1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5913 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Safe transit of tanker Exxon Valdez. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5914

Mr. Harcourt

An Act to Phase Out Pulp Mill Pollution (Bill M202). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 5914

An Act to Ban the Use of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC'

s) and Other Ozone-Depleting Substances (Bill M203). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 5915

An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sensitive Spending By Government

(Bill M204). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 5915

Oral Questions

National sales tax. Mr. Harcourt –– 5915

Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 5916

Mr. Kempf

Price-fixing by drug company. Mrs. Boone 5917

Highways maintenance. Mr. Lovick –– 5918

Tree Farm Licence Moratorium Act (Bill M205). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 5918

Budget Debate

Mrs. Gran –– 5918

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 5920

Ms. Edwards –– 5923

Hon. Mr. Brummett –– 5926

Mr. Loenen _ 5930

Mr. Barlee –– 5933

Mr. Serwa –– 5936

Ms. Smallwood –– 5938

Ministerial Statement

Labelling of Irradiated foods. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5940

Mr. Perry

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 198 9

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today is a former

vice-president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, Mr. Ed

Kisling. I'd like the House to bid him welcome.

HON. S.D. SMITH: In the gallery today are Chief Manny Jules

and members of the council of the Kamloops Indian band: Richard Jules,

Richard Seymour, Marie Baptiste, Fred Camille, Ted Gottfriedson and the

executive assistant to Chief Jules, Ken Scopick. Would the House join

with the first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and me in making

welcome these members of the Kamloops band council.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like members of the Legislature to help

me welcome a number of students involved in the BCIT tourism and

hospitality course. Their instructor is here with them — John McBride.

The students are Kandy Allen, Tracey Bonneau, Jackie Fenton, Charlene

Geanson, Carmen Morgan, Lorie Ranville, Jason Trottier, Hilda William

and Shannon McKay. They are all adult native students, who are going to

become successful entrepreneurs in British Columbia. Please join us in

a welcome.

HON. MR. REID: On behalf of the government side of the House,

I'd like to pay a special welcome to John McBride and his new team of

tourism marketers for British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: In the gallery today is a young woman from Prince

Rupert. Her family are Haidas from the Queen Charlotte Islands. She's a

political science student at UVic. I would ask the House to join with

me in welcoming Michelle Adkins.

HON. S. D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in introducing members of the

Kamloops band council, I forgot the councillor who is even more

important than Chief Jules. That person is Chief Jules' father, who is

also a member of the Kamloops band council, Clarence Jules. Would you

join me in welcoming Clarence Jules.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions. I am

very pleased to see in the gallery a group of 20 students from

Malaspina College in Nanaimo, along with their instructor Ms. Janice

Joseph. I would like the House to help me make them welcome today. I

also would like to welcome in the gallery — a surprise to me — someone

I have known for 41 of my 42 years and an old friend: Mish Vadasz.

Would you help me make Mish welcome, please.

MRS. McCARTHY . Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House today is the Member

of Parliament for Fraser Valley West, Mr. Robert Wenman. He has served the House

of Commons in Ottawa for the past 15 years. I would like the House to remember

that this very hard-working Member of Parliament served this House as a Member

of the Legislative Assembly for six years prior to that time, and I had the

privilege of serving with him. I'd like to ask the House to welcome him

today.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, just looking up at the gallery I

noted the presence of an individual who is an outstanding citizen of

the Western Communities. She is a committed environmentalist and a good

friend: Eve Howden. Would all members please join me in welcoming Eve.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a group of

property owners from the wonderful constituency of Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew. They are Mr. Conrad Adams, Mr. Carl Benn, Mrs. Frances

Camrniade, Mr. Larry Larrington, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. R. Belfit, Mr. Bert

Gordon and Mr. Keith Cowan. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today we have the

executive director and registrar of the Association of Professional

Engineers of British Columbia. I would ask that the House welcome Harry

Gray with a very warm welcome.

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend greetings to

Manny Jules from our side of the House, but I have a personal interest

in this. About five years ago Manny won a $5 hockey bet off me, and I'm

looking for my revenge. I've never seen him since, and I would like him

to return that immediately.

MR. SERWA: A number of hon. members in this House have

noticed the improvement in my appearance and the appearance of the

second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) — it's the daffodil

boutonnieres that we're proudly wearing.

Last Sunday we attended the annual daffodil tea held by the Kelowna

branch of the Canadian Cancer Society. This beautiful floral emblem —

this flower of spring — is chosen as the symbol of hope by the Canadian

Cancer Society and the people of Canada. On behalf of my colleague and

myself, I wish to express our thanks and appreciation for the

commitment and enthusiasm of the over 850 volunteers in Okanagan South

who will participate in the April fund-raising campaign. In British

Columbia some 35,000 volunteers will dedicate themselves to raise $4.5

million for research, support and public education.

I would like to thank Celine Schaad of Kelowna, who made the

boutonnieres for the second member and myself. It is my sincere hope

that the hon. members of this House will consider wearing a similar

floral emblem for the month of April to assist in erasing this

devastating disease and in fact strive to erase the word "cancer" from

our language. Would the House please join with me in encouraging the

society and the army of volunteers in their aspirations.

[2:15]

[ Page 5914 ]

Ministerial Statement

SAFE TRANSIT OF TANKER EXXON VALDEZ

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the

House of correspondence received today by my office from the Prime

Minister. The letter states:

Dear Premier:

I would like to thank you for sending me a copy of your

letter to Mr. Lawrence G. Rawl, chairman of the Exxon Corporation, in regard

to the oil tanker Exxon Valdez .

to the safe transit of the vessel. It is certainly our intention to ensure safe

transit of the Exxon Valdez . In this respect, I wish to confirm that the Honourable

Benoit Bouchard, Minister of Transport, is responsible for the safety of shipping

in Canadian waters under the aegis of the Canada Shipping Act. The Canadian

Coast Guard has cooperated with the United States Coast Guard since the beginning

of this massive oil spill. The government will continue to assist the United

States' effort in any way we can. I will ensure that Mr. Bouchard keeps

the government of British Columbia fully informed in a timely way on any discussions

that take place concerning the possible transit.

As the Ministers of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans

have stated as recently as April 4, they and their colleagues, the Ministers

of Transport and Energy, Mines and Resources have directed their deputy ministers

to re-examine every aspect of our prevention system and response capability

in Canada to ensure that government and industry have the best possible preventive

safety measures and oil spill response capability in place.

I am sending copies of this correspondence to the Hon. Benoit

Bouchard, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard and the Hon. Tom Siddon so they will be aware

of your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Mulroney

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to advise the House of a telephone

discussion my office had today with Exxon Corp. in New York. Dan

Sanders of Exxon phoned on behalf of the chairman, Mr. Lawrence Rawl,

who was testifying today before the House and Senate committees in

Washington.

Mr. Sanders indicated the following:

(1) Mr. Rawl received correspondence sent

to him by my office earlier in the week regarding the movement of the Exxon

Valdez down the coast; (2) no decision has been made at this point in time as

to where the vessel will be sent for repairs;

(3) Exxon will be investigating

the vessel thoroughly and making a determination as to what to do; (4) part

of that determination will be where to send the vessel for repairs;

(5) Exxon

will keep the province of British Columbia informed directly as to their decisions.

Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. We have publicly called on Exxon to meet

three conditions: (1) that an independent engineering team assess the ship prior

to leaving Alaska; (2) that they ensure that an escort ship with proper containment

ability accompanies the Exxon Valdez ; (3) that Exxon provide bonding to cover

cleanup costs of any spill in transit. We will accept nothing less.

I am also pleased to advise the House that the Minister of the

Environment has advised me that Mr. Olav Halten of Vancouver has been

selected by the west coast oil spill task force to conduct a

seaworthiness survey of the Exxon Valdez .

MR. HARCOURT: Your letter on the Exxon Valdez in regard to

safe transportation of tankers off the B.C. coast is welcome. I want to

say this is a prime example of corporations regulating themselves

instead of the public interest being taken care of first.

We have allowed single-hulled tankers instead of double-hulled

tankers. There are a number of other precautions that could — and

should — be taken; instead the company put its profit ahead of the

environment. Your government's sudden interest in the environment and

oil spills has more to do with public relations than protection of the

environment.

This government's track record on the environment is such a disaster

that they had to bring in the PR firm of Albert Tortorella — who

advised Union Carbide on the Bhopal disaster and the Tylenol scare — to

advise your government on damage control.

The Premier was prepared to visit Alaska but not the west coast of

Vancouver Island. I wish he was as worried about the oil spill off the

coast of Vancouver Island. We would have been a lot more impressed with

your sincerity if you had listened three years ago to New Democrats,

who have been asking for a moratorium on oil and gas exploration and

drilling.

It took an international global disaster to finally get this

government to move. It's going to take more than a couple of letters

and a phone call, because this government's record is simply

unbelievable.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PHASE OUT

PULP MILL POLLUTION

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

An Act to Phase Out Pulp Mill Pollution.

MR. CASHORE: This act amends

section 8 of the Waste

Management Act to require that effluent permits granted to pulp mills

limit chlorinated organic discharges, which are not measured under the

present permit system. These chlorinated discharges include dioxins and

furans, as well as many other harmful substances that have contributed

substantially to pollution of B.C. rivers and coastal waters.

As a result of contamination, crab, prawn and shrimp fisheries have

been closed in Howe Sound, and the crab fishery has been closed in

Prince Rupert. Contamination of shellfish, salmon and heron eggs in

B.C. waters has also been documented and is undergoing further study.

Chlorinated organics, including dioxins and furans, have also been

found to contaminate pulp and paper products and to migrate into food,

such as milk.

[ Page

5915 ]

A limit of 1.5 kilograms AOX is obtainable by 1992 if the pulp

industry moves quickly to install the best available technology. This

standard is expected to virtually eliminate dioxins and furans. A limit

of 0.1 kilograms AOX by the year 2002 gives the pulp industry ten years

to develop production methods that virtually eliminate all

organochlorines.

The B.C. pulp industry has been producing record levels of pulp over

the last several years and has had record profit levels. In 1987 the

value of pulp sales rose 47 percent to over $2.8 billion, with a rate

of return of over 22 percent.

I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO BAN THE USE OF

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFC'

S) AND

OTHER OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

An Act to Ban the Use of

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC'

s) and Other Ozone-Depleting Substances.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this act bans the use of CFCs and

other ozone-depleting substances over a five-year period. The basis for

this ban is that the production of certain chemicals, including CFCs

and halons, are known to harm the ozone layer. Currently about 20,000

tonnes of CFCs are produced in Canada annually, ending up in aerosol

sprays, rigid-foam food packaging, flexible foam used in seat cushions

and car dashboards, and refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.

The ozone layer is essential for protection of the earth from the sun's

harmful ultraviolet rays, and is an essential part of a balanced and

healthy ecosystem. It is generally agreed that such depletion and the

subsequent rise in ultraviolet rays results in an increased likelihood

of skin cancer, damage to crops and harm to forests.

Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO ENSURE ENVIRONMENTALLY

SENSITIVE SPENDING BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled

An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sensitive Spending by Government.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with the fact that the B.C.

government and Crown corporations spend millions of tax dollars every year on

paper products. This act provides incentives for the B.C. pulp industry to move

quickly to sharply reduce the levels of toxic chemicals in their products and,

further, to gain a share of the recycled-paper-product market.

It does so by requiring the B.C. government to put its own house in

order and to take a leadership role in encouraging the production of

environmentally sensitive products, as follows: it requires that the

government after 1992, or such earlier time as they may become

available, purchase only products made by pulp mills that meet new,

stiff standards for pulp pollution, as proposed in the act, to phase

out pulp mill pollution.

Secondly, it requires that prior to 1992, government purchase

recycled paper with a high post-consumer content, and that after 1992,

recycled paper that meets the new, stiff pulp standards be purchased so

far as it is available.

Thirdly, it establishes a public spending advisory group to review

products that are commonly used by government, set environmentally

sensitive standards and require that government purchase only products

that meet such environmentally sensitive standards.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MR. ROGERS: just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the

process of the introduction of these bills today, on a number of

occasions they were referred to as acts and the motions were put, in

one case, as if it were

an act. I just want to have it clarified that

what we have had tabled today are bills and not acts.

Oral Questions

NATIONAL SALES TAX

MR. HARCOURT: We're aware that the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Couvelier) is on his way to Ottawa for a meeting tomorrow on the

federal budget. We also know that New Democrats are opposed to a

national sales tax. The Premier has not made his government's position

clear. Will the Premier join us in opposing the national sales tax?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Minister of Finance, as the Leader

of the Opposition stated, is on his way to Ottawa and will be meeting

with all of the ministers from across the country for the purpose of

discussing whatever proposals might be put forth by the federal

government in this regard. Obviously a statement will be made.

[2:30]

MR. HARCOURT: We'd like the statement to be made here in

British Columbia by the Premier, who leads the government, because

British Columbians know this is a tax on groceries, housing and other

essential items. Will the Premier give a commitment here in the House

that he is opposed and that his government is opposed to the national

sales tax and that those are the instructions he has given his Minister

of Finance and Corporate Relations? Yes or no?

[ Page 5916 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if I were asked to respond

to a question and an assumption based on rumour, then obviously it

would be relatively simple. If the question were whether I would be

opposed to a tax on groceries, I can assure you I'd have no difficulty

in answering yes, I would be opposed to a tax on groceries.

I think the difficulty is that the Leader of the Opposition has

constructed a question based on rumour. We are certainly awaiting all

of the details from the federal government. As we are aware, there is a

tax in place in now. The proposal is to replace the tax, and I suppose

it's a question of how it's replaced or what is proposed. If in fact

something of a progressive nature is proposed, we would not be opposed

to some change. If, on the other hand, a change is proposed which is of

a regressive nature, then we would be opposed to such measures. But I

think it is rather premature and irresponsible to make assumptions

without having all the information.

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests: were

you, Mr. Minister, involved in any way in determining the annual

allowable cut for Doman Industries on the mid-coast?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, we know the first member for

Vancouver East has introduced some materials to the press gallery; we

haven't seen any introduced to the House to do with the Doman issue. We

also know that he is presently facing a situation with the principal of

Doman, so I think it would be inappropriate to make any comments on

Doman Industries until we are certain of the legalities of the issue.

I'll take the question on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to assure the minister that I'd be very surprised if Doman Industries sued him.

It's a simple question that deserves an answer in this House, Mr.

Speaker: was the minister involved in any way in determining the cut of

Doman Industries on the mid-coast?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister took that question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests: did you write the following letter?

"Further to Mr. Flitton's letter to you dated March

27, 1987, and your recent meeting with Wes Cheston, I am prepared to

defer a decision relative to the cut control position of your mid-coast

forest licence until September 30, 1987. I trust that by that date you

will also be able to confirm in a concrete way compliance with the wood

residue processing facility requirement of your Strathcona and

mid-coast forest licences."

Did you write such a letter, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could find out to whom the letter was addressed.

MR. WILLIAMS: The letter was addressed to Doman Industries Ltd. in Duncan, to the attention of Mr. H. Doman.

HON. MR. PARKER: As I said earlier, anything to do with the

Doman Industries matter — between the member for Vancouver East.... It

will be taken as notice until we have further legal advice.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I think the House should know

— and as you know, Mr. Speaker — that sub judice is a matter not of the

courts but of the House, and for the minister to hide behind this kind

of answer is inappropriate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the opposition House Leader

and the first member for Vancouver East know full well that both of

their questions are out of order. The minister has said that he will

take the question as notice. As usual, the members opposite wish to

hide behind the supposed sanctity of this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As all members know, nobody is compelled to answer a question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has the Minister of Forests reviewed the

contract signed November 2, 1977, between Doman Industries and the

Crown regarding the question of the establishment of a pulp mill by

Doman Industries, wherein it states:

"The licensee covenants and agrees that the licensee

will forthwith, with the execution of this licence, commence its

program for the establishment of a pulp mill capable of producing at

least 300 tonnes of pulp or paper per day and will undertake to

construct such a pulp mill at a location approved by the licenser. Such

mill shall commence its operations on or before December 31, 1981."

Has the minister read the contract?

HON. MR. PARKER: This matter deals with Doman Industries. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver East, with a new question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the present Minister of Forests aware that

the previous Minister of Forests immediately before him said no to Mr.

Doman for a five-year extension to that licence on which he had not

performed?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter deals with Doman Industries; I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the minister, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware

that other operations with licences in the mid-coast were penalized for

modest infractions of the 90 percent rule, when Doman went unpenalized?

[ Page 5917 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The question includes reference to Doman Industries. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that the minister

agreed to a change in the contract that allowed the Doman company out

of the condition regarding a pulp mill — a condition that was there at

the very beginning, and which all ministers had previously required? Is

it true that that contract has now indeed been amended?

HON. MR. PARKER: The question was addressed to you, Mr.

Speaker. I'll advise that the matter deals with Doman Industries, and

I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the staff of the ministry in their

own memos said that performance by Doman Industries was pathetic. Could

you advise me why you would give approval for some small mill — a reman

plant rather than a pulp mill — when the pulp mill would have cost at

least $300 million in today's dollars or $600 million if it was

technically competent, rather than the $10 million....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would

bring to all members' attention the fifth edition of Beauchesne,

article 362. I quote from Beauchesne: "Reading telegrams, letters or

extracts from newspapers as an opening to an oral question is an abuse

of the rules of the House. It is not good parliamentary practice to

communicate written allegations to the House and then to ask ministers

either to confirm or deny them."

Further, Mr. Beauchesne says: "It is the member's duty to ascertain

the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of

parliament."

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Omineca on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I am not reading from a letter or a

telegram or any other printed matter. I have a question for the

Minister of Forests.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask the member then, Mr. Speaker, to tell us what he is reading from — or is he making it up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the minister to withdraw that last comment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the comment,

but it's quite plain that the member has something in his hand that he

is referring to. So I've asked him....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think, Mr. Minister, if in this

House we were to stop everybody from getting up who had something in

his hand, we would get nothing done.

MR. KEMPF: Is the Minister of Forests aware that in late

February 1987, perhaps ten days before the Premier demanded my

resignation as minister, the law was laid down to Mr. Doman with

respect to his non-compliance with the contract with the provincial

government?

HON. MR. PARKER: As I have stated before, the issue of Doman

Industries is currently part of a legal proceeding, and I will take all

questions pertaining to Doman Industries as notice until I have legal

advice to do otherwise.

MR. KEMPF: Perhaps the minister could take another question

as notice. Was the minister aware, when he was the parliamentary

secretary to the then Minister of Forests, when the then minister was

on prime-time television...and that the staff of the B.C. Forest

Service was fully aware that Mr. Doman was in non-compliance with his

contract with the provincial government?

HON. MR. PARKER: I take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of

Forests to reconsider his non-comments of today. It is Mr. Doman who is

before the courts, not Doman Industries. My questions, if I might

clarify them, all involved Doman Industries. Would you then answer the

questions?

HON. MR. PARKER: The issue on Doman Industries will be tried

in the courts, not here. I will take all questions, all matters, all

inquiries and all statements on Doman Industries as notice until

further notice.

PRICE-FIXING BY DRUG COMPANY

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer

Services. A major Canadian drug company was recently fined $50,000 in

Ontario Provincial Court for price-fixing. Can the minister tell the

House whether this kind of activity is occurring in British Columbia?

HON. L. HANSON: I have no knowledge of that going on in British Columbia.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary then. Has the minister contacted

his federal counterpart to discuss this and to ensure the safety of

British Columbians?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I haven't contacted my counterpart federally.

[2:45]

[ Page 5918 ]

HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. It has come to light that 64 percent of your constituents

believe that highway safety has gotten worse since maintenance was

privatized. In light of that, has the minister decided to bring

highways maintenance back under direct ministry control?

HON. MR. VANT: That's the first time I've heard of that high

a percentage. In actual fact, the bouquets far outnumber the beefs —

not only in my own constituency but throughout the province — regarding

the performance of the contractors. I'm very happy that the private

companies are doing an excellent job in all 28 contract areas.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I would like to beg leave of

the House to return to bills, because my colleague for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Miller) missed his during the shuffle.

Leave granted.

TREE FARM LICENCE MORATORIUM ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Tree Farm Licence Moratorium Act.

MR. MILLER: The bill recognizes the confusion which presently

extends over many areas of forest management and forest tenure

arrangements in British Columbia following the public information

sessions. In order to fully understand the current state of our forests

as well as the effect that past tenure arrangements have had on the

economy and environment of the province, this bill halts the issuing of

any further tree-farm licences after April 1, 1989, until a royal

commission into the condition and management of the forests of British

Columbia has been called, has held its hearings and has reported to the

people.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts this afternoon we have a

group of students from Kwantlen College in Surrey, and I would ask the

House to please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MRS. GRAN: I appreciate this opportunity to speak in favour

of our Finance minister's budget. As a member of the caucus budget

committee I feel a sort of ownership as well as a great deal of pride.

The Minister of Finance and the Premier are to be congratulated for

their collective wisdom in widening the circle in establishing budget

priorities and allocations. The cooperation of the ministers and their

staff and the hard work and dedication of that committee have produced

not only one of B.C.'s finest budgets but the first balanced budget in

many years.

At a time when governments all over the world are strangling in

debt, British Columbia is leading the way out, setting an example for

all provinces in Canada. Yet the opposition criticizes the spending of

more money on health care, education, highways and the environment. In

all fairness to the opposition, this budget is a tough act to follow.

There has been enough said by opposition members, as they rant and rave

about this government, to lead me to believe that were they the

government today, the budget would be double and so would the deficit.

How could a party which has just recently discovered that to spend

money you must make it even hope to do anything but empty the cookie

jar?

