1989 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5875 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Task force on oil spills. Mr. Harcourt –– 5875

Government workforce totals and costs. Mr. Gabelmann –– 5875

Federal pay deductions against B.C. government workers.

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5875

Inclusion of farm workers under WCB. Mr. Sihota –– 5876

Public transportation to Fraser River North Shore communities.

Mr. Jacobsen –– 5876

Health fees not noted in budget. Mr. Perry –– 5876

Forest Service personnel. Mr. Kempf –– 5877

Reopening of border tourism information centre. Ms. Pullinger –– 5877

Tabling Documents –– 5877

Budget Debate

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5878

Mr. Kempf –– 5880

Mr. Perry –– 5882

On the amendment

Ms. Pullinger –– 5886

Mr. Bruce –– 5889

Mrs. Boone –– 5893

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 5895

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, in the members' gallery today we have a very well-known

British Columbia broadcaster. As a matter of fact, I am given to

understand that this gentleman was one of the first people involved in

the CTV news, and I would like you to give a very warm welcome to Mr.

Roy Jacques and his wife Lila.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

There are about 140 Young Socreds registered in the great constituency

of Burnaby-Willingdon, and today we have one in the gallery. His name

is Mike Ridel and I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

In the members' gallery today is a longtime friend from Esquimalt, Ken

Flanagan, and with him, Diane Wagner. Would the House please join me in

making them welcome.

MR. RABBITT : With us today, we

have a visitor from Edmonton, Alberta. Bryan Walton is the regional

director for the western office of the Canadian Council of Grocery

Distributors. Bryan was very helpful when the Task Force on Municipal

Solid Waste was conducting its tour. I would like the House to give

Bryan a very warm welcome.

MR. BARLEE : I am pleased

to introduce Fred and Caroline Spooner from the lakeside city of

Penticton. They have been a great help to me over the last nine months

and prior to that as well. Also, their son, Garry Spooner, from Sooke,

B.C. is in attendance. Would the House please give them a welcome.

HON. MR. REID :

We are pleased to have visiting the precincts today Mr. Wayne Sterloff,

the chief executive officer for B.C. Film. He has done a tremendous job

in his first year in operation, and we welcome him.

Oral Questions

TASK FORCE ON OIL SPILLS

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Environment could

not assure the House that meetings of the joint oil spill task force held in

B.C. would be open to the public. He said it was too complex, which is a surprising

response, given that the official communication strategy, the public affairs

bureau and the minister's own PR staff state categorically that because

the "task force meeting is a working meeting involving government agencies,

it would be inappropriate to involve the public." Has the minister now

decided to reverse the official position of the public affairs bureau and his

department and open the meetings to the public of British Columbia, like they

are in Washington State?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

First of all, the Leader of the Opposition has incorrectly repeated

what I said Monday. I didn't say it was too complex, I said it was

complex, and there's a big difference, Mr. Member. I think when you

have

preambles to questions, you should try and get the

preamble right.

Read it; it's in the Hansard .

Secondly,

with respect to the task force, all the results and reports of those

meetings will be made public. I think it's in the public's interest to

have that information made available, and as the meetings proceed and

as the various items are discussed, such as emergency response,

financial recovery, technology sharing and prevention alternatives,

that information will be forthcoming to you, sir, and to members of the

public who are interested.

MR. HARCOURT : A

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the public affairs bureau and the

minister are more concerned with private meetings than public business,

more concerned with public relations than public involvement. Can the

minister explain by what rationale it is better to have Eli Sopow and

Jake Banky as official observers, according to your agenda, than to

open the business of the public to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I don't think there's a question there, but if there is, I'll take it on notice and bring back a response.

GOVERNMENT WORKFORCE

TOTALS AND COSTS

MR. GABELMANN :

I have a question for the Minister of Government Management Services.

This year's budget limits full-time-equivalent employment to 27,335 and

includes approximately $1.35 billion for employee salaries and

benefits. It also includes almost $426 million for professional

services — this is in line item STOB No. 20. Approximately how

many people are employed in this category, and/or how many

full-time-equivalent positions does this represent?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

That certainly doesn't appear to be the type of question that would be

asked during question period, that being one of an urgent nature. It

could well have been handled in a written form or indeed dealt with in

the estimates. But I thank the member for the question, and I will take

it as notice.

FEDERAL PAY DEDUCTIONS AGAINST

B.C. GOVERNMENT WORKERS

MR. GABELMANN : I have a series of supplementaries which I will leave until I hear the answer to the first question.

have a question to the Attorney-General. A letter dated July 20, 1988,

was sent by Revenue Canada to the Deputy Attorney-General. This letter

concerned the "status of provincial government workers for purposes of

UIC, CPP and the Income Tax Act." The let-

[ Page 5876 ]

ter

says: "You are therefore to ensure that the necessary steps have been

taken so that the proper deductions for CPP, tax and UI have been

implemented...by September 30, 1988." Have those instructions been

implemented?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I'll have to take that question as notice and get the details, perhaps

from the member — or from my deputy, for that matter, if he has the

letter he's referring to — and get back to the House in due course.

INCLUSION OF FARMWORKERS UNDER WCB

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister tell us when

the government intends to direct the Workers' Compensation Board to

provide health and safety protection for B.C. farmworkers?

HON. L. HANSON : That policy is under consideration, and when we have made that decision the House will be advised.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, this policy has been under consideration since 1952 when

the Sloan commission recommended it be implemented. In 1982 the Social

Credit government of the day said that coverage would be in place by

April 1983. Some six years later no coverage is in place yet. Could the

minister explain why this government has not...?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The government House Leader rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is clearly out of order, as it

refers to future government policy. The minister has said that when

that policy has been delineated, it will be given to this House.

MR. SIHOTA : I haven't asked my question, Mr. Speaker, for him to know whether it was future policy or not.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please; would the member take his seat. The minister is

correct that the minister said he would take the question as notice and

that it was future government policy, but if the member has a new

question, a supplementary, he can put it, if he would put his question

without the

preamble.

MR. SIHOTA : The question which

I was about to state to the minister is: could the minister explain why

this government has not moved to provide occupational health safety

coverage to B.C. farmworkers?

[2:15]

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, that appears to be the same question. I have already told

the member that when we have decided what the policy is, the future

government policy, we will advise you.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, in 1982 the B.C. Medical Association recommended that

coverage be provided; the same year the B.C. Branch of the Consumers'

Association of Canada did; in 1983 the B.C. Human Rights Commission....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The member has already stated that in his last

preamble. Does the member have a third question?

MR. SIHOTA : No, I didn't; it was totally different facts in the last

preamble, Mr. Speaker, but....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Does the member have a question?

MR. SIHOTA :

The question is as follows: in 1983 a Mr. Gerwal won a negligence suit

against an employer after his chest had been ripped open by a machine

that did not meet basic safety standards. How many more workers have to

be injured before this government decides to take action?

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO

FRASER RIVER NORTH SHORE COMMUNITIES

MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and

Culture: as a consequence of the housing crisis in greater Vancouver,

many people are moving out to the north shore of the Fraser, Pitt

Meadows, Maple Ridge and the Mission area, and it is putting a great

strain on public transportation in the area. Can the minister advise on

likely government assistance to the residents of that community to deal

with the problems?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker,

in response to the member's question, as you know we have been looking

into the establishment of a commuter rail to somehow, in a very small

way, alleviate some of the problems you have in the areas you mentioned.

There's

no question at all that improved transit service is required. It is my

hope that between the establishment of commuter rail in cooperation

with the federal government and the CPR, and with the results of the

transportation study that will undoubtedly see some improvements in the

road system in your area, we will see an improvement in the way we move

people and the provision of further buses for the area.

HEALTH FEES NOT NOTED IN BUDGET

MR. PERRY :

I have a question for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of

Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). Recently a number

of increases in user fees have been announced including extended care,

long-term care, ambulance fees and Pharmacare deductibles. On Monday

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) was not able to explain why

these increases were not in the budget. Can you answer the question,

Mr. Premier?

[ Page

5877 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, there was an opportunity

to ask the question yesterday of the Minister of Finance and Corporate

Relations. I'm sure there will be another opportunity to have that

question posed to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, and

I will defer until he is here to answer the question.

FOREST SERVICE PERSONNEL

MR. KEMPF : I have a question to the Minister of Forests, who — lo and behold —

is here today. Given the Fletcher Challenge Canada experience with

respect to tree farm No. 46 and the overcutting thereon resulting in

the closure of a mill in Victoria at the end of this month, has the

minister decided to add Forest Service personnel to ensure that

management and working plans are adhered to by all licencees in the

future?

HON. MR. PARKER : There are sufficient personnel.

MR. KEMPF :

Well, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. If there are sufficient personnel

in the B.C. Forest Service, then how can we have had such an

overcutting situation with management and working plan in place? Also,

how can you assure other communities in the province of British

Columbia that they won't have the same calamity?

HON. MR. PARKER : One of the years of high level of harvest happened

during the term of my predecessor. Perhaps he could answer his own question

to some extent. However, the seriousness of the cut balance has been increased

due to the 5 percent takeback from all replaceable tenures in the province to

build up the small business enterprise program, and also because there was a

change of ownership. When Fletcher Challenge acquired BCFP, we took another

5 percent, and that 10 percent cut recovery served to emphasize the difference

in the harvest rate. There is an independent audit being conducted at the moment,

and we'll be happy to share the details with the member and other members

of the House when available.

MR. KEMPF :

With respect to the minister's predecessor, due to reasons very obvious

to many, he was not there long enough to do anything about those things.

final question, Mr. Speaker. Given that the minister was aware of

Fletcher Challenge Canada's plans clearly three months prior to their

going public, how many other such plans for shutdowns is the minister

now aware of?

HON. MR. PARKER : I know of no other closures by Fletcher Challenge.

REOPENING OF BORDER TOURISM

INFORMATION CENTRE

MS. PULLINGER :

My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Last year he closed the

province's busiest tourism information centre at the Douglas border

crossing saying it would be much better for the chamber of commerce in

the area to take over that function. This year he's reopening it. My

question is: will the minister now admit he made a mistake in closing

the Douglas crossing centre in the first place and that this latest

good-news announcement from his ministry is just one more example of

the government's take-it-away-then-give-it-back, yo-yo style of

economics?

HON. MR. REID : First, as

an act of

courtesy, welcome to the House. I'm sorry I wasn't here when you were

brought in. I'm pleased they were able to give you a question, which

I'm very happy to answer. Allowing you to cut your teeth this early in

the game is great, but I see your leader is back today, and it's the

first time I've seen him in the last couple of weeks.

I'm

pleased to answer the question about the Douglas crossing closing. We

closed it a year ago and brought in two other centres to replace it at

the time. We thought that by having the chambers involved in the local

area, they would have more effective application to the visitors across

the border. We found, by virtue of a consultant who went around the

area after one year's experience, that there was some flowthrough

traffic being missed; they were not getting proper direction to some

areas around the rest of the eight regions in the province. So it

became very important, and we decided to do something very professional

with a new centre that would be safe. The current one that we are

reopening I want to admit to you today — since you want to be a critic, you can watch this very closely —

that the facility we are reopening is not as safe as we would like it

to be, and because it isn't, we are opening a new and bigger centre

just down the road a bit. In order to service the public in the

meantime, we're opening the old centre temporarily.

