1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th 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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

193 ]

CONTENTS

Motions on Notice

Motion 10 (Man in Motion world tour) –– 193

Mr. Vant

Mr. Rose

Motion 42 (Man in Motion world tour) –– 194

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Barnes

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Stupich –– 196

Ministerial Statement

Compensation advisory committee for provincial court judges. Hon. B. R. Smith –– 202

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased today to

be able to introduce two good friends from the great constituency of

Kamloops: Mr. John Moser, director of planning for the city of

Kamloops, and his son Jonathan. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LOVICK: I have a list before me that almost approximates

the length of the member for Cowichan-Malahat's (Mr. Bruce) list, but

I'll hold back. I certainly won't name them all.

First I'd like to welcome a special group from the Chemainus Native

Education Centre, sitting directly above and behind me. Please join me

in welcoming them if you will.

I would also like this House to join me in welcoming a group of

individuals from the city of Nanaimo who are here to listen to my

colleague's response to the budget speech: Ms. Betty Marlow, Ms. Betty

Kennedy, Ms. Dee Kennedy, Mr. and Mrs. Dick Forester and Ms. Marjorie

Stupich.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome

two couples from your constituency of West Vancouver-Howe Sound, Dr.

Charles Mielke and Mrs. Mielke and Mr. and Mrs. Eric Cant. Would the

House please join me in welcoming them.

Further, Mr. Speaker, on this first day of spring it is my very

great pleasure to ask you to join in welcoming to this House our

daughter and son-in-law, Mary and Barry Parsons, and especially their

three little children, my grandchildren, Christopher, Matthew and

Shannon.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

introduce to this House some very good friends and neighbours who

reside in Aldergrove: Ralph Snell and his wife Merle, and their two

daughters Deanne and Julie Ann. I might add that Ralph Snell is a

member of our constituency executive, and the whole family are very

solid supporters of this government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Will all hon. members join me in sending out happy returns to senator Austin, our Deputy Speaker, whose birthday was yesterday.

MR. BUD SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a friend

of mine and a friend of the Minister of Social Services and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) from the place of his birth, Blue River, in the

northernmost area of our constituency: Steve Quinn.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is a momentous day in British Columbia as we

welcome some time this afternoon Rick Hansen, our British Columbia hero. With

that said, I call by agreement resolution No. 10, which will be introduced by

the second member for Cariboo. Later on the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will be speaking to resolution No. 42.

On Motion 10.

MR. VANT: Today is a very important day in the life of our

entire province. Right now a young man is approaching the eastern

border of our great province. Indeed, our Premier and the second member

for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and several members of this

House are there to welcome this young man back home after a two-year

journey. I'm referring to Rick Hansen, who is a Cariboo boy who

attended Columneetza Senior Secondary School in Williams Lake. As a

15-year-old teenager he suffered a broken back on his way home from a

fishing trip. Naturally Rick initially thought that his life was over.

Since then, instead of staying in the poor-me club, Rick Hansen has

excelled in wheelchair sports.

He started his supermarathon two years ago, to wheelchair through 34

countries and to travel over 25,000 miles around the world. Today, when

he enters British Columbia, he will have 1,761 miles to go. Rick Hansen

has chosen to go an extra 498 miles in British Columbia to go through

as many of our communities as he can — no less than 84 of them. Also,

Rick will go the extra miles to make sure he has gone around the world.

It has been challenging for Rick and his crew. He has had to put new

tires on his wheelchair every three days. He has had to get new,

heavy-duty leather gloves every week. The cold, windy prairie; the

special clothes with the necessary high-technology temperature

sensors.... And he has gone through hot, dry deserts. Rick Hansen has

put in long 12-hour days. We know that today Rick Hansen will get a

terrific welcome to British Columbia, and in the weeks to come all

British Columbians will join in.

As he completes the very successful Man in Motion world tour, I

therefore, in accordance with my notice of Motion 10, now move:

be it

resolved that this Legislative Assembly recognize the great

contributions made by Rick Hansen who, having begun his successful Man

in Motion world tour to raise funds for spinal cord injury research and

rehabilitation, has created a worldwide awareness of the potential of

disabled people, the value of research, rehabilitation and sport, and

the positive changes that can be made for all disabled people.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of the New Democratic Party I take

pleasure in seconding the motion. I think all of us are extremely proud

and pleased that the long and very arduous journey of Rick Hansen is

about to reach its culmination. I know that he has been a tremendous

inspiration to all of us and all Canadians, but he's reached beyond

Canada, far beyond Canada, to the outreaches of the world, I guess. And

I think he has demonstrated to everyone that you can be disabled but

not handicapped. I think he's been a tremendous inspiration to those

people who have had to be confined for various reasons and to use

wheels instead of their limbs.

His inspiration, he says, came from one of my ex-constituents, Terry

Fox, and he has always, I think, been very generous about the fact that

if it hadn't been for Terry Fox and his epic Marathon of Hope, Rick

might not have even had the idea. Then, of course, we've had Steve

Fonyo also triumph because of an idea that happened to Terry Fox. In my

community of Port Coquitlam we have named a library and a high school

after our local hero, Terry Fox.

[10:15]

[ Page 194 ]

1 think that we should all recognize, though, that what we have

learned about these marathons is far more than merely raising money for

cancer research. We've learned a great deal about the limits — and we

thought they were much smaller — of human endurance. Already, aside

from the spinal cord research, as my hon. friend pointed out, we've

learned things about circulation and clothing. But beyond that we've

learned a great deal about human endurance. Already teams are studying

Rick and how putting his body under great stress...how you respond to

work and then rest, and then resilience, and how you bounce back.

Mr. Speaker, while Terry Fox's Marathon of Hope ended in tremendous

drama and pathos.... It might be said he gave his life for his run. He

really didn't, in one sense, because his name is going to live forever

as a leader in this kind of activity on behalf of those people who

suffer either disabilities or disease. Rick's, on the other hand, we

hope — and we know — is going to end in a tremendous triumph; not drama

and pathos but in the marriage to his beautiful physiotherapist, Amanda

Reid. We wish them well. We'll welcome them here, and we congratulate

them wholeheartedly.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion moved by the second member for

Cariboo (Mr. Vant) and seconded by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Rose) is:

Be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly recognize the

great contribution made by Rick Hansen, who, having begun his

successful Man in Motion world tour to raise funds for spinal cord

injury research and rehabilitation, has created a worldwide awareness

of the potential of disabled people, the value of research,

rehabilitation and sport, and the positive changes that can be made for

all disabled people.

Motion 10 approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I call resolution 42.

