1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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 6, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3683 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3683

Oral Questions

Ambulance dispatch service. Mrs. Boone –– 3683

Ambulance transfer service. Mrs. Boone –– 3684

Ambulance fees. Mrs. Boone –– 3684

Pharmacare and AZT. Mr. Harcourt –– 3684

Toigo bid on BCEC properties. Mr. Williams –– 3684

Tabling Documents –– 3685

Budget Debate

Mr. R. Fraser –– 3685

Mr. Sihota –– 3688

Mr. Serwa –– 3691

Mr. Lovick –– 3694

Mr. Crandall –– 3697

Mr. Blencoe –– 3700

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 3703

Tabling Documents –– 3706

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today is my wife

Sheila, and with her is her nephew from Sudbury, Ontario, a recent

graduate from Waterloo University, Mr. Paul Boyce. I would ask you to

bid them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: It is my great pleasure today to introduce to the

House a Maori family visiting Victoria from New Zealand: Mr. Sidney

Melbourne, his wife Jan, and daughters Maya and Mahina. Mr. Melbourne

is a teacher of languages at the university in Hamilton, New Zealand.

They are here visiting our province and our Legislature, accompanied by

two Victoria residents, Mr. George Taylor and Mr. Jack Kelly. I would

ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: Today in the gallery are two young people

from Calgary, Alberta. They are the niece and nephew of my wife. They

are looking at this government, since they are involved in similar

work. Helen Siemens is a specialist in home economics and health in

Calgary, Alberta Department of Education; and her brother, John

Siemens, is with building operations, Petro-Canada, Calgary. They are

impressed with what this government has done in the area of AIDS, since

I've sent the packages over to them. They are looking at it for their

education department. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Today I have a list of guests that would rival

my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat. We have with us two young ladies

from Washington State, just south of the border. They are Jennifer

Flynn and Michelle Claggett. Also, we have from Alberta Mr. John De

Champlain and his daughter Laura, and two school teachers, Mrs.

Margaret Hess and Marilyn Ogrodnick, all from Westlock. With us also

from the sunny community of Victoria are Mr. and Mrs. Sandy Quesnel.

Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented the forty-sixth annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Teachers) Act.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented the 1987 annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board.

Oral Questions

AMBULANCE DISPATCH SERVICE

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. Last fall,

despite opposition from northern communities, you proceeded with a plan

to centralize ambulance dispatch in Kamloops. Is the minister aware

that there have been constant problems with communication and the

actual dispatching since the centralization occurred?

HON. MR. DUECK: We are continuing with that decentralization as planned,

and there have been some problems, not necessarily due to communications because

of decentralization, but because of human error. That could have happened in

any event. The system. by and large, is working very well, better than it did

before.

MRS. BOONE: Is the minister aware that within the past week

there have been two separate occasions when Kamloops dispatch denied

requests for backup and on one occasion sent the wrong station to a

call with the wrong directions, and that both of these cases resulted

in deaths of British Columbians that might have been avoided?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am not going to respond to something I

don't know of at this moment, the exact incident that the member is

referring to. However, I can assure this House that it is not because

of decentralization, because any case that's been brought to my

attention I've looked at very carefully. It was for other reasons,

could have happened at any time and was not necessarily because of

decentralization.

MRS. BOONE: The minister seems to have some problem here.

This is centralization. You are centralizing the ambulance dispatch;

you have not decentralized it. I have indicated some problems to you,

and these problems are very grave. Is the minister now ready to

personally investigate the effect that this centralized dispatch has

had on service and to reconsider this move, which is putting the lives

of British Columbians at risk?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am sorry that I said decentralization; I

meant centralization. Thank you for that correction. However, I do say

once again that it is not because of centralization that this has

happened. It is very unfortunate that things happen the way they do.

There are human errors. We're dealing with human elements, with people

who are human and make errors. It's not because of centralization.

However, if the member has some specific concern about a certain

incident.... I have investigated every incident reported to me in the

past, and have been assured — I am assured — that it is not because of

centralization. If you have some information I have not got, I'd like

to have it.

[2:15]

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary. Mr. Minister, these errors are due

to centralization. They are due to the fact that the people in Kamloops

are not aware of the geography, of where ambulances are. They are

giving wrong directions to people. That is a centralization problem.

Will the minister personally investigate these situations with a view

to reconsidering, if necessary, this move that is putting the lives of

British Columbians at risk?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, I would like to tell the member that

it is not what the member thinks it is. That information is really to

the ambulance service, and those people are doing the dispatching — not

from Kamloops. They just give that information to the local people.

They are the ones who know where the streets are. It doesn't matter

what the person in the central station does. He gives out information

to the operator, and that operator or the driver knows where the

address is.

I have gone through many of the same concerns that you express.

Whenever there's a change, people will have concerns. To begin with, it

was a concern about losing jobs, and that built on and on. I can assure

the member that the operation is going well. Again, I challenge her: if

she has an

[ Page 3684 ]

incident that has not been investigated, I would

like to know, in order to bring back a report in full and tell you

exactly what the reasons were.

AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE

MRS. BOONE: I will meet with the minister personally to talk

about this — I do have information for you on that, and I am not

wasting my time on this point.

Next month the government will be putting more British Columbians at

risk as it privatizes ambulance services in the lower mainland. The

minister needs to be reminded that doctors call for ambulances for

transfer service because there is a risk to the health of the patient.

Will the minister confirm that he is still proceeding on May I with the

transportation of priority 3 and 4 patients by private contracting

rather than through ambulances?

HON. MR. DUECK: I think this question has been asked before,

and I have maintained that we are not privatizing the ambulance

service. It's always put in those words: "...I privatize the ambulance

service." And then of course, in the second sentence, it's because of

some transportation. We've always used certain transportation that is

not necessarily ambulances for transporting certain people who aren't

at risk. We will continue to do that. We're not privatizing the

ambulance service.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, British Columbians count on our

public ambulance service because they know it's staffed by well-trained

ambulance paramedics, professionals who have saved lives during the

course of so-called routine transfers. Will the minister tell the House

why he is putting British Columbians at risk, and why he is

transferring acute care patients by what he calls a transportation

delivery service rather than by skilled paramedics and reliable

ambulances?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered the

question, but I want to reiterate: we are not putting British

Columbians at risk. How many more times do you want me to say that? We

are not putting British Columbians at risk. When we transfer patients

who aren't at risk, that has happened before. What more can I say?

AMBULANCE FEES

MRS. BOONE: Different question. On March 25, by this

order-in-council and not mentioned in the budget, the minister raised

ambulance fees for British Columbians from $28 to $35. Will the

minister tell the House why he wants to establish a two-tiered health

care system for B.C. by cutting back on safe ambulance services while

increasing ambulance costs for the sick and the elderly? And why, Mr.

Minster, didn't you have the guts to put this into your budget?

PHARMACARE AND AZT

MR. HARCOURT: Yesterday I asked the Premier why he has

personally discriminated against AIDS patients by charging for the drug

AZT. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he can confirm that AIDS

patients living alone in British Columbia — not coming from other

provinces — and making as little as $7,000 a year must pay the $2,000

user fee for AZT.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if the member is not

familiar with the Pharmacare program, I'd be pleased to send him that

information. But in the meantime, if he wishes more particulars on the

working of the Pharmacare program, I will defer the question to the

Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to that is that we

have a Pharmacare program in place. If they want to know exactly the

information about the Pharmacare program, I will meet with the hon.

member or send him the copy in the mail.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm pleased to see that the Premier of the

province and the Minister of Health don't even know their own program

and can't, in simple language, explain it here in the Legislature. I'm

not pleased, though, for the people who are suffering because of those

policies, so I'll ask a supplementary and hope for a better response.

In B.C. there are 60 children at the present time who receive the

growth hormone drug to aid their physical development, at a possible

cost of $2,000 to their families, and it's estimated that that number

may grow to as many as 95 over the next year. Will the Premier confirm

that a B.C. family of four who have a child receiving this treatment

will be required to pay the $2,000 even if their family income is as

low as $13,000 a year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If in fact they are able to participate

in the program.... That's how the Pharmacare program works, not only

for these particular drugs, but there are many other drugs. I've heard

it mentioned by people, for example, who use drugs because of high

blood pressure. Without their taking the drugs, obviously there's a

great risk of a heart attack, and because of this they're always having

to take that particular drug. Again, it's covered by Pharmacare. There

are a number of these drugs that are covered by Pharmacare, some very

expensive drugs, and there are more coming on the market all the time.

The Pharmacare program, I repeat, in effect says that you pay the

first $300 –– 20 percent of cost. We've now put in a maximum of $2,000

in recognition that we're often dealing with very expensive drugs. But

the practice is that people, if they're able to participate and

contribute, do contribute. In doing this, obviously we provide a degree

of protection that we're able to maintain. If, as is suggested by the

Leader of the Opposition in the question, we make it available for free

in one instance, we would have to expand it to others, and there is a

limit to what the program can provide for. So we're dealing fairly with

all situations, and if, in answer to the question, the person is in

receipt of welfare or doesn't have the opportunity to pay and therefore

is in need but can't contribute, he will be provided with the drug at

no charge.

MR. HARCOURT: I hope the Premier recognizes the unfairness of

his government's policies. He should put aside his own personal biases

towards AIDS victims and lowincome British Columbians and ensure that

those individuals and families seeking AZT and growth hormone treatment

will not have to suffer financial hardship to get health care in our

province. Will the Premier finally do that?

TOIGO BID ON BCEC PROPERTIES

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Why, after establishing the rules for bidding on the Expo site, did you consider

[ Page

3685 ]

the bid from Mr. Toigo on all of the assets of B.C. Enterprise Corporation?

Can you confirm that you did make a presentation to cabinet to that effect?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, what goes on in cabinet is for cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Premier. Last week you said that

you did not intercede to put the Toigo offer on the agenda. Your

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) confirms in

today's press that you did. Will you reconsider your statement of last

week?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I cannot comment any more on press

reports than that I suggest the member shouldn't base all of his

questioning on press reports.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier saying that he did not present Mr. Toigo's offer to his colleagues?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What goes on in cabinet is for cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS: By putting that offer, since we've had

confirmation from your senior minister in this regard, you are in

effect prepared to cancel the tendering process with respect to the

most valuable lands in British Columbia. Did you ever consider the

ethics of that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If the hon. member who asked the

question has a problem with ethics, then I think perhaps he should

consider his own conduct. I don't have a problem with ethics.

MR. WILLIAMS: Again on the same issue, you said regarding the

Toigo offer: "I don't think the majority of them" — the BCEC board —

"would have favoured that" — the Toigo offer — "in any case. I only

went to put their minds at ease...that we would deal with" the other

land separately. Mr. Premier, do you have in mind cutting two big

deals, one with some other buyer that the Minister of Economic

Development supports, and the other one that you support, where you

will transfer the rest of the assets of the Enterprise Corporation in

that regard? Is it going to be two big friends of government that

benefit?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can only guarantee that if we cut a deal, it will be a better deal than was cut by the hon. member when he was a minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Premier explain why he would have to

be more cautious and more discreet in dealing with Mr. Toigo than with

anyone else?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think because of people like the

questioner, who perhaps potentially read things into a situation that

shouldn't be, but obviously we need to be aware.

Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the 1987 annual report of the invasion-of-privacy sections of the Criminal Code.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I'd like to pick

up where I left off yesterday, talking about the great budget that came

down in British Columbia. Again. referring to my friends across the

floor. who remain the negative party of British Columbia.... Always a

surprise to me, but then, what do you expect? I know that we like to be

government and you like to be opposition, so we will continue with that

longstanding tradition in the province of British Columbia.

There were some interesting things in the budget. One that really kind of amused me was the Island Highway

for $6 million, which didn't seem like a lot of money at the time. But then, when you look back at the criticisms

that the government received about other highway projects that worked out very well, where there were some upgrading

and hurry-up works underway, you would have to understand that the government wanted to spend a few million dollars

upgrading and doing some engineer work, some surveys and some of that work, so that the opposition would have

a full and clear idea all the time, as they would like to do. Even though they might not be able to understand

what we're doing, certainly we would want to give them that information. And certainly we will want the great

general contractors of British Columbia to be able to bid on a project, knowing what they were going to need,

so the taxpayers would know what we wanted to spend. So the $6 million, which did seem very small, looks to me like

a good start on a highway project that will do great things for the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Absolutely — surveying fees, engineering fees,

all those things that people in this province take

part in. The fact

that I happen....

[2:30]

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this is getting....

There are some good things in the budget — as well as this one we

just talked about — that we will see save an awful lot of money. I want

to commend the government for bringing in the family maintenance

enforcement order. I think that's good. There's no question that we

will save $100 million a year of taxpayers' dollars. Maybe it's only

going to be $90 million, but it will be substantial. I would like to

think that every entitled spouse will get support for either herself or

her children, and that spouses across the land, be they male or female,

who are on support will get the income. As a matter of fact, I notice

that men are now getting maintenance payments, which I think comes as a

shock to many people. That's a very good program, and it's a positive

program — one going across the country, which makes sense, because we

can't have children abandoned because one spouse is not getting along

with another. I would like to think, of course, that ex-spouses get

along. But this budget proposal is good, and I have no trouble

supporting that.

The other things that we're going for. Legal aid is up 11 percent.

We're putting $23 million into substance abuse programs. For the

disabled, $26 million, which brings it to $541 million.

Then, of course, the question you have to ask is: where are we going

to get the money from? From you. And from me. And from everybody who

makes an income and pays taxes. And from corporations. And all those

people out there who have a tax load to carry. The people who drive

cars will

[ Page 3686 ]

pay tax on their gasoline, those who drink will pay

taxes there, and smokers are going to pay taxes. It's something that

you have to understand — you can't get something without paying for it

one way or another. So we have a responsibility as a government to say

to people: this is what government services cost.

MR. JONES: You've brought back a head tax.

MR. R. FRASER: Mumble, mumble from the most disorganized

member in the entire House — that one over there — lost as usual. It's

interesting, though, that we've got an important project here to tell

the general public in British Columbia what things cost. One of the

ways we do it is to advise them of the services they're spending money

on without having to pay the bill directly. I was very pleased to see

that the government of British Columbia is asking the doctors to give a

ticket, a notice, a statement to patients, so they will know how much

money they have spent from the health care plan. It will not cost a

nickel. It will be so much better for the doctors. I know the member

for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) is worried about the cost to the

doctor. But if he has a computer terminal in his office and can punch

it through to the medical assistance plan, they would get the printout

right then and there. The doctor will probably be paid faster. The

patient will know what it costs. He may want to reflect on the health

care plan in general.

If we should worry about anything with respect to health care, we

certainly want to have a look at what we're spending on this great

system, because frankly, when you look at the national health care

system in England and you see the kind of money they're spending, and

you look at the disaster that they appear to be in, according to their

own words, and you notice that all the doctors are on salary.... You

notice they have a million employees. I'm told, according to this

article, that the national health care system in England is the biggest

single employer in Europe. That has to be incredible. We have to be as

find ourselves in that same circumstance. We have to make sure that the

waiting-lists they have don't fall on us.

We have to let people know where the money is going and where the

money is coming from. One of the ways to do it is to advise the patient

on each visit. If we don't do that, we will be neglecting our duty.

We'll be short-shrifting the patients. We can't do that. We talk about

premiums. You know, they are going to go up if we spend more money on

health care. There's no question about that; they're tied. They should

be — the notice should be tied. It's part of your compensation package.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: No, I've not lost my audience. You know, the

real leader of the party is the member for Vancouver East, who sits

over there and picks on this little member over here. It's unbelievable.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're the only one listening.

MR. R. FRASER: You always listen to good ones, don't you.

MR. JONES: How about the health care system in the States?

MR. R. FRASER: The member for Burnaby North asks me about the

health care system in the United States of America — the most

disorganized member in the entire building. What about the health care

system in the U.S.A.? We all know that our system is better. We all

with that information? You want to make sure that we don't go that way.

You want to make sure that we don't burden our plan so that the whole

thing crumbles. That's the whole idea of letting people know what the

costs are. That's the purpose.

When people complain about costs going up or down, I know we use

percentages to our advantage, and certainly the members opposite are no

exception to that. But when we find that our seniors are paying now

approximately the same or a little bit less for extended-care costs, we

would have to say: is that right? Is that fair? Have they got any money

left? Where are we? Are they eligible for GAIN and all those things?

And the answer is yes. With the exception of Alberta, our seniors have

more disposable income left than anybody else in the country. It isn't

much, but at least it's more.

I don't know what Alberta is going to do, but I do know that

recently Alberta had more people on staff per capita than any other

province in Canada. When they had all the money in the world to play

with, I guess it didn't matter very much, but it matters now, and I

think they're going to have some problems with that. Luckily we've been

able to face up to some of these problems, having come through some

very difficult years.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: We're all going to pay, Mr. Member. Everybody

that works has to pay. Your obligation is never satisfied, and if you

understand that, then you're coming along very nicely.

We look at one of the more interesting western politicians in the Canadian scene, who was involved with....

MR. LOVICK: Was he in this House?

MR. R. FRASER: No, he was never a member of this House, but

he was in this House from time to time as a guest, I am sure. He is

widely credited with doing a number of interesting things with medicare

and social programs and the welfare state and that sort of thing. The

interesting part about this man is that he once got himself into the

pseudo-science of eugenics and he once was going to eliminate poverty

and all those mentally unhealthy and morally unsound people by having

marriage fitness classes. This was a colleague of yours, incidentally,

whom I won't bother to name. However, it was one of his more

unsuccessful programs.

What we have to be reminded of over and over again is: we can spend

everything we want as long as we're willing to pay, and if we're not

willing to pay, then we have to reload.

The one I left off yesterday, Mr. Speaker.... We were talking a

little bit about colleges, and my particular college in Vancouver,

which also affects you, is Vancouver Community College — a good,

well-run college. They tell me that they've got a funding problem now

with this new budget. That does raise some questions in my mind and I

presume in the minds of many. I know that they're having a meeting with

the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) and

presumably with the Minister of Finance. I want to assure the members

of that college that they will get a

[ Page 3687 ]

good hearing from the minister and the government,

because there must be some mistake in the numbers if we're not getting

it. If they don't think they're getting the money, something is wrong

and they should be given a hearing, and they are getting a hearing. If

the numbers need fixing, I would like to think that they will be fixed.

One of the interesting things about what is happening, though, is

that the minister, who has so far been praised to the skies by most

people, now finds himself under sharp criticism from a former college

instructor who writes that he has lost credibility because he is trying

to do things in the college system the writer doesn't agree with. Funny

he should run into that — not bad, though; it's been pretty long.

One of the more significant advances has been the advancement of aid

for students. Student aid, I guess, would be a better way to do it. The

enormous increase in funding for students should, in fact, lead every

student to an opportunity to go to a post-secondary institution if he

or she should happen to wish to do that. It is one of the great

advances that we've had here that wasn't always possible. It is now,

and I like to see that.

More and more I would like to see students finding their way into

employment circumstances when they're not in school. This is going to

come to pass more and more as the economy continues to improve. Our

students will be better and better looked after as we move into the new

economy of the province which we've worked so hard to get to and which

we will obviously all work hard to maintain and enhance as it comes

through to us day by day.

MR. JONES: When do you get to the good stuff? Pick it up a little.

MR. R. FRASER: Pick it up a little! That member! Really, isn't he unfortunate?

We've had some lively discussions lately, talking about the assets

of British Columbia which may or may not be sold, in particular the

Expo lands. I can assure you that as a member from Vancouver —

particularly, of course, from Vancouver South — I am more than just

passingly interested in what happens to those lands. I'm not sure at

this point whether the bidding should have been public or private, but

it really doesn't matter, because we'll get a chance to look at it

after the fact — if that's the only way we're going to do it — and we

will know that it's all clean and up front. When it's done, when the

information is known, we can assess it. I know that my colleagues in

cabinet would be worried at having someone look at it if it wasn't done

well, so I'm sure it will be done well. The Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has done a nice job with that.

What I find really interesting is that it seems to bother some of

the members opposite when people come to British Columbia with money to

invest. It seems to trouble them greatly that local funds aren't used.

But it never seems to bother anybody when Canadians like Campeau and

others invest heavily and buy into American companies. That seems to be

all right. What the problem is with that I don't know. If we're going

to go overseas, then overseas people should come here. We have to

remember constantly that we're a trading nation, and obviously we're

going to involve ourselves with trade from all sorts of other nations.

What worries me about this particular aspect is that the Leader of the

Opposition seems to be causing a problem with respect to investment

from overseas. He is quoted widely in a newspaper

article as being

worried about Asian investment in particular, and then he wonders why

nobody understands his point of view.

As it happens, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark)

talked in his reply to the throne speech about phony foreign investment

in British Columbia begging for money from around the world. I don't

know why he would want to do that. Money that comes to British Columbia

creates work, creates employment; people will be able to buy houses,

sites, apartment blocks and all those things. The creation of jobs, the

employment of tradesmen and professionals, the building of huge new

projects, the opening up of the market in the lower mainland, is very

desirable, and we should be talking about the more positive aspects of

that. Certainly we should be concerning ourselves with the possible

liabilities of any project. but there are pluses and minuses with

everything and we will have to measure those accordingly.

What I find troublesome in a way, Mr. Speaker, are the news releases

I get from the president of the BCGEU, who says things that disturb me,

particularly when I don't find them to be factual. In a news release

here.... We all know that the mood of the House is better, and that's

nice, but the words that Mr. Shields uses constantly in this particular

press release are "confrontation, confrontation, fight, fight." He says

the government seems to be wanting more and more confrontation, and

then we have Elsie McMurphy talking about more and more confrontation.

It's funny that the public sector union leaders would say that. In

fact, the private sector union leaders — Jack Munro being one in

particular — have said that the industry attitude has improved

considerably, and he's not expecting any labour disruptions this year.

I find that attitude very progressive. and I would certainly want that

to be the case.