MR. SPEAKER :

Before the Attorney-General starts, I would just like to comment that

after question period today members may like to re-read their rules and

standing order 47A.(b), which says: "...questions and answers shall be

brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." Also

standing order 47A.(d): "...debate shall not be permitted." And May's

twentieth edition says that a question is not to promote a lengthy and

detailed answer. If members would just read the standing orders and a

bit of May, we could have many more members participate in question

period.

Hon. S.D. Smith tabled the 1987-88 annual report of

the Legal Services Society of British Columbia, pursuant to

section 15

of the Legal Services Society Act.

[ Page 5878 ]

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of B.C. Hydro for the calendar year 1988.

HON. MR. REID :

May I have the floor for a moment, just to clarify my discussion in

answer to that question? I wanted to make it abundantly clear....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID : No, I don't want to mislead the House, Mr. Speaker. The question was....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The minister cannot continue question period. Question period is over.

HON. MR. REID : I wanted to clarify a point.

MR. SPEAKER : You can make a ministerial statement.

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a ministerial statement. In response to

the question, we will not as a ministry be reopening the Douglas

crossing. It will be opened by the private sector, not by the

government.

MS. PULLINGER : The minister seems to

have a great deal of trouble explaining himself clearly. You close a

crossing, and then you open it again. Now you're going to build another

one; it's a yo-yo. We suggest that you submit yet another name for the

doublespeak award of the year.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

HON. MR. DUECK :

To begin with, I would like to congratulate and welcome the new members

who joined the House just recently: the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry), the second member for Nanaimo (Ms.

Pullinger) and, of course, the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen).

Welcome to this House. I am sure we will have many hours of enjoyable

debate, question period and answers from time to time.

is with great pride that I speak in support of the 1989 budget. I,

like the Finance minister and many members of this House, entered the

provincial Legislature in 1986 with great enthusiasm and in the hope of

accomplishing many things. The Finance minister and I were immediately

appointed to cabinet, and the real weight of our responsibility became

evident.

First I would like to say just a few things about my own constituency. The

second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself are fortunate

enough to live in that particular area. The central Fraser Valley consists of

roughly 75,000 people, and we live in a community where the air is clean and

the water is pure. We have all the amenities of a large city, yet we live in

the country. It is a farming community, but it is becoming more and more urban.

is a prosperous community with strong family ties. They still believe

in the work ethic. They are independent, and they don't want government

interference. We have a mosaic of many ethnic backgrounds, many

different cultures and many different religions — all in all, a very

strong, stable, friendly community and a good place to raise kids.

is the home of the famous Abbotsford Air Show. This year we will be

hosting the aerospace trade show, which is an Airshow Canada event

headed up by Patrick Reid, and it should be a national event.

Although

it has not yet been announced, I'm sure that Central Fraser Valley will

get the 1993 Summer Games. We have the famous Bradner Flower Show,

which the Lieutenant-Governor is going to open this year. The agrifair

facility is second only to the PNE and growing every year. We have the

International Band Festival with tremendous public schools complemented

by private schools and colleges. We have much talent in the arts and

sports, winning many international awards in both areas.

[2:30]

As Social Credit MLAs, we on this side of the House have always

taken pride in our predecessors' stick-to-itiveness: a commitment to

presenting to the Legislature a balanced budget. That is the Social

Credit legacy. When the economy turned for the worst in the mid-1980s,

we were truly unhappy to run a deficit. This is not our way. The

growing debt made me — and most British Columbians — very uneasy.

During that period of time, the government worked very hard — and

perhaps risked unpopularity — in making sure these deficits were kept

to a bare minimum. At the same time the government continued to provide

the safety-net for social services which are an integral part of our

community. For those achievements I applaud the previous

administration. It is that distaste for mortgaging our future that made

me feel comfortable running as a Social Credit candidate.

Under

the stewardship of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, we

once again are in the black. We could not have achieved this so soon

were it not for the unbending commitment to fiscal responsibility by

administrations past and present. This commitment to fiscal

responsibility has been a Social Credit hallmark from the early days of

W.A.C. Bennett, unlike the NDP, who are now experimenting in

alternative ideologies. They have a new revelation. They see things in

a different light; new truths have come about. They now say you cannot

continue to spend indefinitely more money than you take in. They now

know there is no longer a money tree.

The NDP's flip-flop

ideology is really interesting. It reminds me of a recent visit to a

men's clothing store. A gentleman was speaking to a clerk and was

trying on an assortment of ties. The man said: "I usually wear red ties

because red is my favorite colour. But I just found out that the in

thing is to wear blue ties, because blue makes me look younger and

thinner." The clerk answered: "That is true, sir; it is a matter of

taste. However, blue ties are in this year." The man responded: "That's

what I'm afraid of. Per-

[ Page 5879 ]

haps I'll wear the blue tie and just buy a pair of rose-colored glasses." This is precisely how the opposition is behaving.

the last few months I have been hearing familiar phrases coming from

unfamiliar faces. I hear the phrase "sustainable development" and: "You

have to create wealth before you can spend it." I think: "Hey, they are

serious about wearing these blue ties." The Leader of the Opposition is

desperately trying to be everything to all people. That doesn't work.

The public isn't fooled by that; they can see through that. You might

as well continue wearing your red tie.

I now want to turn

to some of the specifics of the budget that affect my ministry. Mr.

Speaker, I want to clearly say that I am very pleased with the budget

allocated to the Ministry of Health. With an increase of more than a

million dollars every day — that is the increase, and I want to

emphasize that — it makes a total roughly of $12 million a day 365 days

of the year,

I am confident that I can deliver the quality

of care that British Columbians expect. The million dollars a day more

works out to be about 10 percent more for the health care budget.

With inflation running less than 5 percent, this budget allows me to

put funds into areas that will greatly assist the lives of our seniors.

support service will receive a 14.5 percent increase over what we

actually spent. I expect some of this money will go to pay home support

workers a better income, which I think we all agree is certainly due.

Long-term care will be enhanced.

Our hospitals will get

increased funds that recognize population growth and, of course,

demographic changes. It will not mean that hospitals will be allowed to

start new programs or spend money at will, but it will allow a

rationally planned expansion of our acute-care services. I think we've

always said that a rationally planned approach is the way to go. That's

what this government has done ever since it was elected.

This

week I have announced the expansion of the mammography screening

program — a new mobile unit I alluded to last year. Open-heart surgery

at Royal Columbian was announced just today, with a unit in the future

for Kelowna because they are into a $25 million expansion program of

their facility. When that is complete, they can plan to incorporate

this into their facility, and they will be the fifth open-heart-surgery

facility in British Columbia.

We also opened another

limited-care dialysis unit in Surrey so people from the Surrey area do

not have to travel all the way to Vancouver. People with that ailment

must go three times a week, and it's roughly four hours per treatment.

This is a great help. I want in future to expand it even more in that

area. These are just a few examples of what we can expect this year

from my budget allocation.

I always enjoy following the

reaction to the budget. As always, the criticisms have come from the

usual sources and the bouquets have come from usual sources — all in

all, fairly predictable reactions,

However, the usual criticisms in the health sector were not there this year.

fact, I've only come across two criticisms of the budget speech thus

far other than from the people in the House. The president of the

nurses' union protested, and also the president of the British Columbia

Medical Association. When you put those two criticisms into context —

they are both negotiating wage and fee increases — I think I can feel

good about the overall reaction to the budget allocation. When there

are negotiations taking place, one must take that into consideration.

Minister of Health, one area I see as a priority and one that affects

my mandate directly is environmental health. The division between

environment and health is really non-existent. It pleases me then to

see nearly $200 million for environmental programs. Through my eyes, I

see that also as health spending. Recycling, pollution control and

toxic waste are all factors in determining the overall health status of

our citizens.

In fact, $200 million for environmental

programs, $253 million more for education and $165 million more for

social services — when the number of people on GAIN, in fact, is

dropping — are all signs of healthy public policy, All these programs —

about $600 million worth — will improve the health status of British

Columbians and are excellent examples of a real commitment to health

promotion providing resources for quality living.

It's not

just what's in my budget; there are many, many other things and many

other ministries that, in fact, affect health, so we can say we're

probably spending $5 billion on health in British Columbia. If you

think that isn't enough, then tell me how much more you think is

required to deliver a good health care service in this province.

Government

thrust will be more and more on wellness, encouraging people to look

after themselves. In other words, we're talking about lifestyle and

keeping people out of the hospital, if at all possible. Each year

Canadians spend hundreds of millions of dollars on drugs they don't

need. Many adverse drug reactions lead to further medication, and the

result has been a lot more over-prescribing by physicians.

Over-prescribing

is so endemic that doctors often can't tell whether their patient is

suffering from dementia or from the side effect of prescribed drugs.

One Ontario hospital did 100 autopsies and found 36 died from adverse

drug reaction. A doctor in Edmonton said: "Dr. Michael Watson of

Edmonton pulls drug raids on his patients. He shows up, without notice,

asking to see contents of their medicine cabinet. The pills that are

not warranted are taken away. During such a campaign in the city enough

Valium was found to put Edmonton to sleep for ten days." I am not

saying that; I am quoting from a doctor.

Drug companies

spend between $4,500 to $5,000 per patient to promote prescription

drugs. Sixty percent of all doctor visits result in prescriptions.

There is much we can do, and we can do it on our own. We don't need

money. There are many things individuals

[ Page 5880 ]

can

do themselves to prevent sicknesses: eat better; exercise more; quit

smoking; drink less; have more friends and social acquaintances; look

after our environment; and have a safer workplace, cleaner water and a

better sewer system. It goes on and on; this is all part of health care.

Just

how bad for our health is tobacco? I am quoting from Dr. Rachlis, who

wrote a book recently on second opinions — and I want this House to

know I am having dinner with him tonight: "Tobacco use is quite simply

the single greatest cause of disease and disability in Canada: 30,000

to 50,000 people each year die from the use of that product."

MRS. BOONE : Make the Legislature smoke-free.

HON. MR. DUECK : We are. You are absolutely right.

Alan Barclay, former Deputy Minister of Health in Ontario, said:

"We

scream around the fast track of life with carefree abandon until

suddenly something goes wrong. Then we pull into the nearest pit stop

and expect a quick fix will be able to patch us up so we can get back

in the race, only to continue our lifestyle without regard to our

health, in terms of wellness and risk of getting ill once more, and

then blame the government once again for not having enough programs.

Health is everybody's business, individually and collectively."

This

is a good budget. We are the envy of every province in Canada. No

wonder the Leader of the Opposition explained after the budget speech

had been delivered.... He was out in the hall and said: "It's

unbelievable." I can understand, with his recent conversion to free

enterprise and with his discovery that you have to earn before you can

spend, statements like that coming from him. But that was a few days

ago. Who knows? He may have changed his mind by this time.

[2:45]

Actually, I feel sorry for the opposition; I really do. Their role

in the British parliamentary system is to oppose, to criticize, to find

fault. With a budget like this, it is a tough job. Needless to say, I —

like all my colleagues on this side of the House and perhaps, secretly,

other members opposite — support this budget enthusiastically.

