If you think the NDP cabinet likes spending money, you should see what NDP backbenchers have in mind.
The legislature’s finance committee — five New Democrat MLAs, four Liberals and two Greens — released its pre-budget report this week, and one phrase crops up repeatedly in the recommendations.
“Increase funding.” On practically everything.
The phrase comes up two dozen times in the report to Finance Minister Carole James on what she should put in next year’s budget. But variations on the theme are implicit on almost every page.
The contrast between the latest report and the ones produced by previous finance committees under the B.C. Liberals is noticeable.
Liberals used to do this exercise every year and listen to interest groups lobbying for more funding. They’d reflect some of that thinking, but usually stress the need for “fiscal prudence” and the sanctity of the balanced budget.
The previous government held to that view in its last year, even during a boom in revenue that left it awash in unexpected cash. So the Liberals campaigned cautiously during the election and wound up looking like cheapskates when a $2.7-billion windfall surplus became apparent after the vote. That contributed to their collapse.
There is still lots of money coming in, and this year’s NDP-led finance committee is eager to spend as much of it as possible on good works.
James briefed the members on the fiscal situation before hearings started two months ago. It amounted to a green light to recommend more spending.
She told them B.C. is in a strong fiscal situation, the surplus is higher than expected and surpluses will be the norm for three more years.
So the committee’s 100 recommendations are based on that outlook. They include calls for more funding for clean energy, fish and wildlife, health, social housing, special-needs students, disaster response, the arts and highways, to name a few priorities.
Most of them are aimed at addressing one of the key themes MLAs identified after hearings around B.C. — the need to address inequality.
Inequality in terms of Indigenous peoples, incomes, urban-rural splits, intergenerational issues and gender must be addressed, said the report.
“In addition to the social, health and justice impacts of inequality, we also recognize it as a major driver of populism.”
The ideas are much more about spending money than raising more of it, by the nature of the report.
But a public survey about tax policy was included in an appendix. Asked “how would you pay” for all the enhanced programs, more than 400 respondents overwhelmingly picked two options — corporate income-tax hikes and natural-resource royalty increases.
Asked what should be done to build a sustainable economy and support business, most people said affordable housing and better child care were the priorities.
The report calls for “careful fiscal discipline and improved efficiencies,” but it’s mostly about spending.
It isn’t a blueprint for the next budget. But it gives a glimpse of some of the thinking that will inform it.
Just So You Know: There’s a specific call in the report for a broad review of one issue — international students at B.C. post-secondary institutions.
It calls for a “new strategic approach to international education” based on a full investigation of all aspects of fairness for international students in the current system.
The value they bring to B.C. is recognized, but MLAs heard concerns about the tuition fees charged, the support services available and the increased reliance on the revenue they generate.
Fees for overseas students are not capped, and witnesses told the committee they have increased 15 to 20 per cent this year, as the students are charged market rates.
The numbers of international students have increased substantially over the years and they are now an important source of revenue. One Island college told the committee that foreign students funded an additional 688 seats for domestic students last year.
Some presenters noted challenges in providing support services to them and the impact of foreign students on class composition and workloads.
Others called for a cap on their tuition fees, or a set fee schedule to provide some predictability.
