1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

243 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Health care charges. Ms. A. Hagen –– 243

Poaching of elk. Mr. Bruce –– 244

Property taxes for seniors Mr. Blencoe –– 244

Mr. Williams

Moneys for reforestation. Mr. Williams –– 245

Supply Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 245

Second reading –– 245

Committee stage –– 248

Third reading –– 255

Budget Debate

Mr. Harcourt –– 256

Hon. L. Hanson –– 257

Mr. Clark –– 258

Royal assent to bill –– 262

Budget Debate

Mr. Weisgerber –– 262

Mr. Jones –– 264

Tabling Documents –– 268

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it gives me great pleasure to introduce,

on behalf of our Speaker, Simma Holt, who was Member of Parliament for

Vancouver Kingsway.

MR. BLENCOE : Victoria has the

highest number per capita of senior citizens in the country. Many of

our seniors are very active in promoting the well-being of senior

citizens not only in Victoria but in British Columbia. Today in our

gallery we have a very distinguished senior citizen who lives in

Victoria in my constituency, who does many things in the community and

works on behalf of the elderly. Would the House please welcome Mrs.

Clare McAllister.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I don't know how

many members of this assembly have been awakened early in the morning

by someone saying "This is Radio Canada" or "CBC radio." In the gallery

we have Gail Hulnick of CBC radio's "Early Edition." Without benefit of

any commercial or anything — because the CBC would never go for

that — she's broadcasting from Victoria now on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

MR. ROSE :

I would like the House to welcome some old friends of mine from

Chilliwack, Art and Kelly Weber. Art and Kelly have been longtime

workers for the New Democratic Party. As a matter of fact, Kelly ran

for us. They live in, of all places, not Chilliwack but Yarrow, B.C.,

the centre of the Fraser Valley. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I would hope that the House would be particularly thoughtful and

judicious in its deliberations this afternoon not only because my

material is the subject under examination but also because we have in

the gallery this afternoon two young students from St. Margaret's

School who have decided to take advantage of the spring break to

understand a little bit better the governmental process. Would the

House please welcome with me my guests, Danielle Trottier and Donna

Dangerfield.

MR. PARKER : In the galleries today I'd

like to introduce to the House Mayor Jack Talstra, Alderman Bob Jackman

and the administrator, Bob Hallsor, all from the fine city of Terrace.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

In the gallery this afternoon, if you look up, you'll see 35

fine-looking students. They're here visiting from the Newton community

of Surrey along with their, I guess, chaperon, Marvin Hunt, from Bible

Fellowship Academy. I would ask you to please give them a warm welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER : I'd like to ask this House to recognize and make welcome my wife of 25 years, Judy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : In the gallery today is Mr. Charles Traynor, our

guest from Vancouver–Little Mountain and the city of Victoria, and I would like

to ask the House to welcome him.

MR. R. FRASER :

In the gallery today we have John Leech who is the executive director

of the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British

Columbia. John has been a tireless worker on behalf of his 4,000 to

5,000 members. On behalf of them and the province would the House

kindly make him welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN : I have an

announcement and also an introduction. The announcement first is that

the Comox Valley has produced another winner, a hockey team sponsored

by Happy's Sporting Goods. The Happy's Midget Chiefs won the provincial

championships last weekend at Osoyoos. Would you please congratulate

them.

I also have the pleasure of welcoming to the House

Jeannie Lundine, who is the past president of the parents' advisory

council at Kwalikum Secondary School. Would you please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE CHARGES

MS. A. HAGEN :

My question is to the Minister of Finance. In answer to my questions,

the Health minister stated yesterday that 20 percent of the population

will not be charged the new user fees for supplementary health care

services, and the budget speech makes no mention of any exemptions for

user fees. Would the Minister of Finance please confirm that citizens

who receive premium assistance under the Medical Services Plan will be

exempt from these user fees?

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Yes, the whispered conversation, Mr. Speaker, was whether the minister

himself wished to deal with that detailed question, and I'm quite happy

to defer to him in his official capacity as the line ministry in

charge. But let me make just one point before I do vacate the floor.

This budget contains more safety nets to protect the concerns and

welfare of the disadvantaged in our society than any previous budget

I've ever read.

MR. SPEAKER : Before the hon. member

is recognized, I might caution both sides to look at their standing

orders 47A(

a) and (b). Questions and answers are to be brief, precise

and without argument or opinion. That's for questions and answers.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. I would like to redirect that

question to the Minister of Health, and then further question the

Minister of Finance, if the Minister of Health would be prepared to

answer the question as the Minister of Finance said he might do.

MR. SPEAKER : Repeat the question.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The question is: will the Minister of Health confirm that citizens who

are in receipt of premium assistance under the Medical Services Plan

will be exempt from fees for services such as podiatry, physiotherapy

and chiropractic services?

[ Page 244 ]

HON. MR. DUECK :

That is my understanding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to that that

I believe yesterday there was a — perhaps my fault —

misunderstanding, in that as far as Pharmacare is concerned, everyone

is to pay the dispensing fee, other than they will be receiving the

extra $125 from GAIN. So if someone uses $50 worth of dispensing, they

will then save the balance for themselves, but they are all liable to

pay that particular dispensing fee. I may not have made that clear

yesterday.

[2:15]

MS. A. HAGEN :

I have acknowledged the minister's comments and would again note that

those who have, as single people, incomes of $1,000 or less per year

from any source will have that assistance of $125.

I would

like to direct this question to the Minister of Health, since it

appears that the Minister of Finance is not familiar with the

administration of his budget. Can the Minister of Health confirm that

those exempt because they are already short of cash will have to pay

the fees directly out of pocket and then apply for reimbursement to the

Medical Services Plan.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask under which.... Is it the Pharmacare or the supplementary you are referring to?

MS. A. HAGEN : The supplementary services.

HON. MR. DUECK : The supplementary services. Whatever the charge will be — if the rate is $15, the particular service-provider will collect the $5 and the balance will be billed to the province.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Minister, you have just noted that there will be people who are

exempt from paying that fee, and I am pursuing how those people in fact

are to be exempt. Will they have to pay that fee directly and then be

reimbursed, or is there some means by which their medical services

cards are to have "premium" on them — something that says they are

some different kind of citizen and therefore exempt? How is this going

to be administered, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that someone on social welfare has

a card that identifies his particular situation, and also someone who

is on security under the income of less than $3,500 taxable income. I

may be vague on this; I may have to take it as notice and give you the

exact explanation at another time. But the technical part.... They will

be identified. They will not have to pay it in advance. But exactly how

that will work — I can give you that back in a day or so.

POACHING OF ELK

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment and

Parks. In my area of Cowichan-Malahat we have a very substantial herd

of Roosevelt elk. In the Shaw Creek area in the last little while we've

had a wanton slaughter of several of these animals. I was wondering

whether the minister could tell this House what steps are being taken

to try to rectify the situation and to bring to conclusion who or what

is causing this particular incident in the Cowichan-Malahat area.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, the ministry is aware of the recent kills at Shaw Creek

and other previous kills. We are also aware of the illegal selling of

meat. We are investigating the poaching and the selling of the meat

from the poaching. However, for the purposes of an effective

investigation it would be imprudent for me to say anything further at

this point.

PROPERTY TAXES FOR SENIORS

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mrs. Johnston) some questions about property tax increases for seniors.

The minister refused to answer. So I'll ask the Minister of Finance

today. I'm sure he's prepared for the question.

Very

simply, Mr. Speaker, what explanation does the minister have for

increasing the tax for senior citizens from $1 to $100 in terms of

minimum real property tax? What justification can he give this House?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, the details, of course, will be debated during the budget,

but I can't help pointing out what should be an obvious fact to all

members of the House and indeed all members of the B.C. public. For

those individuals fortunate enough to own their own home, to be

required to pay what amounts to $8 per month in property taxes.... It

strikes me as being a rather innocuous amount.

MR. BLENCOE :

Well, Mr. Speaker, when you compound it with all the other increases

for seniors, it is not innocuous, and we won't accept the deficit

reduction on the backs of senior citizens in this province.

How

does the minister justify raising taxes for senior citizens when the

same budget removes the surcharge for high income? How does he justify

that removal?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We seem to be

getting into the budget debate early, but I am quite happy to make what

should be an equally obvious response. I have heard comments in this

House dealing with the very serious problem we have in this province of

our best people being forced to relocate elsewhere by virtue of greater

opportunities or rewards. I would think that it is important that we

always at all times recognize the importance of retaining as much

skills and talents in this province as we possibly can. If the hon.

members were to look at comparisons between income taxes paid at

various levels of income across the country, they would be able to see

quickly that we are competitive with other jurisdictions in terms of

our taxation levels.

It should also be noted that the

so-called brain drain that we have all deplored arises as a consequence

of our talented British Columbians seeking opportunities, particularly

south of the border. When you recognize the challenges that the

province faces, when you recognize the opportunities before us all,

when you think about our abundance of natural resources and the

tremendous exhibited skills and talent in our schools and in our

advanced education institutions, when you think about the tremendous

opportunity we have in the Pacific Rim and when you think about the

concerns that have been expressed by so many people in this House

before and currently.... I think that if there is a genuine desire to

indeed invest in our people and ensure that our young people get the

kind of education and training they want, we've got to ensure

[ Page

245 ]

— we must ensure — that those talented, gifted people who presently decide to live in our province....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER :

Order! I might mention before the second member for Victoria gets up

that I've allowed a little leeway in questioning. I think you see when

the hon. member asks a question that really fits more into debate, he

leaves it wide open for the minister to give the same kind of answer.

If the member has an urgent question.... Your standing orders ask that

questions be urgent and important, not debate that is taking place

right now, which is the budget debate, in which the member has a chance

to join in. I think we've seen that both sides take abuse of the

privilege.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS :

The Minister of Finance has now advised us that the super-rich should

be left alone. Can he advise us then what feasibility studies he

carried out that indicated that there was disposable income in the

hands of seniors to meet the kinds of charges he's levying by this

budget?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, the fact of

the matter is that we did indeed look at a variety of options when we

put together our budget package. I think it's important that everyone

in the House recognize that what you have before you is a package —

all pieces fit together. If you're going to examine any one in detail

or attempt to dissect it in any detail or in any way, you must also

then have the wit to understand that in order to maintain the

credibility of the entire package, other aspects might also have to be

examined. But I stand before the House not the least bit ashamed of the

budget package and the way we've provided support services for those

who truly need help and at the same time ensured that those who are

able to pay will pay.