On Motion 42.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It is my great honour today to speak to

the motion on the order paper, motion 42, which was placed there by my

colleague the second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), who is

with the Premier and the Provincial Secretary today en route to meeting

Rick Hansen as he enters and crosses the border of British Columbia.

I'm speaking to an event that all British Columbians will remember for

a very long time to come. This day, our Man in Motion will cross the

British Columbia border from Alberta to a hero's welcome.

Along with a multitude of well-wishers, our Premier, our Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the second member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat) will be at the Yellowhead Pass to provide a

homecoming worthy of the magnificent effort this young and determined

athlete has made in the cause of the disabled. I am sure members on

both sides of our House will wish me to record their warm admiration

and, indeed, a certain awe for Rick's accomplishments.

Two years ago this young man set out from Vancouver with his small

entourage headed for the United States border at Blaine, and early next

May he will arrive back in Vancouver from his epic journey — a journey

that has covered 23, 612 miles. By the time it is all over he will have

wheeled 40,073 kilometres or 24,901 miles — the actual circumference of

the globe and the distance he set his sights on at the start. It's a

staggering accomplishment, one worthy of the record books. This great

journey around the world has covered 33 countries, nine provinces so

far, 38 states of our good neighbours to the south and hundreds of our

Canadian communities from the big cities to the tiny hamlets.

His courage and his enthusiasm have become legendary. They have

inspired people from North America to Europe and from the Middle East

to the Orient. He has upheld the cause of the disabled in many comers

of the world and received in return the warm admiration of millions.

His journey has given the disabled new hope, and from a most practical

point of view, so far he has raised more than $7.5 million for

spinal cord and rehabilitative research, wheelchair sport and for

a greater public awareness of the disabled. Rick has left funds in many

of the countries he has wheeled through — many countries that have not

recognized the disabled to the point that our country has done for

these many years.

In China he raised $1 million, which he left to the aid of the

disabled. Rick is a fighter — a fighter who has never been down for the

count. First he trained himself to be a world-class wheelchair athlete.

Then he achieved international recognition in basketball and wheelchair

marathons. On this journey he has met a multitude of physical

challenges — from temperatures that range from a high of 45 degrees

Celsius to a bone-chilling low of minus 30 degrees. Over all types of

terrain he has propelled his wheelchair for an average of 12 hours a

day.

Today, Mr. Speaker, Rick will be less than 1,800 miles from his

arrival and a hero's welcome in Vancouver in May. What a great day that

will be for all of us. He will pass through more than 80 communities in

British Columbia and stopover points on his way home. There is an air

of expectation and excitement. It is already building up throughout our

province in anticipation of his arrival.

My colleague the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain ( (Mr.

Mowat), who himself has met many challenges.... May I say how proud I

am to be his partner in this House, because I believe he is the very

first disabled person to be elected to public office in this chamber,

and he too lives, as does Rick, in a wheelchair. He has been involved

in Rick's dream from the very beginning as chairman of the Rick Hansen

Man in Motion tour, and he personally feels a tremendous surge of

excitement building up as Rick gets ever closer to that finish line. I

know that all of us in this House share that enthusiasm.

Rick's globe-girdling marathon has helped ease the barriers that

face the disabled. He has made the world more aware of these hardships

that can indeed be overcome. By his own effort and sheer willpower,

Rick has shown the true grit that marks a champion. He once remarked:

"I know that one day people are going to be able to walk away from an

injury like mine, and a wheelchair will be something that you see in a

museum."

Mr. Speaker, we are immensely proud of all of those British

Columbians who strive each day to overcome physical disabilities.

Today, advances in research and rehabilitation have provided new hope

for those injured in this manner. Their life expectancy has improved to

a point just slightly below the average for the able-bodied.

To heighten public awareness and support for the needs of the

disabled, we have in this province led the way in Canada with the most

advanced regulations in the country governing building requirements for

the disabled. Our own Premier,

[ Page

195 ]

Premier Vander Zalm, in 1979 was instrumental in making these regulations into

law. The disabled are now able to negotiate our public buildings and our streets

in comfort and safety. When we consider that one in every seven Canadians has

a disability associated with aging, or a permanent physical handicap, easing

their path through life is a priority for our government and for people on both

sides of this House. By paying attention to this priority so that the handicapped

are better able to develop their talents, exercise their skills, pursue their

dreams and participate fully in our society with a minimum of assistance, we

are all committed to that ideal. We want increased job opportunities for the

disabled, which will be the aim of a task force which has been named in the

Speech from the Throne during this session.

This momentous journey was made so that others who are disabled may

find their lives made easier in the future through research. In his

travels, Rick Hansen has become one of the most effective ambassadors

of good will British Columbia has ever seen. We salute him and all of

those who daily face and surmount their disabilities with fortitude and

determination. I now move the motion.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to second the motion moved on behalf of

the second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). You know, I don't

feel really adequate to comment on the magnitude of what is happening

in the life of this individual, Rick Hansen, but that isn't to say that

he hasn't connected with me and people all over the world in a way that

only the individual can explain. I think that's probably the thing

about Rick Hansen, far more than the $7.5 million or maybe more that he

will be raising before he has finished his journey, and even more so

than the concern for research and for rehabilitation of those patients

who have suffered injuries to their spines. Be it, though, that these

things are vitally important, we must always try to use technology, to

use our scientific ability to try to improve humankind. But there is

something, you know, that Rick Hansen is doing that sticks in my mind.

He found something in himself when he had his automobile accident. He

rolled over and found himself unable to move, totally paralyzed. What

went through his mind is what we want to understand, because what he is

saying is that there is no such thing as no can do. There is no such

thing as can't. He has begun a movement, I feel, that is going to

revolutionize our understanding of the so-called disabled person.

I believe that his message comes from within; it's not a without situation.

He's telling everybody, every so-called disabled person — and I say so-called

because I'm mindful of the words of Terry Fox, some seven years ago when

he started out on his journey across this country to run some 8,000 kilometres,

that he was not a person who was disabled, but a person who happened to have

only one leg. I think that's really what Rick Hansen is telling us. This

is what he is telling people who are functionally unable to look after themselves,

people who can barely move limbs or who have the inability to speak for themselves.

He is saying that where there is a will there is a way. He is beginning to put

life into things like courage and into concepts like hope, faith, determination,

willpower, concentration. In fact, you will recall just a few weeks ago when

he was coming across the province of Alberta that he was criticized because

he wasn't available to speak to the media. He was conserving his energy.

He said that the problem with this challenge is that many people don't understand

what kind of determination and concentration it takes to fulfil a dream such

as this. This is the thing; it is not a show. We are watching a person who is

inspired by forces that we should come to understand much better than we do.

