and Money, depending on how you look at it -- said: "This government is committed to a sound and prudent management of the province's finances." And the debt increased in that first budget to $23.4 billion. It has increased successively each year since then to $25.9 billion, then $26.9 billion, and now to $27.8 billion.

The problem is not debt per se. The problem that British Columbians -- and Canadians, for that matter -- are saying to each and every provincial government, as well as the federal government, to be very careful where the future direction is because if we do move in a direction which increases the debt, we are liable to face a crisis like we've never seen before.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: The possibilities are there. I want to.... I hope that hon. member hangs around, because I've got a few dandies for him.

I think it would also be worthwhile perhaps to get the background and understand what taxes are all about. As the famous economist David Ricardo put it a heck of a long time ago, in 1821:

"If the consumption of the government, when increased by the levy of additional taxes, be met either by an increased production or by a diminished consumption on the part of the people, the taxes will fall upon revenue, and the national capital will remain unimpaired. But if there be no increased production or diminished unproductive consumption on the part of the people, the taxes will necessarily fall on capital -- that is to say, they will impair the fund allotted to productive consumption."

There's a lot of wisdom in phrases like that, and I don't have the time, essentially, to go over all of David Ricardo's teachings. Considering that there are four pages in Principles of Political Economy and Taxation allocated to taxes, I think this is a most appropriate

section which I would encourage all of us -- but certainly this government -- to re-examine, relearn and rethink. If I have any view toward the rest of this decade and the twenty-first century, it is that we must begin to rethink where we're headed in the future and rethink the fundamental principles and strategies as to how we manage our economy.

There are some warnings from contemporary analysts as well, which suggest that we have to be very careful that we manage debt in such a way that it does not fall only on the generations of the future. As one economist put it:

"The young generation here would unanimously prefer that no debt was issued. But it cannot vote before it is born and so cannot prevent the old generation from issuing debt. When presented with a choice whether to repudiate the debt or not, some young voters side with their parents and in equilibrium the debt is repaid."

And on it goes on each of our social programs, on health and on education.

I would suggest that governments are enticed -- and we've seen this with Conservative governments -- to spend in a way that locks in governments of the future. Prof. Torsten Persson put it this way once -- actually, just last year:

"By issuing public debt, today's government forces the future government to, essentially, cut spending. The larger is the debt outstanding, the higher our taxes, and hence the larger are the tax distortions, and this makes it more costly to finance expenditures in the future. The government in office today manipulates the public debt, taking into account how this influences the policy choices of a future government with possibly different preferences."

What Prof. Persson was pointing out is that some of the conservative policies of the Reagan Republicans, the Mulroney Conservatives and the Thatcher Conservatives are such that they did not tackle the deficit or the debt, but locked in future governments. What I'm afraid of is that this present government, on the trail that they're headed toward, is doing exactly the same thing. It restricts in the future not only if we were to succeed in government, but their own government. If -- heaven forbid -- they get re-elected, it would restrict their movement and their ability to manoeuvre.

And that is what so many people across this country are pointing out. Do not take those steps that would jeopardize the medicare programs, the secondary education and post-secondary education programs, and so on. This government doesn't seem to really comprehend some of those warnings of the future.

It's also interesting that every now and then there is a reference to the Atlantic provincial governments, as if this is somehow an indicator of a weakness in Liberal policy. Yet time and time again, whenever those comparisons are made, there is always one province missing. Ever notice that? It's a reference to Ontario. That's another lesson I think this government ought to pick up on. The provincial debt under the NDP in Ontario increased from $42 billion to $90 billion, and perhaps more than that by the time the provincial auditor gets through that.

The per capita debt under the NDP government increased from just over $4,000 to over $8,000 in the short time they formed the government. The total debt percentage of the GDP has increased from 15.5 percent to over 30 percent.

An editorial in Ontario said: "Mr. Rae is surely wrong in his belief that Ontarians can be whipped into an anti-Ottawa, anti-Liberal crusade on the grounds that Ontario has suffered fiscal discrimination." Haven't we heard that before, hon. members? Doesn't that sound familiar? While this is a warning to the New Democratic Party and Ontario that this approach isn't going to work, the warning might be applicable here, and it's being ignored. The NDP government in Ontario will soon join all other ancient regimes in the dustbin of history.