MR. WILLIAMS : Will the minister then table the studies that indicated that seniors had this disposable income in their hands?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'll take that question under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

MONEYS FOR REFORESTATION

MR. WILLIAMS : It certainly does not exist.

further question to the Minister of Finance. He said that it would be a

physical impossibility to spend $350 million on silviculture. We have

three million hectares of not satisfactorily restocked land in British

Columbia. Can the minister explain why it would be a physical

impossibility to spend those kinds of funds employing 20,000 people?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm willing to concede in front of all and sundry

here this afternoon that it would not be impossible for the hon. opposition

to spend $350 million on that exercise in one year. But I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that this side of the House will never be wasteful of taxpayers'

money, and it will ensure that money spent receives value for money spent. We

are not prepared to throw money down some bottomless pit for the purpose of

meeting some sort of lip-service desire to ensure that reforestation is done

in this province. There is adequate funding in the Forests ministry budget to

increase silviculture expenditures this year by 28 percent, and at the same

time ensure that we will plant 200 million seedlings this year, more than we've

done in previous years. Mr. Speaker, how much is enough?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Maybe the minister could consult with Prof. Reed, policy chairman of

forestry at UBC, who has argued for several years now for at least $300

million on silviculture. He is the expert in British Columbia on the

subject. But the minister said that this added employment would be a

monumental blurp in our steady economic progress. Can the minister

explain why employing 20,000 people and reducing our unemployment

levels would be a monumental blurp in our economy?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Delighted to. Mr. Speaker, the funding that this budget indicates in

terms of job creation increases the jobs created in this province next

year from 12,000 to 17,000; and further, the funding in this budget

provides for an increase in training and retraining from 10,000 British

Columbians to 20,000 British Columbians— that's a 100 percent increase.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, again, my thanks to the opposition for putting up with our

little problem this morning. I believe the Minister of Finance has a

message.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1987

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced in order to provide supply for the

continuation of government programs until the government's estimates

for 1987-88 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly.

is my belief that passage of this bill today would qualify under

standing order 81, especially considering the

schedule of the House

this week. However, I will not make formal application that standing

order 81 be applied, in view of the agreement between the House Leaders

that royal assent will be asked for later today.

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

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 2:30 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:35 p.m.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first

section requests one-quarter of the tabled

[ Page 246 ]

estimates

to provide for the general programs of the government. The second

section requests one-quarter of the disbursement amount required for

the government's fully recoverable ministry-related financing

transactions which appear in

schedule D in the estimates. The third

section requests an amount of $28 million for the Purchasing Commission

working capital account. This increase in the statutory authority

reflects an increase in the delivery of goods and services provided

through this account.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out the

requirement for early passage of the supply bill in order to provide

for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the 1987-88 fiscal

year.

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, the opposition will

support this bill and will not hold it up unduly. Some of my colleagues

will want to make some specific comments, but I'd like to talk just a

little bit about the process right now.

I've been here long enough to talk about the old days —

I won't say "good old days," because there are some things about them

that weren't very good. But I can recall that the first time I ever had

to go through this interim supply was I think in 1969. It was after

being here six years. Always before that the budget had been

introduced, and the budget had been passed, and then we had gone

through all of the estimates, and there was no need for interim supply

because we had approved every spending vote by vote. In that one year

we were a little later than usual. It was just before the middle of

April, and if interim supply had not been granted at that time, it

would not have been possible to issue payroll cheques at the middle of

April.

This year we are dealing with a situation where in

effect we are saying it is okay to go ahead and spend one-quarter of

the budget. We haven't even approved the budget speech yet. We were

still dealing with that; as a matter of fact, we've barely started on

it, and now we're being asked to approve one-quarter without having had

any opportunity at all to talk to any of the ministers, to discuss with

them what they intend to do with this money that we're giving them

permission to spend.

Now we know we can't increase the

spending in the many areas where many of us would like to see it spent.

But we like to at least maintain the principle, the theory, whatever,

that it is possible for the Legislature to reduce any vote. If we all

agree on the reduction of any one vote, that authority is ours as

members of the Legislature.

But here we're saying, go ahead and spend a quarter of the budget, $2.5 billion — I don't have the exact figure, but it is a quarter of the budget, I understand —

with no opportunity to debate. We know we're going to do it later, and

with 46 members on one side and 22 on the other and you in the middle,

we know that in all likelihood it is going to pass the way the

government wants it to pass. But we depart totally from the idea that

the cabinet members, the government, should be accountable to the

people through their elected representatives when we say at this point

in the stage of debate, with the budget having come down just three

working days earlier than today, that yes, we approve in principle

everything you are doing. We are giving you that approval by today

saying that it is okay to go a quarter of the way. We're going to spend

some time later on talking about the details of it, but eventually,

having agreed to go a quarter of the way, it is going to be awfully

hard to come back and say: "We've changed our mind. You shouldn't have

done it in the first place."

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we're

not going to oppose the principle. We know that the government has to

continue. We don't quite know why it has to be this much earlier than

usual, but that doesn't matter. We are certainly going to have to do it

in any case before we get very far with the estimates. We are sorry

that the government can't get its act together. After all, the election

was in October, and we would have appreciated it if the government had

been able to get its act together and called us together earlier to

deal with the serious problems that the ordinary people in British

Columbia have.

We have made the argument and we will

continue to make the argument that the budget is not fair to the

average British Columbian, not fair to the working people in the

province. That argument will be made over and over and over again. But

when it comes right down to it, the government services must be

maintained and we appreciate that, and we appreciate that there is a

need to get through this, and we want to get back to the general budget

debate as well. So apart from some comments that some of my colleagues

will want to make specifically with respect to the spending priorities

or lack of priorities on the part of the government, the opposition

will support interim supply.

MR. WILLIAMS : I can't

get over this minister going out and giving a speech to the Island

municipal association just this last weekend, and saying that it would

be a physical impossibility to adequately spend the $350 million, or

the bulk of the export money that we got from the Americans who are

doing our homework for us in terms of our inadequate stumpage fees in

British Columbia. He says it's a physical impossibility to put 20,000

people to work in British Columbia. If you think that's a physical

impossibility, you should move over and let those who believe it isn't

a physical impossibility do the job.

Nobody less than Prof.

Reed at UBC, who has a special chair of forestry policy funded both by

the trade unions and the private sector — the forest corporations in this province —

has been arguing for about three years now for at least $300 million a

year in silviculture. What kind of expert does this minister purport to

be? If you can't do what the real experts have been saying should be

done, then it tells us something about the adequacy of the other

department, the Ministry of Forests and Lands. If they are unable to

properly, cost-effectively spend $350 million, they should be sacked,

pure and simple.

We have the worst unemployment problem in

this province since the 1930s. You should be thinking in terms of

fitting these things together. We have three million hectares of not

satisfactorily restocked land in British Columbia. That's the

equivalent of driving from Vancouver to Penticton and seeing weeds on

either side of you for 25 miles –– 50 miles wide, 200 miles long in

weeds, productive land that should be producing new trees for the

future of this province. And you say, Mr. Minister, the analyst, the

architect of this budget, that it would be a physical impossibility to

begin grappling with that problem.

I would refer you to the

northern countries, the Norscan countries. The Swedes, the Finns, the

Norwegians have been doing this kind of work all of this century. We

are now generations behind them in the kind of work they do in the

forests. They see it as a moral obligation, not as an economic

question, not your kind of lightweight, right-wing economics. They see

it as a moral question in terms of replacing what they take from this

planet; it's as simple as that. The first

[ Page

247 ]

charge against the trees harvested should be the cost of replanting — a pure, simple, moral question.

Then

you marry that moral question with the immorality of having 15 percent

of our people and 27 percent of our young men under 25 out of work, and

you have a major moral question in terms of this province of British

Columbia, and you fail to address it. Nobody put it forth more clearly

than the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) this morning,

despite the kind of speeches we've had from that ragtag crew in your

back bench.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS : Indeed it was. We still have 27 percent unemployment in young people, and you're not doing anything about it.

Now the same minister . . . .

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I would ask the member to address the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS : Yes, Mr. Speaker. The same minister said that reducing our unemployment levels from, say, 15 percent to 14 percent — because that's all the 20, 000 jobs would do — would be, to quote from the Times-Colonist ,

a very reliable paper, "a monumental blurp" in our steady economic

progress. Well, the unemployment rates have been going up, up, up. I

guess that's what the minister calls our steady economic progress, and

you don't want that graph to change. By going down from 15 to 14

percent, good heavens, I mean, it might actually produce new revenues

in terms of those working people, new sales tax and all the spinoff

benefits that come from employment.

[2:45]

What kind of mindset? Why, you might even sell more clothing in the retail sector — who knows? —

and the 5 percent or 6 percent tax as well. But you know, it's a

mind-set to call it a monumental blurp to employ 20,000 people when we

have this 27 percent figure with young people. It's tragic in terms of

the narrow kind of material we're getting from you. Then the classic

was that our continuing expert on forestry, the member from suburban

Saanich, says what would we possibly do with all of those trees that

would all mature at the same time, 80 or 85 years from now? Well, what

a terrible problem. Imagine! They might actually grow.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Well, if they plant them the way we plant them now, 40 percent of them

die, Mr. Minister, because we don't look after them — 40 percent

of the seedlings we plant now. So that solves half your problem. Just

keep on doing it the way you do, and you'll solve half that terrible,

monumental problem that you saw out there of all those trees rushing up

to the skies and creating problems for us.

Imagine! One year's planting, 20,000 people put to work, would create

monumental problems for us down the road in terms of harvesting. They're

not like tomatoes, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that go rotten in

the eighty-first year or the eighty-second year; they keep growing. We wouldn't

have to cut them down at the eightieth year after all. You have the nerve to

say this at a meeting in Cowichan Valley, one of the great forest valleys of

British Columbia. I'm amazed they didn't hoot you out of the hall. If

the loggers had been there from Youbou or some of the Lake Cowichan areas, oh,

boy, would you have been hooted out of that hall! You really would have been.

Just

look at all of the work done by people all over the province: the

government employees' union just in the last week came out with their

own report on why we had to be doing more. I have a copy of a memo on

my desk from the Prince George forest district right now, out of the

Forests office in Prince George, that tells all of the various people

in the region, their employees and the companies what an impossible job

they have to work within this budget you've given them; that they can't

possibly do the job properly.

That's the staff of the

Forests ministry right now saying that you're putting them in an

impossible bind in terms of the work they want to do this year, in

terms of the seedlings they were turning out this year. The memo talks

about how many of the seedlings we will dump, jump, throw away simply

because they're not getting the budget they had anticipated and thought

was necessary and important.

Then you have the nerve to say

a few minutes ago again that we have to compete against the most

right-wing provinces in the land so that we don't tax the super-rich.

What kind of mindset is this that is delivering this budget before us

right now, that says we have to have the lowest marginal tax rate in

Canada? Because that is where you're headed. That doesn't make any

sense at all. The whole idea of the income tax is as a progressive tax

aimed at getting greater income from those who are more able to pay.

the same time, the same minister, when he's asked about the impact on

seniors, can't give us the kind of detailed answer he gave us with

respect to the super-rich. He analyzes the modest, minor problems of

the super-rich but does not analyze the problems of the seniors who are

getting a real bite and kick in this budget. There's a prospect, then,

of seniors with taxable incomes of over $3,500 a year who are going to

get hurt in this budget. When the minister is asked for the report with

respect to the analysis of their income and their disposable income,

all of a sudden it's "they," and he's saying he's got to take it as

notice and he'll have to report back. That suggests to me, Mr. Speaker,

that there are indeed no studies whatsoever; there are simply no

studies.