It is not just physical; there is a spiritual thing about Rick Hansen; there

was a spiritual thing about Terry Fox, Steve Fonyo and even Al Howie, who didn't

get as much publicity as these other people.

This is the thing, I think, that he is saying and that he has said

around the world. When you look at those young children reaching out,

holding his hand, and him in his wheelchair, and him having the

patience and the time to touch them and to let them express themselves

— that's what important. That's what they're going to remember. They

aren't going to remember very much else, but they're going to remember

this man in the wheelchair, whirling himself around the world,

24,000-plus miles in a wheelchair. We talk about challenges; this is

unbelievable.

[10:30]

I've been up against a lot of challenges in my life, but I do not believe

that this is the act of a so-called normal or average person. This man has connected

to something that I think Terry Fox was trying to tell us, and all the other

people in the world... You can go to Mahatma Gandhi or even Martin Luther King.

I know that we all have our religious beliefs, but whatever your religion, think

about inspiration, determination, willpower, desire, conviction and dedication.

These are the things that Rick Hansen is talking about, and no amount of money

will substitute for that. I think that is what we should remember.

Cooperation. Rick Hansen, though he is an individual with all these

powers and determination, is not alone. He has a team of people with

him — a team of dedicated, committed people who themselves are

inspired, and that's what it's about. I think that's what it's going to

be about for us in this House; that's what it's about for us in this

province; that's what it's about for us in this country; and that's

what it's about in this world — that we are not alone. No matter how

much individual power we may have, we have to reach out and get some

help. Rick Hansen is getting that help. We recognize it. We appreciate

it, but I think it would be unfair to attempt to explain what is really

happening with Rick Hansen. He will tell his own story, but I'm pleased

to have had an opportunity to speak on behalf of the opposition, on

behalf of the New Democratic Party, and I commend the movers of those

two motions, and the government, for bringing this matter before the

House so that we could speak in a non-partisan way about this very

great and important individual and this great moment in history in this

province.

On a final note, let me say that all three of those people,

curiously enough, are from the province of British Columbia: Fox,

Fonyo, Hansen. Isn't that interesting?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is moved by the first member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and seconded by the

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes):

Be it resolved that

this House congratulate Rick Hansen, resident of Vancouver-Little

Mountain, who is nearing the completion of his truly heroic journey

around the world for the cause of spinal cord research, and that

we extend to British Columbia's own Man in Motion our most sincere

appreciation for his inspiration to all British Columbians and to all

citizens of the world.

Motion approved.

[ Page 196 ]

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH: Including the list offered by my colleague for

Nanaimo, there is another family in the gallery this morning. I'd like

the House to welcome Kevin and Maria Roberts and their two boys Anthony

and Jonathan.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the body of my remarks about the

budget, I'd like to say something personal. I've always had a very good

relationship with the Minister of Finance over the 11 years, I guess it

is, that I've been debate leader in Finance, in particular with the

predecessor who came from the same constituency. It's a relationship

that I valued and which I felt was good for all of us. Never, though,

have I had the confidence and courtesy expressed that I did yesterday

when the Minister of Finance made a copy of his speech available to me

at 9:30 in the morning. We normally get it one hour before. I want to

say that I appreciate the confidence, and I appreciate the trust that

he placed and the courtesy that was shown to the opposition by doing

that.

I think it's a reflection of the new spirit there is in the House,

and I believe we all welcome that — particularly those of us who have

been here before and know what it was like before. We do appreciate the

way the atmosphere in the House has changed and hope that it lasts.

Mr. Speaker, it may sound like I'm going to be critical as I go on

with my speech. None of it is personal; it's strictly dealing with what

the minister had to say, rather than with the person who said it.

I first want to start with a quotation. "Job creation is the top

priority for my government, and I intend to devote a great deal of my

time to directing the use of our financial resources to that end." That

was from the Premier, as quoted in the Globe and Mail ,

August 15, 1986. "We do not anticipate income tax increases." That's a

quotation from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), as

reported in the Vancouver Sun , January 17, 1987.

There have been eight months of anticipation, and now the

denouement. This assembly is debating a budget which contains 29 pages

of bad news for the average British Columbian — a budget which totally

fails to make jobs a priority, fails to offer hope to young people,

fails to outline in an open and upfront way the real fiscal situation

facing British Columbians. We are debating a budget which proposes to

pick the pockets of the average person in the province of British

Columbia while further aggravating the unfairness of our taxation

system. It is a major disappointment. It is not a budget which ordinary

British Columbians will soon forget.

In reviewing this budget, it is important that we think back for a

moment to last fall's election campaign and the mandate of this

government. British Columbians were promised a fresh start last

October. They were promised jobs; they were promised opportunities.

They were not promised that taxes would rise; they were not promised

that senior citizens would be asked to pay more user charges or more

property taxes. The party opposite did not commit itself to exacerbate

the intolerable inequality for women, to reduce support for farmers or

to cut economic development programs. When I think back to the last

election, I do not recall the hon. Premier travelling from one end of

this province to the other telling British Columbians: "Elect us, and

we will raise the provincial income tax rate. Elect us, and the tax

rate for small business will increase. Elect us, and property taxes

will go up. Elect us, and our senior citizens will pay and pay and pay

again and again." No, the Premier and his party did not campaign in

that way, because they did not have the courage to do so. They did not

have the courage to reveal their true agenda. They have no mandate to

present a budget of this sort.

This budget continues the Social Credit tradition of saying one

thing before an election and doing quite the opposite afterwards. This

is in no way a fresh start. This approach is reminiscent of the 1983

campaign and the terrible budget in July of that year. This budget is

fundamentally unfair to the average person in British Columbia.

With respect to jobs.... Before looking at the budget in detail, I

must review briefly the record of Social Credit governments over the

past six years, paying particular attention to the events of the past

eight months and the record of this new government with regard to the

most serious problem in our society, unemployment. In 1975 employment

in British Columbia was just under 1,000,000 –– 995,000; unemployed ––

92,000. In 1981, six years later, employment had increased to 1,

270,000 — that's an increase of 4 percent per year; unemployment stood

at 91,000 — actually a decrease of 0.18 percent per year. In 1987

employment stands at exactly the same figure as it did in 1981 –– 1,

270,000; unemployment is up to 197,500 from 91,000 — the average annual

rate of increase in unemployment is 13.79 percent. These figures are

based on seasonally adjusted data made available from Statistics

Canada. These figures overstate employment growth because they do not

show the number of British Columbians involuntarily working part-time

in our economy. In 1975 there were 17,000 of these; in 1981, 30,000; in

1985, 83,000; and in 1986, 79,000.

The year 1981 — the year before the longest depression since the

Second World War — was our best year. That year 1.27 million people

were working in British Columbia. In the first two months of 1987 there

were still only 1.27 million people working in B.C., and we were still

stuck in the mire of depression.