It is perceived by many that this new attitude is there, but when

you see people like John Shields saying that the government has no

right to sell parkland.... The fact is that the minister has said the

parkland is not for sale. What he did say, of course, is that the

operators of mini-parks will be from the private sector. What you want

is to have the park open and operating. It really doesn't make much

difference who does it, providing it's done efficiently, effectively

and is open to everybody in the province — no restriction, all access,

all opportunity, all operated efficiently and effectively and done

well. If we can do that, then we've done fine.

MR. SIHOTA: Five minutes.

MR. R. FRASER: Five minutes? Did you check? Where have you

been, Mr. Member from Esquimalt? I haven't seen you for a while. You've

been missing.

[2:45]

MR. JONES: Is this the best defence of the budget you can come up with? Put up another speaker. You've got to do better than this.

MR. R. FRASER: I'm giving you a break today, Mr. Burnaby

North. I certainly have some questions about every budget. In fact, the

member from Burnaby — my friend over here, my colleague — who raised

some issues about the budget had some points that I think we could look

at quite refreshingly. We could do some pre-budget planning, with he

exception of tax increases or changes. We could get into

[ Page 3688 ]

that. We certainly want to make it possible for

people who have problems earning money to have some left at the end of

the pay period, whenever that may happen to come. We want our young

people to have employment; we want to create the climate that will

bring investment opportunity to British Columbia; we want to create the

climate of opportunity here, which we can do, and so the purpose of any

budget that you may wish to present, whether it has been reviewed

before or after, is to tell people where we've been and where we're

going. If you really care about people, which this government obviously

does, then you have to give them lots and lots of advice about the

direction and the motivation and the incentives and the hope for the

people of British Columbia that we can so easily provide if we work

together — and I'm sure that we will continue to do that.

It's nice for me to note in the budget that we have 20,000 fewer

people on income assistance. As I've said with respect to students,

more and more students will find employment as the economic climate in

British Columbia continues to improve. More and more people will find

work. If we can, as I say, make sure that maintenance payments for

spouses come through, then maybe their lives would be improved

significantly, and certainly it would be a joy for them, I'm sure, not

to be on the welfare rolls and not to be dependent on the taxpayer when

I'm sure that most of them would like to be otherwise fixed and

certainly gainfully employed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn the place over to one of my

colleagues across the floor, and I thank you for this opportunity. But

there's one special thing I want to mention before I go. There was a

little notice in the budget here that about one-third of our money

spent on provincial correctional institutes is spent on people who are

there because of impaired-driving convictions. I understand that it

costs about $6 million a year to keep people convicted of impaired

driving charges incarcerated.

The Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) came along recently and said:

"We have some new devices now so that we can electronically contain

people within their own houses and certainly within their own yards."

It strikes me that a punishment almost worse — and maybe worse — than

going to jail would be to have a person locked up in his own house

being constantly harassed by his own family for being so dumb. I would

like to think that we could not only keep the cost of jails down, but

we would probably have people begging us to send them to jail rather

than being at home and harassed by their families. If we can pick up $6

million and put it into some more useful activity than keeping people

in jail, I would like to think that we would do that. I hope the

Attorney-General will come forward with a report or a program or a

discussion paper that we can work with and look at, so that those who

get convicted of these quite unbelievably ridiculous offences will be

housed and inconvenienced at their expense and not at public expense.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a pleasure for me to speak on the matter of

the budget, and I'm delighted to see that the Attorney-General is in

the room, because I intend to talk about court fees later on. So when

he finishes talking with the member from Langley, I'll move on to the

matter of court fees.

I'm also delighted to see that the Premier is here. I know that the

Premier is currently engaged in quite a discussion about St. Ann's

Academy, which I'm sure he'll do something about to assist the sisters

at St. Ann's, because I know his heartfelt feeling for the sisters of

the Catholic persuasion at St. Ann's. I'm sure that all of us who

represent the Victoria area and particularly my good friend the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) look forward to a major announcement

from this government in terms of funding proposals, particularly in

light of what transpired on the radio this afternoon. I'm sure that the

Premier will see fit to provide much-needed assistance.

While I've got the Premier's ear, I want to talk a little bit about

what this budget is all about and to talk about what this budget really

stands for and what this budget shows in terms of the type of

government that we have in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's cruel.

MR. SIHOTA: It is cruel. It is inconsiderate. It does not

care. And it is prepared, for the sake of dollars, to run roughshod

over all sorts of people in this province. I want the Premier to listen

to this for a minute or two. There is an obsession....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SIHOTA: Why do I want the Premier to listen? Because this

is the first time that I can remember the Premier actually being in the

House at 10 minutes before three. Usually he leaves at 2:30 to lick his

wounds after question period, and maybe from time to time.... I can

remember the Coquihalla debate, when he was in here for a grand total

of five minutes. I can remember the debate on Bill 19, when he was here

for, I think, a grand total of 26 minutes over a five-week debate.

This Premier, this one-man show, obviously doesn't care about the

statements that are made in the Legislature, and obviously, through

this budget, doesn't care a lot about some of the people in this

province who don't have it so well: people of modest means or limited

incomes, seniors, those on assistance and, worst of all, children.

We've just witnessed today at question period the Premier's attitude

about not funding drugs for children, saying that for families who have

incomes greater than $13,000 or single parents who have incomes greater

than $7,000 — which is a pitiful amount, an amount he's not prepared to

concede in this House — this government is not prepared to pay for

special hormone treatment required by those children. That is a total

lack of sensitivity by this government that runs — as we saw yesterday

— a major $20 million program on families, but can't provide for basic

drugs for children. That's the type of callous attitude that people

talk to me about.

I had the opportunity today to spend a little time in my riding. I

visited the people in Sooke and the western communities, and I talked

to a group of seniors in my riding at a housing project. Maybe the

Premier, who's not listening, doesn't want to hear that these people

are not exactly enamoured with this government. In fact, quite to the

contrary, they're offended by what this government is doing.

This morning there were about 100 to 125 seniors gathered, and the

questions all focused on the latest budget. I want the Premier to

understand that these seniors who have contributed their taxes during

their earning lives, when they just for once need a break, are robbed.

They're told that if they're required to be in acute- or extended-care

facilities, the government is going to require payment of 85 percent of

their

[ Page 3689 ]

OAS and GIS contributions. As one woman said to me

today, that leaves her with $40 for everything else. What type of

sensitivity is that?

This government turns around and increases medical premiums payable by seniors and everybody else out there

to $58, I believe, for a family — I think it's $52 or something like that for single people — as a

method of gaining money. If you look at the budget, you will see a total of $555 million coming into government

coffers, according to the budget, from medical premiums. On the other hand, you see $557 million — only

$2 million more — projected to come in from corporate income tax. What kind of priorities are reflected

in those two figures?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, it's not because there are more people than

there are corporations. It's because this government does not have the

guts to turn around and make the large corporate sector in this

province pay its fair share of taxes. In its overwhelming desire to

protect its friends in the large corporate sector, it decides to punish

families, to infuriate seniors, to attack individuals and raise money

from individuals at the expense of these large corporate interests.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I understand the province of New Brunswick came

down with its budget, and it increased by 6.7 percent its rate of

taxation on corporations. This government — what did it do? It reduced

the rate of taxation, particularly for large corporations. So we have

an imbalance now under our tax system which obviously doesn't concern

the Premier, as he wishes to chat with his House Leader. We have an

imbalance now such that 83 percent of revenue that's garnered by this

government comes from individuals — you and I — and 17 percent comes

from the corporate sector. Where is the fairness in terms of taxation

rates set by this government, as reflected in this budget? Where is the

fairness, when you start saying to the average income-earner in this

province,"You've got to pay 83 percent of what we raise as government,"

and you give the corporate sector responsibility for 17 percent?

Worse still is that the rate for taxation for large corporations in

this province — again, as evidenced by the budget — went down to, I

believe, 14 percent. Since the election of this government, it has gone

down from 16 to 14 percent. Yet individual taxation rates have gone up.

In fact, in the last budget alone, they went up 14 percent. I ask you:

what kind of fairness is that? When was the last time that individual

tax rates — for example, for myself — were reduced? Yet large

corporations — I'm not talking about small businesses; I'm talking

about large corporations — have seen their tax rates go down to 14

percent.

The government, if it is to be believed about its financial problems

— and I want to talk about that later on, in terms of the mirage

they're creating with respect to their financial problems — ought to be

asking itself: if we've got a deficit, if we've got some financial

problems and if we make the decision to tax people to raise more money,

who do we tax? Well, it seems to me that it ought to be just basic

common sense that you tax those best able to pay. Yet in this budget,

Mr. Speaker, we saw the taxation rate for banks in this province go

down, but seniors were asked to pay 10 percent more, to 85 percent of

their income, for extended and acute care.

[3:00]

If the government honestly has a fiscal problem, which the Premier

says it does, and if the government has difficulty getting money, which

the Premier says it does — and that he can't pay for drugs for kids —

and if you want to get money, why not get it from those banks instead

of from those seniors? What kind of contorted, inequitable fiscal

policy is that? It's totally irrational, totally callous, totally

inconsiderate and totally, quite candidly, aimed at pleasing those

friends of government that the Premier and his cronies on the other

side of this House have. Nor does this budget....

MR. BLENCOE: No trouble.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier had no trouble at all blessing that

type of policy and then saying no to increases for welfare rates,

saying no to seniors who wanted prescription drugs, saying...

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: ...no to St. Ann's Academy — if the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) wishes to heckle. He's quick

to say no to those people who are desperately in need.

I see the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) talking about JobTrac. Maybe I'll talk a little about that as well.

But there is no fairness. There's no fairness to small business in

this budget. The members opposite like to stand up and say: "We reduced

the taxation rate for small business by 2 percent" — again, like I say,

you picked up the revenue, I guess, from seniors. But you like to say

you reduced it by 2 percent. You quickly forget to mention that you

raised it by 3 percent last year — I think it went from 8 to 11, a 38

percent increase — and you've reduced it back by 2 percent, so since

this government came to power the taxation rate for small business has

gone up by 1 percent. Fair enough, but then what does this government

do? From the consumer, the average individual — to look at it from a

different way than I came from originally when I discussed this matter

earlier in my speech — what did this government do? It taxed the

average individual, the average family in this province, by $700 in

taxes and in fees. That's $700 that's now going to go to government out

of a family paycheque. That's $700 that won't be available for

discretionary spending. That's $700 that won't be going to those small

businesses that sell refrigerators, TVs, microwaves, groceries and

hardware goods.

So you've reduced the pay packet. Not only does that adversely affect small businesses, but it also places a significant

escalation on wage demands. When people see their spending power going down — government employees, for example....

When they see that they've got that much less, then they go to the negotiating table to ask for that much more. That obviously

has an effect on wage demands. It's not surprising to see the IWA workers saying that they want $2 an hour more, when this

pickpocket nickel-and-dime government has ripped them off to the tune of $700.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Please withdraw that.