So you have the studies about the super-rich; you

don't have the studies about the marginal poor, the seniors who are

barely getting by in this system of ours. It doesn't make any sense,

and at the same time you go out to the Cowichan Valley purporting to be

an expert on forestry and say that we can't possibly employ 20,000

people in silviculture.

I really think you should reflect

on those statements, Mr. Minister. I think you should reflect on the

idea that reducing the unemployment rate in British Columbia from 15

percent to 14 percent would be a monumental blurp in our economy. It's

a time for reconsideration, and now that we're considering this interim

supply budget, maybe that's the right time. It's very clear that you

were given a few ideas from our traveling Premier and had the job of

then trying to patch this thing together in terms of his erratic view

of the economy. In doing so, we've got this patched-up mess that we

currently have that will not do the work that's necessary or help the

seniors, and won't begin to deal with the monumental mess in our

forests.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I don't want to drag

the afternoon out, but there's just so much I wanted to say. I've been

characterized as being the instant logging expert from the

[ Page 248 ]

suburban

capital of Saanich. I can't help but make comment that it's the member

for Vancouver East, that well-known logging industry area, who makes

the comment. I also couldn't help but notice, the Hon. member called it

"Youboo." When I was in the woods — and I worked in the woods for, I guess, about 12-odd years, and I know a little bit about the game —

the name was pronounced "Youbou." Those people who live in the

community might feel a little bit slighted by the misrepresentation by

someone who purports to be the critic, the expert.

In any

event, back to the main point which is, I think, the question of the

comment that I made in an address I gave to municipal leaders in Duncan

over the weekend. The comment I made was that it would be a physical

impossibility to spend $350 million responsibly in one year in the area

of forestry.

I'm quite willing to concede that anybody can spend any amount they want —

I suppose, without limit. But we happen to believe that the profligate

spending that serves no useful purpose or doesn't contribute to an

overall goal is not something that should be endorsed or entertained

for a moment. I would only ask the members across the aisle where they

would expect the money to come from for some of the other things

incorporated in the budget. One would imagine that the opposition

members are against the reduction in the sales tax. One might think

that they are against elimination of the restaurant tax. One might

wonder how they feel about the increases we've provided for social

spending and a variety of other programs incorporated in that budget.

think that those details can come out in the fullness of the debate. I

certainly look forward to that opportunity. But in the meantime I do

believe that it's time to go on with the afternoon's business. I move

second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

Bill 18, Supply Act (No. 1), 1987, referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On the schedule.

MR. STUPICH :

Mr. Chairman, I was looking for the Attorney-General. I just wondered

if we could have some elaboration of warrant No. 1. What is the purpose

of this?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Warrant No. 1 is the

$15.15 million. It is constituted of the following items, Mr. Chairman:

$4.5 million for ship modifications, terminal modifications, etc., for

the Vancouver Island Princess ;

secondly, $8.7 million for vessel acquisition costs from the B.C. Ferry

Corporation; thirdly, $1.95 million outstanding debt to the B.C. Ferry

Corporation.

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Chairman, just

following up on the vessel acquisition, was that $8 million? Can you

tell me something about vessel acquisition?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Yes, Mr. Chairman. The vessel was acquired by the B.C. Steamship

Company for $8,700,000 from the B.C. Ferry Corporation, another Crown

corporation.

MR. G. HANSON : Mr. Chairman, I would

like to ask the Provincial Secretary if some of this warrant was for

outfitting the casino ships with roulette tables, casino rooms,

one-armed bandits, the kinds of things that are anticipated which this

side, of course, opposes.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr.

Chairman, the government is committed to improving transportation

linkages for economic and tourism development purposes between

Vancouver Island and the mainland, including Washington state.

Washington, as you know, is a gateway for tourist traffic to British

Columbia, and an extension of services to Washington will, hopefully,

provide a significant economic stimulus to Vancouver Island's tourist

economy. I'm sure the Hon. member would welcome that.

The Princess Marguerite

annually transports approximately 250,000 travelers between Seattle and

Victoria. The capacity of that ship is limited due to its restricted

capacity for carrying motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, buses and

the like. Over the past five years there's been a gradual but

persistent decline in the shift in tourist traffic carried on the Princess Marguerite .

There's been a gradual increase in the number of passengers who are

seeking to travel to Victoria and Vancouver Island for more than one

day. As a consequence, close to 50 percent of the trade now involves

overnight or longer trips. The Princess Marguerite's vehicle capacity is limited to 50 vehicles, and it's generally sold out at each sailing.

The major demand for service arises in the recreational vehicle, motor vehicle and charter bus/tour bus trade. The Vancouver Island Princess

has the capacity to carry 140 vehicles, including over heights and

recreational vehicles. There is a significant opportunity to expand the

tour bus trade to Vancouver Island. As an example, tour operators from

Spokane to Portland will be in a position to offer same-day access to

the vessel to bring tour groups to Vancouver Island. The tour bus and

private vehicle market offers the greatest market potential, and it

will be the target, I'm told, for British Columbia Steamships marketing.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the Provincial Secretary's

response. My question is: was some of this warrant money used to outfit

the vessels named for the extension of casino gambling aboard these

ships? To the Provincial Secretary, this side of the House is very,

very supportive of the Princess Marguerite , because it was this side of the House that purchased the Marguerite for

this province and this city. So we're well aware of the benefits to our

community, and we certainly want those to continue. Where we do have

concern is where the government seems to

[ Page

249 ]

have adopted the approach that significant benefits

will accrue to the community by entering into casino-type gambling

aboard our publicly owned vessels. That is my question: were some of

those funds used for outfitting these vessels with casino rooms,

roulette wheels, gambling casinos, etc. We are not supportive; we think

there are better things that could be done with those tax dollars than

spend the money on those warrants.

[3:00]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I might be able to help here. The vessel acquisition

amount is $8.7 million. Is that the issue being raised here? Or is it

the whole $15 million?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the Provincial Secretary like to respond?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes. Are you talking about the $8.7 million, hon. member? Is that the number you're questioning?

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, the liner notes in the

schedule of the bill say: "To

provide for a grant to the B.C. Steamship Company to cover costs

associated with the acquisition of a second vessel." We have had

conflicting comments: one from the Attorney-General that said there

would be gambling between Vancouver and Victoria; other comments that

there would be gambling between Victoria and Seattle; and of course the

Washington state officials indicate that there won't be gambling in

American waters. What I'm trying to ascertain here is: of the $15

million, are there some dollars in that warrant that were used to

outfit the casino gambling aboard these vessels?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has indicated that there is an intention of having casino rooms on these vessels.

MR. G. HANSON :

I'm trying to establish.... Within this bill we are being asked to vote

in favour of warrants that money already expended . . . . Warrant No. 1

is dated February 5, 1987, and the amount of the warrant is

$15,150,000. As the Minister of Finance has indicated, $8 million was

to cover costs associated with the acquisition of a second vessel. In

the remaining six-odd million dollars, were some of those dollars

expended in the acquisition of gambling equipment, outfitting casino

rooms aboard those vessels, to make a floating crap game somewhere

between here and Seattle or here and Victoria or here and San

Francisco? Because if it is, we oppose it on this side of the House.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The total we're discussing is the $15,150,000, as I understand it. That figure is made up . . . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Well, the original question, with respect, dealt with the $8.7 million.

That was the first question put, I believe, if you check the records.

any event, now we're back to the total. The total is made up of ship

and terminal modifications of $4.5 million, the vessel acquisition of

$8.7 million, and payment of outstanding debt to B.C. Ferries for

previous use of the Queen of Prince Rupert

of $1.95 million. Those figures add up to the $15.15 mentioned. The

ship and terminal modifications of $4.5 million consist of a ramp and

terminal facilities at Ogden Point and Victoria both. They consist of

ramp modifications at Pier 69 in Seattle; dry-docking and engine

overhaul; ship modifications; lounge renovations; professional fees and

other expenses.

MR. G. HANSON : I appear to be

getting more detail from the Minister of Finance as we go. Is the

minister then saying that this warrant did not cover any renovations

that involved rigging the ships for casinos and for gambling and so on?

Is he saying no?

HON. MR. VEITCH : The casino lounge renovations are estimated to amount to $400,000.

MR. G. HANSON :

As I indicated before, the $400,000 that we're being asked to approve

today could be better expended for seniors that need help; for students

that need help; for jobs that are required. We do not agree with the

gambling and the extending of casino-type, Las Vegas-type gambling

aboard these ships, and we are resentful that taxes of $400,000 are

being expended for these purposes.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Chairman, I'm usually calm, and I'm usually collected, and I want

to tell the hon. member that he can't have it both ways. If you're

going to have tourist activity on Vancouver Island, if you're going to

have people coming from other parts of the world, if you're going to

offer them extra services, you're going to have to realize that this is

a ship and it is going to produce economic benefit for the people in

Vancouver Island who pay the taxes that you're talking about, who buy

the clothing that you're talking about, who pay the sales taxes, who

look after those very same senior citizens that you're talking about.

That's the way it operates in a private enterprise economy. Maybe you

don't understand that.

MR. G. HANSON : I certainly

wish this minister had taken us into his confidence when they were

hatching this proposal. In all my time in Victoria and as an MLA, when

tourists come up to me they generally ask: where is the Provincial

Museum, what a beautiful city this is, what is this Parliament

Building, who owns it and what is it for? They have never asked me:

where's the roulette wheel, where's the crap station, where's the

mobile game in town, where's the one-armed bandit? Never!

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, on the same topic, in terms of the $400,000 for the Princess Marguerite ,

it's our belief that this is just a start; that Victoria is going to

become a sort of testing ground for this government's move into private

sector casinos in the province. We on this side of the House are

absolutely opposed to such a move. No private sector for-profit

gambling. But we know what's happened: the fix is in. Those in the

private sector have been promised private sector licences, and Victoria

is to become the experiment. This beautiful city, which does not want

casinos, is to become the experiment. We're to become the experiment.

I'd like to know whether this $400,000 includes security. Does it

include policing? Does it include watching of organized crime?

[ Page 250 ]

That's

what you're bringing to the province of British Columbia. That's what

you're starting. There's no question that the Premier of this province

has promised that we will have these kinds of casinos in the province.

I want to ask the question to both the ministers: what provisions do

you have in this budget for the Princess Marguerite for security and extra policing?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

You realize that this proposed casino operation will be carried on in

one of Her Majesty's Crown corporations, namely the B.C. Steamship

Company. It will be carried on by the government of British Columbia. I

don't want you to suggest for one moment, hon. member, that the

government of British Columbia, this government or any other government

in this country, would condone organized crime. I'm sure you don't mean

that. It will be protected by all the forces of law that we have

available to us. As a matter of fact, if you would read up on some of

your federal statutes, hon. member, you would realize that no one could

conduct this type of operation unless it was a Crown corporation at

this point in time, given the legislation that we have available to us.