I would say that what bothers people and what concerns British Columbians is the record and history of New Democratic Party governments. That is the reason that they are cautious and holding back their support for this particular budget. Yet what do we see? Over and over again, we hear members referring to the federal Liberal government budget as somehow being disgraceful. Does that mean that party over there disagrees with the federal government tackling the deficit and then getting involved in debt reduction? I bet not. Is that party over there against transfer payments that are equitable?

Take a look at the record of the transfer payments. British Columbia has not been cut to any further degree than any other province unless, of course, that bunch over there really firmly believes that no federal governments spend, spend, spend. I doubt it.

On top of it, over and over again we have heard that the federal government is tackling and cutting and slashing and burning the medicare program. Well, that is incorrect. As my

[ Page 13229 ]

The provincial government here believes that they are the ones who are the pillars of medicare. Tell that to the people of Prince George. Tell that to the people in the northern and eastern parts of the province, because the people there will send a very clear message about where you're going to go.

I heard the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour this morning come out with one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard for a while: that the federal government is going to penalize a province by introducing user fees. That means that minister is in favour of user fees. I thought they were against user fees. He didn't think this one through; he did not follow the logic of his own argument. The implication of that is that they believe in a two-tier system. But then they come back and say the Liberals believe in a two-tier system. Sometimes they too talk from both sides of their mouths.

[4:00]

If that isn't bad enough, I heard some members from their convention talking about the war of the classes, dividing British Columbia up into two classes or sides: "There is the right-wing side, and there is us." I thought the concept of the war of the classes joined the dustbin of history in eastern Europe just a few years ago. But no, they haven't caught up to the 1990s. They still believe in the polarized society, the war of the classes and in anything to do with capital. Anyone who is not a New Democrat, in fact, is an enemy. If they haven't caught up to the 1990s, they are the political dinosaurs, as my friend from Prince George-Omineca put it.

On top of it all, there is the reference over and over again to what new schools are going to be built.

An Hon. Member: Come on, tell us.

A. Warnke: I'll tell you where you can build new schools.

If anyone takes a look at this budget -- and it doesn't take much exercise -- pretty soon you add up a number of figures that go to NDP friends in the so-called ABCs -- the agencies, boards and commissions, the Crown corporations and what not. You add that up, and it comes to at least.... I haven't even talked about the Island Highway kickbacks or anything like that. I haven't talked about a lot of things that could be included. I'm just talking about straight money that goes to good friends of the NDP. Adding it up, you're talking about a minimum of $1.2 billion. Do you know what you can do with $1.2 billion? You can build schools and you can build hospitals.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: "Oh, come on," you say.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: It is for this reason that I move an amendment in my name on the order paper, and I'll provide an explanation. I want to move an amendment moved by myself and seconded by the member for Surrey-White Rock. It is an amendment to the budget motion that reads:

"Be it resolved that the motion 'that the Speaker do now leave the chair' for the House to go into Committee of Supply, be amended by adding the following: 'But the House regrets that the government has again seen fit to siphon an additional $1.2 billion out of the pockets of current taxpayers of British Columbia, who have ben already taxed to capacity by the government; and furthermore, that by adding $1 billion to the spiralling debt load, the budget ensures that more and more services in education, health and social services will be crowded out by exorbitant debt service costs'."

As a result of moving that motion, I want to address one particular item that keeps popping up every now and again in this chamber. What do you do about schools? If we have an opportunity to pursue this in Education estimates later on, we obviously will. Schools happen to be relevant to the budget because it has been raised by those members opposite. I was absolutely disgusted when the Minister of Employment and Investment, otherwise known as the minister in charge of jobs and money, stated: "The Liberals are 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'." That is an absolute falsehood. The record is very clear. The record is absolutely clear.

First of all, no member in this chamber -- not the member for Richmond East, not myself and not the member for Richmond Centre -- ever once said: "Don't build schools in Richmond." Not once. Yet that minister has the audacity to come in here and make that claim in this House. He should be punished for that. That member should get the heck out of this place. He should resign; he should clear out. He doesn't deserve to be in this House with that kind of flippant statement.

But that's not all. There's that overgrown parrot from Port Coquitlam who gets up in the House and says the same things. He's accusing the members from Richmond of being opposed to schools. He doesn't know the record. He didn't check Hansard. He just essentially parroted what his boss said. The Government House Leader says one thing, and he says the same darned thing without checking the facts. Well, the fact is that the member had better watch himself, because if he does that anymore, pretty soon that pompous parrot will have his plume plucked.

Time and again....