MR. SIHOTA: It is pickpocket; it is nickel-and-dime; and in

fact I think it's the Minister of Finance himself who said that the

government was nickel-and-diming the people of this province. So

there's no need. Madam Member, to withdraw that comment.

[ Page 3690 ]

Now what does it do? It increases the demands at the negotiating

table to make up for that loss of income, and of course that puts

stress on both the private and public sector in terms of increased wage

demands. That's the net effect of what this government is doing through

its ill-conceived, poorly thought out financial policies. A little bit

more clarity, a little bit of consistency in terms of economic policy,

could have brought us to a decent budget situation.

The overriding problem with this budget is its theme; its theme of

dollars, not service; its obsession with taking dollars away from

people or taking dollars away from programs and curtailing service

through various cutbacks. That's what this budget tries to do. Why?

Because there is this bigger game being played. There is this political

agenda of a balanced budget by 1989 or 1990, whenever it is that the

government chooses to call the next election.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you saying balancing a budget is wrong?

MR. SIHOTA: What I'm saying is wrong, Mr. Member, is to

manipulate the figures, to artificially escalate the deficit by putting

in the allocation of $450 million for the BS fund; by underestimating

your revenue and overestimating your expenditures to create the

illusion that you're in a worse financial position than you really are.

This government did it last year. It estimated its deficit would be

$1.1 billion, and our finance critic said it would be about half that,

and he was right almost to the dollar. This time, if the government

wanted to balance the budget, it could, by accurately predicting its

revenue and its expenditures and by eliminating the $450 million IOU

note. It could have done that. But it didn't want to do it this year,

Mr. Speaker, because it wants to play the larger political game of

showing a balanced budget by 1990.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you against that?

MR. SIHOTA: You could have balanced it this year. When you

say I'm against it, I'm saying you could have balanced it this year if

you had wanted to. What I'm against — and I'll tell you again if you

didn't hear — is purposely manipulating the figures to artificially

escalate the size of the deficit, to try to suggest that there is a

greater financial problem than there is, effectively misleading the

public as to the extent of the government's financial problems.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a tradition.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you what kind of tradition it is, and

I'll tell you why I'm offended by the overall game of having a balanced

budget by 1990.

The Social Credit Party has a habit of coming up with gimmicks

before elections. BCRIC was introduced before an election. Remember

BCRIC? It was a gimmick. Northeast coal came up before elections. But

we know the financial failings of that. That was a gimmick. And in the

last provincial election, when it was obvious that Mr. Bennett would

not last, this government came out with the biggest gimmick of all —

the Premier. And in 1990, the gimmick is going to be the balanced

budget.

You're trying to run to the public and say: "Here we have it again."

If you want to be honest with people, why don't you tell them what your

accumulated deficit is that you've accumulated from 1975 to the current

date? Why don't you tell them that you've driven this province into $20

billion of accumulated debt? Why don't you tell them the truth, instead

of coming out with some gimmick in 1990 that balances the budget? Why

don't you tell them the truth about your financial incompetence? Why

don't you tell them about the disaster of Coquihalla, the disaster of

SkyTrain? What kind of competence is this when a government continually

and historically says,"Look, we're good at managing the books," yet

every time underestimates revenue and overestimates expenditures beyond

the wildest fiscal parameters?

What I'm saying is that this budget is not only offensive to

seniors; it's not only offensive to small businesses; it's not only

unfair in terms of the taxation regime established in this province — a

taxation regime which, by the way, in some years allows a bank teller

working for the Royal Bank to pay more taxes than the Royal Bank, and a

gas jockey at Shell Oil to pay more in taxes than Shell Oil. That's the

type of taxation scheme that this provincial government has set up,

that it calls fair. That's the tradition of this government.

It's a budget that ignores seniors. It is unfair. It attends to the

needs of large corporate interests. It doesn't even mention women or

any programs for women.

I was hoping that the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) would be

back in the House by now, but I want to turn and deal with one and

possibly two issues, depending on time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're losing your audience.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says I'm losing my audience. The only reason for that is that I'm losing my voice, and I wish I wasn't.

I want to discuss one or two issues that relate to the

Attorney-General's department. Let's take a look at the new

schedule of

court fees, because this government has come up with a new system of

raising money — indirect taxation. You know, if you don't want to raise

the personal tax rate anymore — and you really shouldn't, when the

balance is 83 to 17 percent.... What this government is starting to do

is charge fees for all sorts of services: fees if you want to go to the

Utilities Commission, fees if you want to go to court. We've seen,

through the fee

schedule that is part of this budget....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Let's talk about lawyers' fees.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll talk about lawyers' fees, the member says. We'd be more than happy to talk about lawyers' fees.

We've seen in this budget an introduction of new fees for court

services. It used to be that if you wanted to go to court — and I think

it's fair to say in principle that courts ought to be accessible, that

people ought to have the opportunity if there is a dispute between

parties to have it resolved without undue financial barriers, that

people of modest income, that the working poor as well as the affluent

ought to have an equal chance to get in front of the courts to resolve

an issue....

[3:15]

It used to be in this province that if a father or mother wanted to contest custody, fine, you had to pay a $50 fee.

[ Page 3691 ]

Now, because custody cases can take four or five

days, that fee is going to be $600. For a father or mother to go to

court, just to get access to the system, to get a ticket into the

courtroom, just to get in front of the judge costs you up to $600. What

kind of fairness is that? What kind of total affront to the principle

there on the part of this government for the woman who wants to enforce

a custody order or to say that she or her husband ought to have custody

of a child? Six hundred dollars to get into court. That's offensive.

MR. BLENCOE: Another pickpocket.

MR. SIHOTA: It's not just a pickpocket. It is a denial of

access to the judicial system. It's a shame. For those on the opposite

side who have affluent incomes, sure, you can pay $600, but not a woman

of modest means who can't get legal aid to go into court and try to

assert custody over her son or her daughter. Or a carpenter who has to

go in and get paid through a builder's lien. Or just the average person

who has been fired from a job wrongfully and wishes to launch a

wrongful dismissal suit.

There are options available to government. Look, if you're that

desperate, if you want to charge money for people to have access to the

court system.... It's not something I agree with, but given the

mentality opposite, why don't you just draft the rules to say that if a

bank, which can afford it, wants to commence a foreclosure action, it

has to pay $500 on a non-recoverable basis? Why don't you make those

that are able to pay to maintain the judicial system pay for it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Sounds like a good idea.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says it's a good idea. I invite the

member to take a look at the

schedule of fees. It doesn't apply for a

bank that wants to commence a foreclosure action, but it sure as hell

applies for a mother who wants to assert a custody order. What kind of

respect does this government have with respect to the matter of equal

access to the judicial system? The court fees....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are your fees based on ability to pay?

MR. SIHOTA: I'll have that member know that I would put

forward my record as a solicitor and the number of pro-bono cases that

I've done against any other lawyer he can produce in this province.

I'll have you know that right now.

A committee was set up by the Attorney-General to go around this

the judicial system. Why did this government decide not to wait for a

report from that commission before it implemented a new fee schedule?

I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker: because we saw from Bill 19 and Bill

20, from the privatization debate, from the decentralization debate,

that this government does not want consultation. It does not want to

listen to people. It is on its one-track, one-dimensional, one-man rule

that is totally oblivious to the concerns not only of the people of

this province, but in most instances to the back-benchers of its own

party, the members of its own cabinet, who from time to time say to the

Premier: "You're off the tracks and you're out of touch with

people." That's what is happening in this province.

The overwhelming desire for dollars is now denying people the opportunity to go to court. Members can say: "Well,

we increased legal aid by 11 percent." You didn't, first of all, if you

look at your own numbers. Secondly, the increase went up by $2 million.

Thirdly, and most important, the program is so inadequate that it

doesn't cover custody cases.

I see my time is up. I want to reiterate that this budget is unfair,

callous, uncaring, and it's becoming very typical of this government.

MR. SERWA: I rise today to speak in support of the budget.

Interjections.

MR. SERWA: Careful! I don't have much time and I've got a lot to say, so don't heckle.

Before I begin, allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate

the hon. first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his reappointment as

Deputy Speaker. I also want to extend my congratulations to the member

for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) and wish him all the best in his new

role as Deputy Chairman of Committee of the Whole.

I was very pleased that the budget emphasized the longterm economic

development of our province. The elimination of the current deficit,

reducing the burden of accumulated debt and stabilizing government

revenues must remain one of our government's primary goals if we are to

build a strong, vibrant economy. We have already taken some positive

steps in this direction. By undertaking to develop a longterm economic

and social strategy for the province, our government is building a base

for the future development of British Columbia. I urge business, labour

and community leaders to support this initiative and to share the

vision by becoming involved in developing this long-term plan for our

province. In order to make our province greater, better and more

beautiful, we must all — each and every British Columbian — make a

commitment to participate in and contribute to good government. Only in

that way can we share the vision.

The budget stabilization fund will assist in long-term planning by

addressing the problems of the boom and bust nature of our economy. By

putting aside funds in good years, we can avoid borrowing or cutting

back on social programs in years of revenue shortfall. I support our

government's plans to provide for equal economic and social development

opportunities throughout the province.

Okanagan South enjoys a diverse economy. Tourism, agriculture,

mining, forestry, secondary manufacturing and service industries are

our main employers. Two of the initiatives mentioned in the budget will

certainly have a positive impact in my constituency. The 35.2 percent

increase in the Ministry of Forests budget, with the emphasis on

silviculture, the reduction in the mineral resource tax rate to 15

percent and the reduction of the mining tax rate to 12.5 percent

effective July 1, 1988 will be very welcome in my constituency.

By the positive commitment of good Social Credit government to our

forest resource, employers such as Crown Forest and Gorman Bros. will

be assured of sustained timber supplies in the twenty-first century.

Brenda Mines, a major employer in the Peachland area, recently received

a concession that reduced hydro costs under the Industrial Electricity

Rate Discount Act, thereby enabling the mine to extend its operations

for another full year. The reduction in the mineral

[ Page 3692 ]

resource tax rate and the mining tax rate may

permit marginal ore bodies in the Brenda mill area to be utilized to

further extend the life of this employer.

Okanagan South needs to continue to build on this economic base to

ensure healthy growth and jobs for a growing population. The population

of Okanagan South grew from just over 85,000 to almost 90,000 in 1986.

There is an increase in the number of residential and commercial

buildings being constructed. Building statistics show that the value of

total construction projects for the regional district, the city of

Kelowna and Peachland has increased steadily in the last six years from

$56 million in 1982 to $102 million in 1987.

An important new project is the proposed $18 million shopping mall,

which is expected to replace the Dilworth centre by 1989. The developer

estimates that 120 people will be involved in building the mall and

about 200 permanent and part-time jobs will be created. The Orchard

Park regional shopping centre has also announced a $3.4 million

renovation expansion program slated for this spring and summer. These

two projects demonstrate that our business community has faith in the

economic future of Okanagan South.