So as far as Victoria becoming a sin bin, or some place where you can

go out and roll that wheel, or whatever it is you want to do, it's the

furthest thing from our mind, hon. member. It's a vehicle whereby we

can bring increased tourism to British Columbia; hopefully increased

prosperity to British Columbia that will provide revenues, that will

provide employment. If the opposition is against that, then I suggest

you vote against this warrant.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr.

Chairman, it seems that the only job creation we're going to have in

this province is rows of slot machines. Is that economic development?

Is that your kind of prosperity — the new start for the province of British Columbia? Is that your new start —

organized casinos on ships, and then move into the private sector? Is

that the start? Can the minister tell us today how many slot machines

they are purchasing? How many roulette wheels? Exactly how many? Have

the purchase orders not gone out?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member really wants to find out, he can go on

and pay his fare on the steamship and roll the wheel, or whatever there

is available to do. But I can assure you that this operation is a Crown

corporation. It will be controlled. It will receive all the protection

of law. And there will be no involvement of any kind from any untoward

characters of any kind.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman,

we cannot accept this start into organized gambling in the province of

British Columbia for the private sector. We can't accept it. So I'm

going to move an amendment that $400,000 be deleted from this

section

of Supply Act (No. 1), 1987.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Please be so kind as to read the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Victoria moves that the amount of Bill 18, Supply Act 1,

Schedule 1, Warrant 1, be reduced by $400,000.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I think the reason is clear.

We have clearly stated on this side of the House that we oppose any move to

introduce casino gambling for other than non-profit purposes. We are concerned

that this government is going down a path to expand gambling and casinos in

the province of British Columbia. In our belief, we must stop this move today,

and that's why we introduced the amendment.

do not want to see this kind of practice continue, and I know in my

riding in this beautiful Victoria, as the first member for Victoria

says, people don't come here for these kinds of activities, and we

don't want to see this continue.

So, Mr. Chairman, we move

in good conscience to reduce this part of the supply bill by $400,000,

and now take the position, once and for all, that we don't want casino

gambling in the province of British Columbia other than for the

nonprofit.

We are sending a message to the citizens of

British Columbia that the province of British Columbia is a family

province, is a wholesome province, that we don't need the other

attributes or the other kind of things that come with this kind of

activity, that every single jurisdiction that has moved in this

direction has come to great grief. The evidence is there. The

statistics are there. The financial rewards that are achieved by moving

in this direction are not there, and the evidence is there.

[3:15]

British Columbians are proud of the kind of environment we have in

this province, and if you move in this direction, it is a major shift

in the sociological impact on this great province. Today we are saying

we want to stop this move by this government into major organized

gambling and casinos in the province of British Columbia. I move that

amendment, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VEITCH : If the other member wants to speak for a moment, the member for Vancouver East . . . .

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister could advise us what arrangements have

been made in terms of these slot machines and whether you have checked

out who you are buying them from. I wonder if CLEU has been asked to

review all of those arrangements as well, seriously. I guess you got

this material from Nevada, and that is an area that has serious

problems, as the second member for Victoria suggests.

addition, I think it is clear that the studies have not been carried

out by this administration around this area of gambling. We have spent

tens and tens of millions of dollars advertising supernatural British

Columbia, and we spent tens and tens of millions of dollars last year

advertising Expo.

I don't think there has been any attempt

to look at the marketing that you are doing in this regard, in terms of

violating what we've spent on tourism for so long in British Columbia

to date, in terms of the natural features and natural amenities that

the member for Victoria suggests.

The next stage, as I

understood it, in terms of our tourism marketing activity was going to

be on cultural British Columbia and heritage British Columbia, which

again fits in with the tradition in the city of Victoria. But slot

machines and casinos fly right in the face of all of this strategy that

has now been going on for some time and has been handled professionally.

you guys are taking a wrecking bar to the tens of millions that have

been spent on promoting the real features of British Columbia that all

of us admire and would be happy

[ Page 251 ]

to have tourists share. This kind of activity in terms of throwing in the carny casino activities on ships like the Marguerite

fly in the face of that strategy that has been sound and is beginning

to pay off. I don't think the thinking has been done, that the homework

has been done, in terms of what potential problems you're creating here.

MR. G. HANSON :

My colleague, the second member for Victoria, indicated very clearly

that the people of our community, of our riding . . . . We're speaking

on their behalf today. We are delegated to speak on their behalf;

that's the nature of this House, and the House Leader should know.

Mr.

Chairman, the people of our community have registered their concerns on

this issue. They do not want Victoria to be a Las Vegas of British

Columbia. This is a beautiful capital. We have environmental

attributes, we have heritage attributes, we have cultural attributes.

We have so much going for us. All we need is a government in power

provincially that has the political will to do the job that is required

to make this a flourishing community.

I should have known,

I guess, when I watched the Whistler leadership convention; it seemed

the only issue on the floor was gambling. One of the things that

happens to an MLA in this House as you are around for a few years is

that you remember what has been said. When I saw the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke a few years ago stand in his place here and say

there should be one-armed bandits on the B.C. ferries, I thought he was

the fringe. But in a few short years he is now in the mainstream of

economic policy-making here in the province of British Columbia. What

we have is resorting in a recession . . . . People in desperation are

buying lottery tickets like they're going out of style, and the

provincial government is grabbing those proceeds and pushing them as

quickly as possible on to Expo debt.

What I'm saying, Mr.

Chairman, is that there are so many other options available to us.

You're taking us down a road that the people really don't want. The

people in this province do not want Atlantic City, Las Vegas, Reno-type

operations in this province. They may occasionally want to get on a bus

and go for a flutter down to Nevada, etc.; but the implications of all

the studies indicate — all the studies that looked at Atlantic City, Reno, Las Vegas, as my colleague has pointed out very clearly —

that it does draw the underworld, and we don't need it. We've had the

police chief in Vancouver, last year I believe it was, registering his

concerns about the extension of casino gambling in the province of

British Columbia. I rise in my place along with my colleagues to

support this amendment, because we do not approve of that $400,000 that

was spent on the casino operations on these ferries.

MR. BLENCOE :

Gentlemen, I have just received what I think is a very interesting

quote from a working paper which I want to give to this House today on

this amendment. I think it's very useful information. The working paper

prepared in 1983 for the Ministry of the Solicitor-General of Canada by

senior research officers in the police research

section of that

ministry, Margaret Beare and Howard Hampton, has an interesting

statement right at the beginning, which I think is why we on this side

want to call a halt to this action today:

"Wherever casinos are found, they are inseparable from organized

criminal activities. Virtually every study undertaken in the United States,

Britain, Australia and elsewhere points out that casino gaming, whether illegal

or legal, encourages organized criminal activity. A former prosecutor in the

New Jersey Attorney-General's department has noted that organized crime

must always be recognized as an interest group with respect to legal gaming.

If a jurisdiction is not willing to accept this involvement, then it should

not get involved in legalized gaming."

Mr.

Chairman, that why, on this side of the House today, we are taking the

action we are. It's very important that the province and the people of

British Columbia and this government recognize that what this

government is starting by its actions on the Princess Marguerite

has the impact of changing this province dramatically. All evidence

shows that if you move on that course you are going to reap incredible

problems. We ask you to not go down that course.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Methinks the hon. member protesteth too much. He mentioned non-profit

organizations, and I guess if he counts the government as being a

non-profit organization that's where the revenues will go to. I don't

know if that's the way it was planned, but that's the way it turned out.

The

first member for Vancouver East asked about machine arrangements.

Actually, machine purchase and lease is not included in this warrant.

This is included for the building of the room and the refurbishing and

so forth. It's for casino lounge renovations in the amount of $400,000.

However,

150 legal, checked-out slot machines have been leased that will be

divided between both ships as the demand requires, hon. member. It's

all legal, all completely straight up.

We talked about the

Expo deficit. You're worried about the money from lottos that was going

into Expo. I suppose you're worried also, hon. member, about the over

$7 million that went to Victoria by way of Expo legacy funds. Did you

object to that when it came your way? You can't have it both ways, hon.

member.

We reject this amendment.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Chairman, in the debate this morning, you'll recall,

I was speaking on the "Love Boat" economic development strategy that

this government has, wandering around in their lifeboats with one oar. It seems

that that's now shifted to the vice boat — we have the vice boat economic

strategy in the afternoon.

think it's important that you realize that when I was chairman of the

Vancouver Police Board, I received material from across the world, I

received advice from our chief constable, that it was a no-no, a no-go.

I received advice from our tourism industry that people come to British

Columbia because it's safe, it's clean, it's beautiful, it's green, and

it's a family atmosphere. That's why they come. They come to hear the

loon. You see, we share our tourism. We have them come to hear the

beautiful sounds of songbirds here in Victoria, and then on the ferry

up north and into our neighbours to the north where the loon is. They

don't come here to hear the crank of slot machines. So I would like to

know how we got from the "Love Boat" economic strategy in the morning

to the vice boat economic strategy in the afternoon.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Well, hon. member, I don't know where you go to hear your loons, but I can assure you that it's

[ Page 252 ]

the government's desire to keep British Columbia safe, clean, beautiful and green.

MR. SIHOTA : We heard a lot about loons, and I'm hearing a lot of loony tunes on the other side of the House.

Look,

it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to introduce any form of

legalized gambling into this province, whether it's on boats or on

land. What the government is doing here is simply inviting crime. Let

me share a few statistics with the members opposite. In Atlantic City,

in the first four years they had legalized gambling in that

jurisdiction, crime rates increased by 191 percent. Think about that

for a second. Do you know what type of crime it was? It was street

crime, purse-snatching, holding up local grocery stores. Do we want

that type of crime in this area? I say no.

Someone says, okay, fine, we will run it —

the government will run it. We will run the ferries; we will run the

casinos. Well, do you really think that the criminal community makes a

distinction as to whether or not the casino is run by the private

sector or by the public sector? They don't care. Las Vegas has the

highest per capita crime rate in the United States. Do we want to

invite those types of statistics here to the west coast? Victoria

already has an incredibly high crime rate because, of course, of the

relatively impoverished economic climate around here — which the

government can take some credit for. But do we want to invite more

crime to Victoria? If we do, who is going to pay for it? You know, it's

easy to spend $400,000 on roulette wheels and rooms in ships, but what

about the social costs? What about the policing costs? Who is going to

pay that? The taxpayer is. But you don't care.

Someone said that one of the members here protests too much. Protests too much? We are inviting . . . .

HON. MR. VEITCH : Protesteth.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, okay, maybe your Shakespeare is a little bit better than mine.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : It's obviously not.

The

point is that we are standing at this time to stop casino gambling

before it makes an impact on this province. It's not protesting too

much. We're trying to drive a little bit of sanity, a little bit of

sense, a little bit of logic into the minds of the people making some

of the decisions on the other side of this House. We're saying: look at

the studies; examine what other people have said; calculate out in your

own mind whether or not it makes sense to move into legalized casino

operations.