Last August the Social Credit Party selected a new leader, the hon.

Premier. He said he was concerned about unemployment. He said four

times during a 10-day period in August that he was pursuing specific

ideas on job creation and that he wanted to create jobs immediately.

Stimulus to the private sector was mentioned; public works were

mentioned. The operations of the Finance ministry were so closely

linked to those operations, he said, that he had to be Minister of

Finance as well as Premier in order to achieve what he wanted to

achieve. British Columbians took him at his word and returned his

government in the subsequent election.

So what has been the result of the so-called fresh start on jobs?

Even given seasonal factors, 16,000 more British Columbians were

unemployed at the end of February than when the Premier promised quick

action. Since those promises were made in August, each and every day

additional British Columbians at the rate of 71 a day have joined the

unemployment line.

Now, in spite of that fact, the Minister of Finance has the audacity

to bring forward a budget which is completely silent on solutions to

the unemployment crisis. In fact, the minister's own forecast — and I

refer to the budget speech, page

[ Page 197 ]

57 — indicates that the average unemployment rate

will rise by 0.5 percent to 13.1 percent in 1987, that employment will

grow by only 0.5 percent, and that our rate of real economic growth

will increase by a mere 1.5 percent this year. Some performance, Mr.

Speaker. Some fresh start.

As a former Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, said during his first

budget speech in 1980: "Opportunities can be realized, but only if

challenges are met through good planning and hard work." The number one

challenge of our time has to be job creation. This government is not

only failing to meet that challenge, but failing even to address it.

This budget contains no short-term plan and certainly no practical

long-term strategy for dealing with the job crisis. In fact, the

proposals in the budget will likely make the problem worse, picking the

pockets of low- and middle-income earners. Here I am indebted to my

hon. colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), who says that

it will take out of the pockets of each wage-earner in the province one

week's pay every year. Picking their pockets, siphoning off forest

export tax funds which are badly needed for employment through

silvicultural projects, restraining housing starts through a new tax on

property transfers — all measures which will dampen growth and reduce

job creation.

While it is true that we are employing as many people as we did in

1981, six years ago, it is also true that there are 106,500 more

unemployed than in 1981, and of those working, 49,000 more than in '81

are working part-time because they can't find full-time work. While it

is true that the number of jobs in B.C. has increased by 6,000 since

the end of 1986, the number of job-seekers has increased by 16,000, a

very bad omen for the unemployed of British Columbia — the unemployed

youth, a generation that is being ignored by a government which doesn't

seem to care.

[10:45]

What hope is there in the budget for the unemployed? More money for

job training, a token acknowledgement. But even that is for jobs that

don't exist in the province of British Columbia. We will continue to

train teachers who will find jobs in California. We will continue to

train carpenters who will find jobs in Manitoba. According to the Globe and Mail ,

Manitoba will lead all provinces in economic growth through 1995, eight

years into the future, with an average annual rate of 3.3 percent in

growth. We will continue to train workers to go and work in Manitoba.

We will continue to educate nurses who will find jobs in Ontario — job

training for jobs for which they will have to go to other jurisdictions.

Strategy — talked about, but what strategy? We agree with the

minister when he says that if British Columbia is to achieve its full

potential we cannot rely on past solutions to tide us over until normal

times return. However, the minister invites comparison with earlier

governments when he makes such a statement. The government claims to be

making a new start, but the economic philosophy appears to be: let the

chips — and the trees — fall where they may. Somehow that sounds

depressingly familiar.

Throughout the late 1970s British Columbia Finance ministers were

telling us: "The real stimulus must come from the private sector." That

was in the 1977 budget speech. In 1978: "The private sector provides

the key to long-term growth and job creation." In 1979: "The private

sector is the key to future economic growth and prosperity." They were

easy statements to make for Finance ministers to fall back on in the

context of a resources-driven boom.

By 1983 the buzzword was "restraint," and vicious cuts in people

programs were the order of the day. As is now commonly understood, that

process severely restricted growth. But even this knowledge was not

sufficient to prompt development of a comprehensive plan; they did

nothing, nothing positive. By 1986 the rhetoric had changed and the

government was arguing that the only permanent way to increase

employment was through investment — investment in people. But then, as

now, no clear strategy, no vision and no consensus were provided about

where we were going or how we should get there.

This quick review of the last 11 budgets makes at least three things

clear: in good times the private sector does well so the Social Credit

government sees no need to plan; when times get tough, people services

must be cut because Social Credit has no other solution; when times

stay tough, as they are now, Social Credit has no plan other than to

make a major tax grab while leaving it to the private sector, the

federal government, the Americans, anyone else other than themselves to

solve our problems for us.

A policy of muddling through has never been good enough; it's a scandalous

policy today. British Columbians expect a good deal more from their government

than the drift and confusion we heard yesterday. Promises, promises. When the

Premier originally took on the Finance portfolio, he said he was doing it in

order to "bring back an economic strategy, " and that "it will

require a hands-on involvement" — as quoted in the Province , August 15, 1986.

It is not clear what happened to that strategy. Perhaps it was

revealed through the "New Economy" paper — also known as the "Love

Boat" strategy, which promised a coordinated team effort, a

federal-provincial agreement, participation of the best minds in the

community, and a new B.C. airport authority. Clearly that was not a

strategy adequate to the needs of the new economy facing British

Columbians. The throne speech claimed that job one is to get the

government off the back and out of the way of the private sector.

Apparently that is the new, fresh strategy.

The budget says industrial diversification cannot be accomplished by

government fiat or subverting market forces. But the Premier's record

of announcing strange projects before they have been properly evaluated

or discussed with industry planners belies that. Examples include a

meat-packing plant which has no source of supply and no conceivable

market, and privatization of Crown corporations — "Let's sell off the

Crown corporations; they're losing money" — if we can find anybody that

will buy them, and an international banking centre which is predicted

to provide jobs for some two to three people.

To add insult to injury, yesterday's budget actually cut economic

development programs. The special investment interest subsidy program

has been reduced. The grant portion of the venture capital corporation

program has been eliminated. Low-interest loan assistance has been

reduced.

In the economic development area, I would like to address two

particular sectors; first is management of reforestation and

silviculture, which is a particularly glaring example of the haphazard

and totally irresponsible approach of this government. Our natural

resources continue to be the lifeblood of our economy. The forest

industry in particular remains firmly entrenched as the primary capital

generator in the province. We owe it to ourselves, and more importantly

to our children, to ensure that our forests remain capable of supplying

capital materials and jobs far into the future. The

[ Page 198 ]

most important single undertaking the present

government can make to ensure the continued viability of the forest

industry is to introduce a permanent and wide-ranging program of

silviculture. Unfortunately this government, like previous Social

Credit administrations, is following a now too familiar pattern of

announcing programs and then following those announcements up with

announcements of their cancellation.