MR. SPEAKER : The member for Omineca. [Applause.]

MR. KEMPF : I have friends on both sides of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER : You always have had; you always will have.

MR. KEMPF : Sometimes I wonder about that.

It's

a great pleasure to add my comments to this debate and in the process

add my own balanced approach to the discussion — not the "yes sir, no

sir, three bags full, sir" approach required by the government members

opposite, or the "if it came from government it's all wrong" attitude

required of the official opposition because of our very unfortunate

party system, I believe....

The budget speech made much of

being balanced. I am not an accountant, but on behalf of those I

represent, I really do hope that it is in fact a balanced budget. Not

only that, I hope it would turn out better than the government

anticipates, because if there's anything the majority of my

constituents believe in, it's government being frugal with their

dollars, spending within their means. I truly pray that the pea is, in

fact, under the right shell.

One thing for sure: should

this budget be balanced, there are individuals not present in this

House to be thanked for it. One of those individuals is the former

premier, Bill Bennett, who had the real guts to bite the bullet during

one of the toughest recessions that British Columbia has seen since the

Great Depression, who, against all odds and many hardships and much

disdain, set in motion policies which we reap the benefit of today; and

also the people of British Columbia, who suffered through those tough

days and who provide all the means — the dollars of which we often speak

so lightly in this House.

I want for a moment to talk about

those means. They've been alluded to by my friends to my right. I

never, ever thought I'd refer to them as being to the right, but

sitting in my enviable position I'm able to view the world from a much

different perspective. We've heard about rose-coloured glasses, but

through clearer glasses; perhaps, Mr. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Parker), able to see both the forest and the trees.

The

means: little wonder that this Minister of Finance has been able to

balance his budget. The people of British Columbia have provided the

means. In the past two budgets that I've seen in this House, every

conceivable tax in B.C., every conceivable user fee, has doubled,

quadrupled — or worse. Some of the user fees have gone up as much as

200 percent. Fees of all sorts. I have a constituent who owns a small

motel and trailer court. A year and a half ago, in marched a couple of

bureaucrats to tell him that he would now have to pay $265 every six

months for the use of the sewage disposal system in the ground on his

property which he paid taxes on. Fees of all sorts have gone through

the roof.

I too could balance my budget, whatever I spent,

if I could dictate my income. A balanced budget on the backs of British

Columbians.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF :

Listen and you might learn, Mr. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). I

listened to your speech yesterday, now you listen to mine today.

British

Columbians are common-sense people. They wish to pay their fair share,

their part, to look after the less fortunate in order to have an

acceptable level of health care, education, social services — all those

badly needed services that we've grown to accept in our province. But

they do not take lightly being taxed to the bone in order that this

Premier and

[ Page 5881 ]

this

government might build a billion-dollar fund. I've heard it called

several things: the rainy-day fund, the BS fund. Call it what you like.

But we all know what it is, Mr. Speaker, as do you. We've seen it

before. A billion dollars more than was required by this government,

raised in taxes on the backs of British Columbians, primarily lower-

and middleclass British Columbians, in the last two years. And the

budget makes much of the fact that it will reduce the government

purpose debt, still standing at $5 billion, by $250 million in this

year, for a saving of $69 million, as I read it in the budget. If we

have a billion dollar fund sitting there for we know not what, why

don't we use it to pay down the debt yet another billion and save

another four times $69 million on behalf of the taxpayers of British

Columbia? An extra billion dollars raised on the backs of ordinary

British Columbians, and at the same time others get off scot-free. If

this billion dollars was needed — and I am sure it will be utilized for

some good, political purpose — then why didn't they get it from the

proper source? They've gone to the wrong well to get their water.

British

Columbians pay through the nose, while integrated forest companies

strip the province bare and run with the profits. Integrated

sawmill-pulp mill operations loading costs on logging and sawmill

operations, writing them off on stumpage, getting their pulp mill fibre

for literally nothing, Mr. Minister of Forests.... I'll prove that in

your estimates. Running sawlog and even veneer material through their

wood rooms.... I'll prove that also. Why not? They're cheap.

Underscaling, setting their own price of logs to the Vancouver log

market, getting away with absolute murder, while the government turns a

blind eye and British Columbians pay.

That is where the

billion dollars is, if it is needed — and surely it is needed, with a

five billion dollar debt still on the books. If it is needed, it should

be taken from the proper source, not from the backs of British

Columbians. Poisoning our waters, desecrating our forest lands, robbing

our children of their heritage, blackmailing government and running

with the profits.

The budget devotes one short paragraph to

our primary resource, and it is virtually hidden under the heading of

environment. It contradicts the throne speech. I'll read from both. The

throne speech says: "We will expand our reforestation program

significantly, and one billion seedlings will be planted in the next

three years."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Then

we go to the budget speech, and what does it say? "Over one billion

seedlings will be planted over the next several years." Which is it?

Over the next three years or the next several years? There is a great

deal of difference. Which will it be? And who is going to pay? The big

boys have been forgiven all their sins for NSR lands prior to October

1987, so who is going to pay for all these seedlings?

What

of small business in the forest industry? No mention of small business

in the budget at all, except in the appendices. I'd like to read from

the appendices and make a comparison, which will show that small

business, which harvests approximately 7 to 10 percent of the annual

allowable cut in British Columbia — the minister will say 15, but that

is wrong; and that figure was probably close to 6 percent last year —

paid last year 24 percent of the stumpage revenue. Six percent of the

harvest, 24 percent of the revenue; and this year they will pay 28

percent of the total revenue. That's fair, Mr. Speaker? Small business:

devastated, taxed to death in the province of British Columbia.

Enough said with respect to forestry. It's a disaster, and we'll talk about it in the minister's estimates.

[3:00]

I want to talk a moment about highways. A great deal has been made

of an over-$1 billion highways budget. That's nothing new. We had

billion-dollar highways budgets three and four years ago. It's about

time we spent money on our highways. I've got transprovincial highways

that are worn out and have been worn out for quite some time. I've got

projects that have been promised for years but never delivered upon.

Many promises; I could go on and on with them, Mr. Speaker, but time is

short. What's the Premier's answer to long-overdue highways projects?

Why, it's regionalization. Transportation committees in the states of

British Columbia. People discussing the same needs outlined years and

years ago. Reinventing the wheel. And how many of those long promised

projects will be put forward and are included in this year's budget?

The committees are still meeting up there. None, I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker. Those committees, that regionalization are a sham. We should

be ashamed as British Columbians — and I was born and raised here — to

have such a thing in this province. Committees spinning their wheels,

probably the same wheels they're attempting to reinvent. Perhaps we'll

obtain some of the answers to those questions during the minister's

estimates. And this member, at least, will be asking questions in every

one of the ministers' estimates.

Let's talk for a moment

about education. I'd like to commend the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Brummet) for his initiative. I look forward to the two new acts

that will come before this House. I think some of the changes are bold,

and I think many of them are long overdue. But I want to speak today

about postsecondary education, and in particular about the long-sought,

much-needed, much-deserved university for Prince George. We in the

north central and northern regions of this province are not asking for,

we are demanding a university — not an institution with degree-granting

rights, but a university, a bricks-and-mortar university — in Prince

George. That wasn't even mentioned by the Minister of Finance when he

delivered the budget to this assembly. I see it's there, but he missed

it out. But never does it say "university." Never anywhere in the

throne speech, in the budget speech, does it say "a university

[ Page 5882 ]

will be built in Prince George." We in the north are demanding a university, a full-fledged bricks-and-mortar university.

For

far too long now, Mr. Speaker, our young people have had to leave the

north, at horrendous trauma and expense. And many do not go on to

higher learning beyond the college stage. That's simply not good

enough. It's not good enough, either, to think that you can buy us off

by doing as government has done in Kelowna and Kamloops and Nanaimo. We

demand a university, built in Prince George. Nothing else will suffice.

If the government has a billion dollars which it doesn't know what to

do with, or that is built as a war chest, then surely they can build a

university in Prince George. They can live up to the promise that they

have made to the people of the northern two-thirds of this province, to

build a university in Prince George.

Governments have taken

from the north long enough. We deserve a return for the loss of our

resources, both natural and human, the devastation of our forest lands.

You need only look around the communities that I serve to know about

that, and the billions of tax dollars going south from those in the

north, many of them my constituents.

Why a university in

Prince George, you ask. For the forest industry alone, if nothing else,

which in the north will soon be reduced to reforestation only. Inside

of 25 years, all the harvesting will have been done.

There

is $7.8 million for yet another forestry lab in the south, this time at

the University of Victoria. Utter and complete madness, Mr. Minister of

Forests. No wonder the Scandinavians have it all over us. They take our

lodge pole pine and white spruce seed and grow a forest far superior to

that which we grow, and that forest north of the longitude of the B.C.–Yukon border. I guess we've got a lot to learn. And where do we build

yet another forestry lab in British Columbia? We build it on the

southern tip of Vancouver Island. Where was our Forests minister,

himself a northerner?

HON. S.D. SMITH : What does the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) think of that?

MR. KEMPF :

Listen, Mr. Member for Kamloops, and you may become Premier some day.

Where was the federal minister of forests, himself a northerner, when

this decision was made? Was the provincial Minister of Forests riding

around in a Mac-Blo jet? Was the federal minister of forests asleep at

the switch? Where were they when they were spending $7.8 million of the

taxpayers' money building yet another forestry lab where it's not

needed?

HON. MR. PARKER : What do you know?

MR. KEMPF :

It's needed in the north, where 68 percent of the forest land in the

province of British Columbia exists. And yourself a northerner! I wish

your constituents could hear you, Mr. Minister. Perhaps they'll read

Hansard .

HON. MR. PARKER : Oh, I talk to my constituents. Don't you?

MR. KEMPF : Yes, you bet I do. You're a one-timer. You're gone. You bet I listen to them. You're gone, Mr. Minister.

Where was the federal minister, Frank Oberle, when this decision was made?

Mr.

Speaker, we must build a university in Prince George. We must have a

forestry lab in that university in order that we too may begin proper

reforestation, so that maybe, after a falldown period of 50, 60 or

perhaps 70 years, we will again have a forest around our northern

communities that can be harvested.

As a true northerner — I

believe I'm a true northerner, and yes, I speak to my constituents and

tell them the truth — I'll have a great deal more to say on these and

many other issues in the weeks and perhaps months ahead in this session

of this Legislature, as the government is held accountable for this

"balanced budget" for initiatives that should have been, but are not,

seen in this budget.

In particular, a promise was made and

not kept. As northerners we're going to make sure, whether the Minister

of Forests is with us or not, that a university will be built in Prince

George. I look forward to debating these issues and many others in

great detail in the estimates of the ministers in the weeks ahead.

MR. PERRY : You caught me still preparing the last of my remarks, but

I welcome the chance to speak to the House. I should like to begin my remarks

by thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker in his absence and your

staff and the staff of the House for welcoming me here so cordially.

also thank members of the government side, particularly the Minister of

Health, for their gracious welcome. Particularly, I thank my colleagues

and members of this side of the House for showing me the ropes. I'd

like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall attempt to stay off the

ropes at least for my first few days in the House.