A recent study done by the University of

Florida, which I will recommend to the Provincial Secretary, talks in

rather lengthy terms about legalized casino operations. It reviews

every study ever done on the matter in the United States. It concludes

that all you do at the end of the day is invite more crime, and when

you start looking at the costs associated with legalized gambling, the

infrastructure costs, the airports, the roads and all that kind of

stuff that you build, it loses money for the jurisdictions.

want the Provincial Secretary to take a look at the studies in New

England, in Massachusetts in particular, where two communities looked

at the whole question of legalized gambling. There was a six-month

study in New

England, and the conclusion was at the end of the

day — and of course this would be of interest to a government that

relies on polls — that 60 percent of the population in that

portion of the world was opposed to legalized gambling. When they did

their cost-benefit analysis, it didn't make sense for those communities.

[3:30]

Three years' study appointed by the Congress of the United States of

America took a look at the matter of organized gambling, and it was a

no-win situation for the state. Keep those kinds of studies in mind

when you are considering whether or not you want to introduce this type

of activity to British Columbia. All of the academic literature, all of

the practical experience, suggests that you don't do it. The member for

Vancouver Centre has already talked about what the police have to say.

Talk to the police in these communities, spend some time talking to the

chief of the Victoria police and ask them if in their minds it makes

sense to introduce legalized gambling. The answer will be no, over and

over again.

The other argument that ought to be

considered is this whole matter of tourism. I won't repeat the

arguments I made earlier on, because it is true that it doesn't make

sense on one hand to promote British Columbia as supernatural British

Columbia, and then on the other hand introduce this type of casino

operation. Families come to British Columbia. Families don't go to Las

Vegas when they're off on their holidays. Think of what we are offering

in this province and ask yourself if it is logically consistent then to

introduce legalized casino operations in this province.

And then there are some of you who will say: "Well, look at all the money

that flows down to Reno and Las Vegas. If we were able to capture some of that

money, it would help the local economies." Don't forget, Mr. Provincial

Secretary, through you, Mr. Chairman, that Winnipeg and Edmonton have tried

to do exactly that, and still today Canadian Pacific and PWA haven't cancelled

their charters to Reno and Las Vegas. People still go down there because of

some of the things that are provided there. You don't recapture the money

that is going down south. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make

any sense on land, and it doesn't make any sense on boats.

Now

I have tried to raise the argument for you from the point of view of

the taxpayer, the argument in terms of what makes sense from a

cost-benefit point of view, both in terms of social cost, policing,

etc., and with respect to the costs that we could be losing from a

tourism point of view. I haven't raised yet the ethical question, the

moral question of whether or not we want to introduce this type of

activity.

Now there are some members in the caucus opposite

who take some pride in their moral or ethical positions. I would ask

the Provincial Secretary to consult with them as to whether it is in

their opinion a viable thing to move into from an ethical or moral

point of view. I think even your own members would say no.

have received in my office, since the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R.

Smith) floated the trial balloon, somewhere in excess of 100 letters on

this matter. Not one has been in favour of legalized casino operations

in this province. Listen to the people. Listen to the experts. Consider

what they have to say.

I am in favour of this amendment. It makes no sense —

$400, 000. Someone asked earlier on today for alternatives; I see the

member is here in the House today. I made this point yesterday. In my

riding they are closing down a school

[ Page 253 ]

because

they don't have $40,000. It seems to me 10 percent of that money would

be better spent on that type of activity instead of on roulette wheels

and one-armed bandits.

MS. EDWARDS : I have been

listening to this, of course, mainly on the basis that somebody seems

to think that this gambling is going to be contained on a little boat,

a little capsule that floats between Victoria and Vancouver. Now there

are some things that we in the interior wish you would keep to

yourselves between Vancouver and Victoria, but we happen to know that

this is not one of the things that is going to stay there, because the

government has said that it is simply an experiment. It has been

suggested that it go into the interior. It is going to go into the

interior of British Columbia. This is to go into an area where the

tourist industry is being operated in general.

There isn't

a place in this province where the tourist industry can't do well.

However, for some reason or another the government seems to think that

it needs to be improved with gambling. I don't quite understand this,

because the tourism industry is increasing at such a rate that nobody

quite knows whether it's the second most successful or the third most

successful in the province. Nevertheless we are all of a sudden going

to have gambling, I guess, in at least two or three spots in the

interior. Now these are in areas where people come, as you say, to boat

on the lakes, camp at the camping spots, to hunt and fish and climb and

lie on the beaches and so on and so forth. The promotion that the

province has put forward . . . . Of course the next warrant that we're

going to talk on might deal with this too. The kind of money that's

being put out to promote British Columbia as a destination place for

families — and of course it is families that come to British Columbia — has been huge.

The

interior of British Columbia already has policing problems. Talk to any

municipal government person, whether they're the mayor or the aldermen

or whatever. They have problems paying for the police that they have,

and they don't have enough police. The whole thing is a problem already

in the interior of the province. There is no possible way that they

want something else that's going to create another policing problem.

Whether

or not the government thinks they have a mandate to put gambling into

British Columbia, they have not yet spoken to the people across this

province and listened to what they have to say about it. Until the

government is willing to stand up and say what kind of gambling they

want to have, where they want to put it, what it's going to cost and

what the implications are that go with it, they have no business even

suggesting that they spend money on a gambling facility.

So,

Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the harm that this could do to the

tourist industry and the fact that the people of British Columbia have

not yet said that they approve of this kind of action, I would

certainly support the amendment.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the amendment. I want to deal fairly briefly with the ethical question.

First

of all, I'm a bit disappointed that we haven't heard from the moral

minority on the other side of the House. There's been a fair amount of

debate in this House in the last few days about purity and monopolies

on virtuous positions, and I've also listened to a fair number of

speeches that talk about what's wrong in terms of the influences on the

family unit: the constant impact of television on the family unit and

how that undermines the moral integrity of our society. And of course

we have the Premier, who is never reluctant to impose his moral views

on legislative matters.

I'm concerned about the

proliferation. You know, the government says: "We're starting small.

We're just going to have this little gambling outfit on the ferries.

We'll keep it small." But let me tell you, like everything else that

starts small, it grows. And if it's a source of cash, you'll tap it

over and over again, regardless of the moral position.

We've

got a couple of firsts around here, and maybe we'll have some more.

We've got a prayer room. Instead of praying Wednesday it will be

Winsday.

I really have a deep feeling about this, because I

think essentially these kinds of things take money out of the pockets

of people who can least afford to pay. I'll just touch briefly on my

belief about the impact of lotteries. Lotteries have grown from a

relatively small operation in this country to a huge operation. I note

the huge increase that the government took in last year: I believe it

was another $75 million in lottery money. And the advertising! There

should be truth in advertising on this stuff as well, and no doubt when

the gambling gets going we'll see the advertising there as well, trying

to lure people on there to get rid of their hard-earned money —

just stick your money in the slot machine. Maybe you'll advertise that

the odds are better than the lottery, and maybe they will be. Talk

about morally offensive! I ride around and I see ads on the buses for

the mortgage-burner lottery, when I know the working people in this

province are struggling to make ends meet paying their mortgage, and

they're lined up gambling in hopes they can get out of that burden of

debt.

So I'm disappointed. You're right, Mr. Provincial

Secretary: no side can have it both ways. But that's exactly what

you're trying.

I wonder about the courage and integrity of

a back bench that made such fine speeches when it comes to ethical

questions remaining completely silent on this issue. And just before I

sit down, for your edification I'll let you know that there used to be

a member on your side who was not reluctant to stand up and state his

opinion.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, you're getting a

little beyond the bounds of this debate when you start casting

aspersions against the back-benchers on the opposite side.

MR. MILLER :

My apologies, Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw any remarks that are deemed

to be offensive. But I do feel quite passionate about this, and just

before I sit down I will mention the name of a member who used to be

here and who spoke out quite strongly against the proliferation of this

kind of activity. His name was George Mussallem, and perhaps I

recommend the speeches he made in this House to those members opposite.

HON. MR. VEITCH : It's been interesting, Mr. Chairman. Of course, the debate has gone beyond the scope of the amendment, but that's all right.

might be interesting to point out, by the way, to the hon. member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) that all the money that'll be spent

on this vessel was spent in his riding and provided jobs there. I

thought he might be interested in knowing that. I wish he was here; I

understand that people do have to leave this place from time to time. I

remember back in the days.... I'm sure the hon. member for Vancouver

East

[ Page 254 ]

(Mr.

Williams) will remember this, in 1972-1973 when you were in a different

position, holding forth somewhere else, or fifth maybe. At any rate, I

remember the Premier of the day, David Barrett, saying that he was

going to come on with a little lottery. He said: "It won't hurt anybody

very much and we're going to have a lot of fun with it." And I remember

the howls then, and maybe I was one of the ones who was howling at that

time: "There's going to be crime; there's going to be police; they're

going to be snatching purses on the streets — you watch it!"

AN HON. MEMBER : You weren't in the House in those days.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Oh, I used to listen to it out there; don't worry about it, hon. member.

didn't happen. And I was one of the detractors then. I'm telling you I

was wrong; I'm telling you lotteries have done a lot of good for

British Columbia. So I can understand why for the hon. member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew it offends his sensitivity somewhat. I will

point out, now that he's back, that all of the money on that ship is

going to be spent in your riding, so I think you'll be thankful for

that — for small blessings, at any rate.

It's not

Atlantic City, hon. members, not even a floating Atlantic City. But I

do assure you that if there's any rash of purse-snatching on the Princess Marguerite ,

we'll get the Canadian Navy out or someone who will surround the thing

and make sure it doesn't happen. If all these people are there and if

the mafia takes over the ship, well, we'll do something about that too.

I'm sure we have some way of protecting that. This is a pilot project.

It has nothing to do with Victoria becoming any gambling capital, any

more than Nanaimo is with a Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and

its bingos, or anything else.

[3:45]

The hon. member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) was talking about tourism

and the tourism that we're selling, "Beautiful British Columbia" and

all of that. And we are, but also you'll be interested to know — and I've talked with the hon. Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) and the previous Minister of Tourism —

that tourism research shows that the people in other parts of the world

who come here are asking for other things. They're asking for

entertainment. What this is is a pilot project. I believe that if it

doesn't work out, there's no great harm done; it can be reversed. I

think it's going to work out all right. I think we're going to get some

of that money now that might be spent in other areas, and it's going to

be controlled by the government of British Columbia, not some bunch of

people from wherever you might think they might come from. It's the

government of British Columbia, and yes, you're right, the revenues

that flow from this will go back into revenues, and yes, you're right,

they'll help the people you were talking about, hon. first member for

Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), and your riding. They'll help the people over

there in Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, and even though there'll be no

gambling by way of this ship, unless somebody can find a way of getting

it up there, there won't be any in the Kootenays and it'll help the

people out there too.

I reject the amendment out of hand.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Skelly

Stupich

Boone

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Harcourt

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

NAYS — 36

Brummet

Savage

Rogers

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Kempf

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Peterson

Witch

McCarthy

S. Hagen

Strachan

Couvelier

Davis

Johnston

R. Fraser

Weisgerber

Hewitt

Gran

Chalmers

Mowat

Reid

Bruce

Vant

Campbell

S.D. Smith

Jacobsen

Parker

Huberts

Long

On warrant No. 1.