There is tremendous potential for business growth. The reduction in

the corporate income tax rate from 15 percent to 14 percent and the

reduction in the small business tax rate from 11 percent to 9 percent

effective July 1, 1988 are positive steps in this direction. The

success of the Three Buoys houseboats, Western Star Trucks, Chemac,

Northern Airborne Technology, Decor Doors, Northside Steel and many

more small firms shows that the Okanagan has the resources and the

skilled people to build successful business ventures. We need to

carefully evaluate the products that are currently produced with an eye

to the future and to potential market demands. We need to concentrate

on producing more value-added products.

Suppliers and manufacturers set up primarily to provide parts for

the Western Star truck assembly plant are finding that they can utilize

production facility capacity more effectively and are diversifying

their product lines. They are producing more goods to supply extended

national and international markets.

My colleague the hon. member for South Peace River (Mr. Weisgerber)

has built a strong case for ethanol production. The Hiram Walker

distillery in Winfield has the potential to become a major producer of

ethanol. The existing plant, with some modifications, could utilize

low-quality grains to produce this product with minimal capital costs.

Again, diversity of production has the potential to create more jobs

for our people.

British Columbia is in a good position to build new markets for our

products. Our geographic location means that we are in a good position

to build economic ties with the Pacific Rim. The free trade agreement

with the United States also opens up new doors for trade with our

largest trading partner. I am pleased that our government will be

helping those businesses or sectors which may need help to adjust to

the free trade agreement.

Our grape growers and the wine industry are being hit hard by the free trade

agreement and the recent GATT rulings. They are in special need of assistance.

I have been consistent in my efforts to encourage special accommodation for

the grape and wine industry. The concern of our provincial government resulted

in a commitment expressed last December by the Minister of Labour and Consumer

Services (Hon. L. Hanson) that negotiations would take place with the federal

government to guarantee a purchase price per tonne for B.C. grapes that will

reflect 1987 selling prices. It is expected — under the federal commitment to

an adjustment program promised by the Prime Minister — that this agreement will

cover subsequent crop years.

A proposal that would enable small farm or boutique wineries to be

established has been submitted by me to the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services. The reduced volume of crushed proposed would allow

small, vertically integrated family operations, which by combining the

profits of growing, vinting and retail sales, would enhance economic

viability. Wine tours of existing commercial and cottage wineries are

extending the tourist season in the Okanagan. I see the small family

operation with the multicultural base of our growers as an excellent

opportunity to expand that element of tourism.

The commitment of our government to the grape growers and the wine

industry is best summed up by remarks made by our Premier on December

16 in this House. He stated: "We're going to keep this industry in the

Okanagan. As a matter of fact, we're going to make it grow more in the

Okanagan. "

Mr. Speaker, an efficient transportation system is essential to the

economic development of our province. Two former premiers from Okanagan

South, W.A.C. Bennett and Bill Bennett, deserve recognition for their

foresight in recognizing the importance of an efficient transportation

and communication system. We have come a long way since the 1940s, when

most of this province was inaccessible by road and most areas of the

province were not served by the power grid. Social Credit governments

have been responsible for opening up this province and creating

economic opportunities for all British Columbians.

[3:30]

There were several transportation milestones which dramatically

affected the economic development of Okanagan South. These include the

opening of the Kelowna Airport in 1946, the opening of the

Hope-Princeton Highway in 1947, the Okanagan Lake bridge in 1957, the

Rogers Pass in 1963, and the three-laning of the Okanagan Lake bridge

in 1985.

The development of an efficient transportation system was certainly

essential to the development of tourism and agriculture as major

industries. Forestry, secondary manufacturing and high-tech industries

are even more dependent on superior transportation routes and systems.

More people each year are discovering the central Okanagan as a

vacation destination. Geography, climate, charm and beauty invite

outdoor activities, from aquatic sports in Okanagan Lake to skiing the

slopes of Big White Mountain. "The Four Seasons Playground," Kelowna's

slogan, is a most appropriate description of the varied recreational

opportunities in this city nestled on the shores of Okanagan Lake.

I know that our government's plans to preserve and enhance historic

and heritage sites and to open up backcountry recreational

opportunities will benefit Okanagan South. The introduction next

January of a new deduction of 50 percent of assessed value of all

tourist accommodation to a maximum deduction of $150,000 will also help

our tourist industry.

Agriculture continues to be an essential industry in my

constituency, and efficient transportation is essential to get those

products to market. I am very pleased that our government will be

evaluating ways to enhance our agricultural

[ Page 3693 ]

sector's economic viability by developing new

markets and products. I also support the development of new programs to

encourage the aquaculture and greenhouse sectors. Our region has

tremendous potential for economic growth in the agricultural sector,

especially in the added-value field. SunRype Products is an excellent

example. We need to tap that potential.

The continued growth of our tourism industry, agricultural sector

and other key elements of our diverse economy are only some of the

reasons why we must continue to review our transportation and

communication needs as part of our ten-year plan. I am pleased that our

government will be reviewing areas of federal legislation within

British Columbia, particularly communications and airports.

I have already referred to Kelowna Airport as an essential

cornerstone in the economic development of the central Okanagan. In

1946, pioneers with a vision of Kelowna's future established a gravel

airstrip. The airport was sold to Transport Canada by the city in 1959

to meet federal criteria for cooperative development programs. In the

past four decades, Kelowna Airport has grown into the third-busiest

airport in British Columbia, and the fifteenth-busiest airport in

Canada. In fact, the Vancouver-Kelowna air service was the

thirteenth-busiest city pair in Canada.

Despite this traffic flow through our airport, Kelowna is the only

major non-international Canadian airport at a significant altitude with

less than 7,000 feet of paved runway. This single runway is only 5,300

feet in length. The short length of the runway is restricting the

economic growth of the central Okanagan. The size of the aircraft

serving Kelowna is limited to Boeing 737s, which means that wide-body

service is not possible. We need to be able to land larger aircraft,

such as the Boeing 767, so that cargo and passenger services to local

businesses and air travellers are improved.

We also need to be able to handle larger aircraft so that we can

ship tree-ripened fruit straight to our eastern markets. Unless the

physical barrier to improved air service and capacity is eliminated,

the region will not be able to fulfil its potential to compete

successfully in the North American marketplace as trade barriers are

lowered. All the land which is required to expand the length of the

airport runway to 8,000 feet is already federally owned, and a

preliminary environmental impact study has already been completed. The

time to go ahead with this project is now. I urge the provincial

government to support the airport extension project by requesting the

federal government to work to ensure that the airport runway extension

goes ahead as quickly as possible. The economic future of the southern

interior will depend on this regional airport.

The budget stressed not only long-term economic planning, but also

long-term social planning. I am certain that every member of this House

would agree that a quality education system, a world-class health

system and support programs for families in need are essential to the

future of this province. I was very pleased to see all of these areas

addressed in the budget.

The budget stressed the importance of continued access to quality

health care for all British Columbians. I am very pleased that the

health budget will be increased to $3.9 billion, an increase of 10.2

percent from the 1987-88 estimates. That's more than $1,300 for every

man, woman and child in the province.

MR. JONES: Premiums went up 40 percent.

MR. SERWA: Good stuff. I am pleased that the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) will be exploring ways to provide certain

medical services better and at less cost, by using highly trained and

specialized health care workers. I look forward to seeing the results

of the pilot project in Victoria to test the community-based,

integrated health care delivery system for seniors. This type of

program could be useful throughout the province, especially in Okanagan

South, the retirement capital of Canada.

I believe that it is important that we in government continue to

provide the type of quality health care services British Columbians

deserve.

Kelowna General Hospital has been doing an excellent job serving the

people of Okanagan South. However, the demand for services is steadily

increasing, and Kelowna General is serving as a regional referral

centre. I was pleased that the provincial government provided $2.8

million in 1987 for a 45-bed rehabilitation unit at Kelowna General.

The funds are being used to replace an obsolete 23-bed unit and to

provide for ten new beds for geriatric rehabilitation. The $325,000 in

funding to expand the hospital's chemotherapy department and

administrative facilities is also welcome. If Kelowna General is to

continue meeting the growing needs of our region, more of our

facilities will need attention.

Members of the community are to be commended for their support of

Kelowna General. Last year the Kelowna General Hospital's fund-raising

campaign raised $300,000 to buy a kidney dialysis unit for the

hospital. This year they plan to raise $350,060 to build a therapeutic

pool for the new rehabilitation centre.

Mr. Speaker, our young people are our future, and the educational

opportunities open to them will determine their economic opportunities

in the future. I was very pleased that contributions to public school

operating costs will increase by $114 million to over SI.3 billion in

the 1988-89 fiscal year.

MR. JONES: How about the colleges?

MR. SERWA: We'll get to that.

I look forward to the report from the Royal Commission on Education.

I am pleased that the report's specific recommendations will be

addressed quickly.

We also want to ensure that students who graduate from our schools

are able to pursue a post-secondary education. The allocation of $8.5

million for the Passport to Education program and of $15 million to

upgrade and add more computers in the classroom, and the addition of

$32 million to student financial aid this year, for a total of $58

million, are certainly positive moves in that direction.

We have excellent post-secondary institutions in this province. I am

very pleased that university operating grants will be increased by 5

percent this year to $322 million, and that operating contributions to

colleges and institutes will total $287 million. We have an excellent

institution right in Okanagan South that attracts students from

throughout the interior. I am speaking of Okanagan College. Currently

students who attend the college must leave the Okanagan to complete

their education.

MR. BLENCOE: Did you mail this speech?

MR. SERWA: That's right.

This places them at a disadvantage. Many more students from the regional colleges in the lower mainland and Vancouver

[ Page 3694 ]

Island transfer to university as compared to

college students from the interior. For example, in 1985-86, 21 percent

of the interior students at regional colleges transferred to one of the

three British Columbia universities, compared to 29 percent for urban

degree-granting institution and the related costs of living away from

home are the key elements in the differential.

I strongly recommend that Okanagan College be given degree-granting

status, so that we can better serve the young people of the interior.

The population of the Okanagan Valley is presently larger than that of

greater Victoria at the time the University of Victoria was

established. The population is continuing to grow, and Kelowna is

centrally located to serve the entire area. In 1986 the population of

the Regional District of Central Okanagan, including Kelowna, Westbank

and Peachland, was almost 90,000; the population of the Regional

District of North Okanagan, including Vernon, Armstrong, Coldstream,

Enderby and Lumby, was almost 55,000; and the population of the

Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen, including the area from

Penticton to Osoyoos, and Princeton, was 59,000. The number of students

who live within commuting distance of the Kelowna campus facility

exceeds by far any other centre in the interior of the province.

I believe that the decentralization initiative is a positive one for

this province, and we should be examining postsecondary education as

part of that process. I would suggest that giving Okanagan College

degree-granting status would be a positive step in the decentralization

process and make post-secondary education more accessible to the people

of the interior.

I would like to see the private sector take a more active role in

our post-secondary institutions. I support the new University

Foundations Act which has been introduced in this House, and I believe

it will be successful in attracting private sector tax-supported

donations to our universities. I am pleased that our government will be

reinforcing this initiative with $10 million to match private sector

contributions to our post-secondary institutions. With the private

sector cooperation, we could set the framework for turning Okanagan

College into a university which will serve the interior of B.C.