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I have a point of order from the member for Port Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: The overgrown parrot wishes to give the hon. member a chance to catch his breath, because we over here are concerned about his health, and our health care system is over....

Deputy Speaker: That is clearly not a point of order, but I'm sure the member appreciates the intervention. Continue please, member.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: You're next.

Time and again, the member for Richmond East has lobbied for new schools and been quite successful. Time and again, the member for Richmond Centre stated in this House the need for new schools in Richmond. In fact, the member's

[ Page 13230 ]

record is darned clear on this. In 1992 he rose in this House before the former Minister of Education and kept that up through 1994. In fact, this is what he said just last year:

"I want to go back to the problem that I'm sure has been canvassed by the critic, namely my friend from West Vancouver-Capilano. The fact is, I want to recanvass the issue of classrooms. I would like to ask some questions regarding Richmond, because we have the problem of classroom demand, which I think is endemic throughout the province."

Not only did the member for Richmond Centre stick up for the people of Richmond, he stuck up for the people of the entire province, including talking about some doggone really serious problems of portables in the riding of Nanaimo:

"We've had some errors" -- this is the member for Richmond Centre -- "in projections in Richmond over the years because we've had a terrific increase in population due to immigration. The school district did not anticipate in any one way the fact that immigration was going to bring into school more secondary students or older students," etc.

"We" -- said the hon. member for Richmond Centre -- "find that beginning families can't afford the housing in Richmond. We found that while they were projecting shortages in elementary schools, it seems to be junior high and secondary schools that have some of the shortages. We have 237 portables in Richmond. Richmond has the greatest proportion of portables, relative to the total district enrolment, of any district in British Columbia, and so we're in really bad shape. Steveston Senior Secondary School has an official capacity of 875 students and we have enrolled approximately 1,550 students in that school.

It changes daily. These are some of the problems facing the Richmond school district."

And I could go on. The fact is that the member for Richmond Centre, from day one, literally, of the Education estimates in 1992, has stuck up for the people of Richmond.

Hon. Speaker, I have said the same. Something has to be done about the number of portables, and I said this on April 9, 1992, in this House. "Something has to be done about the number of portables that we see, and not only in the area of Richmond, where we have literally dozens of portables, but in fact I believe that they should be done away with." I could go on and on.

The fact is, members on this side.... And there's the Minister of Education, who said to a group of people that the only way they were going to get schools is if those MLAs came begging towards him. Hon. Speaker, that kind of conduct is reprehensible. The fact is that the Minister of Employment has fabricated and lied in this House; the Minister of Education has lied in this House; the plumed parrot has lied in this House.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Please take your seat.

An Hon. Member: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: I will deal with the point of order.

Members, for the last couple of days I have been observing that the level of rhetoric, quite frankly, is on the verge of being out of control on both sides. For a member to stand there and say expressly that somebody else is lying is simply not in order. The member for Richmond-Steveston is normally well aware of the rules, and certainly works within them. I would ask him to please withdraw that statement for the better harmony of this entire chamber so he can continue his remarks. Please, member.

A. Warnke: With respect, hon. Speaker, the fact is that the Speaker tolerated the word "lying" from the Minister of Environment yesterday.

Deputy Speaker: Member, first of all you do indeed know that you are on dangerous ground if you are, in fact, challenging the Speaker's ruling. The reason I intervened at this point -- and believe me, I do so with considerable reluctance -- is that it was not a reference to people not telling the truth; it was, rather, pointing the finger at a member and saying, in effect: "You lied." That's where the member crossed the line. He well knows it. I would again ask him to withdraw. I won't repeat the request.

A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I feel compelled; I cannot withdraw. Therefore I will retire from the chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

The Chair recognizes now the member for Surrey-White Rock, and we are on the amendment, member.

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the amendment on this budget document. As we head into what will undoubtedly be an election year in the province, we can't isolate this particular budget document from those that have preceded it. I think there is clearly a pattern here which we have to address and debate in this chamber. That pattern has been towards bigger government, towards the increased hiring of civil servants in the province, towards higher debt, towards higher debt service costs and towards a government that has decided, as a course of action, to pursue a tax-borrow-and-spend philosophy which has resulted in increasing the size of government in the province.

When we think back to the mandate given the government in 1991, I recall that during that election people were reminding the government that what they wanted was more accountable government, more open government, smaller government and a more cost-effective government. Over the past four years we've seen a government that has taken us in totally the opposite direction.