For example, the Premier announced on September 9 last year that one

of the priorities of his government would be to undertake an

intensified program of reforestation and silviculture. Just two weeks

later, on September 24, the former Minister of Forests announced in

Duncan that $30.6 million would be spent in 1987-88 on additional

reforestation. This announcement was greeted with great enthusiasm by

everyone. Particularly pleased was the present member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), then the mayor of North Cowichan, who,

along with several other mayors on the Island, proposed silviculture as

a strategy for survival. In fact $8.3 million of the additional $30.6

million was to go to the Vancouver Island mayors' proposal. Much of the

strategy used by the government in its election campaign on the Island

revolved around the establishment of this fund. The former Minister of

Forests' unfortunate cancellation of this program in early February was

an affront not just to rational and thoughtful government but to the

voters who really believed in the integrity of the former minister and

of the government.

The budget yesterday claims the government will increase

expenditures on silviculture by $54 million. Let's examine this claim.

Of the $54 million, $36 was required under the terms of the British

Columbia-Canada forest resource development agreement; $18 million of

this $36 million is contributed by the federal government, and we

either spend in that program or we lose the federal participation. It's

an agreement. The provincial expenditure has increased by only $36

million. Two hundred million seedlings will be planted in 1987-88 —

that's the goal. That number still does not replant the trees harvested

in the previous year. We're not keeping up to what we're currently

cutting, let alone keeping up to what we lose through fire, what we

lose through insect damage, or trying to catch up on any backlog.

When the 15 percent export tax was announced, the Premier committed

his government to increase silviculture and reforestation. He said at

the time: "The tax moneys will be used for reforestation, silviculture

and other needy programs." This is from the Vancouver Sun ,

December 31, 1986. Yet this budget almost completely ignores that

promise. All we're doing is spending enough additional provincial money

to keep up to the additional costs incurred in maintaining the existing

programs.

The government's own estimates put the lumber tax windfall to the

province at $350 million. Not including increased federal contributions

to reforestation, the ministry budget has increased by $52 million. In

other words, this government has used only 15 percent of the export tax

moneys for reforestation. The government has ignored a perfect

opportunity to bring stability and permanence to reforestation.

In order to ensure the continued viability of the forest sector, we

must commit to a stable continued program of reforestation. The on

again, off again approach of the present and previous governments is

totally unacceptable to the people of British Columbia. It's breaking

faith with them. It's not fair.

The New Democrats introduced in this House last year, and continued

to support, arm's-length measures which would establish a permanent

fund to be used for silviculture. This fund would be created in part

from the additional revenues gained from the export tax. The design of

the fund and allocation of its resources would be controlled by a

committee made up of all sectors of the forest industry, including

trade union representation, government and environmental interest. Such

a fund would ensure the continued health of our forests and, at the

same time, create over 15,000 full-time jobs at decent rates of pay.

The failure to commit to such a fund in yesterday's budget is a major

abdication by the government of its responsibility to today's and to

future generations.

One other economic initiative which ought to have been a priority is

the Island Highway. Our party has worked for a new inland Island

Highway for 12 years. In June 1986 the Association of Vancouver Island

Municipalities, the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Vancouver Island

and the New Democrats called on the government for the immediate

construction of an Island inland route. The highway is not only

identified as timely and necessary, but its construction would provide

at least 3,100 person-years of work. It would represent an important

boost for the economy of the whole of Vancouver Island.

The Social Credit Party picked up on this issue during the election

campaign, with their Premier promising $450 million to upgrade

Vancouver Island highways, which would include the new inland route.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) has been

given a June 1987 deadline by the Premier to come up with a plan for a

new Island Highway. Public meetings have been held through February and

March 1987, with the minister stating that the decision on whether or

not to go ahead with the project "is now in the hands of Treasury

Board." It would appear from yesterday's budget that Treasury Board

said no.

My party and this caucus are concerned with the delay. As the Leader

of the Opposition said on one occasion: "The Socreds always borrow our

promises before an election campaign, during an election campaign, and

then give them back to us when the election is over. They have no

further use for them." Yesterday's budget says that savings will be

obtained through lower highway capital spending. There's the answer to

Vancouver Islanders waiting for a highway: they're going to save money

by not building it. There is no mention in it of any Island highway

commitment — just another election promise. Vancouver Islanders are

waiting for an answer.

I'd like now to move on to some of the major elements of yesterday's

speech, among them being of course new taxes, more taxes and higher

taxes. That's the theme of this speech. If it needed a title, that

would be it: new taxes, more taxes, higher taxes. If the 1983

post-election Social Credit budget is remembered for the devastating

restraint program it contained, then the 1987 post-election budget will

be remembered for the tax increases it proposes.

Average British Columbians are being asked to pay and pay and pay

again. This budget is a tax grab of major proportions. Our conservative

estimate is that the various new taxes, fees and user charges in

yesterday's budget will remove a net average of some $566 from each

British Columbia household. The minister's figures are different, but

he's including the reduction in sales tax, half of which will be a

saving to business and industry, not to household expenses.

Per-household costs of the 1987 budget, from Table H4 on page 100 of

[ Page 199 ]

the budget, taxation revenue less corporation

income and corporation capital tax — total taxes paid by the people in

1986-87 are $5,014 million; taxes to be paid by people in 1987-88 are

$5,426 million. Calculated on the cost per family, we take the number

of families as 727,680, then come up with a figure of $566.

This follows on the massive new personal taxes imposed by the

kissing cousins of this provincial government, and the provincial

government will share in that — the Mulroney-Wilson Tories. Low- and

middle-income earners have already been hit hard by federal tax hikes

of one kind or another. They cannot afford the sort of bite they got

yesterday. The real question following yesterday's speech is not who

will be hurt — everybody will be hurt — but who will be hurt the most.

I don't have an answer to that question, but I can assure you that we

on this side of the House will fight hard to protect the average person

who is hurt by yesterday's budget.

There is an important omission from yesterday's speech which puts

the tax hikes for ordinary people in context. On page 26 the minister

notes that recent relief measures for business and industry are costing

the treasury some $600 million annually — hardly fair given the new

taxes and increases in fees impacting on people that were introduced

yesterday. That $600 million would do much to obviate the perceived

need to raise other taxes. The Finance minister exhibited considerable

chutzpah when he was bold enough to state that the measures in the

budget will improve fairness in our tax system. In the absence of any

overall tax reform to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share, a

7.3 percent increase in the provincial tax rate, based on an effective

current rate of 48 percent, is not fair.