I intend

to do my best to honour the ancient and dignified traditions of our

parliamentary system. We all know that the House represents the

aspirations of our people to a truly democratic society. Our present

freedom of speech has evolved from the days when Mr. Speaker was

required literally — I emphasize literally — to protect the ordinary

members from imprisonment in the Tower of London or worse, merely for

representing their constituents.

In the original House of

Commons, members represented only a ruling elite — the few males

allowed to vote. Now, of course, we represent all our constituents,

including those who did not vote for us, and I intend to do so to the

best of my ability.

In this province we've witnessed

recently a dangerous trend away from that democratic evolution of

parliamentary, responsible government — back towards the oligarchic

tradition of the divine right of kings, and I need look no further than

one of

[ Page 5883 ]

the

leading members opposite to emphasize the point I'm making. I think the

people of the province are well aware of this and want to see an end to

this dangerous tradition of contempt for the law.

Let me

use the time I have today to speak directly for my constituents in

Vancouver–Point Grey and to their most immediate concerns, particularly

those problems which have not been addressed either in the budget or in

the Speech from the Throne. Let me turn first to the original

inhabitants of my riding. Perhaps in due respect to history and

geography, my constituency should be referred to as a "paddling" rather

than a riding.

Capt. George Vancouver's diary of June 1792

records his meeting with what we now call the Musqueam Indians in

Burrard Inlet near present-day Stanley Park: "Here we were met by about

50 Indians in their canoes who conducted themselves with the greatest

decorum and civility, presenting us with several fish." I might add

that Captain Vancouver was running very short of supplies at that time.

Archibald

Menzies, the Scottish botanist who accompanied Captain Vancouver, wrote

of a large deserted village of at least 400 to 500 inhabitants at Point

Roberts — undoubtedly not deserted, but simply abandoned temporarily

during the summer to a summer fishing camp.

[3:15]

Captain Vancouver, while he acknowledged his friendly reception by

the natives in his diary, had the characteristic British arrogance to

conclude: "We were the first people from a civilized country they had

yet seen."

Simon Fraser's journal of 1808 describes the

village of Musqueam at the mouth of the Fraser River's north arm: "The

fort is 1,500 feet in length and 90 feet in breadth. The houses are in

rows. One of the natives conducted us through all of the apartments and

then desired us to go away, as otherwise the Indians would attack us."

Evidently the native people had learned this time to be wary of

European "discoverers."

The historical record is

unambiguous. The archaeological record is equally convincing that

native Indians were the original people, not only of the Fraser delta

and its environs, but of this entire province.

In less than

three weeks, we shall celebrate the designation of the Endowment Lands

as a regional park. This is something for which I have worked in my own

small way as a private citizen for 21 years with many letters to

various governments on both sides of this present House. Many others

have worked much harder for this, and a few have worked much longer

than I.

The government's decision to preserve the Endowment

Lands in their natural state has gratified most British Columbians,

including me and my colleague the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Ms. Marzari). Regrettably it has also shown contempt for those

Canadians who are the descendants of people who inhabited and utilized

those lands for 10,000 years.

HON. J. JANSEN : Tell us about it.

MR. PERRY : I'm talking about the same people who welcomed Captain Vancouver in 1792.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY :

I couldn't hear what you said, Mr. Member. The member knows that I

worked on this issue, because I presented a brief verbally to him

during his hearings in Vancouver — my brief that was never

acknowledged, and a report that was never published.

Because,

Mr. Speaker, the province consistently refuses to acknowledge the

legitimacy of native land claims, the problem of aboriginal land claims

has festered, not only for the Musqueam but throughout British

Columbia. Now the Musquearn have taken what they believe is their only

available avenue to secure their rights. The result is a legal process

which will be costly not only to the Musqueam but to the taxpayers of

British Columbia, and that is not fiscal responsibility.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : If you had listened to my earlier remarks, you would have

recognized that I began by acknowledging the importance of freedom of speech

in the House of Commons and the subsidiary Houses such as this.

on this side of the House have taken a different position, which is

that the government must negotiate land claims with our native people

on a fair and honest basis. This does not deny the role of the federal

government. It is not to "give away the store." Any government must

act, obviously, on behalf of all of the people. But it does recognize

that native claims must be treated with the same respect as other

legitimate claims to title. I am aware of no principle of justice which

suggests that the native people, simply because they were here first,

should not be entitled to fair compensation for loss of what was

indisputably their land. Nor should they be deprived permanently of

their ability to resume, albeit at a higher technological level, the

sustainable development they practised for thousands of years before

Europeans "discovered" British Columbia.

Our record as the

dominant culture in our adopted province has not been good. I believe

most British Columbians recognize that fair treatment of B.C.'s

aboriginal people is long overdue; so I call on the Premier, if he can

hear me, to view the Musqueam-Endowment Lands controversy not as

problem, but as an opportunity to begin the historic process of

reconciliation through justice.

The first step — only the

first step, but a very important one — is to visit the Musqueam on

their own ground without preconceptions and listen to what they have to

say. I have done this recently, and it has been a revelation to me. I

have seen things in the longhouse which I'm not at liberty to describe,

but which have convinced me that the rich and vital cultural traditions

of the Musqueam people are alive.

[ Page 5884 ]

Their

claims to traditional use of the Endowment Lands are not idle. If the

Premier could see and hear what I have seen and heard at Musqueam — and

he can — perhaps he would begin that process of reconciliation which

ultimately is inevitable, rather than forestall it further when he

officially opens the park on April 23.

Let me turn, Mr.

Speaker, to other issues of pressing concern to my constituents. The

most urgent is the housing crisis. Nothing in the budget speech

suggests that the government even recognizes that a crisis exists. When

literally hundreds of elderly citizens are facing eviction in the next

few months in one neighbourhood, that is a crisis by anyone's criteria.

Let me tell the House about a few of the individuals affected. Many are

single women in their eighties or nineties. One that I am aware of lost

her husband early, thanks to his gassing as a Canadian soldier in World

War I. Others may have lost children in World War II. Many tenants in

Kerrisdale have lived in their present apartments for as long as 23

years. I've visited some of the apartment buildings on Balsam Street

and on West 44th Avenue. The buildings are in good condition. The

apartments are the kind of facility I would be happy to live in myself,

and I dare say even the well-heeled members opposite might find they

afforded comfortable accommodation. They are to be demolished so that

luxury condominiums can replace them, and for what purpose? The reason — the driving force — is absolute greed. I said this during the recent

by-election campaign, and I will say it again here in this House: it is

immoral to destroy a good building and drive out the long-term

residents who have done so much to build our country. It is as if they

were rats who must be driven out so we can make room for the few people

who are wealthy enough to afford the accommodation that will replace

those perfectly comfortable and profitable apartment buildings. I am

not an expert in real estate or urban planning; I am merely a physician

whose job is to patch people up a bit when they are sick. But I know

wrong when I see it, and it is wrong to evict long-term tenants in the

pursuit of sheer greed. It may not be illegal, but it is wrong — and

perhaps it should be illegal. Were the senior ministers — the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), the Minister of

Finance and the Premier — aware of the situation, perhaps they too

would be as concerned as I am about my constituents.

Perhaps

we need to emulate that very conservative province of Ontario, which

has a Rental Housing Protection Act that was passed in 1986 as a

temporary measure — thanks to the Ontario NDP — and is now to be made

permanent by a majority Liberal government. That act protects the

rental housing stock from senseless demolition. It became necessary in

the face of a housing crisis in Toronto.

I believe — and I fear it will be worse — that we are now entering a similar

crisis in greater Vancouver. Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and we

have seen the Minister of Finance and the Premier dancing a silly jig, despite

the importuning of the Social Credit candidate in Vancouver–Point Grey. I hope

they will listen, because if they don't, the people will speak in a voice

that is unmistakably clear. It would be far better if they listen while they

still have the time to do something about the situation. I hope the government

will wake up to this fact. Even though it has no cabinet representative from

Vancouver, it still has a responsibility to the whole province, including the

city of Vancouver.

have discussed only one aspect of the Vancouver housing crisis. I have

no time today to detail equally urgent issues: rampant speculation in

residential property, demolition of beautiful older homes, needless

destruction of trees and other greenery, and crazy increases in

property taxes which are unfair to residents of the city of Vancouver.

These issues have nothing to do with racism. Our courageous new

Lieutenant-Governor and even our former Member of Parliament for

Vancouver Centre have recognized his and spoken out. The real issue is

crass, speculative greed by ordinary people of all races from Canada

and abroad, buyers and sellers.

The even more important

political issue is the lack of any meaningful political response to the

crisis. What alarms me most, as someone who has spent much of my life

fighting racism and who comes from a family which has spent much of its

life fighting racism, is that the small streak of racism which lurks

deep in some of our people will be exacerbated by the current crisis,

particularly because of the absolute lack of response from our

governments, both municipal and provincial.

Let me turn to

some of the environmental concerns that affect my riding. Suddenly the

government seems to have discovered what the rest of us have known for

years. We live on a finite planet which is not only our home but likely

our only possible home in the known universe. To the extent that we

continue to foul our own nest, as we sow, so shall we reap.

am relieved to hear today from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck)

that he is sanguine about he quality of air in the central Fraser

Valley. Maybe he knows something the atmospheric scientists don't know,

or perhaps he is not worried about the global depletion of the ozone

layer or about the gradual drift of air pollution up the Fraser Valley

from greater Vancouver. I remember the old days of the Vancouver

International Airport, when there was a warning from the atmospheric

environment service that the greater Vancouver area, surrounded by

mountains, would one day resemble Los Angeles in smog. That warning was

there when I arrived in Canada in 1962. We paid no heed to it then, and

we are still not paying attention to that warning. Coming from Vancouver

to Victoria on a winter morning in the helicopter one can see all too

clearly the air pollution drifting east over the Fraser Valley towards

the hon. Minister of Health's riding.

Let me tell you about

some of the other environmental issues that concern the residents of my

riding. One is the barging of jet fuel up the Fraser River. That is a

completely unnecessary initiative which is condemned by the Fraser

River Coalition

[ Page 5885 ]

and

feared by biologists such as Dr. Ken Hall, of the Westwater institute

at the University of British Columbia, who know the most about the

Fraser River estuary. It is feared by the biologists because that

estuary is one of the most productive, if not the single most

productive, biological assets in British Columbia. It has already been

fouled for more than a hundred years, and now a completely unnecessary

barging proposal by the major airlines proposes to risk a major

environmental catastrophe in that estuary. It is a completely

unnecessary project, something which should be scuttled before we waste

any more public money on its environmental assessment.

[3:30]

Let me discuss another issue: the proposed expansion of the

Vancouver International Airport. The Community Forum on Airport

Development requests something that is only fair: that the federal,

provincial and municipal governments should demonstrate to the public

the convincing need for a third runway before we spend enormous sums of

public money on a project of this type, and also demonstrate that the

biological and environmental consequences are acceptable. As I said

previously, we are talking about the richest biome in British Columbia,

an area of international significance for waterfowl migration and for

salmon and salmonid migration, where environmental impact must be

clearly assessed. Environmental justice must not only be done but be

seen to be done before major projects like this are decided upon.