Many British Columbians are suffering in the housing crisis. Rents

exceed incomes, children are discriminated against and demand exceeds

supply. This government has acted by spending almost $900 million on

housing-related and mobile-home programs in the coming fiscal year. But

let's look at some of the reasons why housing is where it's at.

During the one unforgettable term of the NDP, a good idea was

introduced — the agricultural land reserve. But that good idea was

completely mucked up by the NDP government. They instantly froze

millions of acres of land, making millionaires out of those people

fortunate enough to own land zoned for housing and industry and paupers

out of landholders in rural areas. The value of land was inflated,

forcing up house prices — a good idea botched up by an inept government.

In Langley district, 85 percent of the land is frozen, and in order

to build homes for the thousands of middle- and low-income families

moving out there, developers must spend years and countless sums of

money to free up that land. I'm talking about land that is not

farmland. I'm talking about the kind of land about which the former

mayor of Langley used to say that if a sparrow came to visit he would

have to bring his lunch.

Consultation with the municipalities, regional districts, housing

industry and farming community would have made the ALR a good idea and

not part of today's housing crisis.

Another NDP idea implemented during their short term was rent

controls. This is probably one of the single biggest reasons why there

is a rental short-

[ Page 5919 ]

age: the fear of rent controls. The memory of that socialist

interference in the marketplace is etched forever in the memories of

developers. Who are the losers? The very people the opposition say they

care about — low-income-earners and single-parent families. It is hard

for me to believe that all members in opposition, given the downside of

rent controls, would actually even consider putting forward a policy

like rent controls, telling those innocent and already burdened people:

"Trust us, we're here to help you." Was it ignorance of the end result

or just more hypocritical socialist thinking?

All governments must find innovative ways of housing families and

seniors in an ever-changing world, remembering that pride of ownership

always works best. This government and successive governments must work

toward assisting people at all income levels to own their own homes,

apartments and townhouses.

This morning the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), during

his hour of whining and sniveling, said that people should be allowed

to lease land. He went that far, Mr. Speaker. The people of this

province have a right to own property. The NDP are not in favour of

private ownership but want complete state control — control of the very

souls of our people.

Private ownership is fundamental to the well-being of all people. It

produces pride and hope. Social Credit believes in private ownership,

and for those people who have worked hard to own their homes,

government must also address the current method of assessing homes for

property taxation.

This week I met with a group of citizens from Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew, retired and near retirement, who are concerned about rising

property taxes. I agree with their contention that under the current

system home ownership will be more and more difficult for those on

fixed incomes, especially our seniors. These fine upstanding citizens

believe that municipalities provide services to all residents equally,

and that those services are for people, not properties. They have a

point, and so I ask the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to

seriously consider a better way to assess properties for taxation

purposes.

While on the subject, I would like to compliment the current mayor

of Vancouver for his concern about property taxes — something his

predecessor ignored.

This year's budget has environment as one of government's highest

priorities. The opposition have ridiculed this, but let me ask what the

Leader of the Opposition did as mayor of B.C.'s largest city? What kind

of an example did he set? Is garbage recycled in Vancouver? Oh, no. I

remember well the threat to Langley when the GVRD study produced four

separate sites in Langley to dump greater Vancouver's garbage.

MR. PETERSON: He was the mayor then.

MRS. GRAN: He was the mayor, the one who cares so much about the environment today.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), when speaking to the throne

speech, reminded this House about the pollution from Vancouver sewage

that ends up in his beautiful riding. One of the single biggest

pollution problems today in the lower mainland is pollution of the

water surrounding Vancouver, the city that the Leader of the Opposition

was the mayor of for six consecutive years and did nothing about it. So

who's kidding whom here in this House? The opposition talks about the

environment, and the Social Credit government has done something about

it.

Let me mention quickly that many B.C. companies have also led the

way in cleaning up the environment. Mohawk Oil — 100 percent B.C. owned

and operated, some ten years ago at great expense — installed a used

waste oil recycling plant. It has taken a long time, a great deal of

money and a commitment to the environment of this province for that

company to change the public's thinking. Used oil collected in B.C. is

taken to Mohawk's plant in North Vancouver where it's tested and

processed into a base oil equal to or better than virgin stock.

Additive packages then bring this oil up to new vehicle warranty

specifications. I want to congratulate Mohawk Oil and all of the other

fine corporations for being good citizens, for providing jobs and

caring about B.C.

The opposition doesn't care about business, and I can't remember

when I last heard one of them say anything positive about the many fine

companies in this province, companies that have made major

contributions. Social Credit understands that companies like Mohawk Oil

not only deliver jobs but are good corporate citizens, and we thank and

appreciate them.

I want to end on a philosophical note, with some comments on

leadership and on why I am involved in politics. It is my view that

leadership is the art of creating the future, of building and

communicating. Those values are what form policies and determine goals.

They link people together in a common cause.

The Premier has a set of values he believes in very deeply. They are

many of the same values that provide the foundation for the Social

Credit Party. They are the reason I am here today.

I believe in private ownership, individual initiative, the family

and, yes, God. Many people in this so-called sophisticated secular

society would say that politicians must put aside religious and

cultural beliefs. But loving one's country and one's faith is part of

one's very being. To deny your spiritual instincts would be to cheat

not only yourself but the very people who elected you.

Democracy allows for different views, and through cooperation and

communication this entire Legislature can assist in building British

Columbia, the most beautiful province in Canada. There is hope in my

heart that, through the love that all people are capable of, our

society will become more caring — that it will become a society where

children are treasured and not abused; where the elderly are respected

and not forgotten; where men and women have a better understanding of

one another; where all races, cultures and religions live in peace; and

where

[ Page 5920 ]

Socred and NDP members debate in a positive and constructive manner

for the citizens we serve. If those are the goals of all of us, we will

surely have made a valuable contribution.

[3:00]

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's my special privilege and pleasure to be

able to take my place today in this debate on the budget — a balanced

budget, which many of us in the province have looked forward to and

worked towards for a long time.

This budget is one that is going to serve the interests of British

Columbians extremely well — young people in particular — for a good

period of time to come. It sets a direction that is affordable and

sustainable, and that provides opportunity, so the people who are going

to be providing the economic wealth in the future are going to be able

to do so in a way that will see it directed to services, not to

creating or at least paying off increasingly large amounts of

deadweight debt.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This budget does three things: it provides balance; it provides an

actual reduction of the accumulated debt; and it sets aside money in a

rainy day fund. It is, therefore, appropriate that the Leader of the

Opposition, when he looked at that budget, said: "It's unbelievable."

It is unbelievable today to most Canadians that there is a

jurisdiction, an area in this country, that has been able to do the

things that have been done in this province to get to the point where

the budget is balanced.

We might ask ourselves how we as British Columbians got there. These

things just don't happen, as the members of the opposition like to

think. Just as there isn't a money tree, just as the money for services

doesn't fall out of the sky, neither is it the case that when you get

yourself into a position where you have to work hard to bring your

House into order.... That doesn't just happen; that doesn't just fall

out of the sky either.

How we got where we are today is something we should ask and

something that should be known to the people of this province, because

the opposition opposed us every single step of the way to get to where

we are.

We got to where we are, it seems to me, by doing three things. First

of all, when the recession hit this province in 1981-82, we had the

courage and the conviction to look ourselves in the mirror and to

discover where the problem really was. When we did that, we decided to

put in place management systems that would see the cloth cut to fit the

person. That triggered a number of things in our society. We brought

expectations down to a point where we could realize them sensibly and

in a way that we could fulfill for a good long time to come. That was a

very difficult thing to do, because it is difficult in this age of

instant communications to tell people they are going to have to work

harder to take less. But that is what we did.

While we were doing that, the opposition sought, every single step

of the way, to mislead the people of British Columbia by suggesting to

them that they could have their cake and eat it too; that those

expectations did not have to be revised in any way; that there was no

need for any change; that we could continue to demand increasing

amounts of services without making any changes to the way we did

business. They were wrong, and the people quite correctly perceived

them to be wrong and rejected them. The people rejected them in 1983

because they were so wrong.

Following 1983, having made that decision to cut the cloth to fit

the person, we set about to reduce taxes. From 1984 straight through

until 1986 we did a series of things that reduced taxes, unlike other

jurisdictions which until now have not had the courage, frankly, to

reduce services but have always wanted to do the misleading thing,

which is to add more taxes. If you try to solve your debt problem with

more taxes it inevitably is eaten up by inflation alone and you don't

get to the root cause of your problem. Not only did we not add taxes,

we reduced taxes, both on business and, in the 1986 budget, on ordinary

people and all citizens, corporations and otherwise, through the sales

tax.

The third thing we did was to improve the investment climate in

British Columbia by letting people know that the scourge of socialism

was not likely to visit itself on the people for a good long time to

come; that the people wanted a responsible change and were prepared to

do the things necessary to get it; and that we as a government were

prepared to take the bull by the horns and deal with our ever-present

labour-management problem in the province, and we did so through the

introduction of Bill 19. What that has done has been quite phenomenal.

The most important thing Bill 19 has done for the people and the

investment climate of this province is that it sent out a signal that

government no longer is going to be the big brother in the labour

relations business. Labour and management are going to have to solve

their problems, whether they do it through the processes set up by

government or not. They are going to have to solve their problems

themselves; they are not going to be able to come and lean on

government, and then when government steps in and solves it, to

simultaneously blame government.

By doing that, we sent out a signal of our maturity to the

investment community around the world. We were no longer going to get

into this game of confrontation with labour-management relations. We

were going to take regulation off business so that they could do the

business of business and invest, and we were going to manage ourselves

to keep our house in order so that the burden of government would not

eat up the benefits of the inevitable economic recovery which has come.

That's how we have balanced the budget, and every British Columbian

paid a price and took fairly a share of the load. Every British

Columbian deserves credit for what has been done, save and except

members of the opposition in this chamber, who, from time

[ Page 5921 ]

to time — and all the time throughout this period — attempted to

thwart what was being done, who were dragged from the floor of this

House physically when those decisions were being taken, and who have

done everything possible to ensure that the program that has worked so

well would not happen.

MR. MILLER: The Premier disagreed with it. He said so during the election.

HON. S.D. SMITH: My friend, the Premier did not disagree with

it. When he was the president of the chamber of commerce he went around

this province and talked about it and supported it — unlike you, Mr.

Member, who stood in Prince Rupert and did your very best as a member

of the local council to thwart it. When you put yourself up to the

people, they rejected you as the mayor of that community.

In the course of doing that, we ensured that there was a fairness

about the taxation system in this province, so that today we can stand

in this House and say that we have the second-lowest incidence of tax

on individuals of any jurisdiction in this country — not like the

legacy they have in Manitoba, believe me. We have the second-lowest

incidence of tax on ordinary people anywhere in the country.