We've heard much debate in the chamber about the reasons why the government has increased the size of the public debt by a total of $10 billion since it took office. We've listened to talk about infrastructure and schools, and I want to recount to the chamber a meeting that I had in my own riding of Surrey not too long ago when the subjects of schools and portable classrooms were raised. It was a large meeting of parents who were concerned about the fact that their students were in portable classrooms, and that if nothing was done by the year 2000, more than half the students in School District 36 -- the fastest-growing in the province -- would be in portable classrooms.

[4:15]

I was struck by the innovation and the recognition of the problem at hand that was prevalent at that meeting. The parents understood that the government has limited means with which to pursue capital spending and new infrastructure and new schools. They understood the dangers of increasing the size of the debt to deal with those kinds of problems.

But they had a tremendous number of innovative solutions that involved working with the private sector to provide school buildings; encouraging the development industry to provide land for schools in new housing developments -- and the buildings, where necessary -- and pursuing leaseback arrangements with the government in order to provide those buildings.

What we've seen from the government over the past four years is what I would characterize as a lack of innovation -- an unwillingness to pursue those kinds of joint venture arrangements with the private sector; an unwillingness to recognize that there's more than one way to provide a

[ Page 13231 ]

large capital project in British Columbia. It's what we would expect from a government that is wedded to the idea that government has to provide every single service or it can't be provided at all.

Those parents who attended the meeting were well aware of the problems their children were facing in portable classrooms. They understood the difficulties in infrastructure that were being faced in that district, but they were prepared to come up with innovative solutions. And I run into that wherever I go throughout the province: people come forward with ideas from their community. What they are asking for in the province today is decentralization -- a willingness on the part of the provincial government to let go of decision-making into the regions of the province, where it makes sense for those decisions to be delivered.

As we have looked back on the last four years and the evolution of this government -- which will soon go to the polls and put its record before the people of the province -- we see the citizens of British Columbia becoming less empowered, not more. We see communities with less input and less ability to direct their own futures and destinies than they had four years ago. As we have heard speakers earlier attest, the size of the government's take from the economy has increased to $1.6 billion out of the pockets of British Columbians over the last four budgets that have been presented in this House.

What have the people received for the kind of money they've spent? Are they getting better service out of their government? Are they getting more for the kinds of investment they have made? In addition to the $1.6 billion in new taxes, fees and licences, the borrowings have increased by a total of $10 billion. As long as we're wedded to this idea that only government, and government alone, can provide this infrastructure and this service, we're going to end up increasing the debt to levels that the economy cannot sustain.

The opposition received the leaked Treasury Board document more than a month before the now infamous town hall meeting. It could have been dealt with anytime as a matter of public record. But the opposition knew that in this ongoing smoke-and-mirrors exercise that the government engages in with respect to finances in this province, an electronic town hall meeting was going to come up in which the Finance minister and the Premier were going to go on television and tell people that the government was on track, that the debt was under control and that they were investing in the future of British Columbia.

At this point it's incisive to read into the record what the Treasury Board said about the path the government was on. They said that debt service costs are beginning to mount in British Columbia, crowding out program spending, and that B.C.'s fiscal position was deteriorating just as other provinces' finances are showing real and substantial improvement. And finally, the province was looking at a credit downgrade. The opposition released the Treasury Board document at the same time as the town hall meeting was going on.

There was a reason for that, because the town hall meeting, which was paid for with $125,000 of taxpayers' money, was a complete sham. It was at odds with documents presented by the government's own Treasury Board. I assume that the government came up with a debt service plan in this budget as a result of that released memo, a 20-year plan to undo the debts that have been incurred in this province over the past four budgets. Twenty years to undo the last four.

If we carried that equation forward we would assume that, were this government to be re-elected, we'd end up with a 40-year debt plan to handle the next four years. Is that sustainable in the province?

I think it's instructive for us to remind ourselves whose revenue it is that the government is managing. Where does the money come from to run government and provide government programs? One of the great concerns in the province today is that the economic statistics the government likes to trumpet are being driven by population coming to the province; it's not real economic growth in forestry, mining or wilderness tourism.

Hon. D. Miller: It is.

W. Hurd: The minister says it is, but it isn't. The biggest increase in employment in the province over the past four years has been in the public sector -- 10,000 new jobs in the past four years in this province, all of them in the public sector.