MR. MILLER : With regard to warrant No. 1 and the terminal

renovations, could the Provincial Secretary advise whether or not those

terminal renovations will be available for use by private vessels other

than B.C. Steamship vessels?

HON. MR. VEITCH : To the

hon. member, I don't believe so. These are equipped for side-loading

vessels, and the configuration must be developed for the Vancouver Island Princess . I doubt very much if it would be suitable for any other vessel unless it was a really big vessel.

Warrant No. 1 approved.

On warrant No. 2.

MR. CLARK :

Given that we just had the first warrant, which dealt with the fact

that we now have gambling in British Columbia and 150 slot

machines, I’m just wondering if the minister can advise us whether any

of these tourism marketing initiatives deal specifically with gambling.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK : Given that we have 150 slot machines and $400,000 was spent on refitting...

MR. CHAIRMAN : You're reflecting on something that's already been dealt with, hon. member.

MR.CLARK : ... it would seem logical that some of this money would be spent for promoting gambling, if that's the view of the House.

Interjections.

[ Page

255 ]

MS. EDWARDS : I wonder if I could ask a more general question. Could the minister describe what's in the warrant?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'd be happy to. The additional funds were expended on Expo 86-related

activities. For example, the guest house campaign to ensure ample

accommodation was available in July and August specifically to

supplement the hotels; the occupancy rate was over 97 percent. The

regional destination campaign was also financed to attract additional

visitors to destinations outside of Vancouver. A good deal of the money

was spent in the interior, the Kootenays and in the north to make sure

that Expo visitors left the lower mainland. We also had increased

demands last year for extra road maps, travel guides, accommodation

directories. There was a 25 percent increase in the number of

out-of-province visitors to British Columbia, so the printing costs

were considerably up, and we retained some visitor information centres

originally intended to be transferred to the private sector, but

because of Expo activity we decided to keep them.

These

projects that I’ve just mentioned were identified by the ministry after

the 1986-87 budget cycle was complete. The ministry believed that it

was critical to the success of Expo 86 that an ample supply of

information and accommodation be available during the fair. I should

add for the record that the total tourism revenue increased by over $1

billion, or 50 percent over the 1985 levels.

MS. EDWARDS : I wonder if the minister could give some figures for the expenditures as well as the revenue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The only figure I have is the amount requested by the warrant: $1.74

million. I don't have a breakdown. I could get that information, but I

don't have it.

Warrant Nos. 2 and 3 approved.

On warrant No. 4.

MR. ROSE :

Sorry, the member for Surrey–Guildford Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) wants to

be recognized, but I'm afraid that your peripheral vision, or the giant

Clerk sitting beside you, prevented you from seeing our friend stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN : She is about to be recognized, yes. The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Chairman, my question is to the Minister of Health. I'd like some

more information on the amount here. When it talks about money for

wages and for funding agency employees, is the $2 million that was

allocated for alternatives to abortions included in this amount? If so,

can the minister explain to us exactly what that program entails?

HON. MR. DUECK : This special warrant is for wage settlements. I can

give you the whole list and the dollars involved: B.C. nurses, $36.308 million;

Hospital Employees' Union, $26.980 million; Health Sciences Association,

$6.038 million; B.C. Government Employees' Union, $1.884 million; other

unions and associations, $2.602 million; hospital non-union, $1.551 million;

employee benefits, $6.137 million. In addition, $20 million in funding was authorized

to meet the retroactive and annual ongoing costs of the HEU broad banding settlement.

Broad banding refers to the establishment of a comprehensive classification

system for the members of the HEU for the purposes of achieving comparability

with the hospital and allied services component of the BCGEU in accordance with

the 1978 arbitration award of H.A. Hope. That makes a total of $101.5 million.

[4:00]

MR. GABELMANN :

To the minister. In respect of the moneys made available for

retroactive wage settlements for nurses in hospitals in particular,

when was that money received by British Columbia hospitals?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'm not sure at this point in time when it was received by the

hospitals. I believe it was to be out before the end of March and I

think it's in the hands of the hospitals now.

MR. GABELMANN :

Can the minister then explain why certain hospitals in British Columbia

are saying to their employees that they're unable to pass on the

retroactive wage settlements because the money has not yet been

received from the government?

HON. MR. DUECK : I understand that it has been sent to the hospitals and they've made a commitment it'll be paid before the end of March.

MR. ROSE : I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. It's come to my attention — and I know to his attention because he received the correspondence —

that there's something like, and I don't have the documents before me,

a $3,000 difference in the year's pay between social workers doing the

same job — essentially the same job description — at Royal

Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, Fraser-Burrard hospital

district, and those social workers employed at St. Paul's Hospital. Is

he aware of this difference in the awards? Has he made any decision

about what he might do to address this problem?

HON. MR. DUECK :

There is an inequity or difference in pay between various groups. Some

are even negotiated by different unions. The whole area of inequity is

being looked at and there will be some adjustment made in various areas

in the coming months.

Warrant No. 4 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Supply Act (No. 1), 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 256 ]

A division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that this morning I was discussing the

"Love Boat" economic strategy of this government, and somehow

or other this afternoon it changed into the "Vice Boat" economic

strategy. This morning I was speaking about the anticipation that the

people of British Columbia had that there would be a fresh start, and

the disappointment that they've found with the highlight economic

strategy of the October election campaign being the "Love Boat"

economic strategy, and that that has started to disintegrate and that

the captain and crew have deserted the leaking love boat and are now on

a rowboat, rowing with one oar in circles, trying to discover a vision

and an economic strategy for this province. What we have are some

jilted lovers — the people of the province of British Columbia —

who want some courage, want some vision in this province. I am now

going to help lead those jilted lovers off of this leaky love boat and

back to the solid earth of a New Democrat vision of the economy of

British Columbia.

Hope is at hand. We are optimistic,

positive people. We're not negative, doubting people like some of the

members on the other side. We have a very exciting vision of this great

province of ours. We feel that the people of British Columbia don't

need any more disappointments. They need a clear, straightforward

recovery program so that B.C. can become the prosperous and stable

province that it should be.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

believe that that can be done through cooperation of the public and

private sectors, instead of saying that the public sector is in the

way, the public sector is the problem, get out of the way of the

private sector. That is not cooperation. That is not a fresh start.

That is a continuation of conflict, confrontation, of the kind of

restraint and conflict that we had for three years. That is not a fresh

start, Mr. Speaker. We believe that there has to be cooperation between

management and labour, where that can be done, as the B.C. Business

Council and the B.C. Federation of Labour are starting to do right now;

and that should be encouraged rather than set back.

believe that we need to enlarge our development infrastructure in this

province, so that we can get British Columbia going again. As New

Democrats, we feel that that can be done by targeting the development

of particular industries. You have heard the past Forests minister, the

hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), talk about what

needs to be done so that we can be the greatest tree farmers in the

world, to restore the integrity of our forest and put 20,000 new people

back to work. We believe that that is possible; that part of that $350

million that is coming back to this province . . . . Not all of it; we

have never said all of it. We've said a substantial portion of it

should be going back into the forests of this province. That is the

number one industry; that is the number one job creator in this

province. That is where the investment should take place. We have

targeted that as the backbone of the B.C. economy throughout this

province.

We should get on with identifying the lands that

should be stocked first, the kind of intense silviculture that should

take place, in terms of weeding, in terms of thinning and in terms of

proper protection from infestation and forest fire. We should then

invest also in research and development, not just cut down logs and

ship them out, but build furniture and build fine computer paper; not

ship jobs out of this province, but have aggressive marketing

strategies, particularly the new markets in the Asia Pacific. That is a

very significant area of activity that has not been addressed in this

particular budget.

We have said that the Asia Pacific area

is one where there is tremendous potential, particularly in the

burgeoning urban centres. We have here a tremendous skill of cities, of

helping the cities of the developing countries of southeast Asia, in

India and other areas. We should be targeting those as specific job

creation opportunities for our engineers, for our planners, for our

architects, for the business community that builds the sewer and water

systems that make this a great province.

We have said,

furthermore, that tourism has great potential, not for slot machines,

not for gambling. And we say entertainment. What sort of entertainment

do you mean? I have a constituency that presently is plagued by some

street entertainment that I don't think we want to see in the rest of

this province. I don't think that that is why people come to British

Columbia. I think people come to British Columbia because of the

beauty, because it's a safe . . . . It's a clean family place to come.

We should have tourism strategies that stress that in each region of

this province. You'll be hearing more about these strategies and in

more detail. We use the Canada Harbour Place trade and conference

centre to bring 5,000 Texas ophthalmologists here, and then for the

other week that people are here in British Columbia, 500 of them could

go to Vancouver Island or to the Kootenays or to the Okanagan. This

could be done in well-marketed tourism strategies so that it was a

package arrangement when they left Austin, Texas, and came here to

visit all of British Columbia. That should be being talked about. Of

the million Californians who were here last year visiting,

three-quarters of them were here for the first time. There should be

follow-up on that great tourism potential. We have not seen a detailed

tourism strategy. We want that detailed tourism strategy to put people

back to work.

We have talked about new manufacturing

opportunities in this province of ours, and I'll give you one: medical

services. We have in British Columbia some of the finest research

practitioners, medical people, anywhere in the world. There is a great

opportunity, to the Asia Pacific in particular, and China, to sell our

products. We're starting to do that now. I started, as the mayor of

Vancouver, to lead trade missions to Guangzhou, to Shanghai, to other

areas of China. Medical people were prominent, selling new technology

and new pharmaceutical processes developed here in British Columbia.

There is a great market there. So we have indeed, Madam Speaker, a

number of targeted industrial and service areas where we think the jobs

can be created.

We think also that we can use the

unemployment insurance and welfare schemes to keep workers in jobs. Use

that to help people keep working, as we have had with Art Phillips in

the critical industries. Keep industries going; that's as big a

struggle as starting new industries.

We have said that

there should be customized training programs in communities throughout

this province, and they should be part of regional economic development

strategies.

[ Page

257 ]

There should be, furthermore, specific venture capital developments.

The entrepreneurial skills of our citizens need to be sharpened in our

mixed economy, where there is cooperation between the public and the

private sector, not the belittlement of the public sector for the

private sector. Business development centres, venture finance

corporations such as VanCity, started by two of my colleagues here —

the hon. members for Vancouver–Point Grey and Vancouver East . . . . A

venture capital program, using the people of British Columbia's capital

. . . . Union pension funds have billions of dollars that could be used

to create jobs for small-and medium-sized businesses. We started that

with B.C. Savings and Trust, and that act was never proclaimed. There

was an opportunity a decade ago to use B.C. capital to help B.C.

business people and entrepreneurs to form new enterprises.

Look

at community development corporations. The hon. member for Vancouver

East set up a wonderful experiment in Burns Lake of community

cooperation between the community at large and our native people,

established a fine activity in Bums Lake, one that involved the

municipality. Community or worker co-ops. I've just returned from the

Kettle Valley, where they have some food processing co-ops that are

just starting to get off the ground and have filled a void in that

area. So, Madam Speaker, there are lots of very specific possibilities

for the very creative and energetic people of British Columbia in this

cooperative program that New Democrats would like to see happening.