When we look to where the revenue has come to balance this budget,

we see $1.95 billion has come from corporations, even though the rate

of income tax was lowered because this economy is so prosperous and

buoyant that it has generated $1.95 billion in taxes both through

income tax and royalties on resource rent. That's where the money is

coming from, and that is fairness.

Have we been assured and assured the people that throughout this

we're not just worried about being fiscal ferrets and making certain

that we have a nice, neat bottom line? Is that the only thing we've

done? The answer is no. We've ensured as well, during this period of

time, that our programs are fully, fairly and equitably funded.

When you look at this budget and the health budget — a budget which

consumes more than 16 individual ministries, and a budget which has

been augmented by $1 million every single day of the year.... An

increase of $1 million of the people's money has been directed to the

health budget. That is a clear demonstration of this government's

priority since day one in 1952 that health care of the people will be

the number one priority of those who come here to serve on behalf of

Social Credit in government.

Seniors. The budget discloses programs that will be handled by the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) providing seniors with the

opportunity to consult and to participate in a process that will result

in greater security, happiness and opportunity to participate in our

economy, our province and our culture.

There is a great well and resource of goodwill, talent and good

health which should be tapped and wants to be tapped, and which can

still make a major contribution to our society.

We have problems in our society, particularly in the abuse of

substance, not the least of which is the abuse of alcohol. The TRY

program being operated, advanced and spearheaded by the Minister of

Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) is doing an outstanding

job of drawing together our community. It is providing a vehicle

through which we can tackle that problem in some fundamental way and

make the lifestyle changes we have to make in order to do the right

thing in this society and grapple with that problem in the most

fundamental ways of all.

One of the things about this budget that I find most appealing is

the commitment made to education in this province. Coming out of the

Sullivan commission and the work being done by the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), we are advancing a tremendous amount of

resources into the education field to buttress what we already have and

to build on our strength for the future.

I found it particularly disappointing yesterday to sit in this House

and listen to the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) stand up

and say that education in this province is something that we ought to

be ashamed of. Not only was I disappointed; quite frankly, I was

disgusted. Because if there is one thing the education system of this

province does not need, it is for fatuous politicians to climb on the

backs of people in a position of lesser strength than they are to make

and advance their own political points.

[3:15]

That is not the way to carry on. Crawling on the backs of teachers

and children in order to make your funny, silly little partisan points,

Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, is disgraceful, discreditable and does no

good for the education system in this province. You and your colleagues

may be ashamed of the public school system in this province, Mr. Member

for Prince Rupert, but my colleagues and I are not. We are proud of our

public school system; we are proud of the teachers in this province; we

are proud of the school trustees in this province, and we are proud of

the way that our students in this province perform. In every single

objective test in which they are measured — both nationally and

internationally; be it in literacy, science, language or whatever else

— they do very well. I want to tell that member for Prince Rupert that

we ought to have the guts to stand up with pride in this House and

acknowledge the work done by our education system and our teachers. The

member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) should stand up and tell the

member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) that she is wrong, wrong,

wrong.

The money in the budget for universities is particularly welcome as

well, Now the students in our area will have the opportunity, as they

well have in other parts of the province, to be at home at Cariboo

College and get their university degrees. It's a worthwhile move, one

for which I think we ought to compliment the Minister of Finance and

the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen).

Mr. Speaker, it was particularly heartening as well for me to see

the highways construction budget moved up again to the $1 billion mark,

where it

[ Page 5922 ]

ought to be, so we can provide the kind of roads we need in Omineca,

in Kamloops, in Cariboo and even in Kootenay, if the member for

Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) would come forward with any proposals that would

allow us to assist in that area.

I see as well in the parks budget a recognition of the fiftieth

anniversary of Wells Gray Park and the acknowledgement that there will

be funds there this year to pave the road to Helmcken Falls, which is

going to be a tremendous economic catalyst for the area of Clearwater,

which had a tremendously devastating problem when the mill was shut

down. I'm proud that the people of Clearwater did not go running and

bellyaching to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) to try and fix

up the problem and open an uneconomic mill. They got together and did

bootstrap economics, and the result is that they have changed the

economy of that area. With the able assistance of the Minister of Parks

(Hon. Mr. Huberts) they're doing that; they're going forward and

they're creating jobs.

In forestry the budget disclosed a furthering of the small business

program. That's something that I think is important, particularly to

our area and throughout the interior.

In the mines

section of the budget, the road incentive package.... I

know the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was very pleased to see it,

because that's going to be of considerable assistance in developing the

potential of the mining properties, especially in the northwest.

Mr. Speaker, where the budget discloses the sensitivity of this

government to our future and to where our future must be is in the part

dealing with the environment. Our commitment to sustainable development

is not a novelty, as it is for the members opposite. Our government and

our party have a commendable record when it comes to the environment, a

record of which we ought to be proud and which we ought to talk about

far more frequently than we do.

The member for Vancouver South sitting in the House today was part

of a government that saved the Skagit Valley — that was a Social Credit

government. Social Credit saved Moresby for a park. Social Credit saved

the Valhalla — and I know the member for Kootenay is particularly proud

of that — as well as the Height of the Rockies reserve. Social Credit

saved and protected the Purcells. Social Credit established the

protection necessary for Robson Bight. And Social Credit has made a

commitment to create the largest urban park in the world, with salt

water on one side and fresh water on the other, at UBC. Social Credit

provided the Trophy Mountain reserve adjacent to Wells Gray Park.

Social Credit provided the greenbelt area.

Social Credit has made every single major move in this province that

has kept our environment as pristine and pure as it is. As proud as we

are of that, we are at the same time providing incentive programs, so

we have been able to grow and to develop our economy, and so we can

provide the services that we want, enjoy, and want to continue to have.

That has been the legacy of Social Credit's sustainable development

program. The fact that we have had to deal with trade-offs.... Mr.

Speaker, there is another way of doing it, and we've seen examples of

it. I want to give you but two, because I think one, although it is

from the, past, may be indicative of what we're going to see sometime

in the future, God forbid, because future and history sometimes merge

and repeat themselves.

In 1974 in the Cowichan estuary, one of the great pristine places in

British Columbia — a wonderful fishery, a great spawning and steelhead

area — the czar of resources of the day, and I use the word "czar"

technically and advisedly, the then Minister of Forests, the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), issued a permit to a company

called Doman Industries for the construction of a major industrial

facility. Had that facility been built, it would have ruined the

Cowichan estuary.

He issued that permit without any environmental impact studies being

done of any magnitude at all, without any environmental planning,

without any consideration for the environment. Why did he issue that

permit? He issued that permit because he, the czar of resources, had

destroyed the economic climate in this province almost personally and

singlehandedly. He wanted at that time to show that his party was

interested in creating wealth.

Odd we hear that little charade 15 years later, isn't it? He wanted

to create wealth. He wanted to show that there was some actual

private-sector investment going on. So in spite of the environment —

frankly, indifferent to it — he issued a permit to construct a major

wood-conversion facility in the Cowichan estuary. Had that been done,

it would have destroyed one of the most pristine areas in this province.

I'm happy to say that the people took their hands off the hot stove

of socialism in 1975 and got rid of that czar of resources and the rest

of the baggage that went with him. They brought back to government

people who had some sensitivity to the environment. They brought back

to government people who cancelled the permit that had been given to

Doman Industries. Social Credit thereby saved the Cowichan estuary. Let

there be no mistake about that.

I raise that because there are trade-offs to be made but they are

good trade-offs, as in the case of the Skagit as the member for

Vancouver South did. There are bad and stupid and idiotic trade-offs to

be made, as was the case in the Cowichan estuary with the then czar of

resources in this province, the first member for Vancouver East.

We ought to think about that because that same group is today coming

along telling us that they are really the friends of business; that

they are in favour of sustainable development; that they want to create

wealth; that they want to develop an investment climate — same old guff

15 years later. All of us with time tend to forget, and they are hoping

for that. They're hoping we'll forget what it was like in British

Columbia with the czar of resources running the show. Mr. Sensitivity

himself, who is now the critic for regional development; the man who

when he

[ Page 5923 ]

made his first speech about regional development said: "You know,

those Socreds are really a bunch of unsophisticated rural rednecks."

I want to tell you that ashamed as I am of some flushing individual

who would lower himself to make that kind of statement — because abuse

and bullying comes in many forms in this life — on behalf of all those

who come from small towns in this province, I'm proud of my rural

background. I am not going to stand by and listen to someone who is

both a has-been and a never-was-er try to put down the people of this

province, a province where the wealth was created not by flippancy, not

by selling your parliamentary seat for $80,000, but by the sweat of

your brow. That's where the real people are from, not the flushing

people.

There's another example of the kind of trade-offs which you have to

make in sustainable development to create wealth and to protect your

environment. There is one we are having to visit right now. It deals

with the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. It's an important one. I

commend all people to think about it in the context of what we see on

the television every night, because the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Premier have been pushing

hard — and I suggest and predict, successfully very soon — to be able

to get that pipeline to Vancouver Island, not only to create wealth on

this island and provide a secure Canadian source of supply of energy to

the people here; this is also one of the great progressive

environmental decisions ever taken in this province to get rid of

dirty, rotten, stinking California sulphur-laden crude, and replace it

with clean, sweet Peace River gas.

In order to do that, we have to build a pipeline, and we may have to

make some trade-offs. One of them has to be, Mr. Opposition House

Leader — and you are the person who should think about this most

clearly, because you were there for the other performance — a line

through the watershed area in order to make that a viable project. And

we should, because the trade-off is this. There are pipelines all over

this country, and gas lines don't cause materials to run down the hill

into the water; they go up into the air. The trade-off is that we get

rid of the barges that spilled oil all over the coastline up at Tofino.

We get rid of those barges if we build that gas line, and that's a

trade-off worth making.

The alternative is this. When the Alaska pipeline was proposed, when

the Mackenzie Valley pipeline was proposed, the socialists opposed it,

and their former leader, Mr. Berger, killed it. Mr. Barrett, when he

was the Premier of this province, acted like he does always, like some

kind of buffoon — Khrushchev reincarnated, except he keeps his shoes

on. He doesn't bang his shoes on the table; he dances on the table as

he did in the cabinet room in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you are not offended by

the hon. Attorney-General referring to a former Premier of this House

as a buffoon. I'm sure he'd like to withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure he would.

HON. S.D. SMITH: If it caused offence to the House and the

Chair, then of course I will withdraw it. He's described himself as a

clown, and I think that's probably being too kind to himself.

[3:30]

The trade-off there was simply this: the Alaska and the Mackenzie

pipeline were killed. The former Premier of this province said he was

not going to allow right-of-away to come across the northeast sector.

The result of that is that the United States of America were not

prepared to trust this province to build an oil line. So they pipe the

oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, and they develop tanker traffic. Today,

those who sit and pontificate in this House on that issue ought, before

they make too many speeches about their holier-than thou attitudes on

oil spill cleanups, look themselves square in the mirror, because it

was their decision that created the tanker traffic in the first place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. Just before we proceed,

in case any members of the House are wondering if we have a stranger in

the House this afternoon, I hasten to tell you that we do have Mr. Jim

Howe in the chamber. We've had some complaints from hon. members about

the sound system. Mr. Howe is an expert in sound systems, so Mr.