Let

me address some other environmental issues that concern my

constituents: the progressive assault on the wilderness in this

province, be it in the Stein, where the government continues to display

absolute contempt for the concerns of the native Indians and for the

recommendations of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, or in other areas

like the south Chilcotins, the Carmanah Valley, the Peace River Valley,

the Stikine and many other parts of the province where the government

continues to feel that we can exploit nature without seriously

protecting it.

Let me address some other issues. The

absolute rape of our forests in British Columbia has continued under

this government, perhaps at an accelerated pace which exceeds even that

of previous Social Credit governments. In the hearings of the Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) the consensus — including the evening when

I spoke to his commission and was cut off at the microphone — was

painfully obvious that we need a royal commission to investigate the

future of forestry in this province. It is painfully obvious not only

in the public hearings but in the media and in virtually every other

avenue of communication in the province: we need the royal commission

and we need it fast, before we face the falldown to something like 60

percent of the present allowable annual cut, which most independent

experts estimate as our sustainable annual cut. We cannot go on as we

have been.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn to some issues of

health. I have been pleased to hear some remarks of the Minister of

Health today, although I am concerned that his criticism of the

physicians of this province sounded somewhat unwarranted and

indiscriminate. There is no question that there is over prescribing of

drugs, particularly for elderly people, and that this represents an

important problem for our health.

There is no question that

smoking and tobacco abuse are the single largest public health problem

in the province, one which has been woefully neglected by all previous

governments. I know whereof I speak. During the election campaign I

came out of my house and accosted pleasantly three young men, students

at Lord Byng high school, who were smoking on my front lawn. I asked

them whether they receive any instruction on the health effects of

smoking in their school, and they told me they had had a 15-minute

session in grade 6. They were now in grade 8. When I asked them what

they knew about smoking, the boldest of the three told me that it

destroyed the cerebellum — possibly confusion with alcohol, possibly a

new scientific discovery of which I and my colleagues are not yet aware.

The

state of health education in the province is pathetic, to put it

frankly, and we need major improvements. We on this side — or when we

gain the other side of the House — will cooperate with the Minister of

Health in every possible way to assure this.

Let me speak

of the impending crisis that presents itself in our health care system.

The Minister of Health recognized in his comments to the House during

the estimates debate last year, and I quote from Hansard , page 4984,

that nurses in this province are "overworked, underpaid and not

appreciated enough. I have to say all those things myself. They are

doing one heck of a good job under the circumstances." Mr. Minister,

this is a consensus again, not only of the Minister of Health but of

the members on our side, of the doctors of British Columbia and the

public: something must be done about the situation, because we simply

do not have enough nurses in this province to effectively run our

hospitals. When small premature babies are being sent to Seattle or

Calgary — in the case of Seattle, at enormous additional expense to the

taxpayers of British Columbia — the reason is not the lack of hospital

beds or, in recent years — perhaps in the last year — not even the lack

of funding; the problem has been a lack of nurses to supply the labour

necessary to run those beds.

I recently visited the

Children's Hospital of British Columbia and learned that the situation

remains the same. When families from remote parts of the province

schedule their annual holiday to come to Vancouver for two weeks with

their children, and the operation is cancelled, the reason is not lack

of physician time, not even, presently, lack of funding, but lack of

nurses to attend to the children in the Children's Hospital during and

after their operation. This is a serious problem; it bodes fair to

become a crisis, and unless action is taken the situation can only get

worse.

It's an important point for us to recognize — a

revolutionary point, perhaps, for some of the members of this House,

but important and true nonethe

[ Page 5886 ]

less — that no other sex than women would accept the present situation that

the nurses in this province accept, and they will not continue to do so

for long. Unquestionably men would not accept the lack of advancement,

the relatively poor wages and the working conditions as patiently as

the nurses of British Columbia have done, and I don't think they will

continue to accept them very much longer. I encourage the government in

the strongest possible terms to take measures which will avoid a

nursing strike, and we will collaborate and cooperate in any possible

way to achieve that.

Since I have a small amount of

additional time, I will briefly address the educational issues in my

constituency, which have been covered in depth and extremely well by

the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones).

I want to give

you some small examples of the way our university has been hamstrung by

so-called fiscal restraint. In my department, the department of

medicine, arguments have raged over the problem of sorting the mail,

because there was no secretarial assistance. Secretaries paid by the

Medical Research Council of Canada and other granting agencies were

obliged to spend much of the time they should have been spending on

medical research sorting mail. The funding problem is so severe that we

face that kind of trivia.

At the end of their scholarship,

exceptionally bright medical researchers who have received scholarships

for a duration of five years from the British Columbia Health Care

Research Foundation through lottery funds find that there are no

university funds to support them. In contrast, the same practitioner

would be able to go on the open market under fee-for-service medicine

and earn an income from the same provincial treasury far in excess of

the small income they expect in a salaried job as university teachers.

But there have been no funds in the university, and in listening to the

budget speech, I found it doubtful that the present measures will

correct this situation.

Lectures I have given in the

university have been in halls in older buildings, where it was

impossible to darken the room to project slides because the curtains

were no longer hanging. I said this during the election campaign, and

the former director of academic planning challenged me on whether this

could be true. When I telephoned him back, I assured him it is true. I

have been in the rooms, I've faced the problem of not being able to

darken the room to project the slides, and I know this is true.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : The curtains are no longer hanging because they're torn

to tatters and there is no funding to replace them.

The

only possible solution to these problems is long-term funding — more

than a single year's budget cycle — and a sustained improvement in

funding for the universities and colleges, including improved funding

province and a rollback of the tuition fees that worsen the problem of

I could go on for months covering the

problems I know to exist in this province, but in view of the other

business of the House, let me simply say that because of all the above

problems, to which the budget offers no realistic answers, I move that

the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go

into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following words: "but

this House regrets that the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to

rectify current tax unfairness, to protect renters from excessive

increases and evictions, to provide adequate measures to protect the

environment and generally to repair the social and economic damage

caused by a decade of neglect."

MS. PULLINGER : Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make an introduction if I may.

Leave granted.

MS. PULLINGER :

I would like to welcome in the members' gallery today a good friend,

Clare Lawson, and her daughter Trista, formerly of Nanaimo and now of

Saanich. Would the House please make them welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, with your indulgence, before we proceed, the member for Mackenzie would also like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LONG :

In the galleries today we have 27 students and two teachers from

Elphinstone Secondary School in Gibsons, a real nice little community

in our riding. I would like this House to make them welcome.

On the amendment.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, I have now listened to all three of this government's

budgets, and I'm pleased that this time I have the opportunity to

respond. I'm even more pleased — and privileged — to second the

amendment moved by my colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Perry).

Before I begin my comments on the amendment, though, I hope I might be allowed

to say a little bit and acknowledge those persons who have held this seat before

me, who have represented my riding before me: people like Colin Cameron, Barbara

Wallace, Dave Stupich and, of course, my colleague the first member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Lovick). These people have made a significant contribution to this province.

Their dedication to the principles of social justice, equality and economic

democracy has benefited all of us.

want to make special mention of my immediate predecessor, Dave Stupich.

Mr. Stupich, as this House is well aware, served the people of Nanaimo

and

[ Page 5887 ]

Ladysmith

well for 23 years. It is a tribute to him, both the politician and the

person, that he is so well respected and well liked by people of all

political inclinations.

I'm privileged indeed to follow in

the footsteps of these outstanding people. But privilege is also a

burden, and I am burdened with the responsibility of following in the

tradition of these people. I will do my best to do so; the people of my

constituency deserve no less.

My riding consists of some 70,000 people. It stretches from just south of Nanoose in the north to

just south of Ladysmith in the south; as well, it includes Gabriola and

Protection Islands. We have a mature economy in the Nanaimo riding. It

is not a one-industry town, a mill town, as it is so often typified,

but rather a city with an increasingly diverse and broader-based

economy. It is in fact an administration and service centre for the

mid-Island area. Thus we have a large government sector, both

provincial and federal.

[3:45]

Nanaimo is the home of the regional hospital, which is, I believe,

the second-largest employer in the community. Nanaimo is also the home

of Malaspina College and the Pacific Biological Station. As well as

fishing and forest industries, my riding boasts a deep-sea port. And

all of my riding is growing in importance as both a tourist area and a

retirement area. Surprisingly, in spite of the increasingly diverse

economy, my riding has proven to be very vulnerable to the economic

shocks of the last five years. The people of Nanaimo have lived through

some very difficult economic times. Our economy took a nose-dive a few

years ago, and I cannot forget that.

I'm pleased to

report that Nanaimo's economy, as elsewhere in the province, is

beginning to turn around. It's beginning to move again, although, as I

shall have occasion today to point out, we still have some distance to

go.

What I want to do, in the time I have today, is to

address some issues of particular concern to the people of the

constituency of Nanaimo and to look briefly at the budget in relation

to those concerns. One of this budget's featured items is highways. The

minister stated, with some understandable pride: "Overall, highways

construction capital funding in 1989-90 will be more than twice the

1988-89 level." I'm certainly pleased to hear that increase in capital

construction for highways. But the minister also notes that only $30

million is allocated for the Island Highway project; that's $30 million

for a highway estimated to cost $600 million by its completion date in

Clearly $30 million is not enough, and that's why my

first question after taking my seat last Monday was to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. That's why I asked the minister, in view

of the increased budget for highways, if he would take steps to speed

up the project.

As those of us who live on the Island and

drive that highway regularly know, we need that highway sooner, not

later. I urge the minister to respond to that need by allocating more

funds to the Island Highway project; by beginning construction

immediately, both north and south of Ladysmith, where the present

highway is dangerously inadequate; and by bringing the completion date

forward from 1996 to 1994.

Another feature of this budget

is health care. This government has committed itself in this budget to

both preserving and improving our health care system. I certainly hope

that is the case, as equal access to quality health care is something

all British Columbians ought to be able to depend on. There is no

question that health care is an expensive item; it's the biggest item

in our budget. It consumes one-third of this province's annual budget

and ought to be handled with care.

But we need to focus on

things like preventive medicine, home care and alternative methods of

care that are less expensive and more satisfactory. We need to use

caution in health care — no question — but the fact remains that there

are some serious problems not being addressed.

I will point

out that the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital in my riding has what I

believe is one of the longest waiting-lists for surgery in the

province. There are nearly 2,000 people waiting for surgery at this

hospital, and those who can't afford to go elsewhere will wait a full

year. That's not good enough. I think the record will show that there

has been neglect and lack of planning on the part of this government as

far as our hospital is concerned.

Our hospital has been put

in a catch-22 situation, and it has also put people who use it at risk.

Like other hospitals in the province, our hospital is short of nurses — 37 was the last estimate I heard — one of the consequences of a serious

lack of operating funds. As one of our local newspapers, the Nanaimo

Times , pointed out recently, even if this budget provided an increase

in operating funding, there would be no physical room for extra staff.

The

badly needed $25 million construction project, if approved, will take

up any extra space during the two-year construction period. It won't

mean any additional beds, nor will phase II of the same project. Only

in phase III are we looking at more beds, and that's obviously too far

off.

While I welcome this budget's allocation of $155

million in capital funding, I am skeptical of the government's

commitment to improve our health care system.

It appears

that this government is more concerned with controlling usage by

increasing premiums and implementing user fees than it is with planning

and investing in those things that reduce the demand for high-cost

services. One of those things is adequate social programs. Poverty and

inadequate social programs not only contribute to high health costs but

they negatively affect our future generations.