[4:15]

Another example is municipal infrastructure, our city services. As

some of the hon. members here who helped develop the program for

municipal infrastructure upgrading and who come from a municipal

background know, there's at least a billion dollars of work to be done

to bring our municipalities up to scratch. There's no mention of that

in this budget. That could create 5,000 new jobs a year for the next

five years, Madam Speaker.

So for some of those members who

say, "What would you offer as an alternative?" we offer a great many

very practical alternatives for a clear, courageous vision of the kind

of prosperous and stable British Columbia we would like to see —

and the people of British Columbia would like to see once they get off

the leaky love boat and back onto the firm ground of a New Democratic

economic strategy for this province.

Some other elements that would be involved, Madam Speaker — and we will be

touching on this more as we get into the debates on estimates — are: restoration

of the integrity of the education system so that our young people have a future;

women having an equal role in our society and pay equity; proper child care;

programs specifically designed for women to gain entrepreneurial skills and

start their own enterprises; and improving labour-management relations and not

just talking about labour problems. It's a very clear difference of attitude

that New Democrats have with the government. We don't regard it as labour

problems; we regard it as a way of increasing labour-management cooperation

and bringing about a stable, more healthy economy. Finally, we think that as

people we have got to come to grips with the lack of will so far to settle outstanding

land claims with our native people, and the other issues that native people

have been crying our for to have settled. There has to be a political solution.

The courts are saying: "Please don't throw it back on us. Please don't

play ostrich. Correct this injustice so that we can bring stability to people

in British Columbia."

we say that there are alternatives. We are offering alternatives. And I

hope that that young person, whom I talked to, who hitchhikes up and

down the highway from Houston to Burns Lake, totally demoralized and

depressed, who lost his wife and two children and his own sense of

wellbeing, doesn't have to hitchhike up and down the highways of this

province to find some dignity and justice for himself and his family;

and that that young cab-driver, whom I met in Vernon, who has taken

three retraining courses to empty jobs, can use those God-given skills

to have a dignified way of life in this province. In conclusion, we New

Democrats say that there is a future for our great province. Let's get

on with it.

HON. L. HANSON : It is indeed a great

honour for me to rise in my place and address this House for the first

time, and to express my support for the innovative, honest and

straightforward provisions of the 1987 provincial budget. As this is my

first speech in this chamber, I would also like to take the opportunity

to congratulate both the Speaker and his deputies on their appointments

and wish them well that they may guide this august body through the

months and years ahead. I would be remiss if I did also not

congratulate the Premier, my fellow government members, as well as the

members on the opposite side, on their election as Members of the

Legislative Assembly of this most fair of Canada's provinces.

I'd

like to take a few minutes to introduce myself, my riding and my

ministry to the hon. members. Although I am relatively new to

provincial politics, I am not new to politics in general. Having served

in many different roles in civic and municipal government, I do not

have to elaborate on politicians to this assembly. Instead, I will

stated: "A politician is an animal who can sit on a fence and yet keep

both ears to the ground."

I would like to tell you a little

of my riding, the beautiful Okanagan North. It's also known as the top

of the Okanagan where, as everyone knows, we grow apples that are

larger than the Premier's tomatoes. Aside from the food industry, we

also have a strong forestry and agricultural sector. Between North

Okanagan and my sister riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke, we grow over 90

percent of British Columbia's asparagus. In addition, in the city of

Vernon we host the annual Vernon Winter Carnival. The success and

popularity of this event is a testament to the hospitality and

community spirit of the people in Okanagan North. That carnival is the

largest in the country next to Quebec's.

The budget

allocation of $15 million for a Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and

Culture marketing program will help our province expand on the

tremendous success of Expo 86. This marketing program will further

enhance the tourism industry in the Okanagan, and the Pacific Rim

Institute of Tourism will help ensure the long-term potential of our

province.

No winter visit to Okanagan North would be

complete without taking advantage of the recreational facilities and

natural year-round beauty of Silver Star mountain, one of the finest

family-oriented ski areas in this great province and therefore in

Canada. Over the past few years, Silver Star has blossomed and grown

from a regional ski area to a major destination resort, and has become

a preferred year-round training area for several of our country's

finest teams and

[ Page 258 ]

athletes.

However, lest the hon. members think that the people from Okanagan

North are softened by living in a year-round playground, they should be

warned that we are a very determined people. I ask you to remember such

people as Steve Fonyo and the members of the Canadian ski team, the

crazy Canucks Dave Irwin and Rob Boyd.

Vernon is also the

location of the Kalamalka campus of Okanagan College, arguably one of

the most beautiful locations of its kind, with a breathtaking view of

one of nature's most beautiful gifts to the Okanagan. I refer to

Kalamalka Lake, an Indian word meaning lake of many colours, which

transforms hues from deep royal blue to an iridescent aquamarine with

the passing of the day. This college campus serves the constituents of

North Okanagan with a wide selection of post-secondary educational

opportunities, including full-time university transfer courses and

numerous continuing education courses.

The increase of base

funding for advanced education will ensure that all British Columbians

continue to have access to effective and accessible programs that

enhance individual initiatives and potentials. This year the colleges,

institutes and universities will receive an additional $38 million to

base funding, a 5.8 percent increase. A further $27 million will help

fund new advanced education initiatives in areas such as teaching

techniques and the expanded use of technology to make advanced

education even more accessible, as we have new student assistance

programs being developed to further ensure that every individual has

access to higher education.

Hon. members, back to Okanagan

North. Heading south from Vernon along Highway 97 you come to Kalamalka

Lake lookout, which attracts thousands of tourists each year and is

reported to be one of the ten most photographed points in the world.

Continuing along Highway 97, you come to the orchards of Oyama and

Winfield, and in fact Winfield is the home of one of the most

modernized fruit-packing facilities built and operated by the Vernon

Fruit Union.

Madam Speaker, if you have the opportunity to

travel east from Vernon, you would encounter Lumby, where forestry and

agriculture form the base of the economy. Crown Forest, Riverside

Forest Products and Bell Pole all play an active role as prominent

corporate citizens in this community.

In this budget the

government is increasing silviculture expenditures by almost 28

percent, an actual $54 million increase. In fact, in the past five

years the annual expenditures on silviculture have increased from $88

million to $249 million annually, ensuring the continued viability of

our province's greatest renewable resource. Next year we will plant 200

million seedlings and fulfil the other silvicultural targets in the

five-year forest and range resource program to ensure that our forest

industry remains strong and viable and that we protect and enhance our

forest heritage for the future.

Further along Highway 6,

the Monashee highway, is Cherryville, which epitomizes the essence of

all that is good in small towns. Here the sense of community is strong

and the active Cherryville community association is the focus of many

community activities. At the present time the association, with much

appreciated assistance from the provincial Expo's legacy fund, is

pressing on with the construction of a new community hall to replace

their previous facility, which was destroyed by fire.

Continuing along the scenic Monashee, we encounter Edgewood, where a short

ferry ride transports you over the Arrow Lakes to Fauquier and Burton. These

communities all lie in close proximity to the Arrow Lakes and exemplify the

best of rural living in British Columbia.

Hon.

members, I could continue indefinitely to describe the many physical

and cultural characteristics that make Okanagan North one of the most

desirable places to live in British Columbia. I know all members

recognize that this budget will improve the quality of life in B.C. as

a province, and in the Okanagan as the jewel in Her Majesty's

provincial crown.

However, as the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services, Madam Speaker, I would like to give the hon. members

a brief overview of my ministry and how its constituent parts work

together to provide an important service to the people of British

Columbia.

I look at labour and consumer services as two

sides of the same coin. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has

identified in the budget the fact that potential investors and trade

partners characterize British Columbia as a troubled industrial

relations climate. Work stoppages reduce consumer spending. They

cripple the multiplier effect of our base industries' earnings and

force the extraction of tax dollars from other areas to ensure the

maintenance of our social programs.

These damaging work

stoppages cannot be allowed to continue. The labour side of my

portfolio seeks to ensure the integrity of the workplace, and the

consumer services side seeks to ensure the integrity of the

marketplace. When British Columbians are on the job, my ministry makes

certain minimum standards of employment are met, whether there is a

collective agreement in place or not. Workers in this province have a

right to a safe and healthy workplace and to certain minimum conditions

of employment.

One of the first actions I undertook as the

new Minister of Labour was to raise the minimum wage to $4 per hour.

But, Madam Speaker, my ministry also has a great responsibility to the

employers of this province. Therefore, my employment standards branch

is considering ways and means of helping small employers to understand

and comply with the act and regulations.

The budget expands

on this government's belief in the private sector and individual

initiative and that the best way to ensure new and lasting private

investment is through competitive tax structures that establish a high

level of business confidence in our province.

This

government will ensure that business investors know and adhere to the

rules of our workplace and that they are aware of our province as an

attractive, stable, safe work and investment environment.

the consumer services side of the coin, my ministry protects the rights

of consumer in the marketplace. As a former small businessman myself, I

know how easily a few unscrupulous operators can taint an entire

business sector. So let me reassure the hon. members that consumer

services will be an integral part of this ministry, not merely an

appended responsibility.

[4:30]

Owing to the reduction of the social services tax from 7 to 6

percent and the coming reduction to 5 percent, consumers in this

province will have more money to spend, businesses will sell more

products, producers will increase production, and the economic

machinery of this province will run a little smoother and therefore a

lot stronger. We are a people oriented and a service-oriented ministry.

We have a clear sense of purpose and direction: to serve British

Columbians

[ Page 259 ]

the workplace and in the marketplace by making sure everyone is playing

by the same set of fair and equitable rules. We recognize that rules

help make the workplace and marketplace a better place for British

Columbians to do business.

But we also realize that there

is a strangulation effect that deadens creativity and entrepreneurial

imagination when there are too many rules to play by. This budget has

assisted us by easing the bookkeeping burden on many small businesses

through such measures as the repeal of the restaurant tax, which was

often difficult to calculate and robbed the small businessman of

valuable time that could be spent generating more business.

Above

all, Madam Speaker, my ministry realizes that its main responsibility

to the people of British Columbia lies in stable, long-term labour

relations. We can play a vital role in getting our economy moving

again, and doing so to enhance the $10 million diversification

allocation that the Ministry of Economic Development will use to direct

and unleash the tremendous abilities and creativity of our business

research and academic sectors through the B.C. enterprise centre.

Hon.

members, once again it has become clear that even though most

collective agreements in this province are settled without work

stoppage, we cannot afford long and costly strikes that effectively

bring the economy of our province to its knees. For example, one of the

major economic sectors in my riding of Okanagan North is forestry, and

disruptions like last summer's forest industry strike are devastating

to innocent third parties, who need to be protected. Individuals and

small business alike suffer from these prolonged disputes, and I know

that neither the employees nor the employers really benefit from a work

stoppage.