Speaker invited him in to see what kind of report he'd give us and what

we might do about it.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm really delighted to know that the members

who are in the House right now are interested in the Vancouver Island

pipeline, because it's an issue I intend to address. The promises

coming in the budget speech are what occasioned me to put together my

remarks on the Vancouver Island pipeline and the progress it has made

under the ministers of this government and with the public — if we are

able to remember that the public is there.

The Vancouver Island pipeline has been promised to us in British

Columbia. It's been promised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. It's been promised by the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Strachan). It's been promised in the throne speech. All this

is very recent history, because it's been promised many times before

that too. It's been promised in the budget speech and it has been

treated both times as an environmental issue. In other words, it hasn't

been put with those energy or petroleum resources projects. It's been

put as an environmental issue, and perhaps that's because the

government recognizes the extreme and sincere concern of the people of

British Columbia for the environment and the fact that this particular

pipeline has some problems associated with it, related to the

environment and our treatment of it.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources managed —

where the rest of the government had obviously failed — to wrangle the

promise of

[ Page 5924 ]

some money out of the federal government during an election. He got

a rather modest amount, but that is what we got, and so he is putting

forward all his best efforts to push this project to completion. The

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has admitted that

this amount was given no doubt as an election ploy and that he is not

sure that the project itself would be viable — but with the federal

money, it suits him fine.

I thought we would go into a little story and see what the narrative

is of this magnificent project. We have to go back to the day in 1988 —

September 22, in fact; an auspicious day — When the announcement was

made that there would be $300 million of public money committed to the

pipeline. The pipeline is a laudable goal. If you can get the gas there

in a feasible manner, it's a clean fuel and would probably create good

rates for residential gas. If used in the pulp mills, the gas would

reduce self-remission. So those goals are very laudable.

When the announcement was made, there was a booklet put out, which

said what had to be done — and there were a lot of things. On the

process for proceeding, it said that it has to proceed: The Vancouver

Island pipeline will "proceed through a series of steps before the

final agreement can be reached...."

"Pacific Coast Energy Corp. as the sponsor, must prepare

a detailed application which it must then submit to the provincial government....

government will prepare terms of reference for a public hearing on the pipeline

before the B.C. Utilities Commission."

When the public hearing is concluded, the cabinet will receive the

recommendations and make its own final decisions at that time at the

federal level. The B.C. Utilities Commission hearings will be a major

source of information for screening on Canada's environmental

assessment and review process, which the thing will then go through,

and this will lead to — we are getting there, Mr. Speaker, but we're

not quite there yet — a federal decision on whether the project is

environmentally acceptable.

Then the B.C. Utilities Commission will begin another process. It

will begin hearings on the distribution and make recommendations on who

the distributors should be. The provincial cabinet will at that point

make its decision on these recommendations, and then the successful

applicant will begin negotiations with municipalities on franchise

agreements and with the PCEC concerning the natural gas supply While

these steps are going on — we're not through this yet — the PCEC will

be negotiating with natural gas producers and prospective customers. It

will then later be required to arrange transportation agreements with

other pipelines and with municipalities and landowners. It concludes

with the statement: "Once all these procedural steps are followed, the

details of the agreement between the government and the PCEC can be

finalized."

It looked like a long process, Mr. Speaker. It seemed like it might take a

little while, but on December 20 — skipping several steps or at least hustling

through some of them: "The B.C. Utilities Commission issued an order for

hearings on this pipeline to commence on January 24, 1989." That is two

months after the announcement of the fact that both governments would participate.

The terms of reference for that commission hearing were that the

commission would recommend if the application should be approved or

refused — it looked like it was going to be a feasibility study. The

commission was going to say whether this pipeline should go. It was

also to recommend conditions that should accompany it if approval is

recommended, but those two things were to be there, and they were two

parts of the terms of reference that were put to the B.C. Utilities

Commission when it announced on December 20 that the hearings would

begin on January 24.

You might note, Mr. Speaker, that December 20 is five days before

Christmas, and if you think in terms of how much time a company or an

intervener will have to prepare for this hearing, you really must

recognize that there is likely to be about three weeks' time in January

for anyone to prepare.

Early in the new year, the prospective participants decided and

realized that they couldn't marshal the information they needed. By

January 9 the very company that is to build this pipeline — the one you

might think would want it to hurry up — applied for an extension so

that they would have time to prepare their information. The Utilities

Commission was obviously under some considerable pressure not to accept

applications for extension, because the commission said the deadline

for the submission of the company's direct evidence had been extended —

how much? — by a week, to January 16. Then, on January 11, the

commission, in response to a huge number of submissions about where and

the amount of time designated for hearings — I wrote a letter to the

commission myself — set a pre-hearing conference for January 18 to

consider the phasing of the hearing and locations and time requirements

and other such things. Two days previously, it would have the

information from the company that was to build the pipeline, but two

days later it was to decide these things.

On January 18 it determined that there should be three phases for

the hearings. These three phases included: (1) facilities and capital

costs; (2) environment and socio-economic issues; and (3) markets,

financial and gas supply. This is very extensive stuff, Mr. Speaker. If

you're going to look into all the facilities and capital costs and all

the environmental and socio-economic impacts and the markets and

financial and gas supply, you would think there might be some

considerable amount of interest, some considerable amount of

information and a considerable number of interveners to work with this.

Well, that was where we were starting. On January 18 there were to be

additional hearing locations.

These hearings began on January 24, and on the very next day the

Council of Forest Industries applied to postpone the hearing, claiming

insufficient notice of the hearing for them to properly prepare. Their

application to postpone was supported by the greater Vancouver water

boards, who could well be

[ Page 5925 ]

affected when they began to realize where the pipeline route would

go. The Utilities Commission agreed that there was insufficient

financial information, but decided that they would still go ahead and

consider phases 1 and 2 anyway. They proceeded to decide that they

could, in this very short order, deal with the facilities and capital

costs and the environmental and socioeconomic impacts. There was no

need, they decided, for extra time on those issues. It was just an

environmental project, and there were three weeks to prepare. You know,

from the beginning of January until the hearing they had had three

whole weeks to deal with socio-economic impacts and environment, so

"Oh, phooey, let's do it; go, go."

On February 2 — and I'm sure Mr. Speaker knows that February 2 is

Groundhog Day — there seemed to be a groundhog sticking his head right

out of the ground. His name was Tom Siddon. Mr. Siddon was the senior

federal cabinet minister for British Columbia, and he put the cat among

the pigeons and said that there was really no guarantee of funds for

the pipeline. He managed to repeat that the date for the final

agreement on this pipeline was September 30, 1989. Of course, he was

speaking early in February 1989; perhaps he was saying: "Don't rush

along."

But on February 3, the very next day, the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), who demonstrated the

extremely strong degree of unanimity and cooperation between the two

governments, said in a ministerial statement which he released

publicly: "There is no doubt that the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver

Island will be built starting in midsummer 1989 and completed in the

fall of 1990." In case you wanted to know what the Utilities Commission

is going to tell us and what the federal government is going to do,

this is it, said our minister, admitting of absolutely no doubt

whatsoever that this would go ahead. He repeated that he expected

recommendations from the commission by March 22 — which was less than

two months after the hearings started — and he said about construction:

"This is a tight schedule, but this project should be well into its

mainline construction phase six to eight months from now." The minister

claimed, "We're down to negotiating the final few issues of the

detailed binding agreement," and seemed to refute everything the

minister from the federal government had said. But that's what our

minister said.

[3:45]

Four days later, and perhaps initiated or motivated by this seeming

problem that had emerged and become public, a document was leaked from

an interagency assessment group, which said that PCEC's assessments

were insufficient and superficial. It said that additional studies were

needed. I won't go into all of the areas where it said those studies

needed to be done, but most of the issues it addressed were

environmental; some of them were socio-economic. These were, of course,

the two phases that the commission was looking into. The assessment

group said that some of these studies had to be done in the autumn, and

until they were done they were unable to assess the probable

environmental impact of the pipeline.

This report also made an interesting observation: that it saw a

general problem emerging out of the wording of part of the company's

submission. The company had said that an environmental inspector must

understand "the constraints of pipeline engineering and construction."

It is very interesting that the company has decided that the

environmental inspector, who is obviously doing an inspection for

Environment, must recognize the terrible constraints on the poor souls

who build pipelines. The statement indicated that this might be

back-to-front thinking, and the team said in the report that any

special status the pipeline might have was irrelevant to an

environmental inspection officer, who must have the authority to stop

work if environmental impacts were occurring. Obviously, what this

report did was lay out whether in fact the environmentalists or the

engineers were going to come off first.

Next step, February 10. The Environment minister of British

Columbia, not to be outdone by the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources comes out with a ministerial statement and says —

and I wish I had the voice to do this — "Natural gas will be good for

the Vancouver Island environment." What's good for General Bullmoose

will be good for.... He didn't respond to what the problem was; he made

one of those statements that say: "I'll decide."

A little more than a week later, on February 18, the hearings

proceeded in Powell River, Nanaimo, and then returned to Vancouver. By

February 22, the Greater Vancouver Water District submitted a report

stating that construction of the line through the Coquitlam watershed

will result in cloudiness in the water exceeding Canadian standards,

and it will be too cloudy for chlorine disinfectant to handle it. We

don't know yet what they did with that, but two days later we have

another event: the Utilities Commission decides it doesn't have enough

information. It manages to declare that the lack of information relates

to markets and financial matters, and therefore it can't go ahead with

phase 3 of the hearing.

Our two ministers — Environment and Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources — who are no doubt operating in the environmental mode of

this government — order that the commission must submit an interim

report dealing with phases 1 and 2 by March 14, and that was absolutely

it. Presumably the report of the Greater Vancouver Water District just

had to be rolled in. Everything else, the whole business from the

interagency assessment group, had to be dealt with — and this was in

less than three weeks.

On March 2, the Council of Forest Industries again objected to the

lack of sufficient financial information at the hearings. The Utilities

Commission ordered PCEC to supply complete financial information by

March 6 — that's four days later. On March 6 the company complied by

submitting its information; the Utilities Commission gave itself three

days to consider it and then ordered that phase 3 hearings begin on

March 9. One day later the company appeared before the commission and

clarified some of its problems.

[ Page 5926 ]

It made very clear to everybody that the financing depends on

having the gas price tied to the price of oil. It also required that

all customers deal with Pacific Coast Energy Corp. and not directly

with suppliers.

That went against the understanding of a number of the mayors of the

communities through which this pipeline was to go. These people, I have

been told, were led to believe they could choose their own distribution

company and charge a franchise fee, which is the common practice. Under

section 647 of the Municipal Act they are allowed to collect a

franchising fee, and they had understood that they would be able to do

so. PCEC said it couldn't do that. What happens now is that the company

says they must not do that or they cannot afford the pipeline.