I admire

those who continue to struggle and raise their children without an

adequate income. I deplore the fact that they have to. The cold facts

are: fact — unemployment in my riding is over 11 percent, and the budget

predicts a drop of only one-half of I per-

[ Page 5888 ]

cent

over the next year; fact — the minimum wage that more and more people

are earning is 20 percent below the poverty line, and there is no

increase mentioned in this budget; fact — with the present GAIN rate,

an average family's income is 50 percent below the poverty line, and

even with the meagre $26-dollar increase included in this budget, rates

are still below what they were a decade ago.

The fact is,

Mr. Speaker, that in my riding, as in so many others, we still have

food banks, soup kitchens and increasing numbers of hungry

schoolchildren. This government's callous decision to cut GAIN support

payments for single-parent families last year sparked the formation of

a child poverty action committee in Nanaimo recently.

The

kind of poverty I see in my riding and elsewhere in B.C. is simply

inexcusable in a province as rich as ours. I say with regret that this

budget does not do much to alleviate that poverty. There are precious

few signs that this government cares. Rather, it creates unemployment,

it creates poverty and then it blames those it hurts.

I was

intrigued and very pleased to see mentioned in the throne speech the

promise of a minister of state responsible for women's issues. But, you

know, there is nothing in this budget for women. What we see is a token

ministerial responsibility with nothing to back it up, nothing to make

it real. This government has stated that it is opposed to pay equity

for women. It's clearly opposed to reproductive choice and a woman's

right to fully funded, safe abortion services. This government has cut

funding to shelters for battered women and to halfway houses, and much

of the funding available now to women's programs is provided through

short-term grants. The track record of this government on issues of

concern to women is abysmal, and this budget makes it clear that there

is no change in sight.

I see no mention of funding for

child care. In spite of the fact that fewer than one child in ten who

requires it has access to licensed care; in spite of the fact that some

60,000 children under 12 in British Columbia have no child care and

are of necessity left alone; in spite of the fact that child care

licensing and monitoring is woefully inadequate because of lack of

staff and funding; in spite of these facts, there is only another

increase in subsidy payments for infants. There is a need for

accessible affordable child care spaces. Studies show that in 60

percent of families where both parents work, they do so to keep the

family income above the poverty line. The children of these people,

like those of single-parent families, need child care. It is neither a

luxury nor a frill.

This budget, I am pleased to note,

provides some relief for homeowners in my riding. The increase in the

homeowner's grant and the property purchase tax relief will make

home-owning easier for some. I applaud also the lowering of the tax

deferment age to 60 from 65 years. This will allow more of our seniors

to remain in their home.

AN HON. MEMBER : Great NDP program.

MS. PULLINGER : Great NDP program, yes.

But

renters in my riding are in the untenable position of facing massive

rent increases, up to 40 percent and 50 percent in some cases, and with

vacancy rates near zero, they don't have the option to move. These

people most often are unable to purchase a home. As part of restraint,

this government abolished the office of the rentalsman and the rent

review process. Now with the predictable reoccurrence of a rental

housing shortage and the skyrocketing rents and evictions that

accompany it, tenants have no real protection and few alternatives. The

temporary renters tax shelter in this budget is only meaningful to

those with enough income to claim the deduction; and the minister tells

us that 80 percent of renters won't qualify. Studies show that giving

interest subsidies to developers is not an effective means of

increasing the supply of affordable housing. In the past six months I

have visited or spoken to many people who live in apartments in my

riding — renters. The vast majority of them are negatively and

seriously affected by the rental housing shortage. There is nothing in

this budget for most of these people.

The final issues I

want to address in the short time I have are the important issues of

forest management and the environment. British Columbians are aware

that we can no longer tolerate the degradation of our environment. It's

becoming more than an economic issue; it's becoming a survival issue.

We must change our present destructive ways. We must invest now to

promote the kind of growth and create the kinds of jobs that will both

protect and enhance our environment.

The forest industry,

Mr. Speaker, is of primary importance in our economy, but it has been

seriously mismanaged by this government, as the recent Fletcher

Challenge layoffs on this island have shown. This government has

allowed over-cutting and waste in our forests, and our workers and

families are suffering the consequences of job loss. Forest industry

profits are rising, annual cuts are rising, but the number of jobs in

the industry and the provincial revenue from the industry are falling.

Reforestation and silviculture programs have been inadequate. We are

not getting a fair return for our forest resources under this

government, and its record of forest management is poor at best.

Control of our forests is increasingly in the hands of a few

foreign-owned forest companies, and this government's plans to

privatize our forests through tree-farm licences will hand over more

control to these corporations. At the same time, staffing has been cut

to the Ministry of Forests. Funding has been cut to silviculture

programs. Monitoring of corporate activity has been lax at best.

am disappointed that this budget does so little to address the problems

in our forest industry. Funding in real terms is projected to be lower

than the rate of inflation. I'm disgusted that this government

continues to refuse the legitimate demands of unions, of churches, of

truck loggers and others — including and especially those of us on this

side of the House — for a royal commission of inquiry into the forest

industry in this province.

[ Page 5889 ]

The

people in my riding are especially concerned about the environment.

Like many areas of the province, my riding is heavily dependent upon

industries that necessitate a clean environment, industries such as

forestry, fishing and tourism. My riding includes several small and

medium-sized islands. The uniqueness and fragility of these islands has

been recognized by the formation of the Islands Trust under a New

Democrat government. The people who live on these islands — and many

who do not — are concerned that the unique environment and lifestyle of

the islands be protected.

This government has neglected to

adequately monitor major polluters such as pulp mills in this province.

It was the federal government that finally took the action to close

some of our shellfish areas. This government has not even enforced the

inadequate existing standards, partly because of major staffing cuts in

the ministry. Now we have a privatized environmental lab which just

compounds the problem. Here again staffing has been cut, and this

much-needed service has declined.

We had a major oil spill

off the west coast of Vancouver Island. This government's response — a

week later, I might add — was.... The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) said: "We're ready to follow; we just need someone to advise

us what to do." We on this side of the House are ready to lead, Mr.

Speaker. We've tabled our sustainable development package of 22 bills.

[4:00]

Now the government says the environment is one of its most

fundamental values. British Columbians and certainly many people in my

riding are highly skeptical of this government's commitment to the

environment. It's not surprising. However, one must give credit where

credit is due.

I endorse this government's decision to

increase funding for the environment. I just hope that this year they,

in fact, spend it. I endorse the government's stated decision to better

monitor existing environmental guidelines — inadequate as they are. I

endorse any steps this government takes to protect our environment, but

I question this government's commitment to the environment. I'm not

surprised by the skepticism I hear in my riding about the government's

desire and ability to adequately monitor and protect our environment.

There

are a number of issues I would like to talk about here, were time

permitting. For example, I'd like to talk about the need for a high

school and a permanent elementary school facility in the north of my

riding. I could talk about the lack of vision and planning that has

created a situation where our young people are bused daily past two

high schools to a third one that is already overcrowded.

I would also like to talk about Bill 19 and the anger trade unionists in my

riding still feel at this oppressive and unfair legislation. I would like to

talk about the unfair taxes — close to $1,400 of increases to taxes and fees — that families, working people and homeowners are forced to pay and close to

$1,400 of increases to taxes and fees, not to mention the increased Pharmacare

fee that the Minister of Finance neglected to mention in the budget speech.

I'd

like to talk about the huge increases in homeowner and school taxes —

while corporate taxes decline — and about inflated small business tax.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, does nothing to address this unfairness.

I'm

very pleased to participate in this budget debate and to second the

amendment on this budget. It is a budget that needs amending, just as

does the Social Credit approach to managing the affairs of this

province.

The Social Credit's solution to our economic ills

clearly is not working. So some few may profit — I will grant them that — the many are not profiting. Handing over our resources and our

services to the private sector has not worked in the past; it won't

work this time, nor will removing government regulations or reducing

taxes to large corporations and the wealthy. Those misguided so-called

solutions inevitably result in the widening of the gap between the

wealthy and the less privileged, and that's what we're seeing at an

alarming rate in the 1980s. I urge this government to reconsider its

direction, listen to the people, stop selling off our assets and giving

away control of our forests.

On March 15 the people of the

constituency of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Saltair, Cassidy, Cedar, South

Wellington, Extension, Nanaimo, Gabriola Island and Lantzville sent a

message to this government. I am the messenger, and I hope this

government will heed that message. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, to judge from

this budget, the government didn't listen to what happened on March 15.

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure indeed to rise to speak to this amendment.

First I would like to congratulate the second member for Nanaimo (Ms.

Pullinger) and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry)

on their maiden speeches and welcome them again to this House.

have some difficulty in respect to the amendment, and I'm sure that

doesn't come as any surprise to anyone. I think the other thing that

wouldn't come as any surprise to anybody would be the fact that if one

were to look back in the records, I'm sure — I'm not 100 percent sure,

but it's probably more than correct — you would find that year after

year the watermelon patch has constantly presented an amendment, a

motion of non-confidence, to the budget. If I was a betting man — and

I'm not — I would probably bet that they have always done that. It

amazes me. Here we have a budget that is absolutely extraordinary. It's

incredible; it's tremendous. If I was in the watermelon patch — God

help this province if I was — I think I would have presented a

non-confidence motion that just would have said that I had no faith in

this budget, because it isn't balanced enough; it has to be balanced

more and more.

Not only is it balanced, but there are

increases in expenditures in health, education, social services and

highways. We have reduced the accumulated debt; we have balanced the

budget. We have put aside

[ Page 5890 ]

some

billion dollars for the rainy-day fund, and then on top of it all we've

been able to provide increases in every one of those social services

and ministries that are important to the people of the province. Really

one would have to say that the proper amendment would just be that this

budget isn't balanced enough.

Let's take a good look at

this budget, because it is an excellent example of good stewardship and

good fiscal management over the years. It's interesting to note that

some members of the opposition are now claiming that they're

free-enterprisers, that they continue to say so and they always have

been. It's interesting that the Leader of the Opposition just the other

day said that you have to create wealth, you have to produce more

wealth to create more taxes. One hundred percent correct. But then what

does the finance critic for the opposition have to say in an interview

in B.C. Politics and Policy? Somebody on my right says that he would

have reduced taxes. The very first thing he says he would do if he was

the Finance minister — keeping in mind that the leader has just talked

about the need to create more wealth — is raise the corporate tax rate

by 20 percent. One guy says they would reduce taxes, the other guy says

you've got to create wealth. Yet the finance critic for the opposition — who would perhaps like to someday be the Minister of Finance; if ever

that was to happen, golly help us — says the first thing he would do is

raise the corporate tax in this province by 20 percent. Is that fiscal

management? I really wonder.

It's interesting when you talk

about this amendment and the whole aspect that they have no confidence.

Let's go back. I'd just like to recite to you from the budget criticism

of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). He says: "In 1978

our gross domestic product was 10 percent higher than for Canada as a

whole" — but — "In 1987 it was 2 percent lower." But where, my friends,

will it be tomorrow? "In 1978 our level of business investment on a per

capita basis was 10 percent higher than the Canadian average" — this

all happening, of course, in British Columbia; but — a decade later...it was significantly lower." But where will it be tomorrow? "Housing

investment in 1978 in British Columbia was 23 percent higher than the

Canadian average. A decade later it was lower." But where will it be

tomorrow? "Investment in social capital in 1978 was 16 percent higher

than the Canadian average. A decade later it was lower." But I say to

you, where will it be tomorrow?