I have spoken about only a few of the many initiatives in the budget

which will benefit the economic and social development of this

province. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) deserves praise

for his budget. It is a good budget, both in the short-term and the

long-term context. It is an outstanding example in Canada of that which

may be accomplished to reduce budget deficit and to increase future

fiscal flexibility.

While on the whole, budgetary expenditures for 1988-89 are modest, I

am pleased to see that the greatest increases are in the areas that can

legitimately use more funds: Environment and Parks, Forests and Lands,

Agriculture and Fisheries and Health are sound investments in the

future prosperity of British Columbia by improving both natural and

human resources.

This budget is a sound balance of tax increases and expenditure

restraint, while reducing the deficit. British Columbia will become an

even more attractive province for business to set up and expand.

Clearly it demonstrates the determination, resolve and commitment of

good Social Credit governments to the future of British Columbia. I am

looking forward to working on behalf of my constituents and the people

of this province to help make our government's plans for the future a

reality.

[3:45]

MR. LOVICK: I want to assure members opposite that I don't require encouragement, but it's nonetheless appreciated.

I'm very pleased to take

part in this budget debate, and I would

like to begin by saying how nice it is to observe that we are actually

seeing some manifestations of a real debate: that is, members opposite

are attempting to engage with us on this side of the House and to offer

something approaching rebuttal. That's a happy circumstance. Unhappily,

their efforts at rebuttal and refutation don't seem to stand up

terribly well, at least under any kind of close scrutiny and analysis.

Let me touch on just a couple of those if I might.

I am mindful of the fact that I am going to begin by referring to

people who spoke in opposition and in criticism of my colleague, the

first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I want to declare very clearly

that the first member for Nanaimo certainly requires no help from me to

defend himself, but given that we will have to wait some time before he

has that opportunity, I would like to respond to at least a couple of

statements made in response to my colleague's comments.

The member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen) — Lord, how I wish he were

here — took issue with my colleague suggesting that the New Democratic

Party record in government was not at all the kind of success that we

had suggested, and he focused on one particular item, namely Ocean

Falls and the Clarkson Gordon report. I want to touch briefly on what

he said about Ocean Falls and Clarkson Gordon and demonstrate just how

very wrong he was in his conclusions.

First, let me note for the record that the member for Chilliwack

made quite a point of saying he dislikes referring to the past. I

thought that's entirely understandable, given a ten-year history of

Social Credit government. As a member of Social Credit, I too would

dislike referring to the past. Rather, I would want to see it buried

forever, out of sight, out of mind. I would certainly insist on that.

However, let's look at the point he made. What he said is in

response to our claim that we took various assets; we made them into

money-makers. He focused on Ocean Falls. Specifically, Mr. Speaker,

you'll recall that he said that in 1975 Ocean Falls, according to the

Clarkson Gordon estimate, reported a loss of some $310,000. In actual

fact, the loss was $304,381, but we won't quibble. The important point

is to remember what happened in 1975. The townsite and the mill had

been mothballed. We started with a basket case; there was nothing

there. We saw that — unlike those on the other side, who do not have

the same clarity of vision, I fear — as an opportunity. We saw a

potential there. We also saw a tremendous waste of capital, both human

and physical, if we hadn't jumped in. In 1975 we bought in for a total

cost of $789,582. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? Despite the fact that

there was approximately a $310,000 loss in 1975, in 1976 — wonder of

wonders — there was indeed a profit of $1,087,255. That profit in one

year offset the loss of the first year and also the total cost. By

anybody's reckoning, that's good business.

I appreciate the fact that members opposite have the temerity and

the gall to suggest that we on this side are not prudent managers of

the public's assets. Remember, Mr.

[ Page 3695 ]

Speaker, these are the folks who brought us BCRIC.

These are the great managers. These are the guys who said: "Boy, that

public operation was inefficient. We're going to privatize, and then

you'll see great things happening." You recall the Premier of the day

touring the province and saying: "We're going to give the people a

lesson in how the stock market works." They sure did. Shares are now

trading for about 85 cents a pop, as I recall. The BCRIC story could

indeed be left in the ground where it belongs, except that we're on the

threshold of another example. The whole new batch of privatization

initiatives certainly is reminiscent and suggestive of BCRIC.

As a matter of fact, I want to share with the House a little story

about BCRIC that probably has not been told. The biographer of the

former Premier and of the current Premier attended a privatization

conference I was at, and do you know what his

part in the conference

was? He argued adroitly, effectively and really stretching credulity to

the farthest point imaginable that BCRIC, contrary to what we all

believed, was a roaring success. It was a roaring success, said David

Mitchell, this revered biographer — or hagiographer, probably more

properly put. But do you know why he said it was a success, Mr.

Speaker? I want to use this argument to make the point that this is the

same kind of ideological leap of faith that's being made by this

government now. The case he presented was that BCRIC was a success

because, by heaven, they pulled it off: they were able to sell those

assets. I thought, if one can actually say to people that a tangible

asset.... The Premier of the province tells us: "You're going to get 30

bucks free; we're going to give you five free shares at $6 a pop." If

we can't unload that stuff, what in the world can we do? But this was

nevertheless held up as the great success of privatization.

I know that members opposite don't believe that; they're sure I'm

overstating the case. I want to assure them that it is precisely the

case that was argued. Moreover, I want to suggest that I suspect we're

going to hear the same kind of case in the ensuing privatization debate.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Oh, I think we have indeed convinced the people

about BCRIC and about privatization, Mr. Minister. I'd suggest you

might want to look at the latest polls on the subject.

I want to touch now, though, on the comments made by another speaker

from the other side, who attempted to refute and to rebut the comments

of my colleague, the second member for Nanaimo. I'm referring now to

the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers).

What the second member for Okanagan South made the basis of his case against

what my colleague had presented was the fact that as of March 31, 1976 — fiscal

'75-76 — there was a deficit of $405 million. This was the evidence, this

was the paradigm case about New Democrat inefficiency. This was the example

of what wastrels and profligate spenders we were. But I think it's important

to recognize that we, the government of that time, left office on December 22,

1975, and most of the money that accounts for — and indeed beyond — that sum

of $405 million was spent in the three and a half months after we left office.

Curious. Indeed, if one looks, you find that the budget was overspent in that

period by some $248.7 million. You also discover non-budgetary expenditures

totalling $265.4 million — for a total of $514.1 million. which is quite significantly

more than the $405 million deficit we are being charged with.

What's more, that criticism, that attack from the member for

Okanagan South, who constantly told us, "I've been told that...," which

leads me to believe that he has only been told and he hasn't read

that.... What he said at the time about that sum of money also failed

to pay attention to one other significant fact of extreme importance to

people who would understand the nature of budgeting: our government

also increased the special funds account by a sum of $201.5 million. I

want to remind the House that that sum of money was real money. It was

either hard currency or backed up by investments. It was not the

airy-fairy imagined sum of money which we encounter in what is

appropriately called the BS fund — the budget stabilization fund. That

was real money compared to what we see in this budget, which is, as I

suggest, airy-fairy in the extreme.

In talking earlier about this particular budget, after going through

the fact that the government ostensibly was making some efforts to deal

with particular problems — that it had what it considered to be a

serious economic initiative to present, that it was trying to grapple

with the problems of health and social service spending — it also, you

will recall, made comments about how rosy the future was looking. I

struggled, I must confess. in terms of trying to find a nice easy

description of that budget, but that was not an easy thing to come up

with. One of the reasons I struggled with that was what I detected, and

what I still detect — indeed, my suspicions are confirmed the more

closely I examine the document — are certain ominous tones in that

budget. They cause me some concern. and I am sure they would cause

others some concerns as well. I'd like to touch briefly on a number of

those, if I might, which I think it's important that we all recognize

and understand.

The first of those illustrations that I would give occurs on page 3

of the budget. Specifically we have a focus on British Columbia's wage

structure. and we introduce the idea of whether British Columbia will

be competitive. Moreover, on the next page, in what serves as a kind of

gloss or marginalia for this document, we have a reference as follows:

"Realistic wage settlements key to staving competitive." A couple of

things strike me in that. the first is: why do we focus exclusively on

wage settlements? If we want to talk about competition, if we want to

talk about maintaining competitive markets, we have to talk about a

great deal more than simply wage settlements.

I wonder then if what in fact is here is some kind of suggestion

that a particular sector and part of the economy is being singled out

for attention. I fear that that's the case, because I recall vividly

that the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), when he spoke in the

throne speech debate, amplified on this very point about competition

and competitive wage rates, and the example he gave us was Korea. I

wonder if he was suggesting that British Columbia should somehow try to

achieve wage parity with Korea or some such thing. I know that's

overstating the case, and I deliberately do so, but I want to make a

point about that. If we are talking exclusively about wage rates as our

hook, as our approach to understanding competition, we are doomed to

fail.

[4:00]

There are parts of the world sustained by military, political and

other kinds of dictatorship who can change wage rates arbitrarily,

capriciously from day to day. There are also

[ Page 3696 ]

significant parts of the world that quite simply

can produce things more cheaply than we can or would be willing to. For

us then to fall into the trap of suggesting that a part of our problem

is our wage bill and that that's the angle we should be coming at in

order to remain competitive, seems to me is misguided in the extreme.

Let's talk about research and development, about technology, about an

improved climate for industrial relations, and then we'll be closer to

the mark. Ominous tones? I think so.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I also want to touch on what I think is more than an ominous tone,

an offensive tone in the budget, Mr. Speaker, and I'm referring to that

rather simplistic argument that we hear from small-c conservative

governments around the world, namely about the burden of debt. We all

know about debt and the problem thereof, but it becomes a fixation for

small-c conservative governments. The marginal note in the budget here

on page 4 is "Debt reduces flexibility." It goes on to elaborate, and I

want to quote from page 5 of the budget document: "There can be no

fresh start if we continue an addiction to spending beyond our means."

Fine. Most of us, I think, will accept that, but then look at the next

sentence. It says: "This government will not leave our young people a

legacy of obligations caused by our own short-sighted selfishness." To

put it as charitably as I can, I think that kind of statement is pious

hypocrisy because it effectively says what we're going to do is protect

the future generations of young people, probably at the expense of the

present generations of young people.

If you recognize that there are almost a quarter of a million

families in this province on social assistance, probably some 40

percent of whom are young people living in poverty, without advantages,

it seems to me that it is not so clear a trade-off to say that what

we're going to do is reduce spending now to protect some future

generations, and we'll do so, rightly understood, by punishing present

generations. Again, it seems to me that is simply pious hypocrisy; that

is not fair. I find that offensive, Mr. Speaker, partly because of that

sanctimonious kind of quality that oozes from it, the suggestion that

we are looking out for the future, as opposed to some others who are

unconcerned. We must indeed look out for the future, but for heaven's

sake, we should not forget the present in the process, and it seem to

me that's what this budget does, certainly in that regard.