On March 14 the Council of Forest Industries outlined its particular

concerns. These concerns deal with a number of things, including

long-term gas supply, the amount of private sector equity, who is going

to shoulder cost overruns, what happens when the local distribution

company's costs are higher than what the company says, and what happens

if the company can't build through the watershed. What will happen then?

There were a number of serious concerns brought forward at that

time, and on the same date the Coquitlam council passed a motion

opposing a pipeline through the watershed. Remember, this is after the

environmental and socio-economic phases are completed. Nevertheless,

that is what the Coquitlam council is doing. Is that motion of the

council being considered at all?

On March 16, PCEC feels sure, it tells the commission, that it can

sign long-term gas contracts if the gas prices are tied to oil. So it

must have that assurance. We still do not know where that is coming

from, but we know very well that the government can take care of the

municipalities and the distribution situation, because it has

legislation that can override the Municipal Act.

On March 20, four days later, the cannon comes off the bow with a

great roar, and the Minister of Environment issues his amendments to

the regulations on sulphur content in fuel. That was the legislation

that was expected to encourage the members of the Council of Forest

Industries — the pulp mills — to reduce their emissions. So that has

now happened.

On March 22 the Greater Vancouver Regional District unanimously

decides to advise the company that the potential impact of building a

pipeline through their watershed is unacceptable, as are the company's

proposals for monitoring water quality and taking mitigative measures.

When she makes this announcement, the deputy chair of the GVRD, Mayor

Marilyn Baker, comments that the board of the GVRD is more concerned

about the lack of consultation with municipalities than with its lack

of power. She says: "The regional board was caught by surprise on

something of a major impact, something that would affect 1.3 million

people."

We're getting a lot of things thrown into a process that pretty well hasn't

been clear-cut from the beginning. There is no indication of where it's

going, how it's to be considered, what's to be done, or whether or not

we're going to get any response to the input of these people.

On the day after this, the Vancouver Sun , which frequently

supports this Social Credit government in its liberal mode — one would

think that when it's being environmental it might be liberal — seems to

have seen through this. It says: "...reason and logic have never played

much of a

part in the long saga of Social Credit's obsession with the

Vancouver Island pipeline." I think it's an appropriate statement. It's

very interesting that they suggest that there is perhaps an obsession

with a Vancouver Island pipeline.

Two days later, on March 25, the president of Pacific Coast Energy

Corp. responds to the motion of the municipality of Coquitlam and the

motion of the GVRD water district. He talks about environmental balance

as he sees it and says, as quoted in the newspaper: "The environmental

benefits of replacing oil as a major fuel source will balance any

threat that construction of a natural gas pipeline poses to the

Vancouver region's water supply." Obviously it's very clear to him that

the objections of 1.3 million people won't matter. The president says

he still expects a development permit by mid-April, with work to begin

in June.

On March 29 the hearings ended. This is April 6, nine days before

the middle of April, which is when the president of the PCEC expects a

development permit to be issued. The B.C. Utilities Commission has not

yet reported on phase 3.

As I say, it's very clear, when you put together what has

happened.... You see the dates, and the bouncing back and forth, and

the absolute lack of response of one of these inputs to another. What

you've got is a farce. The Minister of Energy is rushing around like

the White Rabbit, saying, "Hurry, hurry, hurry," and the Minister of

Environment is standing making proclamations from the croquet lawn.

It's madness. It's a mockery of the democratic input that should

have gone into the Utilities Commission hearing and of the process that

was outlined at the time the announcement was made that this pipeline

would go ahead with that kind of funding, with $300 million of public

money, and it was to go through this process. And instead of going

through this process, it has been rushed, pushed, debated and objected

to, and there is no completion of people's objections. There's been no

reception of their objections, and there's no completion allowed by

coming back with an alternative or any kind of consensus. Because of

this, if for no other reason, I would object to and vote against the

budget presented by this government in the House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I've been sitting here for almost half an

hour, listening to the best evidence of why it would be a disaster if

that party ever got elected to run this province. It really must be

awful to have to live day by day to find in every statement, to draw

from every press report and every comment by a minister, to work on the

thesis that "I must find

[ Page 5927 ]

something negative; I must find something that I can translate into

a negative comment." I'm glad I don't have to live like that.

The member says she is speaking against the budget, then spends the

whole time looking for reasons to stop something. In any project, small

or large, there are some glitches, hitches, problems or concerns that

develop. I would hate to think that the only approach to life or to

development in this province is that we look for ways to stop anything

from happening. Surely, as these glitches develop, the member does not

take a moment to say they are solved, when they come forward. Why would

you not look for solutions?

[4:00]

I know that on this side of the House we have to keep reminding

ourselves that the original objective was to drain the swamp, despite

all the snipping and sniping by the alligators on that side. I can

remember when the Royal Commission on Education was put in place by

this government. It was not good enough; something was wrong with it.

It couldn't possibly deliver its job in the short time; we had to give

it years and years. I guess the objective was to delay it as long as

possible. The royal commission did its job; it put in a very good

report. What do we get from the opposition? Once we moved as a

government, they said: "No leadership. No decision. No action." In less

than six months, we moved to implement 78 of the 83 recommendations of

the Sullivan report, and guess what we're getting? "Delay it. Put it

off for up to two, three, four years." I get from the education critic

that there's not enough money in the budget for implementing the

changes, and in the next paragraph: "Why are you getting going on them?

Why are you implementing the changes?" Talk about yo-yo tactics. I

certainly don't understand what they want. "Give us an answer. What

exactly is planned?" We say: "There is a consultation process to

develop that plan." "Oh. Well, then you don't know what you're doing."

If I say, "Okay, we're going to move on something," then the response

comes back: "Why are you deciding this without consultation?" If I say

I'm willing to listen to consultation, then they say: "Why don't you

make some decisions? No leadership." I have some trouble with: "Why is

the minister promoting these changes?"

However, I would like first of all to touch on something — because

my colleague the minister of post-secondary education is not here —

that the opposition has made, or tried to make, some hay with: the

assistance program for students. Last year some $58.2 million was

budgeted; this year the budget shows only $50.7 million. The opposition

says: "Why are you taking this money away from students?" They've been

told — but are not about to accept it — that of the money budgeted last

year, only some $39 million was taken up. So what's in the budget this

year is the $39.6 million that was anticipated last year, and it's been

moved up to $50 million. What we have this year is a 28 percent

increase in the budget in post-secondary for the student financial

assistance program. That is 28 percent over what was utilized last

year. Only the socialists call that a cutback, but I guess it suits

their purpose to pick a bit of information and then to try to work into

a propaganda campaign what is not supported in fact or in any practice

in the province.

I'd like to deal with a few things. I know that my opposition critic

did say near the end of her speech in the throne speech debate: "I hope

to be a constructive critic." Then, just the other day, in a speech in

the budget debate, she tried to get out a lot of public misinformation

to sabotage the important changes we are making in education.

Since I've been minister I have done my level best to say to the

public that we have a good education system in this province. When we

compare what the students in our schools are learning — nationally,

internationally, on any basis — we have a good education system. I've

had to buck the opposition campaign, which I guess is exemplified by

the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who said yesterday:

"The education system in this province is something that we should be

ashamed of, not proud of." It's right there in Hansard .

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you supporting that? I think that

member points out how well a negative propaganda campaign can work. He

said: "You cut it back."

I have now resorted to the tactic of putting a publication on

education facts that we put out — one on education funding in British

Columbia — into a brown envelope, marking it "confidential" and leaving

it lying in the hallway, in the hope they might read it. I have

distributed to them the evidence, the facts and the numbers. They're

all there, yet they talk about cutbacks.

Let's look at what the socialists see as a cutback. It takes a

little while to read figures, but I think it's worth it. I would like,

for once and all, to dispel this notion of cutbacks.

MR. BLENCOE: What was restraint all about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll explain it to you, but I might have to draw you a picture.

In 1981 there were 492,000 students in the public school system.

There were 28,438 full-time-equivalent educators, and the gross budget

was $1.5 billion. In 1982 there were 485,500 pupils in the public

school system and 29,000 teachers — in other words, there were fewer

students, but almost 800 more teachers — and the gross budget was $1.7

billion, up over $200 million. In '83 the pupil enrolment went down; it

reached its lowest point in 1985. Despite that, in 1985 the budget was

$1.75 billion. Because of a change from the fiscal year to the school

year, and because of the lowest enrolment increase, 1985 was the one

year when the total budget went down slightly, to accommodate 25,000

less students. That was the period in which restraint in this province

was affecting businesses and employment for other people. It was

affecting everyone else, yet the education system said:

[ Page 5928 ]

"We want to be immune." For all intents and purposes, they were immune

from it.

Let me quickly run through this cutback that the socialists are

talking about. In 1981, $1.5 billion; 1982, $1.75 billion; 1983, $1.79

billion; 1984, $1.8 billion; 1985, $1.7 billion — that was the one year

with a decrease. Now notice how quickly...1986, $1.8 billion; 1987,

$1.98 billion; 1988-89, $2.163 billion; 198990, almost $2.5 billion for

the education budget. So a lot of money went out there. I thought when

you put more money out there it's partly to cover inflation. Inflation

is driven.... I understand inflation has increased costs, and we have

accommodated those increased costs.

Let me put it in terms of the budgeted cost per pupil. Remember,

this is what the socialists call cutbacks. In 1981, $3,076; 1982,

$3,614 — a big increase of 17.5 percent; 1983, $3,711 — up again; 1984,

$3,758 — up again, not as much; 1985-86, down $20 per pupil because of

the anomalies there, but still $3,738; 1986-87, up to $3,954;

1987-88, $4,199; 1988-89, $4,516, and we don't know what it's going

to be in 1989-90. An increase each year — which is translated as a

cutback.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

There are so many ways to show that there were no cutbacks, that the

funding increased every year. But I guess when you're bent on a

negative propaganda campaign, you can take the facts.... Maybe they're

reading this progression the wrong way. In most cases we go from 1981

down the page, not up the page to 1989. So I would highly recommend:

read the annual report, read this, read that, read anything you like;

and at some time please look at the facts and the figures.

What is a cutback then in socialist terms? What do the socialists

see as a cutback? An increase in funding every year — and they talk

about the cutbacks.

Average teacher salaries. In 1981, $25,000 — I'm just rounding it

off; 1982, $28,000; 1983, $34,000; 1985, $36,000; 1986, $37,000;

1986-87, $38,000; 1987-88, $39,000; 1988-89, $41,000. An increase in

the average teacher's salary of at least $1,000 per year each and every

year during what you people label as cutbacks. I guess you're not

interested in the facts; you're simply interested in the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Public opinion facts?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not from you they haven't. You wouldn't understand

them.

Let's translate this into some

summary form. From 1981 to 1988-89, school

board gross total budgets increased by $671 million, or 41.8 percent. From 1983,

when restraint really hit, to 1988-89, school board gross total budgets increased

by 19.4 percent, or $370 million — yet they're referred to as cutbacks.