I wonder: who was the

government in 1978? The Social Credit Party of British Columbia, the

party that knows how to manage the affairs of this province properly.

Who was the government in 1979, '80, '81, '82, '83, '84, '85, '86? This

party was the government. To say that here we are in 1978, to give us

those kudos — thank you very much — for all those very important things

we have done for British Columbia.... On behalf of this government, I

will thank you for making that statement here.

Then to say

in a clichd fashion that ten years later it was lower.... Does one

look at the fact that we happened to go through a recession?

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE :

We created it, he says. It went around the world. Every single country

was faced with it, but still, here we are in 1988 with a balanced

budget.

If one were to take this little quote from the

March edition of Western Report .... I would like to quote this article,

because it is particularly important for you folks to understand this.

I will read it slowly, because it is really important. It says: "At

general election time, most voters, including many unionists, will only

vote for someone they trust in government who will" — now mark my words — "be able to cope with a recession." It goes on to say: "Many voters

will never vote NDP, regardless of the party's apparent change of

heart." What does that say? Very clearly, it says that we knew how to

take the steps that were necessary when things got difficult.

The

leadership of this government and the leadership of the governments of

1983, 1984 and 1985, which were re-elected in 1983 and in 1986, and had

been re-elected in 1979.... If you go right back to 1978.... Do you

know who was re-elected in 1979? The same government that they talk

about and that they think was inept. They're telling the voters of this

province who voted for this government that they were wrong.

1983 the population of this province again returned this government to

power, and then again in 1986. Who knows best? In my view, the voters,

the electors, the citizens of the province are the ones who know best.

The

second member for Vancouver East mentioned in B.C. Politics and Policy:

"...I think it's simple to balance the budget in British Columbia.

Absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing." By golly,

sure it's simple when you've got revenues coming in today and when

you've got dollars there to spend on the social services that we would

like to have. Sure it's easy.

What about those difficult

times? What about when we had 20,000 and 30,000 people marching on

the buildings here and demonstrating against this government? Would

this group over here have held strong? Would it have stood there square

and said: "We realize it's tough. We realize it's unpopular. We realize

it's not politically expedient, but we are going to carry on with the

direction that's important for the 'long-term viability' of this

province"? Would this group have done this? Absolutely not. Boy oh boy!

I'll tell you, it's easy to balance the budget in British Columbia when

you've had a group, a party, a government, that's provided the

leadership that has been important in making the decisions necessary

for having a strong and viable economy in the province. Certainly it's

easy.

[4:15]

He also complained about the non-residential property tax — that

some years back it was reduced, at a cost of approximately $250

million. Wasn't that the same group that said the government should

take some $300 million or so — or $500 million; it really

[ Page 5891 ]

doesn't

matter — and throw it at refurbishing sawmills and plants to try and

keep them open when they weren't productive, when they weren't sound on

the world market? I don't understand the inconsistencies. On one hand

they object to a reduction in the corporate tax and then on the other

hand they're going to shovel it off the back of a truck. I really

wonder.

I'll tell you, because of those corporate tax

reductions.... I can speak firsthand about my community, Chemainus,

where we were able to entice MacMillan Bloedel back to build a new mill

which is now one of the world leaders in technology and production.

Guess what? Union people constructed that new mill in a time that was

really important to our economy in the province and in the community.

Guess what? Union people operate that mill. Union people do the work

there and make it as productive as it possibly can be; they make it

competitive and will make it competitive in any world market condition.

Union people did it, so don't stand up and complain that this $250

million, this non-residential property tax.... What it has done for the

province is give it the old kickstart and keep the economy turning at

a time when it was necessary. It really troubles me that a motion of

non-confidence, when a budget as good as this one, that has something

for everyone.... In fact, laughable as it is, the opposition has even

made mention that this could be an election budget. It's not an

election budget; it's a budget of good government. There is something

in this budget for everyone, and it troubles me that they would stand

and offer a motion of non-confidence, saying to the people of this

province, who believe in the job we're doing, that they don't have any

faith. I don't understand, but I guess as I grow older I'll learn.

The

second member for Vancouver East mentions that: "A rational government

would pursue a strategy to manage growth pressures in Vancouver and

encourage growth in other regions in British Columbia that need jobs."

That sounds very good. Somebody else mentioned some time ago that no

new jobs must be allowed to be created in greater Vancouver if they can

be located in Prince George, Terrace or some other area of B.C., and

that a decentralization of existing jobs must occur in greater

Vancouver. Are the two statements one and the same but only changed

because we now are talking about being free enterprisers or we now have

a different view of how the world really is? I don't know, but there

seems to be some inconsistency in the approach they're taking in

trying, from the opposition side, to handle the affairs of British

Columbia.

It always amazes me that the opposition would

present a motion like this, a motion of no confidence in respect to

what I consider a very good budget for the people of the province.

Let's just take again the thought that the opposition, as they realize

that being in the hinterland.... They win the odd by-election; they

even won four by-elections. But they've only won one out of 12 general

elections. Certainly they realize some of their ways have to be

changed, so now they've started speaking more and more about being free

enterprisers, private enterprisers and the like.

Right off

the bat, you really wonder how deep that goes or whether it's simply

superficial when they say: "Any government which can continue with tax

break schemes for corporations and the wealthy and come up with a new

program in this budget that provides interest rate subsidies for

developers while food bank lineups wind around our streets is a callous

government." Shame on you. It's not a callous government. I know what

the socialists would do: get a pile more money and drive the truck

around and try to shovel it off the back.

The proposals

presented in this budget would provide jobs for some of the people

currently without work. Granted, there are some, and yes, we must work

harder and more diligently in trying to encourage this economy and

provide jobs for these people where we can. That's what that initiative

will do, and in the end it will also provide homes. What's wrong with

that? One, there's going to be jobs; two, there's going to be homes. Is

that responsible? Of course it's responsible. For them to say other

than that has got to be irresponsible. It amazes me.

Often

I hear the socialists here, the NDP, mention how wonderful things are

in Sweden. I have seen a goodly part of the world, but I never got to

Sweden. Perhaps one day I'll have the opportunity. Maybe they won't let

me in, but certainly one day I'll try to get there.

Let's

have a look at Sweden. I'd really like you to listen to this. The Union

Bank of Switzerland conducted a survey of 53 major cities around the

world. A variety of economic indicators were combined into a number of

indexes that measure each city's standard of living relative to Zurich.

What we're going to analyze here is Stockholm and the city of

Vancouver, and I think this is interesting. In terms of purchasing

power, Vancouver has 10.5 percent gross more purchasing power than

Zurich. Vancouver ranks second after Los Angeles among the cities

surveyed. But Stockholm ranks twenty-first. It has 73 percent less

purchasing power than Vancouver in gross terms. Is that good?

Wait; don't go away yet. I've got more good news. Don't leave me.

Let's

take a look at the wage and salary levels. This is Stockholm, Sweden,

and Vancouver. Sweden is a socialist country. Zurich's gross and net

salary levels, using an index of 100, are the highest of all the cities

surveyed. Vancouver, our great city in the province of British

Columbia, ranked fourth at 88.1 percent gross and 83.2 percent net. But

Stockholm, that wonderful, beautiful city in socialist Sweden, was well

down the list with salary levels of only 71.8 percent gross and 59.3

percent net of Zurich's level.

Let's look at price levels —

because all of these things do flow together — to see where a good

place to live is. In Stockholm prices are considerably higher than the

Zurich benchmark index of 100. Sweden's actual prices, excluding rent,

are 34 percent higher than Vancouver's and fourth highest overall. Is

that not incredible? Wonderful things.

[ Page 5892 ]

But

wait a minute. Let's not leave this one item that warms my heart —

food. After all, grocery stores and the like, are dear to my heart.

Listen to what happens here. For a basket of 39 foodstuffs measured in

U.S. dollars, Stockholm residents pay $480. But in Vancouver, in that

wonderful city here in this great province of British Columbia, they

only pay $300 for that same basket. Stockholm, $480; Vancouver, $300.

AN HON. MEMBER : That's free enterprise for you.

MR. BRUCE :

Free enterprise, eh. There's your socialist government. Hey, does that

sound like a good deal for the working man, the average person, the

ordinary Canadian: less purchasing power, lower salaries, higher

prices, higher foodstuffs all in socialist Stockholm?

I've

got one more. Do you want one more? Goods and services. This is really

interesting. You want to listen to this one, too, because it's all in

there and you'd like to go back to the good riding of Alberni and tell

the people the good news. By golly, my friends, there is good news in

this province. I want you to listen to this.

For a basket

of 110 goods and various services, Stockholm residents — socialist

Stockholm — pay 34 percent more than the wonderful citizens of the city

of Vancouver. Goods and services, my friends, that would cost $1,650

in Stockholm only cost $1,160 in Vancouver. That's socialism, my

friends.

It's interesting that they would rise and offer,

after ten years of hard work and labour and planning by this government — and finally a very good balanced budget, the only balanced budget in

this country that offers deficit reduction — a resolution that even

ignores the $388 million increase in health. A million dollars a day in

our health services increased, and they ignore it. They're voting

against that. Are they against that?

Capital expansion in

our schools and our hospital facilities — are they against that? New

ferries and new terminals for the ferry service in the province of

British Columbia — are they against that? Expenditures almost doubled

in our highways — do they not want highways? Are they against that as

well? Is that what this amendment says? What are they for?

I mentioned, they should have just simply said they were against this

budget because it wasn't balanced enough. That's what they should have

said.

We look around here and there's all this different

talk about things they would do. The socialists have their own job

development strategy. It was sent to me in a brown envelope. I'd like

to read to you a little example of a socialist job development program

based on sustainable development. Let me just explain to you this

little example. There are two workmen with shovels, one of whom is

observed stopping every 20 feet to dig a hole along the street. As soon

as the hole is dug, his companion fills it. Of course, the process is

then repeated. Sustainable development, I suspect.

"Comrades," shouts the observer, "what are you doing? You dig

a hole, then the other fellow fills it up. You accomplish nothing. We're

wasting money, paying you."

"You don't understand," one of the workers named Mike replies,

"usually we work with a third fellow, McHale, but he's home sick today.

I dig the hole, McHale sticks in the tree, and Colin here puts the dirt back

in the hole. Just because McHale is sick doesn't mean that Colin and I have

to stop working."

No,

ladies and gentlemen, sustainable development: the record does speak

for itself. When you come back to what this province went through in

1983 and 1984 — politically unpopular, very tough to deal with,

terrible, troubled times for many people — it was leadership of the

highest order. To suggest other than that would be to not pay attention

to the facts of the day.

[4:30]

As I mentioned, there is not one other jurisdiction in this country — not one other province, not the federal government nor territories —

that has been able to balance its budget. There are many today that

stand in envy, wishing they had had the intestinal fortitude to do what

needed to be done in 1983 and 1984 so they could enjoy the fruits of

that labour, the fruits of that difficult time, today.