This government, through this budget, hopes to

encourage employee investment in the employer's firm through an equity

participation program. The employee participation program will provide

a provisional tax credit for investment in the employer's firm. In the

long term this initiative will help illustrate the mutually dependent

relationship of employers and employees, and give both a vested

interest in the success of the firm. In the meantime we will make

changes, legislative and other, to ensure that British Columbia's

reputation as a place in which to invest is not further damaged.

Last

year Expo 86 focused the attention of the world on British Columbia,

and now that the eyes of the world are upon us we must show the world

that B.C. is a viable place for industry and investment. Let there be

no mistake: British Columbia's credibility is at stake here. My

ministry — indeed this government — is doing and will

continue to do everything in its power to assist B.C. industry in its

efforts to deliver a quality product on time and at a competitive

price, and that means finding new solutions to the old problems that

have hampered us throughout the years.

This government,

Madam Speaker, has made the fresh start we've all heard so much about.

The Premier promised the people of British Columbia an open, accessible

style of government, and that is exactly what this budget and the

Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services is giving them. When we wanted

to know what British Columbians thought about the labour relations

atmosphere, we went to them and asked; we asked them how our industrial

relations could be improved. As many of the hon. members know, we held

meetings in nine communities, from Dawson Creek to Courtenay. I

personally read over 700 submissions from citizens.

Those

citizens were concerned enough about the state of affairs in this

province to sit down and tell us what they thought could be done to

improve things. That, Madam Speaker, is government at the grassroots

level. In the next few weeks, we will present the recommendations

arising from the submissions, and we will put into action creative new

solutions that will bring about not only long-term labour peace but

will also help foster economic prosperity. Because of the overwhelming

response we received during the labour legislation tour, we are going

to continue the practice of asking British Columbians to take an active

role in the government of the province.

My ministry and the

Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations will be going to the people

to find out how British Columbians want us to deal with liquor policy.

A great deal has happened since the Liquor Control and Licensing Act

was last revised in 1970. The time has come to decide whether a new

direction in liquor policy is necessary and, if so, what direction we

should take. The House will also be pleased to note the increased role

in this process for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of

Labour and Consumer Services, the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Jansen), who will chair the panel as it travels across the province

visiting 11 communities.

We recognize that liquor policy,

like labour legislation, is a sensitive area. There are many

diametrically opposed interests, and we will work diligently to find

the common ground among these groups so that we can plan a provincial

liquor policy that is economically viable and socially acceptable. As

you can see, we are openly and honestly seeking answers to some of the

questions British Columbians have asked from time to time, and the

broad answer to those questions is economic renewal. This budget and

the minister responsible should be acknowledged for innovative measures

conceived to ensure that the people of this province have access to

necessary social programs, while keeping in mind that we must collect

revenues to pay for those programs.

We cannot continue to

mortgage future generations with a legacy of debt while we live beyond

our means. My ministry, like others in this government, is moving

towards a framework of economic renewal in its areas of

responsibilities. If we in this House, both as members of the

government and the loyal opposition, all work towards this goal of

economic renewal, I have no doubt in my mind that there will be an

increased prosperity for all British Columbians.

However,

hon. members, I want to remind you that a wise old man, probably a

retired politician, once described prosperity as "an economic condition

the businessman creates and the politicians take credit for." We must

keep in mind that meaningful, long-term jobs can be created only

through private sector initiative and investment. Through the coming

session, I will strive to ensure that my ministry, in accordance with

the aims of the throne speech, strives to improve labour relations and

ensure an equitable balance in the marketplace in this great province

of British Columbia.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : The Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver East. [Applause.]

MR. CLARK : Hey, there's more applause for me than your minister. It sounded like a throne speech there. Is this the budget speech?

I'm going to be very brief, like all of my colleagues on this side of the House, and to the point. I think there are, of

[ Page 260 ]

course, two questions on any budget, and the questions are: how are you going to raise money — where does the income come from?; and how are you going to spend money —

the expenditures? I am going to be, I think, very brief on

expenditures, and I want to deal a little bit at some length on the

question of revenue, where the revenue comes from, especially since all

of the back-benchers over there keep asking the NDP: "Where are you

going to get the money?" Well, I'll try and answer that question for

you a little bit.

AN HON. MEMBER : Good stuff.

MR. CLARK : I thought that was the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid). He's not here.

With

respect to expenditures, just very briefly, the most glaring omission

obviously is the question of jobs. With 15 percent unemployment in this

province you'd think there'd be some recognition that there needs to be

some moving on the question of job creation. I think that, probably,

with the exception of Margaret Thatcher's government, virtually every

government in the western world recognizes that it is the role of

government to provide leadership and in a sense to provide jobs for the

citizens. This province, with its record, needs that kind of leadership

more than ever, and it was sadly lacking in the budget speech.

Obviously,

one area where we could have moved and didn't move was on the question

of reforestation, and we saw the silly statements today by the Minister

of Finance, who thinks he's the Minister of Forests, on the question of

reforestation, and the kinds of comments like we can't spend the money.

I just want to remind the House that Prof. Walters from UBC, who has

just retired and I think is one of the leaders on the question of

forestry in this province, and Prof. Reed, current chair of the forest

policy institute at UBC, have indicated several hundred million dollars

needs to be spent on reforestation. There's nothing on that, even

though this government campaigned clearly during the election for more

money for reforestation.

There was nothing also, of course,

on the question of municipal infrastructure — and I see the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) here. I hope that there's going

to be more meat on it later. From my point of view, and I think the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis) would agree, that

the Cassiar connector has to be built, and we've been waiting and

waiting. I don't think that's in the budget, given the kind of cuts

that we've seen, but I'll certainly be raising it again, and I hope

it's put forward.

And of course, there are no specific

programs for women, and we know that 67 percent of minimum wage-earners

in this province are women and that unemployment affects them probably

more than others. There are no specific programs on pay equity.

Virtually every province in Canada is moving towards pay equity;

Ontario and Manitoba are leaders on it. There was not even a mention of

the principle that women who do work of equal value get paid

appropriately. Nothing like that is in this budget.

There are no specific programs for youth unemployment — again, a glaring weakness in the budget, given that a quarter of our young people in this province are unemployed.

think I won't mention too much on education and social services; I

think the kind of inadequate funding that we've seen has been very

eloquently put by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore)

and also the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones). There're really not

the kinds of increases that need to be in place if we want to see

better quality or maintenance of the service that we should have in

this province.

I want to deal with the question, really, of

revenue. How are they going to raise the money? Who pays the taxes in

this province and in this country? Where will the money come from for

any new programs that I have talked about and where I think there

should have been more money spent? The government purports in their

budget to bring a greater measure of fairness to the taxation system.

Fairness to the taxation system — that's what I want to talk about today.

Working people, I submit — average British Colombians —

don't mind paying taxes, or their share of taxes. Of course no one

likes to pay taxes, but they don't mind paying their fair share of

taxes so long as everybody else pays their fair share as well. But

everyone's not paying their fair share, in my view, in British

Columbia. Some, in fact, pay nothing at all, not a penny. The budget

makes, I think, the system even more unfair. I did some checking, and I

see the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) there, who asked me

where I got some of these statistics: Taxation Statistics, 1986

edition, a Revenue Canada publication. I just looked at it — the latest one just came out in February —

and it shows exactly how many British Colombians in 1984 who made more

than $40,000 in income paid no taxes, not a penny of taxes.

MR. MILLER : No taxes! None at all?

MR. CLARK : No. I've got some support here from the member for Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes.

1984, 1,308 British Columbians who made more than $40,000 in income

paid not a penny in taxes. In 1983 the number was 1,762 wealthy British

Colombians who paid no taxes. Is that fairness, Madam Speaker, that

1,300 people pay no taxes? Seniors in British Columbia are being asked

to pay a $5 dispensing fee for drugs, while over 1,000 British

Columbians pay not a penny in taxes. Is that fairness? People are being

asked to pay $5 for physiotherapy, chiropractic and other services that

used to be provided for free, while over 1,000 British Colombians pay

no taxes. Medical Services premiums have gone up by 10 percent, a

minimum property tax of $100 levied on seniors in this province —

all those kinds of chippy things, I think, while we have over 1,000

wealthy British Columbians who have not paid a penny in taxes.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker, everyone should pay their fair share of taxes in this

province. There should be no special privileges for the wealthy. What

does the budget say about this question? What the budget says is

they're going to remove the surtax of 10 percent on upper-income

earners. That's been removed. Even that modest tax — as I think it can be demonstrated — and people escaped paying that taxation. That's been removed.

The budget actually brags about lowering the tax rate on the rich in this province. I just want to read that section. It says:

"A more significant indicator of the economic

incentive effect of income tax is the marginal tax rate. This is the

amount of income tax collected on the last dollar of income earned by a

taxpayer. The marginal rate of income tax paid by those in the top

income bracket in British Columbia is currently third lowest among

Canadian provinces. The proposed restructuring will simplify the

provincial income tax and will

[ Page 261 ]

decrease the maximum marginal tax rate, making it the second

lowest in Canada."

this government brags while it's putting little taxes that mean a lot

to lower-income people. They're putting those kinds of taxes,

generating very little revenue, at the same time that they're reducing

the tax on the wealthy in this province. I really think that's

shameful, and it's not fair. The budget purports to be fair and it

simply isn't.

I want to turn now to the corporate income tax system. The tax burden — I talked about this earlier in this House, but I can't emphasize it enough —

has shifted dramatically over the years in this province. In 1950

income taxes paid by corporations were exactly equal to income taxes

paid by individuals — fifty-fifty. Now individuals pay 700 percent

more, seven times what corporations pay in this province. Last year

over $2 billion was paid by individuals and only $300 million was paid

by corporations in this province. What's happening in this budget? Is

there any attempt to address this very real shifting of the tax burden

onto ordinary people? The government brags about $600 million in tax

relief to corporations, part of which is a further reduction in the

corporate tax rate to 14 percent. Every dollar in tax cuts to

businesses means that they have to be made up by increased taxes

elsewhere. That's what's happening: tax cuts to business, a reduction

of the tax for wealthy individuals and an increase in the tax burden of

ordinary British Columbians; and even worse, on the poorest, the senior

citizens of this province. Average people have to pay more because

corporations in this province are paying less.

The

proliferation of corporate tax breaks in Canada means that many highly

profitable corporations fail to pay a single penny in taxes, much like

wealthy individuals. National figures from Statistics Canada show that

in 1983 a total of 79,196 profitable companies with total profits of

$13.3 billion paid no tax, not a penny in income tax to the federal or

provincial governments. Among these, 64 corporations with profits of

more than $25 million each, paid no tax — again not a penny.

Let's take just two B.C. examples from the Financial Post .

In 1984 Daon Development Corp. made profits of $50 million. Did they

pay any taxes? They claimed a tax credit of $21.1 million. In 1983

Genstar Co. made profits of $103 million and in 1984 had profits of

$131.7 million, while claiming tax credits of $3 million and $18.3

million respectively. Statistics Canada figures indicate that B.C.

companies — you break it out by province — likely earn annually more than $1 billion in profit