From 1981 to 1988-89, the province has increased the shareable operating budget

by $853.9 million, or 76 percent. Some cutback!

The province pays for close to 81 percent of the total school

budget. They have said there is no tax concession, no concern for the

taxpayers; a lot of argument has been made on that. They will not even

acknowledge the significant benefit of the $50 in the homeowner grant

this year. I guess the new chairman of the Vancouver School Board has

acknowledged it. He said: "We were budgeting for a $63 average

increase; with the changes that the government has made, that is

brought down to a $2 increase." So at least somebody out there is

looking at the numbers and is willing to acknowledge that more money

is, in fact, a tax break to the taxpayers.

[4:15]

A great deal has been made about the cut in the non-residential

taxes, and that is true. By design, the government lowered the

non-residential taxes to industry — mainly on the equipment tax — in

order to encourage economic development. If you look at the evidence in

the last few years, you will see that did work, and we have a lot more

economic development and a lot more money to work. But one thing that

is never noted by the negative party over there is that the

non-residential taxes decreased by 5.7 percent. At the same time, the

grants from general revenue to school districts have increased by 63

percent. So in other words, that was much more than balanced and has

looked after all of that.

Two members of the opposition — the member for New Westminster (Ms.

A. Hagen), my negative critic, and the member for Prince George North

(Mrs. Boone) — were attacking the money that was not spent for special

education. Again, "the cutbacks in special education" is how I think

they worded it. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the numbers say, not

what the negative critics say.

The numbers say that in 1983 funding for special education was

$104.7 million, and in 1984 it was $189.9 million. That's a fairly

hefty increase, but part of that is because of a change in the

structure. However, in 1985 it was $125 million; in 1985-86 it was $195

million; then to $210 million, then to $222 million, then to $257

million and then to $305 million. Those are the facts of what has been

done for special education. The needs have increased, and the budget

has certainly increased.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't quite hear what the member is sniping about, but she certainly sniped enough yesterday in her speech.

I think the member for Prince George said yesterday: "The public

will not be fooled again." They were fooled in 1972, they have not been

fooled since and they will not be fooled again.

I don't know whether that will counter the continuous effort that

the opposition and some of their friends have put forth to say that

there were cutbacks, and that our education system is a disgrace. It is

not; I think we can be proud of it. Funding has

[ Page 5929 ]

increased for the education system every year. Yet I don't know

whether the brown envelope approach will work when they read some of

these things and pay attention.

I've gone out of my way to make the information available to any

member of this House and to the public. But there is a natural distrust

of politicians, and obviously the term "cutback" is tossed out there

and is picked up by the media, and they all say "cutback." I've made

this information available to the media as well, but once the

catch-phrase of "cutback" takes hold, then it's cutback, cutback,

cutback; everybody starts attacking cutbacks that really were a figment

of somebody's imagination. Maybe at some point the facts will prevail

over the negative propaganda campaign.

My critic said in the throne speech debate: "I hope to be a

constructive critic." I wasn't here unfortunately to hear your speech

in the budget debate, Madam Member, but I did read it. I really

couldn't believe that you could not see anything positive in the

implementation of the royal commission report. I think you did say at

the beginning: "We commend them for their efforts, but their whole

program is wrong." I believe that member did say — and I've got these

quotes right from the speech the member made in this House — that there

should be more money in the first year for the implementation of the

royal commission report.

Elsewhere in her speech she says: "What's the hurry? Why don't we

delay things for a few years?" She acknowledges that this is additional

money, but she says it doesn't show up in the fiscal framework. I just

have a little difficulty with that. Then she pins it down to $44

million, describes it as "a niggardly, miserly...$44 million," and

says that there is not a dime for the school districts. I don't know

what that member reads, but this money will all show up, directly or

indirectly, in the school districts. Much of that money will go

directly to the school districts for the implementation.

She says there is no money set aside for dual entry. It has been

made plain time and again: it didn't show up in the fiscal framework

because it wasn't intended to. It was supposed to be over and above the

operating budget. I tried to explain that, but I guess you have some

trouble with it.

There was "not a dime for retraining teachers." We have clearly stated that some of this money is for in-service retraining.

A big issue was made of the $20 million that was labelled as

"redirected funds." There is money now that goes into these different

programs that are in place right now. When you talk about new

curriculum changes, there's money allotted for that under the fiscal

framework. You don't have to duplicate that money. Some of that money

will be for the curriculum changes necessary for the royal commission

report. There is money in the budget for in-service for teachers. That

money can be considered as redirected.

I can give you the main categories. Testing assessment funds — the

testing and assessment process has to change, so that we don't have to

do it there and do it again. Program implementation funds. Equipment

support funds. Non-instructional-day funding. All of those things are

for teacher in-service, for professional development, for changing the

system, for implementing changes. The $20 million is there. If you add

the $20 million, then it's $68 million that's in there. Taking that out

you still have $44 million. And that member says it is a niggardly,

miserly $44 million for implementing changes.

We have said that over the long term it will be $1.4 billion. I have

repeatedly said that it's not going to be one-tenth each year. It would

not make sense to put out a whole bunch of money that we can't do....

We are going to have to try and budget responsibly. What we have done

is estimate the costs for each of the categories. I don't know exactly

what they'll be. They are estimates. I don't know whether they will be

new books recommended by the consultation process or other materials. I

think it would be improper for me to say a consultation process, and

then earmark exactly what is going to go where.

I can tell you that the $44 million didn't come out of a pipe-dream.

It came out of adding up rough estimates for each and every one of the

things that we think can and should be done this year. It's there. On

February 17, when the budget information went out to the school boards

from the ministry, when the fiscal framework and all that was

calculated, that information was provided to them, as to what is going

to be allotted for each — not in exact dollars, but certainly for all

of the things there would be funding for that the member said is not

there.

My critic says in her budget speech, about this government:

"Accountability: none." I don't think there has every been an exercise

where we have gone out to the people as openly and as candidly with

what the items are, to what detail we can, to do that. But she says:

"Accountability: none. Leadership: none." This is my constructive

critic.

What are you trying to do — destroy this program for the sake of

political expediency? Can you not get on and say some of these things

are going to be good? The comments.... "Why is the minister pushing

these changes?" Mr. Speaker, would you believe that these changes that

the minister is pushing are the recommendations of the royal commission

report? They are not the minister's personal bias. I have a lot of

personal biases. Many of them agree. I happen to believe the focus on

learning is very important and the most productive thing in the

education system. I happen to coincide exactly with the royal

commission report on that. There are many ways of doing it. The

flexibility that will be out there — all of those things are going

to.... I can support them.

But suddenly, when the royal commission report was released, your

predecessor the critic said: "It's a sham. They'll never implement it."

Now that we have moved to implement it, my new critic says: "Why are

you doing these things? Why is the minister pushing for the things that

the Sullivan report recommended?"

[ Page 5930 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Selectively.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not selectively, Madam Member, 78 of the 83

recommendations.... I went through the province and got a response to

every one of those recommendations from the public, from the teachers,

from the people out there. The policy advisory committee advised on

these recommendations. The one that you jump on is the dual-entry, of

which the policy advisory committee said: "Hold off for three years or

for two years; don't do that."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Sullivan did allude to it in the report, if you read it as carefully

as I did. Sullivan said in the first recommendation: "Do not stick with

chronological age, but consider developmental criteria." One of the

suggestions was: "You might consider, instead of the one-year spread

for entry into this school, breaking that down into dual-entry twice a

year and a six-month spread."

It ties in very nicely with the continuous progress and

learner-driven curriculum at the primary level. It ties in very well.

It can be handled. There are primary committees working in a

consultative way on how to do it. We have simply said: "It can be done.

We recommend that it be done. We're putting in the money and the

resources to do it."

Am I finished already?

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, your time is up.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: My goodness. I'm not finished, but I guess I've

run out of time. I'd certainly like to pick this up again in the future,

but we are committed to discussion, consultation and implementation of the Sullivan

report, despite the alligators.

MR. LOENEN: Starting Sunday next, we will recognize

volunteers in British Columbia. I want to draw attention to that,

because I know that the members of this House are appreciative of all

that volunteers do in the many groups throughout the province in the

various communities.

[4:30]

The place of service clubs and volunteers is very important. I know

that the kind of compassion and care extended through volunteers is

often what we as a government cannot provide through funded programs.

That personal attention enriches the lives of all of us, and I'd like

to salute the volunteers in my community and throughout this province.

I believe that we often do not fully recognize or appreciate the extent of

the contributions made by volunteers. When I was first elected In 1983 to the

Richmond municipal council, I was astounded to learn, even though I'd lived

there for almost 30 years, that in the community at that time there were some

45 different social service agencies which provided services to our community,

most of which depended very heavily on volunteers and which continue to do so.

We are politicians in this House, and there is no politician who

gets elected without the faithful services and work of volunteers. But

volunteers help not only politicians. There are some 80 different

service clubs in British Columbia today, which raise special funding

for hospitals, out-patient clinics and medical research of one kind or

another. It is right and proper for us to acknowledge the wonderful

contribution that volunteers make.

In my community of Richmond, we look forward to hosting the Canadian

summer games for the disabled in August. I know that such games are

impossible without the generous contribution of many volunteers. This

coming week we want to draw special attention to them and recognize

their efforts.

It is a delight for me to stand here, take my place with my

colleagues and support the budget handed down exactly one week ago

today. That budget surely must be the finest that has come down. It is

a balanced budget. It reduces the deficit and, as such, is a fulfilment

of promises made in 1986 when the current administration took office.

We promised to deliver a balanced budget, and we have. We promised to

make a start at reducing our accumulated deficit, and we have.

A week ago today in this House, those promises were fulfilled: in

1988, a $96 million debt reduction; in 1989, a $150 million debt

reduction. We are starting to get out of the hole; we are on our way to

recovery. This is the first balanced budget in ten years. It's a day to

remember.

In addition to having a balanced budget, we have a rainy-day fund of

$1 billion, and that ought to instill confidence in all of us. It is so

essential for us to have something to rely on when the economy might

turn, because unlike businesses, government experiences a double whammy

during rough economic times. Not only do our revenues go down, but our

expenditures increase due to increased funding for unemployment and

social service schemes of one kind or another.

Therefore it is so important and so entirely responsible for this

government to have that kind of rainy day fund. It's a credit not only

to our Premier, our Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and our

cabinet, but to all British Columbians, because we're in this together.

All sectors working together can produce this kind of sound financial

management. We're the only government in Canada that has been able to

do this, and we are indeed an example to many. In addition to the rainy

day fund of $1 billion, we also have a privatization benefits fund of

$302 million. We have been able to accomplish all of that without

significant tax increases. That is indeed a credit to this province and

to our government.

We don't like to talk often about the deficit, but we ought to

recognize what it does and what a tremendous drain it is on our ability

to provide the kind of services and programs that people would like to

see.