Yes,

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to balance the budget, but it is easy because

there were strong, difficult, not very popular tasks that were

undertaken and done in years prior. When you talk about this budget and

there being no fiscal plan and no management, by golly, you don't read

the record. In my view, history will judge some years from now that the

leadership of this government, and the leadership of this party in

years prior, will stand far ahead of those in other governments for

taking the steps that were necessary, unpalatable as they may have

been, as unpopular politically as they may have been. But who was

re-elected again after those steps were taken? You come back to that

comment: the people of the province of British Columbia don't want

handouts; they want good, constructive, meaningful employment; they

want the opportunity to enjoy the services that we have come to enjoy

throughout this province; and they want a nice and wonderful place like

British Columbia to live in, as no other place in this country and

world can be.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard people mention with

respect to the Island Highway that it is only $30 million. Last year

they complained that it was only $6 million. Well, next year it will be

$90 million, and the year after that it will be $120 million. I would

be prepared to bet that there will be members in this House that will

rise in question period to ask the Minister of Highways about some

delay that is occurring as a result of new construction taking place

while the Island Highway is being improved. I bet that will come,

because we are going to find disruption on Vancouver Island as a result

of this construction over the next period of time.

This is good government and good initiatives. The Island Highway construction will be good for the

[ Page 5893 ]

economy

of Vancouver Island: some $600 million over the next eight years, jobs

for the contractors, jobs for the union workers. That, in fact, is what

this budget is all about. To support a motion of non-confidence is to

support a motion against the workingman.

Who is it, Mr.

Speaker, that will build the highways? Who will build the new schools?

Who will build the new hospitals? Who will build the new ferries and

the ferry terminals? It will be the workingmen, the men that this

government stands for, the men that this government will always

protect, because we know what built this province: the people of the

province of British Columbia.

MRS. BOONE : Mr.

Speaker, it is certainly nice to know who represents the men in this

province. I am here to tell you that on this side of the House we

represent both the men and the women, not just the workingmen. The

previous speaker was nothing other than entertainment.

This

budget is a desperate attempt — and you saw the desperate attempt by

the previous speaker — to make people understand and to believe this

government, finally. This is a desperate attempt to reverse the

fortunes of this government here that is sliding down into the ocean

and will soon be out there among the oil slicks.

If you

look at most previous budgets — and you have to look at the previous

budgets of the Social Credit government to understand this budget — the

history of the cuts and the abuses that this government has laid upon

the people of this province is incredible. They have gone on, not just

for two years, but way back, and the previous member actually has the

temerity to stand there and boast about what the budgets of 1983 did to

this province. The people of this province suffered tremendously in

that era, and he has the temerity to stand there and boast about it. I

can't believe this is happening.

This budget has a history

of cuts and abuses to the public. This is very similar to a regretful

parent who has been abusing their child, and suddenly says: "Sorry, I

really didn't mean that. Here's 10 cents; go and buy yourself a

lollipop. Forget what I've done to you in the past. Forget this." But

I'm here to tell you that the people of this province will not forget

what happened in these two years, and they won't forget what happened

in the past years as well. They will remember. They will not be fooled

again by a smiling face and by the abuse that has taken place, with the

idea that we don't have to give any substance to this. "I'm going to

run on style and no substance." The people won't be fooled again, as

they were in the past, when in '83 the government reduced the sales tax

to 4 percent and said, "We will never rise above 4 percent again, " and

then immediately increased it to 7 percent, and then reduced it to 6

percent. They have the temerity again to say: "There was no increase in

the sales tax." This government has bopped around with the sales tax

for so long that the people don't really understand what's going on.

The education in this province is something that we ought to be ashamed of, not proud of. When I became a school trustee....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE :

You have me here today as a result of the school budgets, thank you

very much. There were school budgets that came about in '82 that

trashed the system. You cut the areas so badly that people out there

were incredibly upset with this government. In 1983 they came around

again, and this government said: "We are forgiving you again. Don't

believe us. We believe in education; we're going to throw some money at

you." And they threw a little bit of money at them just prior to the

'83 election, and then a month after the '83 election, what did they

do? They took it back again. Ping-pong ball. That's good education;

that's good government.

There has been a trend in the

education system to push more and more on local taxpayers, therefore

reducing the amount that has come from general revenues. Now this

government, after neglecting to increase the homeowner's grant for year

after year, are finally increasing the homeowner's grant for a very

small amount — long overdue — and giving back to the taxpayers what

they have taken away in another area. Is that good government?

Mr.

Speaker, you see your highways. I know that something is up when I see

the Highways budget increasing, because this is hysterical. Social

Credit governments in all areas have always, previous to an election

year, paved their way to the polling booths in this province. But it

doesn't always work. The tiny stretch of Hart Highway has been ignored

by the ministry year after year, and that

section of highway was paved

no less than three times just prior to the 1986 election.

AN HON. MEMBER : How many times?

MRS. BOONE :

Three times, trying to buy the area of Prince George North. I am here

to tell you that the people of Prince George North saw through that and

will not buy that anymore. They will not stand for this.

have a Health budget here that has seen some minor increases

throughout. This Health budget has been used in past years to build

edifices to Socreds. We've seen wings of hospitals built, we've seen

new hospitals built, and then no budgets provided to operated them. If

you look in Prince George, the rehab unit was built in 1983, opened two

weeks in 1983, and closed right after the election because of no

budget. It remained closed until last year, when they finally got

enough money to open that thing. If you go throughout this province,

you will find wings of hospitals and rooms and beds that have never

been opened, because they've never been provided with enough funds. Yet

this government still insists on building new areas and not providing

the funds to operate them with.

Mr. Speaker, this minister talks about prevention and health promotion, but he never once in his

[ Page 5894 ]

speech

mentioned one of the major areas of health and major causes of health

problems, and that is poverty. Poverty is the major cause of health....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE :

You did say "poverty." Then I assume you are going to be talking to the

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and asking

him to increase the welfare rate so people will have a chance to have

good healthy lives in this area.

There is no plan. There is

no action from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). For two years

the Minister of Health has stood there and talked about the drug abuse

of our seniors. I suggested last year some positive steps that he could

take to alleviate that abuse, yet no action has been taken — none

whatsoever. We hear it all the time. We talk about drug....

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Speaker, if I get into the Ministry of Environment here, I think

this is one of the biggest laughs around. The Ministry of Environment

was cut — absolutely decimated — over the past years to the extent that

nobody had any power to do anything. The ministry people have been left

powerless to do anything they feel is really substantial.

have to laugh because the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

was talking about the trappers' association and saying what a wonderful

group of people they were. The truth is that the trappers' association

is really fed up with this government. They're fed up to the extent

that they are talking about burning down their traplines because they

have not had any input, and they have had things imposed upon them.

They are not happy with this government at all. We have seen increases

of staff at the ministry. The trappers' association has advocated

increasing the Ministry of Environment staff and the Ministry of

Forests staff because they want better policing out there, but we

haven't seen that happen in the past.

The budget talks

about — and I find this hilarious — tougher monitoring of waste and

enforcement of existing laws. Is it necessary to put in the budget that

you're going to enforce existing laws? Surely it should be understood

that any government enforces it's laws. This is saying that you haven't

in the past enforced any of the existing laws.

We see major

increases in this budget, but the money — or the majority of it — is in

areas that are easily withdrawn; it's outside the ministry and out to

other areas. The minister boasted about the $65,000 fine for a

polluter. That's all very well and good, except that very mill would on

that day make a profit of $120,000. So what kind of a penalty is

$65,000? It's not very much of a penalty at all. It's hardly worth

their while to live up to the standards, when they can actually still

make money and abuse the standards that are established.

[4:45]

Now

you expect the people to believe you have seen the light, and you've

become a born-again environmentalist. That is a joke to anybody out

there in this province. It won't wash, Mr. Speaker. The people of this

province can see our water, they can smell our air, and they know that

you're not believing this. I can certainly smell the air in my area,

let me tell you.

Post-secondary education. Let me tell you

a little bit about post-secondary education. You've been reducing funds

to the extent that our students are now paying some of the highest fees

in Canada. Is this commitment to our youth? Is imposing the highest

fees in Canada a commitment to our youth? You're now saying that we're

going to have access to education. Well, that's wonderful! What about

access to education for the people in Nelson, where you closed down the

David Thompson University Centre? You closed down a university there.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE :

They closed it down. It was a unique institution there. A large portion

of their courses dealt with the fine arts. Perhaps that's why this

government saw fit to close it down; fine arts are certainly not

something this government has shown any respect for.

After

watching them drag their feet for years on access to education for

people outside the lower mainland, we are now to applaud their actions

that are long overdue. People of the north have been forcing the

government....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. ministers, could we extend some courtesy to the speaker, please.

MRS. BOONE : The people of Prince George have....

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the member sitting next to you

is passing remarks and he is not sitting in his own seat. If he wishes

to comment, gratuitously or otherwise, it will have to be from his own

seat.

MRS. BOONE : The people of the north have

forced this government into acknowledging the need for post-secondary

education. The minister has been pushed and shoved by the people; he

has not come there willingly to acknowledge this need, nor has he

willingly provided any of the access to education. Unfortunately, it's

too late for action in 1989, and I think that is deliberate. There is

no commitment. The minister has refused to use — as we aptly say — the

"U" word. The "U" word has not been mentioned at all. I can tell the

minister that we will be watching closely to see who is appointed to

the implementation committee. We want to make sure that that is not

just a "yes, yes" committee for the government and that it will do

what the people of Prince George and the north want. We will not accept

anything less than

[ Page 5895 ]

a university in Prince George. The minister ought to understand that by now.

The

past two budgets have been hard on the working person. I find it

interesting that the speaker who has left the chamber after ranting and

raving at us for a half hour had the temerity to say he was standing

and speaking for the workingman. Maybe he feels the workingman has not

been hit. I say that the working person in this province has been hit

by user fees and taxes. You have picked the pockets of the average

British Columbian to the tune of $1,400. That's not a small amount for

somebody who is working out there. MSP premiums have been increased

almost 50 percent. I thought Pharmacare deductible wasn't being

increased this time. I should have known you wouldn't let that pass.

User fees on dispensing; fees for Pharmacare; user fees on

physiotherapy, chiropractic, chiropody.

Sewage disposal,

which the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) mentioned.... Those are the

things that have been increased tremendously. Perhaps the members for

Vancouver are not concerned about that, but I can tell you my

constituents certainly are. It costs more to live in this province than

ever before. It costs more to be born in this province, to get married

in this province and to die in this province. It costs more to do

everything in this province than it did before this government came

into being.

The small business tax has gone up. Immediately

upon coming in, this government, saying they represented business

people, increased the small business tax 2 percent. Then last year they

reduced it 1 percent. That still leaves it 1 percent higher than when

they originally came into office.

What about the property

purchase tax? Now the government is saying: "Oh, aren't we wonderful!

We're giving some relief on the property purchase tax." Why did you

introduce this tax, when we suggested an amendment that would give some

kind of a break to people under $100,000? Where were you when that

amendment came around? You weren't here voting in favour of that, I can

tell you. What about the gas tax?

I would like to read something to you from last year's budget about the BS fund:

"Due to the boom-or-bust nature of the Bri