The problem you have in British Columbia when you look at the economic growth attributed to population increase is that it's illusionary. It's people who come to the province. They will buy homes and furnish the homes. They will engage in consumerism over a short period of time, but then the bills kick in.

The real wealth generated in the province is a person who goes to the bank and borrows money and sets up a business -- manufactures a good or provides a service and preferably and hopefully is able to sell that, not only in British Columbia but also in North America, bringing back hard currency to the province. That's what pays the bills. But that's the kind of activity that has been jeopardized over the past four years by a succession of government tax-and-spend policies. I wonder how many members opposite have gone to the bank to negotiate a loan or have met a payroll.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have.

W. Hurd: The Minister of Education says that he has.

An Hon. Member: I'm sure he has.

W. Hurd: I'm sure he has. That's why he got into politics. But really, how many have actually met a payroll? How many people understand what small businesses have gone through in the past three and a half years? I touched on this during my throne speech remarks. If the members opposite would only talk to the owners of small and medium-sized businesses in the province and ask them what they need out of government, the answer they'd get is: "I need less government and less regulation. I don't need 10,000 additional bureaucrats to deal with in the province, trying to bring my business forward. They don't do anything for me."

Out in the rural and regional areas of British Columbia, the biggest concern people have is when somebody comes up and says: "I'm from the government and I want to help you." People who are trying to generate the real wealth to pay the bills in this province don't need help from government; what they need is an opportunity to succeed. That's what's missing in this budget. It's a continuation of policies which say that government knows best.

I was struck by the remarks from the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour this morning, who said that the government had a vision for the province, that it knew what it wanted to do, and that it knew better than the people of the province what we needed to do. I know that the member for Kamloops, particularly, will attest to this, that sometimes the ideas that come forth from the individuals in this province, from the people who are closest to the ground, who see the decisions being made and make decisions every day.... There's a tremendous amount of wisdom out there, too. That wisdom is being lost in the province today. We're not listening to people anymore.

[ Page 13232 ]

As I've had the opportunity to travel this province over the past four years I've made it a point to talk to people wherever I've gone. I've asked them a basic question: "What works and what doesn't? What do you, as a business owner, parent, educator, or patient who has to have access to hospital care in the province, need? What is working and what isn't?

The other day in Quesnel there was a meeting of 500 people concerned about the impact of government policies on their health care. Hon. Speaker, 500 people showed up at a meeting to express their concern. We're not talking about a partisan meeting here; we're talking about people who are concerned about health care. They're not going out there to get involved in a nomination meeting; they're there to listen to the chief surgeon at the hospital tell them that there are tough days ahead for that region.

There are meetings like that all over this province -- of ranchers, foresters and people concerned about the government's aboriginal policy. There are community meetings where people are coming forward and saying: "My life is a lot harder than it was four years ago, and I don't know where this government is going." They have no idea. It's not because the government hasn't spent money on communications. The Premier hired a speechwriter from Washington, D.C.

The government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on NOW Communications, which is delivering yesterday's message even though its name says "NOW." They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars getting the message out. They spent over $100,000 for an electronic town hall meeting, which the Premier apologized to the party faithful for at the convention on the weekend.

There is a message there: top-down communication doesn't work. You've got to get out there and listen to what people are saying. I don't see any evidence of that. I suppose that with an election now on the horizon -- within six months we're told, although the Premier is hedging his bets -- they'll go out and maybe listen to people. I don't know. Maybe they'll do something that hasn't been done in the province in the last four years.

There's a basic wisdom on the part of so-called average British Columbians, who will send the government some basic messages: "The government has taken more of my income. I don't have as much disposable income as I had three or four years ago. If I don't have as much disposable income, I can't buy goods and services in the province. I can't go to a bank and borrow to start a business." If you're an investor in British Columbia, if you want to start a new business.... I know that they still exist out there. I'm amazed they do, but they're still there. There are eternal optimists in this province.

They succeed despite the government's policies, not because of them. If you go out there and borrow money to create a business, you should be encouraged in some way by the government of British Columbia, because we're....

The young people of this province instinctively understand this. I was witness to a poll the other day in which the Liberal Party was the choice of young British Columbians. I know there are members opposite who will be astounded by that statement and ask: "How can we slather this money on the economy, and spend $100 million on a Skills Now program, and have the young people of British Columbia not understand that we're the party for them?" There's a basic answer. Young people understand that the economy in the 1990s is changing.