We often talk about President Reagan and the U.S., and their

enormous debt, but we often forget that in proportion our debt in

Canada is far greater than the U.S. debt. I have some statistics here

that compare

[ Page 5931 ]

what the various provinces incurred in the way of a deficit last

year: Alberta, $348 per capita — that means that for every man, woman

and child, the government spent $348 more than it took in; New

Brunswick, $408; and Newfoundland, $496. Ontario — rich Ontario —

escaped the economic woes long before we did. Their recovery was much

stronger, yet their government had a deficit last year that amounted to

$164 per capita.

All of that is nothing compared to the federal deficit. Last year

the overspending federally was $1,115 per capita. That is something we

ought to be aware of — the implications of that for our communities.

What it means is that that leads to a situation where today the federal

government spends 31 cents out of every dollar it collects simply to

service the debt. It doesn't do anybody any good. It doesn't buy

anybody anything. It's a debt load that we have to service; it's a dead

weight. It takes away from the many opportunities and possibilities we

could create, and the human needs we could meet, and potentials go

unmet.

In fact, what it leads to is high interest rates, such as we see

today. It hurts small businesses, first and foremost. They are the ones

we have to look to for job creation. They are the ones that allow our

economy to flourish, but they are held back because of the high

interest rates. Those high interest rates are simply a result of the

fact that the governments are in there chasing all these dollars to

feed their own irresponsible attitudes.

It hurts the western provinces in particular and, as we know, it

endangers the universality and other dimensions of our social programs.

It hurts home-ownership. I'm just delighted to see that this

government has taken a firm stand in this budget to assist the people

of this province to obtain home-ownership. We're saying that we are not

going to allow the federally led onslaught on the ability of our

citizens to obtain their own homes. In fact, we're going to implement a

host of different measures which will protect them against that

onslaught. For the record, it ought to be said time and again — and we

ought to say it to our MPs — that their lack of financial planning,

their lack of sound fiscal policy, has led to the kind of situations we

experience today.

About six weeks ago, the finance critic was reported in the Vancouver Sun

as saying: "Balancing a budget is an easy job. Anyone can do that."

What utter nonsense! Government has a tremendous propensity to grow,

and to grow endlessly. We see this all around us. Why else is it the

case that we are the only government in all of Canada that is able to

balance its books? Why is it that this is the first time in ten years

that we are able to do this? To suggest that somehow it is easy is

misleading, unreal and unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of meeting with my colleagues on

the budget review committee of our caucus this November and December,

and that was a unique experience. I learned how difficult it is to

control the growth of government. Add to that the fact that all of us

like to be liked, no one more so than politicians. It is very easy to

give in to all the various demands that come our way; it takes a great

deal of determination, leadership and vision to resist some of that to

come to a position where you have a balanced budget. It takes a measure

of leadership, commitment and perseverance that no other government in

Canada has been able to muster. I want to congratulate our government,

our Minister of Finance and our Premier for accomplishing what no other

government was able to do.

Talk about how easy it is to balance a budget. Anyone can spend

money. It doesn't take any special brains to spend money; in fact, it

is very easy to spend other people's money. Again, I am happy to say

that we have been able to resist that temptation. Also, I believe

deeply that this particular budget is a vindication of past policies.

I want to quote from Hansard of March 20, 1987. The then opposition

critic for finance described the '87 budget, the first budget of the

current administration, as: "...a budget which totally fails to make

jobs a priority, fails to offer hope to young people. This budget

contains no short-term plan, and certainly no practical long-term

strategy, for dealing with the job crisis. In fact, the proposals in

the budget will likely make the problem worse."

Mr. Speaker, what have we seen? What is reality? What is fact,

against these negative predictions? In 1987 we created 36,000 more

jobs. In 1988 we created 52,000 more jobs. That is 88,000 more jobs in

British Columbia, while the opposition critic predicted that our policy

would lead in the opposite direction. None of that comes about

automatically.

What it points to is that we do have good government in British

Columbia today and that the balanced budget is a vindication of the

policies of the past. We have been able to create all of these new jobs

even though we have a net in-migration of some 46,000 people in 1988

alone. Therefore we still have 10.3 percent unemployment — a rate which

is still too high.

It is for that reason that this budget puts a lot of emphasis on job

training and retraining of elderly workers. It appoints a task force to

look into that, because it recognizes that people are our finest

resource and we have to enable our young people, as well as the elderly

workers, to find meaningful jobs. We're working at that, and we're

going to commit more funds to doing that.

Those predictions that we hear from across the way will not in any

way cause us to deviate from a winning policy, a winning course of

action, that is being applauded by the people of this province. I've

listened to the criticism that we have heard from across the way.

Again, the official finance critic of the NDP has told us this budget

represents an assault on the ordinary people of our province. It's an

assault on ordinary British Columbians. Why? Because over the years

we've given a tax break to corporations of some $500 million, and we

have given that tax break at the expense of laying it on individuals

and raising the personal tax rate.

[4:45]

I want to say a few things about that. If this government and its policies represent an assault on ordi-

[ Page 5932 ]

nary British Columbians, why is it that people from all over Canada,

all over the world in fact, are flocking to our province, and coming

here at their own expense and voluntarily. Last year some 32,000 people

came from other parts of Canada to live here and participate in the

good life in British Columbia.

I'd also like to point out that personal income tax represents only

23 percent of our total revenue, and that the budget predicts that

personal income tax will increase 7.5 percent next year

whereas

corporate tax will increase 17.5 percent. Again, the facts do not bear

out the allegations.

Secondly, what about this laying more taxes on our businesses? I

know that politically it makes a lot of sense to talk that way and it

sounds great, but realistically we cannot treat our businesses, our

corporations, our entrepreneurs, in isolation from what happens in

other communities in other jurisdictions. Time and again we have seen

that unless we welcome businesses to settle here and make it possible

for them to compete internationally and across the line, it is simply

going to backfire on us. We have to have a policy whereby we make it

possible for our entrepreneurs to flourish, because through that we

will all benefit, and, indeed, it is business activity that is the

engine to prosperity. The suggestions that come from across the way are

precisely incorrect in that it would simply kill the engine of our

prosperity.

In 1983, when I first was elected as an alderman, we were dealing

with the variable tax rate. At that point the province allowed the

municipalities to look at that variable tax rate that pertained to the

various categories for property tax purposes, and we found out that

over the years the business tax on properties was something like two to

three times what it was on the residential property owners. It's very

easy to keep loading taxes on businesses, because, after all, they are

not as numerous when it comes to election day. But we recognized as a

community and as a council how detrimental that was and how

counterproductive, and we set about changing that in order to make it

possible for our businesses to flourish and have the opportunity to

compete internationally.

I find it striking strange that these newborn free enterprisers

suddenly talk — not only the critic, but a number of other members —

about laying another $500 million on the backs of the people who make

our economy work. I just wonder if the Leader of the Opposition was

frank and open when he met with the leaders of our business community

in the Pan Pacific Hotel some time ago and told them that this was

indeed their policy, when he talked about how they had suddenly

embraced the notion that yes, creation of wealth was important.

What really is this budget all about? I believe that it is first and

foremost a gigantic, massive investment in our future. Education,

environment and economics: all these different measures represent an

investment in our future. After having put our economic house in order,

we're in a position to pay attention to the quality-of-life issues and

to make it possible for more people to participate in the development

of our province in a more meaningful way. As a result, we have a great

deal with which to instill confidence in our ability to meet the

challenges that lie ahead. It is so good to see that we are now in a

position to not only and just meet expenditures, but to in fact invest

In the future of the people of this province in a massive way.

Let me just detail some of these. Economic development: we are going

to continue to build an infrastructure which will make it possible for

our people to exploit and meet the opportunities that are presented in

the various communities. For instance, highways are a very important

part of our infrastructure: a 50 percent increase; a budget of over $1

billion. In terms of my own community, it bodes well for projects such

as the Dinsmore Bridge, the resurfacing of the Oak Street Bridge and

the early completion of the east-west freeway. All of these are very

important.

I was happy to see that the money we're spending on the improvement

for small airports will double this year. That, too, is a tremendous

boost, in terms of building up that infrastructure that will allow our

communities to flourish. Increasingly we need that kind of

communication and transportation that will make it possible for us to

be world leaders.

Vancouver International Airport. It hurts me and I'm deeply

disappointed in the fact that we still have not moved any closer to

seeing greater local control of the administration and management of

the Vancouver International Airport. Some two years ago, a committee

was struck, and the federal government even gave it a budget. To my

knowledge, we have come absolutely no closer. Even if we started today

on the third runway, it would take five years to build it. We need that

kind of expansion, and we need it badly.

I would like to call on our federal government and our federal MPs

from the entire lower mainland region to make that committee work and

to get local people on the management and administration of the

Vancouver International Airport. There are times when people have to

sit there for a half-hour, three-quarters of an hour and even up to an

hour on the runway. That is unacceptable, and we ought to recognize

that if we cannot meet the needs, then certainly Seattle, San

Francisco, Calgary or Toronto will.

I would like to stimulate the development of the Vancouver

International Airport and do a much better job than we have been doing.

We see some federal inertia there that I find entirely unacceptable. We

are investing in our future when we invest in infrastructure — the

building of highways as well as the development of ferries and airports.

Education. Mr. Speaker, education is a very important element of the

development of our community and our resources, namely our people.

There are few items of greater importance.

Personally, we have two children at UBC and one at SFU. The youngest

will graduate hopefully this year from Grade 12, and she too will be at

a college next September. I finished high school at night at Richmond

High. I enrolled as a mature student and graduated from UBC. I know the

importance of education. I know what it can do for individuals, not

[ Page 5933 ]

only in terms of their economic earning power. That is important

because study after study has indicated that the higher the education

level, the greater the earning power and the greater the ability of

people to obtain jobs. But in addition to all of those good economic

benefits, I also know — and we all know — that education can enrich

peoples' lives immensely.

We are investing in education. We are making a commitment to

education that few other governments can match. We know that most of

our business expansion is in knowledge-based industries; therefore the

investment we make in education is an investment in our future which

will pay dividends for years.

We have seen a 13 percent increase; we have seen $250 million

designated for new school construction. We have seen the "Access for

All" program by which Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo and Prince George will

all offer university level courses. We have seen what that means for

our own community. Kwantlen College — already starting in September —

will have some 800 additional spaces available for students. I'm so

happy for those young people who are going to benefit from that, and I

wish them well. I commend the Minister of Education and the Minister of

Finance for the way in which we are investing in education.

The Sullivan report. Mr. Speaker, we are not wasting any time; we're

moving on it. We're committed to it, and already this year we are

committing some $40 million toward its implementation.

We've heard some comments from the BCTF to the effect that we ought

not to rush, and I agree. I agree that for teachers who feel

uncomfortable with the ungraded primary system, perhaps we could take

our time. But there are many teachers within the system who are ready

to go, and we ought to encourage them. In fact, two weeks ago today,

the director of curriculum for our school distri