I also want to refer to another ominous tone in the budget on page

8. We have the absolutely gratuitous comment for no apparent reason

whatsoever talking about social programs and social assistance, and we

suddenly have tacked on to the end of a paragraph this sentence, out of

the blue: "We will also ensure that assistance goes only to those who

need it." If somebody on the government side wants to point to the

number of abusers of the programs, if you want to argue the case that

yes, indeed, we have a problem with abuse of the system, then do so,

but don't do so by this kind of back-door insinuating, frankly cowardly

approach to things. If you want to argue that we have abuse, then say

so, and take steps to deal with it. Don't sadly just throw in a line

such as this that suggests we all know about the abuse. It begs the

question, Mr. Speaker, and it does so in a manner that I can only

describe as offensive.

Another ominous tone in the budget, it seems to me, is the whole

reference to the medical profession in health care discussions or parts

of the discussion in the budget. I'm intrigued by the fact that this is

probably a first for budget speeches.... I note the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) and I think he'll appreciate the reference. This is

probably the first time in human history that we've had a budget speech

— which by definition is dull, formal, low-key — that uses exclamation

marks. We have a budget that shows a certain passion here, and the

passion it shows is on page 9 when we're talking about the medical

profession. The reference is as follows: "...the medical profession and

hospital system — I'm putting ellipses in there; that's not a direct

quotation; that's the subject.... Here's the predicate: "are consuming

all available funding, and their demands are insatiable!"

My God, it sounds like the sky is falling. We should all rush to

take arms. There's a problem here. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that

some of us on this side of the House and some others in the medical

profession have said: "Demonstrate to us if it is the case that

spending is out of control. Demonstrate to us, moreover, that those

demands are insatiable." Is it the case that health care is simply a

black hole, that we just keep pouring money in and it all disappears or

some such thing? If that's the case, table the documents and show us

the study that demonstrates that. Because when we put pressure on that

conclusion, the answer we have got is absolute silence from the other

side.

One more brief reference to the ominous note in the budget, and that

is another marginal notation. The marginal notation this time occurs on

page 18 and it says simply: "User fees encourage responsible use." I

think the problem with that observation is that it ignores the fact

that user fees do not represent any kind of fair taxation. If we talk

about user fees as a fair system of taxation, then what we assume is

that all people from all walks of life in the economic realm get sick

equally or some such thing. That's just not the case.

The whole concept behind Medicare is to protect people against

circumstances beyond their control. If we suddenly begin to impose user

fees, especially if we start to look upon them as a deterrent and say

that if we don't use them then people will abuse the system, then it

seems to me we are eroding one of the premises on which the system

rests. Again, it seems to me that is wrong-headed, to put the matter

charitably.

So much for the ominous overtones. There are others, but I think

those are sufficient to make my case. I want to refer now to some very

specific items in the budget, to three things specifically. I want to

talk about a couple of constituency based matters: first, the perennial

Island Highway; second, a bit about college financing; and third, I

want to refer to privatization in the little time remaining to me.

First, the Island Highway. I noted about an hour or so ago that a

member from the other side of the House — I believe it was the member

for Vancouver South — was talking about how we should not speak in

derisive terms about the fact that $6 million was set aside for the

Island Highway because, after all, that was important preliminary work,

etc. I think the predicament in why we on this side express a certain

dissatisfaction — to put it mildly — about that $6 million figure for

the Island Highway is because we've heard it all before.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you what happened prior to the last

election. My colleagues and I on Vancouver Island, candidates at the

time for the New Democrats, put together an economic development paper,

one part of which was a proposal to build an inland island highway.

Within three

[ Page 3697 ]

months of that document's publication, your

government decided that it would do roughly double the size of the

project we had put forward. Moreover, in the campaign that ensued, we

were told: "The Island Highway is ready to go. It's going to happen."

In fact, I think I could dig out campaign literature which would

embarrass quite a few people in terms of how that promise was made.

So when we say that $6 million is an insult, a pittance, that's

because it's in that context. Six million dollars is probably about

half a day's work on the Coquihalla. We're not talking about huge

amounts of money here. We've heard it all before. Indeed, I brought

along a copy of Hansard from approximately a year ago today. I made a

statement at that time on the Island Highway, and everything I said on

April 3. 1987, could be stated today. It's all still true. Moreover, I

note, in looking over what I said about a year ago, that I was

referring to promises made by that selfsame government in 1979. So we

are a little cynical; we are a little suspicious about whether the

Island Highway means anything other than a two-election promise, a kind

of political reward as opposed to an urgent necessity that should be

built on a needs rather than a political basis. We're cynical — I don't

deny it. I certainly am when I think about the Island Highway, because

frankly, $6 million is insulting to the people of Vancouver Island.

There are a couple of ministers of the Crown sitting on the other side

who are from the Island and who, I'm sure, share that concern. They

ought to share that concern. The Island Highway is obviously one of the

great disappointments of all time. Six million dollars hardly counts.

College financing. I have difficulty containing myself when I think

about what this budget does to the financing of colleges in this

province. On page 6 of the throne speech we are promised "a slight

increase." If we look on page 34 of the estimates, we discover that the

increase is to the sum of $287,111,400 from a sum of $284,574,400. That

equals an increase of some $2.5 million. It also equals about 1

percent, and when you factor in inflation, it probably represents a

decrease of about 3 percent. The predicament is that we are talking

about a system of education that has proven its validity, its vitality,

and is the great success story of B.C. education. And yet it is being

singled out to be badly treated, and badly treated after only one

year's slight reprieve. Out of a period of about 11 years, the college

system had one year when it looked as if government was finally

listening. Sadly, we're back to the same old games — starving that

system.

What makes it even more frightening is that the starvation is going

on at the same time the government is increasing student aid. We're

increasing student aid to encourage more young people — and older

people in some cases — to attend colleges, and yet we're cutting back

the funding so we won't be able to offer the kinds of programs or the

quality of programs that ought to be the right of those students.

There's a kind of exquisitely cruel irony embedded in all of that, Mr.

Speaker, and one that certainly is offensive.

[4:15]

I can't leave this topic without making just a brief reference to

the fact that that budget increase of less than 1 percent — which, as I

say, amounts in fact to a net decrease — represents only $3.9 million

more than the colleges and institutes got in 1981-82. Despite increased

demand, despite increased proof of their abilities, colleges are

nevertheless starved in that regard. I must conclude this

section of my

remarks by simply saying that I think the fact that the colleges did

less well than any other part of the education system probably has

directly to do with the system of governance. As you know, college

boards are entirely appointed by government. They are in fact

government guardians, protectors of, government's reputation, of —

government's name, perhaps more so than protectors of the education

system. Certainly that is the conclusion drawn by all those who work in

the college system. They feel, with some justification, it seems to me.

that they have indeed been sold out by their so-called boards of

governors, who ought to be protecting their interests.

I see I'm out of time. I will therefore reserve my comments on privatization until another occasion. Mr. Speaker.

MR. CRANDALL: In a sense, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech and

budget debates are for many of us our annual speech. We've got more

time, and the parameters are a bit more general than they are when

we're speaking on specific issues, private members' speeches and those

sorts of things. So I would like to make some comments this afternoon

that are a bit beyond the budget speech parameters.

It was roughly a year ago that I made my maiden speech here, and I

would like to state again that I am pleased to represent the great

riding of Columbia River in this Legislature. Fm also pleased to be

part of this government. I believe that we are setting a course for our

province that will, guarantee our long-term future, a prosperous

future, and one that our families and children will be proud of and

able to inherit.

I believe that our government is providing a vision that is unique

in this country and perhaps in much of the free world. The lack of

vision is something that concerns me. Where there is no vision, the

institution flounders. Where there is vision, people are perhaps

somewhat angry sometimes, and somewhat frustrated at times. I believe

that the people of British Columbia, while they may have had some

concerns with some of our actions in the past year, are overwhelmingly

supportive of the approach that we are taking and pleased with the

vision that this government has. I just want to say again that I'm

pleased to be part of this government.

Part of my thoughts and comments there have been influenced by some

of the things that I hear in other provinces, and because my riding is

a border constituency I am perhaps more influenced by what people in

other provinces, especially Alberta, might sometimes say about British

Columbia. I thought the members of the House might be interested to

hear a brief comment from a newspaper in Alberta. On February 15, the

News and Advertiser in the town of Ponoka, which is just north of Red

Deer, wrote: "The leader of the B.C. government is, of course, Bill

Vander Zalm. Oh that Alberta had such a government! Oh that we had such

a leader, a leader and a government driven by convictions and fearless

enough to follow through their convictions!"

Sometimes we can learn more about ourselves by listening to people

outside our province than we can from listening to those within British

Columbia. I believe that we have a province that is unique in this

country, and I'm proud to be part of it.

At this time I'd like to congratulate and thank the Speaker, the

Deputy Speaker. the previous Chairman of the Committee of the Whole,

who is here in the chamber now; and I'd like to congratulate the member

for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who is in the chair now, on his

election to the position of Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

We've

[ Page 3698 ]

had a good year in the past, and I know we're going to have a good 1988.

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Columbia River includes, as most of you

know, the communities of Kimberley, Invermere and Golden. The northern

part of that riding continues to prosper because of a strong forestry

industry, a strong mining industry and a strong tourism industry. We

look forward to those industries continuing to be strong. In the

southern part of my constituency, in the Kimberley area, we continue to

have concerns because of the possible depletion of the ore body at the

Sullivan mine. That's still a major concern, and we will continue to

work hard in the Kimberley area either to find replacement ore bodies

or to replace that mining industry with other industries.

I'm delighted that we've had a strong tourism year in Kimberley in

1987, and I look forward to another one in 1988. One of the items that

will help us to have a strong tourism industry in Kimberley in 1988 is

the Festival of the Arts. The B.C. Festival of the Arts will be held in

Kimberley from May 25 to May 29, and I'm delighted that it will be held

there. I'm also delighted to invite any members to attend that

festival, which will not only be in the city of Kimberley, but will be

in the riding of Columbia River where the sun almost always shines.

I want to tell you also that the city of Kimberley just hosted....

MR. SIHOTA: It rises in the west.

MR. CRANDALL: We give it to you every day. The city of

Kimberley also just hosted and won the provincial "AA" Pee Wee hockey

championship, and that too helped fill hotels and helped bring the

tourism industry in Kimberley some additional bonuses.

Our government is the eleventh Social Credit government elected by

the people of British Columbia. British Columbia has re-elected this

party as many times as it has because of its confidence in the policies

and programs of the Social Credit Party. The people of British Columbia

especially appreciate the financial policies of the Social Credit

Party. I want to say....

MR. SIHOTA: Coquihalla and SkyTrain.

MR. CRANDALL: The member opposite mentions two great

projects. I'm very pleased to be able to stand here and support

Coquihalla, and the member who is in the chair at the present time

would similarly stand in his place and support the Coquihalla. It

connects us with your great lower mainland and Vancouver Island in a

better way than we've ever been connected before. It reminds me of the

saying: "If you're going to go ahead and get things done, you have to

pay less attention to the people that would detract. "

I want to say that I have confidence in this budget. One of the

reasons I have confidence is because of the declining deficit. This

deficit is careful with expenditures, and we all know it's much easier

for a government to over spend than it is to under spend. We have all

kinds of examples of government overspending. We have many other

provinces in Canada. We have our federal budget itself, and we have our

neighbours to the south which unfortunately have a federal deficit in

the trillions.