They understand that the opportunities they will have to pursue are fundamentally different than the ones that were pursued by the previous generation. They understand that those union jobs that have sustained this party are disappearing, and that the new economy will demand new skills and people with innovation.

[4:30]

More people in the next generation of work in this province will have to go to the bank and borrow money to start their own enterprises and initiatives. They're going to have to develop that kind of skill. That's just the way it is. We can't roll back the clock in British Columbia. We can't erect a barrier against what's happening elsewhere in the world. We can't be a government that increases our borrowing by $10 billion when every other government in the western hemisphere is going in the other direction. The young people of British Columbia instinctively know that. They understand the reality they face.

Unfortunately, they have a government that was elected based on the way things were, not on the way they are.

I recall the throne speeches we on this side of the House have heard where the government has talked about the courage to change. It has come up a couple of times: the courage to change. They had the courage to change their direction at their own convention this weekend? They had the courage to say to the leader of the B.C. Government Employees' Union that this province needs wage restraint for public sector employees? We have to have it. As my colleague from Delta South indicated during his budget remarks, the economy has hit the crest, and it's now sliding. The government has acknowledged that in its budget.

This is a time when we need restraint in public sector wages in British Columbia. The government couldn't deliver that promise at its own convention; they couldn't deliver it even there.

This is the concern that British Columbians have had about the government over the past four years: who does this government speak for?

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The member asks: "What's your policy?" I could go on at length about that, and since the invitation was offered, I will go on. In forest policy, for example, why don't we have a community forest licence in the province that gives regions and local governments an opportunity to manage forest land with an 80-year tenure? Why not? Why don't we place more faith in the regions and the people who live in local communities in this province?

I recounted this story during my speech in the Kootenays. The Minister of Employment and Investment stood up today to table a bill which will supposedly provide more input for the people in the Kootenays. I was there and saw the kind of input people had into the decision to build three dams. It was another top-down decision. It was another expression of the fact that in government in British Columbia today: "We know best. It's not your money; it's our money. It's revenue; it's not taxes." That's the approach this government has taken over the past four years. Soon they will have to go back to the polls.

Young British Columbians, some of whom will be voting for the first time in 1995 or 1996, will express their view on the direction they think the government is going in.

I am continually amazed that in this chamber in 1995 we are even debating the fact that you can tax, borrow and spend -- even debating the fact that you can increase the debt to the extent we have in the past four years and that somehow it represents sustainable government. I just recounted to the Minister of Education the story from Surrey, where people didn't want the government to borrow more money; they just wanted innovative solutions; they just wanted new ideas.

[ Page 13233 ]

Surely there has to be a way to work with the private sector to produce a modular school building that can replace the trailers we've got now. There has to be a way. But you know, the government has a philosophy: if we don't tax, if we don't borrow, if we don't build it, if we don't have fixed wages, it isn't any use.

The people of this province are looking for innovative government. They're looking for new solutions. They're looking for ways of building the province without incurring more debt. I tell the members opposite that it can be done. It's being done in New Brunswick under a Liberal government: a balanced budget, and UPS is leaving British Columbia to go to New Brunswick. They are leaving other provinces to go to New Brunswick, because they know that the right fiscal climate and the right government approach can deliver new opportunities. There is only one way....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, members. I think we ought to allow the member the courtesy of at least being heard. We are a little too loud to quite follow his comments. I hope we would show a little more restraint.

Member, please continue.

W. Hurd: Thank you for that timely intervention, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the only way we can secure the future in British Columbia is to protect the real wealth-creating jobs in our province. I find it absolutely unbelievable that we could be witnessing the kind of reduction in mining statistics that we have seen in this province.

There is no magic formula for creating wealth, which in turn creates taxes. It requires individuals in our province to go to the bank to borrow money -- in some cases to put up their houses and their life savings -- in order to pursue an opportunity. If they succeed, those of us in this chamber succeed. The government succeeds, because we increase our tax revenue by the creation of real wealth -- not by borrowing. And the debt service costs....

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The member makes no differentiation between the amount of money that an entrepreneur borrows and what the government borrows, and that is the problem in the province of British Columbia today. That individual can lose his house, he can lose his business, and he can lose his bank accounts. These members opposite -- what do they have to lose?