The rise in the tax rate, in combination with the 10 percent surtax

on high-income earners, will place a very heavy burden on average

taxpayers. Those with a taxable income of $60,000 will see their taxes

increased by only 3.4 percent, while those with a taxable income of

$20,000 and $10,000 will see theirs increase by 8.4 percent. Indeed, as

I pointed out yesterday, the minister boasts in his budget speech that

British Columbia will be the second-best province in the whole of

Canada for the high-income people to live in if they want to minimize

their income tax contribution to the economy — a tax haven for the

highest-income earners.

The small business sector will be hoodwinked by a 37.5 percent

increase in the rate of tax, and that's not fair either, Mr. Speaker.

While it's reasonable enough to protect personal tax avoidance due to

incorporation, this measure should not have been implemented either, in

the absence of a general tax reform to ensure that the largest

corporations pay their fair share. There's no mention of them at all in

the budget.

[11:00]

In terms of fairness, the approach of the present government of

British Columbia is in sharp contrast to that of the NDP government of

Manitoba, which tabled its budget last Monday. Manitoba's truly fair

approach, which has been complimented even in the Globe and Mail ,

involves a 2 percent flat tax on all net income in order that the

overly generous grants and exemptions arranged by the federal Tories

can at least be partially offset. In addition, the Manitoba treasurer

has introduced tax reductions for those in the lowest income brackets.

For a family earning $25,000, for example, that tax reduction will

total $695. That's being fair. Rather than offering big business

no-strings-attached tax reductions, as has been done here, Manitoba has

introduced measures which will ensure that businesses continue to pay

their fair share. Finally, it is important to note that Manitoba, while

doing all of this, has been able to reduce its deficit from $567

million to $415 million. With the kind of growth they're getting as a

result of the policies of the government they have there, it's obvious

that they can afford to do it. The hon. minister ought to have followed

the example set by Manitoba, but he did not. Manitoba was fair to the

average person; the British Columbia government chose not to be fair to

average people. The list of the unfair initiatives is lengthy.

A new property transfer tax of 1 percent up to a value of $200,000

and 2 percent thereafter is one such proposal. Some $140 million in new

revenue will be garnered by a "sales tax" which will likely threaten

the fragile recovery of the housing market owing to recent lower

interest rates. Housing starts had previously been projected to decline

3.3 percent in '87. Mr. Speaker, what is that going to do to a young

couple starting out? Their first home: they've arranged for a first

mortgage, they've arranged for a second mortgage, and they have to come

up with the down payment. It's not 1 percent additional to the down

payment; they'll have to come up with an additional 1 percent of the

total price of the property, and they'll have to come up with it in

cash, because that money has to be turned over to the Minister of

Finance promptly. Perhaps the minister has heard from some of those

people already; I have. In addition, as a straight-across percentage of

the value of the property, the new tax will hit hardest those whose

property is of least value and who likely have the least income.

Health care premiums: another regressive tax which will increase 10 percent.

The property tax rate on recreational residential property in rural

areas will rise by 121 percent from 1.4 percent up to 3.1 percent. The

minimum property tax before the homeowner grant will rise 75 percent to

$350, and senior citizens, of all people, have been singled out to pay

a minimum property tax of $100 as opposed to the $l they previously had

to pay. To many of us an increase of $99 in the course of a year would

not be noticed, but I have a letter on my desk that I haven't been able

to deal with yet, from an elderly couple in Nanaimo, both of them

getting a lot of medication, both of them using the services not of

someone being paid for out of the health plan but of an acupuncturist,

and one of them in particular gets tremendous relief — whether it's

mental or physical or psychosomatic, it's important that he gets that

relief. They have to limit the number of visits to the acupuncturist,

because they haven't been able to afford it. Mr. Speaker, we calculate

that the various increases levied on that family — even taking into

account the increase in GAIN that they're going to get, or the increase

to meet the dispensing fee increase — are going to cost that family an

additional $25 per month as a result of this budget. Mr. Speaker, they

don't have 25 cents a month to spare right now. I expect the minister

will be hearing from some such people as well.

ICBC car insurance premiums will rise as the corporation is assessed

in insurance premiums. There's got to be an increase in the premiums.

You might just as well have made an increase in the premiums. The

effect will be the same, except that the money will be coming to the

Minister of Finance rather than being kept by ICBC.

New fuel taxes, new user charges for Pharmacare for seniors as well

as new user fees for services such as physiotherapy and chiropractic

services — the list goes on and on.

[ Page 200 ]

The Minister of Finance justified all of this because of a reduction

of one point in the social service tax and the elimination of the tax

on restaurant meals imposed in 1983. I suspect that this latter move in

particular will be welcome. I think everyone will welcome that. It's

been difficult to administer, and it hasn't been bringing in that much

money. Certainly we'll welcome it. Perhaps the thousands of people

lining up at food banks this morning will not fully appreciate what

we're doing for them, but the rest of us will welcome it.

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, just over 50 percent on the basis of

previous figures is the saving for business and industry, and that will

not be passed on by lower prices. That will just be additional profits

for business and industry.

There's another funny feature. I must comment on this, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know what the minister was thinking of. If you're going to

reduce a sales tax you don't say, "I'm going to reduce it sometime in

the future," and then specify the time, because anybody going to buy a

big-ticket item will hold back. I bought a car last week. Do you think

I would have bought it last week if I'd known you were going to reduce

the sales tax 1 percent now and 1 percent later on? I would have

waited. I can't think of anything more damaging to sales in the

province than to say that the sales tax was going to come down at some

future date. If you're going to increase the sales tax, then phase it

in. Then you get them both ways: they buy before and after. If you're

going to reduce it, do it at once. Had you reduced it two points

immediately, then it would have had a significant effect. But you

weaken even the one point by saying: "Later on we're going to drop it

another point." Mr. Speaker, that was a bad move.

This minister and the government don't fool anyone, Mr. Speaker.

They want to make average British Columbians pay now for the Social

Credit government's years of mismanagement, and they hope the public

will forget by the time of the next election. They've been successful

in hoping that in the past. It's very cynical, Mr. Speaker, but people

this time may not forget.

Just while I am on the topic of fooling people, I want to comment

briefly on the hocus-pocus surrounding our provincial deficit. Last

year's budget speech projected a deficit of $875 million. Now revised

forecasts say the actual figure will be some $1.17 billion. That of

course casts a bit of doubt on this year's projection of an $850

million deficit. I really wish this assembly was asked more often to

debate estimates, rather than politically inspired calculations of

estimates. In the last three budgets — not including this one because I

don't have any performance figures yet — the excess of the total of the

actual deficits as compared to the estimated deficits was $695 million.