I want to say that this British Columbia Social Credit government is

the only government in Canada which is committed to balance the budget

in its current term of office.

MR. SIHOTA: Just like Ronald Reagan.

MR. CRANDALL: Let me tell you that we are very much unlike

Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984, saying he would

cut the budget. This budget in British Columbia is an indication that

we are on track of keeping our commitment to balance the budget in our

current term of office. The only province in Canada which has

previously been administered by the party from the other side was

recently thrown out and will be replaced very shortly on, I believe,

April 26.... Is that the right date, Mr. Member for Victoria? He

doesn't know.

This budget provides proof to the people of this province that we're

on the right track. It provides proof that we had a fresh start last

year. It provides proof to the people of this province that we're on

the right track and that we had a fresh start last year, and that many

other provinces in this country.... As I just read in a newspaper in

Alberta: "Oh that Alberta had such a government! Oh that we had such a

leader, a leader and a government driven by convictions and fearless

enough to follow through their convictions!" Said by a weekly newspaper

in a community in Alberta that recognizes the fine government in

British Columbia — a province that was governed by Social Credit for

most of 35 years continuously, from the thirties right through to the

late sixties. I started out in that province during its Social Credit

years and moved to B.C. in its Social Credit years. I've been delighted

that 11 of our last 12 governments in British Columbia have been Social

Credit governments.

This budget provides proof to this province that we're on the right

track after a fresh start last year. In our throne speech we said,"We

will achieve, we will get things done," and we are doing that. We're

concerned about expenditures. We're committed to the essential human

services such as health, education and social services. We're also

concerned — and this budget indicates that we are — about the long-term

financial health of our province. I've mentioned before that we're the

only government in Canada committed to balancing the budget in our term.

British Columbia is in the midst of a period of economic recovery.

We have recently seen economic growth and job creation beyond all

expectations, far beyond the expectations that we've seen in

NDP-administered Manitoba, where they have great things, like a job

tax, which is probably one of the reasons why they've just been thrown

out. The momentum that we've seen in B.C. over the last year will

continue. This budget is a good sign that the business world has

confidence in British Columbia.

[4:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In the world of education, which is one of the human services that I

mentioned a few moments ago, we have increased funding for education.

Within my riding we're concerned about all of the global issues of

education. We're concerned about funding for our elementary and high

schools. We're concerned about funding for our community colleges and

our universities. However, in that rural riding we're also concerned

about other things, such as distance education, and I'm glad to see

that British Columbia is leading the way. I compliment our Minister of

Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) for the initiatives

he has taken to improve distance education to where we are now one of

the leaders in the world in distance education.

[ Page 3699 ]

It's important to me that a person who isn't able

to complete their education in my riding can get some help through

distance education, through the Knowledge Network, through university

and college credit programs that are administered via satellites.

I'm also pleased that in this budget we have increased the amount of

student loan funds that will be available this year. The students from

my riding who travel to university, whether it be UVic, UBC, Simon

Fraser or some of the community colleges within the province, have

increased costs because of travel, because they happen to live away

from home, which people in larger centres don't have. So I appreciate

this extra benefit in the student assistance programs. When I was a

student I benefited. I had student loans. And I'm glad that the

students from Columbia River will be able to....

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: Yes, I did pay them off, as a matter of fact — at $23 a month in 1968.

So I'm glad to see that the students from Columbia River will benefit from this additional help.

I'm also pleased that in social services we have provided, through

this budget, for better care for those people who are not as fortunate

as others. I'm pleased we were able to increase the GAIN support and

also the housing allowances, which this year will be provided for in

this budget with an additional $38 million. As I mentioned a few

moments ago, our economy in British Columbia is strong. I'm pleased

that because of that we have fewer people on social assistance than

we've had in previous years. I want to mention that in one of the

communities in my riding — the community of Golden — there was a time

last year when, thanks to some JobTrac programs, we had not one

employable person on social assistance. Because our economy will

continue to prosper, we will have even fewer people on social

assistance than we have today.

I also want to mention something that the first member for Vancouver

South (Mr. R. Fraser) mentioned a while ago. We will have what I

believe is an unprecedented amount of money spent this year on programs

for the disabled. This government, with this budget, will spend in 1988

$541 million on programs for the disabled. Some of those programs will

help to restore the disabled or place them for the first time in

productive and contributing roles within our province.

I know that the disabled in this province want to be productive,

they want to contribute, and this $541 million is money well spent. I

also want to recognize that some of that money — probably a fully

proportionate amount of that money — is spent in my riding. If I can do

anything for the disabled people in my riding, I want to do it, and I

know that some of the people who are today on disabled pensions are

struggling daily, trying to become productive where they can

contribute. They will contribute if we can assist them in some way to

do so.

In 1988 our government will continue to spend one-third of its

budget on health care. In whole dollars, we will spend an unprecedented

$3.9 billion on health care — that's an 8.3 percent increase. I'm

delighted that we're able to fund this high-quality health system that

we have in B.C., and I'd like to mention that the Columbia River riding

has some health care issues that need addressing.

Health care, of course, encompasses many different facets. It means

going to the doctor; it means having public health nurses; it means

having hospitals. It means acute-care hospitals, but it also means

other institutions, such as longterm-care institutions. My riding is

well served, for the most part, with long-term-care homes. As we can

all imagine, it is very important that when we reach the time in our

life when we need more care than can be provided for in our own

personal homes. we be able to have resources within our own communities

where seniors can be cared for.

In my riding we have a long-term-care home in the community of

Kimberley, and we have another one in the community of Golden. The

community of Invermere, however, does not have a long-term-care home.

That community has raised, to this point in time, $500,000 towards

putting a long-term-care home in the Invermere and Radium Hot Springs

area. I want to say that I support that community and will do whatever

I can to try to improve long-term-care facilities within that area, the

central part of the constituency that I represent.

It's difficult when you live in a rural riding to have to be able to

travel 70, 80 or more miles to visit a parent or relative in a

long-term-care facility in another community. The people in Invermere.

Fairmont Hot Springs, Canal Flats and Radium Hot Springs have been

doing that for many years. They have to drive to Golden. Kimberley or

Cranbrook. They have made a demonstrated effort in a tangible way, by

raising their own local funds, to where they've indicated that they are

very desirous of a long-term-care facility in that area, and I will

certainly do what I can to support that.

We must also take steps to ensure that within the health care world

we are prudent users of the health care system. This budget increases

our MSP premiums. In terms of personal expenditures, our personal

medical premium expenses are a very small part of our overall personal

expenditures. There is no higher priority, however, for us as

individuals than the health of our families, our neighbours, our

relatives and ourselves. Yet I and, I'm sure, everybody in this chamber

today, continually spend more money for the health of our automobiles

than we do for our personal health. I just paid a bill of over $700 for

three visits for my two cars to the automobile hospital. It was a

reasonable price, and I was glad to pay it, but for a similar period of

time the medical premium for my family was far less. The people of our

province are reasonable. They know the world is real and they know that

a premium increase is justified.

While we're talking about health issues, I also want to mention the

increased liquor and cigarette tax. I want to mention them because I

feel they are justified. I think it's important that we link as closely

as we can the costs in our health care system with the revenue side,

and all of us know that the use of liquor and cigarettes increases the

costs to our health care system. So I'm confident that the people in my

constituency and the people throughout British Columbia will recognize

the justification for these increases in the liquor and cigarette taxes.

I was also interested and partly amused to hear the previous speaker

talk about the doctors of the province. I just thought I might mention

that one of the doctors in my constituency recently told me that he

felt they were very well paid and he wasn't about to start taking any

political actions to increase doctors' fees.

So I've talked about the human services that this budget provides for. I also want to speak for a moment about another

[ Page 3700 ]

ministry in government that I'm appreciative of

seeing with a budget increase, the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

My constituency is very dependent on the Ministry of Environment and

Parks for many services. Their budget has been increased by 7.8

percent, and I'm glad to see that. The rural ridings, probably right

across this province, depend to a large extent on the services offered

by the Ministry of Environment and Parks. My constituency, because it's

very tourist-oriented, has a large hunting industry and a large tourism

facility industry, such as the golf courses, the hot springs, our

lakes, mountains and rivers. Some of those facilities, the lakes and

mountains and rivers, depend on a lot of services from the Ministry of

Environment and Parks.

I want to mention again just briefly the Invermere area. In that

area we have two of British Columbia's finest lakes, lakes which

attract people from all across this country and from North America. I'm

speaking of Columbia Lake and Lake Windermere. However, we need some

additional facilities there. Columbia Lake could carry many more

tourists than it does now, and part of the reason is that we need an

additional facility to access the lake at the north end near Fairmont

Hot Springs. And our highest priority within the riding probably is at

Invermere, where Athalmer Beach Park continually has more use than we

can accommodate. The parking lot needs to be improved; the parking at

present spills out onto the major thoroughfares.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to support this budget. As I said

earlier, it's an indicator to the people of the province that their

government is in good hands, the same good hands that were elected for

11 out of the previous 12 times.

I haven't filled my full 30 minutes. I'm not sure how much time I've

taken, but I want you to know that the people in my riding don't send

me here to make speeches. They send me here to represent them, to

represent those fine rural communities there, to improve services there

and to get things done there.

If I haven't used my full 30 minutes I'm glad, and the people in my

riding would appreciate that we not only come here to make speeches; we

come here to conserve our time, to be efficient in using our time just

as in this budget we are being efficient in spending their tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I support this budget.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, hon. members, the second member for Richmond asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: In the precincts today — until recently some of

these people were in the members' gallery — we have about 22 students

from Vanier College in Montreal. They are here as guests of Kwantlen

College, one of the campuses in my riding of Richmond. I'd just like to

ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: If the second member for Vancouver Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) wishes to leave, I can assure him I won't miss him.

I have a number of things I want to say about the budget.

Unfortunately for the government, very few of them, if any, are going

to support the budget. Although I haven't been here as many years as

some of my colleagues, this has to be one of the harshest, cruelest and

meanest budgets we've seen in a long, long time in this Legislature. I

note....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain must be

the designated hitter on the member for Victoria. Is that it? Have you

been designated?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm still smiling, Madam Member.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: The sheep have woken up, as you follow blindly

your zealous Premier down the narrow road to oblivion in the province

of British Columbia. The Social Credit back-benchers have finally woken

up.

I note with interest that the previous speaker had to refer to an

Alberta newspaper to back up his support for the budget — the only

citation he made in terms of a reference to print media about the

budget. How desperate is this government when the only newspaper

supporting it is from Alberta, and a weekly at that? I suspect a very

weak level of support for this government.

I really wish this government and these members could find some

support in the province of British Columbia. It would be nice to find a

source of support in British Columbia. But do you know what, my hon.

colleagues? There is no support in British Columbia for this budget.

Oh, I forget. The Minister of Finance said he did get some bouquets

and flowers. But do you know where he got them from? The corporations,

the financial institutions, all the people in the institutions that

this government is benefiting at the ex