F. Gingell: Their seats -- that's what they have to lose.

W. Hurd: Besides their seats, what do they have to lose by plunging us $10 billion in debt? That's the problem with government in this country: we don't have any limits on what governments can borrow; we don't have any balanced-budget legislation. There are no limits, and there is no accountability. The same kinds of decisions that people make in their lives every day, the risks that they take and the penalties they face if they are wrong are not faced by the members opposite. Therein lies the singular problem that we are facing in the province.

This will probably be, with mercy, the last budget the government brings down before an election is called. I have no illusions that the battleship will be turned around. We are not going to see a government restraining public sector salaries or reducing the cost of borrowing. We are going to borrow another billion this year. I don't expect a government to deal with an increase of 10,000 civil service employees in the provincial government. It's just not possible. It's not possible for the government to do that. So I assume that in the months hence they will run on that record, and they will find in the polls in 1995 that their record is not sustainable.

That is why I am proud today to support this reasoned amendment from my colleague from Richmond-Steveston, who regrettably is not in the House at the moment to support me. It's a reasoned amendment. I fully support it. I hope that if we were to divide on it in awhile and we were to have a vote of non-confidence in the government, we could get into an election, which is what British Columbians really want in the province.

T. Perry: It's not a reasoned amendment. It's a brazen amendment, and I intend to vote against it. The hon. member who just spoke asked what we had to lose. By listening to more of that inane drivel, I think I could lose my mind. I'm going to attempt to make a somewhat different response than most of what we've heard this afternoon, with the exception of the highly reasoned and articulate speech that the hon. member for Nanaimo gave a few moments ago.

I think what we are really talking about in the debate over the budget.... I realize that I could take my place in the debate against the amendment and then on the main motion on the budget. But I'll spare members that experience and limit my remarks to this one participation.

What we're really discussing is a question of vision. Does the government have a vision for the future of this province and the people of B.C.? And are we attuned to the wishes of the majority of British Columbians or not? I think we are. That's why I'll be proudly voting for the budget and voting against this, as I called it, brazen amendment.

When we came to office three and a half years ago, we inherited a very large deficit. We inherited a rapidly worsening fiscal situation. We inherited several years of rampant, uncontrolled growth in public expenditure. That has changed dramatically. I have procured some graphs to remind myself, and I find it easier to read from my notes if they're upside down like this. They show clearly that the deficit has been very dramatically reduced over the period of 1991-92 to 1995-96.

Referring again to my notes, they show that the rate of spending growth has been tremendously reduced from 12.2 percent in the year before this administration to 2.9 percent gross spending growth this year. Real per capita spending, given the increase in population, has decreased from 4.8 percent in 1990-91 or 3.9 percent in 1991-92 down to minus 2.3 percent in the current fiscal year that's just begun. Let's remember that. Real per capita spending by government is decreasing this year. The government will be spending less on each British Columbian this year in real dollars than it did last year.

The public asked us to be prudent with the public expenditures, and we have been. That's why debt can be controlled and capped. Those valuable investments that have been made at an accelerated pace in the last three and a half years to make up for the dearth of public investment during the recession of the 1980s, and those investments that need to be made in the coming several years will be affordable and will be amortized in the usual way over 20 years, as they have been throughout British Columbia history -- throughout recent B.C. history, at any rate -- over the useful life of those investments. The public will own valuable resources such as the buildings at the

[ Page 13234 ]

University of B.C. near my constituency, the B.C. Cancer Agency, the Vancouver General Hospital, the Children's Hospital, the B.C. Women's Hospital and other valuable....

Interjection.

T. Perry: I'm asked by the hon. member for Okanagan West who initiated the University of British Columbia. The people of B.C. initiated it. That initiative came originally from the people of Nelson at the turn of the century, and it was the great students of UBC and the great trek that brought us that wonderful university whose benefits all British Columbians enjoy. The University of Northern B.C. was a bipartisan initiative, as the member well knows, and was brought forward first by a Social Credit government and then followed through on by a New Democratic government. I'm very proud that I had a significant role in helping that come to birth.

Interjection.

[4:45]

Let's look at the vision side. Members on the opposition benches have failed to understand -- even in three and a half years -- that opposition can play a constructive role. I see the Social Credit member for Okanagan West sitting opposite. Individual members can bring important issues to the attention of the government through the good offices of ministers and through debate in the Legislature. When have I ever heard such constructive debate from the Libcreds opposite? I'm waiting; I'm still hoping. They've got a little bit of time yet in this parliament to learn that they actually can make constructive suggestions. I'm waiting for them.

Interjection.

T. Perry: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove suggests that he was in my office while I was the M