The deficits were understated three years in a row by very significant

amounts totalling almost $700 million in three years. I suspect that is

not the case this time — Mr. Speaker, this isn't in my notes — I

suspect this time that the minister is deliberately underestimating

revenue. Perhaps he is just being careful, but I think he is

significantly underestimating revenue, and I think he wants to come

before us, perhaps around this time next year, and say that due to good

management and fiscal restraint and due to what this government has

accomplished, while we predicted a deficit of $25 million lower than

the one that was predicted last year — not the $160 or $360 million or

whatever it is; $25 million — instead of the reduction of that amount,

a significantly larger reduction. Now that's my prophecy for next year,

Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been right before.

MR. STUPICH: Well, unfortunately I have been right when I

said that they were wrong in predicting a low deficit; I hope I am

right this time.

The budget had not much to say about women, but I feel I must. Much

remains to be done for the women of B.C. before they will enjoy equal

benefits, equal rights or equal opportunities. That is why it is so

shocking that there is so little for women in this budget. There's not

a mention of pay equity. There are some improvements in day care, and

we must say that they are welcome; they don't go nearly far enough, but

they are welcome. And there's a $2 million slap in the face for those

who are fighting to oblige hospitals to obey Canada's Criminal Code.

In 1986, 67 percent of minimum-wage earners were women; 165,000

women were part-time workers; 60 percent of women working were working

in three categories, sales, service and clerical, which are all

characterized by low pay, few prospects for promotion and reduced

mobility. On the average women earn 60 percent of what men earn. As

well, 37.5 percent of British Columbians under the age of 65 and living

below the poverty line in 1986 were women. The outlook for future

employment prospects for women is a matter of grave concern, a concern

that has been ignored by this government. It is estimated that by the

year 1990, 30 percent of current secretarial and clerical jobs will be

cut by office automation. As many as one million Canadian women will be

unemployed due to the introduction of technological change. This budget

does not help women. Under Social Credit, women in B.C. continue to be

shortchanged in the areas of social services, health and educational

programs. Why is there nothing in the budget about affirmative action

for women? Why is there no move towards pay equity for women? Why are

we so far behind provinces such as Manitoba and Ontario in this regard?

It’s just not good enough. It's not fair, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to child care, the budget states that there will be an

increase of 30 percent to $26.7 million in day care funding. Our

figures show this increase to be actually 5 percent. We don't

understand the discrepancy. If the 30 percent increase is strictly

based on an increase in subsidies, and the budget doesn't make this

clear, then it must be acknowledged by the government that licensed day

care will simply not be available to any of the people receiving these

funds. In fact, their children will end up in unlicensed day care

situations. We need real action on the establishment of affordable,

accessible and community-controlled day care centres.

[11:15]

As to reproductive choice, the budget says that $2 million in

funding will be provided specifically to encourage alternatives to

abortion. Will this money be spent on a propaganda campaign? According

right of every citizen. Will the women of B.C. continue to be denied

their basic right to medical services? Community clinics and referral

services need to be established throughout the province. These clinics

would emphasize preventive health measures and be equipped to deal with

health problems unique to women, such as abortion counselling and

referral, birth control, family planning and pre- and post-natal care —

people programs. While I applaud the move to increase social assistance

rates for families, GAIN support allowance needs to be

[ Page 201 ]

increased for all income tax recipients. If we're

going to do it for the needy, everybody on social welfare needs an

increase. The last one was in 1981. The increase provided in this

budget for some of the people receiving social welfare brings them up

to where they should have been at the end of 1982, because the cost of

living increased by 10 percent in 1982 and the increase adds up to 10

percent during the course of the year. So they're still back where they

should have been in 1982, and this is 1987.

Poverty is becoming a way of life for more and more British

Columbians every day, in spite of the recurring promises by the Premier

that he will increase overall welfare rates. While welfare rates will

rise 10 percent this year, a greater increase is so obviously necessary.

The budget speech has stated as its first major priority providing

greater assistance for the disadvantaged. Surely young people ought to

be included in that category. Yet landlords housing GAIN recipients

will likely be the ones receiving an increase in their incomes of some

6 percent; that's where the GAIN will go. An increase in the shelter

allowance will, in most cases, be absorbed immediately and directly by

the landlords.

An increase in the minimum wage was also not addressed in the

budget. It's generally acknowledged that a minimum wage of $6 per hour

is necessary to bring many of the working poor out of poverty. Instead

they will sink deeper because of the increases they face under this

budget: increases in personal income taxes, health care premiums,

property taxes, supplementary health services, drivers' and motor

vehicle licence fees, etc.

Seniors as a group will be hit by major increases in costs under

changes to Pharmacare. Unless they have very low incomes, our pioneers

will now have to pay 75 percent of the fee for dispensing

prescriptions. Mr. Speaker, you and I can afford that, but you and I

both know constituents who can't afford that increase — about $5 per

prescription according to the budget. While there is a ceiling of $125

per year on those fees, they will still create hardships for seniors on

limited incomes.

The budget mentions the cost pressures of an aging population. Are

older persons going to be asked to bear these costs alone? What is

happening to the $85 million in returned federal funding if we must ask

our oldest citizens to pay user charges for services they tend to need,

such as physiotherapy and chiropractic services?

Finally, the seniors hit hardest by the budget are renters who had

hoped for some change to SAFER, the shelter allowance program. Funding

for this program needs to be improved by 30 percent if it is to help

older persons remain in their neighbourhoods and prevent their spending

more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent.

Alternatives. There's much in yesterday's speech which ought not to

have been there; a good deal which has been omitted. Just a few of the

alternatives I think we should have seen include a labour force

strategy which would recognize the special need for adequate training

for young people, and women in particular. This government cut its

public education services by 23 percent between 1982 and 1986, and the

increases in yesterday's speech do not make up for years of fiscal

neglect. The triple whammy of underfunded public education,

inaccessible post-secondary education and limited job prospects must be

overcome to be fair.

The municipal infrastructure program. Basic services and utilities

have been allowed to deteriorate since 1983. A new five-year

cost-sharing approach is urgently necessary to bring essential urban

services up to accessible standards and to provide as many as 10,000

person-years of construction employment in the lower mainland alone.

Investment capital support for business development centres, venture

capital corporations, community development corporations and employment

cooperatives: yesterday's budget contains only S13 million for all of

these programs, and most of this money will be spent on a showcase

enterprise centre at the B.C. Pavilion.

Another alternative is a task force on tax reform to recommend a

thorough and complete tax reform which would restore fairness and

progressivity while increasing revenues. There are many more good ideas

from this side which my colleagues will be discussing and presenting as

the budget debate and the debate on estimates proceeds.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the witching hour, and I fear if I

go over that hour I'll lose the attention of my audience, since it will

be more on the clock than on me.

Ordinary British Columbians will remember this budget. It's not fair

to take one week's pay out of the pocket of the ordinary working person

in this province. The unemployed will remember the unfairness of the

measures that will increase their costs while doing nothing to provide

job opportunities. Women will remember they have not been given fair

recognition in this budget. Young people and those on social assistance

will remember; it's unfair to all of them. Senior citizens' households

will remember; they'll be counting this $25 a month in additional

costs. It's not fair to them. Those standing in food bank lineups will

remember; their plight has been totally ignored. Those concerned about

the future of our forest resource will remember. There's no fairness

for present or future generations in the way we're handling our forest

resource in this province.

All of these people that I've mentioned, and many others, will

remember how unfair, how unimaginative, how unhopeful yesterday's

budget was. No jobs, no fairness.

This government and the Minister of Finance had a tremendous

opportunity. There's another $350 million in unfound revenue suddenly

to be dumped on his doorstep this year from the forest resource tax.

There's an additional $91 million suddenly handed to him from Ottawa

for giving up the practice of charging user fees in hospitals. There's

an additional income tax revenue, which I haven't been able to

calculate yet, coming to the province simply because our provincial tax

rate is based on the federal basic rate. Perhaps that was worth another

$100 million.

The minister had available in new money, without increasing any

taxes at all, in excess of half a billion dollars. Had he the

imagination to do something with it, this budget could have been

something that the opposition would have had to have been silent on and

listened to the minister extol its virtues, not a budget as he

presented it, totally unfair to British Columbians. This government and

this minister have failed the ordinary people of British Columbia. They

have failed to produce jobs. They have failed to produce any

imagination to deal with this half a billion dollars that was suddenly

handed over.

This government has some three years left in its current term. It

should consult widely with the many British Columbians who will

remember this budget and garner some useful input I'm sure those people

could provide. That would be fair consideration. They should do this in

order to receive the

[ Page 202 ]

good ideas that will prevent a recurrence of yesterday's mistakes.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

British Columbians expected, wanted, need a fresh start. They didn't

get it yesterday. But if the government takes special cognizance of the

debate in this assembly in the days ahead — and the debate from outside

this assembly, the views of average British Columbians — then next

spring, when once again the minister presents a budget, perhaps that

new, fresh beginning will be possible.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some agreement that we would adjourn at

approximately this time. I would like to move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting

Motion approved.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: With us today in the public gallery we have a

delegation from the Central Fraser Valley, the Pacific Christian

School: teacher Theodore A. Klassen, fifteen students and seven

parents. Would the House please welcome these people.

COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES

HON. BRIAN SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short

statement and to file the report of a special committee known as the

compensation advisory committee for provincial court judges. This

report and this statement are made as a result of legislation that was

passed in the last session of the Legislature setting forth a new

procedure to review the salaries paid to judges of the Provincial Court

of British Columbia. Under those amendments, in October 1986 the

government established a compensation advisory committee consisting of

three lay members: chairman Dr. Anne Autor, a scientist in Vancouver;

Mr. Ellison Framst, a farmer from Fort St. John; and Mr. David Wilson,

a Vancouver entrepreneur and a member of the Vancouver Police Board.

The compensation advisory committee has delivered its report to me,

and as required by statute, I now lay the report before the assembly. A

copy will be delivered to the office of each member of the assembly

today.

I want to express my appreciation to the committee members for a job

very well done. At this point I can only say that I find the

recommendations, in the main, to be reasonable, fair and sensible. With

perhaps a few changes, it would be my recommendation that the proposals

set forth in the report be adopted.

But before a resolution is placed in this assembly, as is called for

in the Provincial Court Act, it is appropriate that the report now go

to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and

Intergovernmental Relations. It will be my intention to move that just

as soon as that standing committee has been struck; and I will

accompany my recommendation in that regard with the suggestion that

after study by the committee, in reporting to the House they set forth

a resolution recommending its adoption. So I have great pleasure in

filing the report, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, in keeping with the new tone in

this House, I want to thank the Attorney-General for making this report

available to me in advance of the announcement today. I appreciate that

it is going to committee. I have some reservations about some of the

recommendations in the report, but I think that could be best dealt

with at the committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call on the government House Leader,

hon. members, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody and

opposition House Leader (Mr. Rose) raised a point of order relating to

the scope and content of a ministerial statement made by the

Attorney-General (Hon. Brian Smith).

The essence of the hon. member's point was that the statement was

made without notice and was too detailed a reference to previous

debate. In some respects the point of order was well made by the hon.

opposition House Leader. However, I cannot find that there is any

requirement to give notice of a ministerial statement. Under some

circumstances informal notice might be considered appropriate, but this

is not a judgment for the Chair to make. The Chair does, however,

commend the developing practice of giving notice, although notice may

not be required under the rules.

[11:30]

I have now had an opportunity to examine Hansard

in relation to the content of the statement in question. It is my

opinion that while the content of the statement was clearly within the

proper bounds of a matter of ministerial administration arising from an

alleged misrepresentation or an allegedly inaccurate recitation of

events, it is also clear, upon review, that some parts of the

statement, contrary to permissible limits, alluded too precisely to

previous debate in an argumentative manner, rather than being limited

to concise statements of fact surrounding ministerial administration.

On the subject of ministerial statements, Mr. Speaker Schroeder adopted

with approval the following statement of practice from Dawson's Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons , at page 165:

"These announcements are not made by the consent of

the House, nor are they recognized by any rule; but at least one

Speaker has ruled that the practice is one of such long standing that a

minister may make such a statement by right. This right may not be

exercised without restraint, for although there is no set limit on the

length or content of the statements, a minister who persisted in long

and argumentative recitals would soon find himself in trouble with the

opposition."

Under the practices of this House and in accordance with the

Speaker's rulings previously made, ministerial statements should

generally be brief, be factual and be specific. General arguments or

observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation, or too distinct a

reference to previous debate, are out of order and will result in

appropriate intervention by the Chair. There are, of course, similar

limits to replies made to ministerial statements.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour

for 1986; the Trade Practice Act annual report for 1986; the Travel

Assurance Board annual reports for 1984-85

[ Page 203 ]

and 1985-86; the liquor control and licensing

branch annual report for 1986; and the debtor assistance branch annual

report for 1986.

MR. LOVICK: I ask leave of the House to make one more brief introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: I would like the House to join me, please, in

welcoming a member of the Nanaimo and district school board and the

editor of the Gabriola Island Flying Shingle , Ms. June Harrison.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:32 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada