1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5797 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Health fees not noted in budget. Mr. Perry –– 5798

Island Highway completion date. Ms. Pullinger –– 5798

Task force on oil spills. Mr. Harcourt –– 5798

Sale of Expo land. Mr. Williams –– 5798

Capping of assessments in Vancouver. Mr. Mowat –– 5800

Presenting Reports –– 5800

Tabling Documents –– 5802

Budget Debate

Mr. Peterson –– 5802

Mr. Lovick –– 5806

Mrs. McCarthy –– 5810

Mr. D'Arcy –– 5813

Mr. De Jong –– 5817

Ms. Marzari –– 5818

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5821

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

DEPUTY CLERK :

April 3, 1989

Mr. Ian M. Horne, QC,

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

Dear Sir:

Re: By-election, Nanaimo Electoral District, March 15, 1989

I am pleased to enclose herewith a copy of a letter from

Mr. Harry M. Goldberg, chief electoral officer, certifying the election of Ms.

Janis M. Pullinger as member to represent the Nanaimo electoral district in

the Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely,

Melvin H. Smith, QC,

April 3, 1989

Mr. Ian M. Horne, QC,

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

Dear Sir:

Re: By-election, Vancouver-Point Grey Electoral District,

March 15, 1989

1 am pleased to enclose herewith a copy of a letter from

Mr. Harry M. Goldberg, chief electoral officer, certifying the election of Mr.

Thomas L. Perry as the member to represent the Vancouver-Point Grey electoral

district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely,

Melvin H. Smith, QC

April 3, 1989

Mr. Melvin M. Smith, QC,

Dear Sir:

Re: By-elections, March 15, 1989 Nanaimo and Vancouver-Point

Grey Electoral Districts

The October 13, 1988 resignation of David D. Stupich, the

first member for the Nanaimo electoral district, and the October 27, 1988 resignation

of Kim Campbell, the first member for the Vancouver-Point Grey electoral district,

created vacancies in the membership of the Legislative Assembly.

Writs of election were issued on February 15, 1989 requiring

that by-elections be held to fill the vacancies. Accordingly, March 15, 1989

was designated as election day. The completed writs of election have been returned

to me, and I certify the election of Jan Pullinger and Tom Perry as the second

members to represent respectively the Nanaimo and Vancouver-Point Grey electoral

districts in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly,

Harry M. Goldberg,

Chief Electoral Officer

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Provincial Secretary, I move that the

letters of the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificates of the

chief electoral officer of the result of the election of members be

entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Tom Perry, the second

member for the electoral district of Vancouver-Point Grey, who has

taken the oath and signed the parliamentary roll and now claims his

right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER : Let the hon. member take his seat.

MR. HARCOURT :

I have the honour to present to you Jan Pullinger, second member for

the electoral district of Nanaimo, who has taken the oath and signed

the parliamentary roll and now claims her right to take her seat.

MR. SPEAKER : Let the hon. member take her seat.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

In the members’ gallery today is Mr. John Lyotier, a friend and

alderman from the community of Houston. I would like the House to make

him welcome, please.

HON. MR. DUECK : I would like

the House to welcome four members from my constituency: Mr. Gordon

Gardner, Mr. Peter Funk, Mr. Enns and Mr. Lyall Wicks. They are

somewhere in the precincts this afternoon.

MR. PELTON :

On behalf of our Speaker I would like to introduce three gentlemen in

the gallery and ask you to make them welcome today: Mr. Michael Horsey,

president and chief executive officer of B.C. Pavilion Corporation; Don

Shwery, a scout for the Los Angeles Dodgers who lives in West

Vancouver; and Mr. Raymond Kao, a noted photographer who lives in

Vancouver. Would you welcome them here, please.

MRS. GRAN : Seated in the House today are the four interns assigned to the Social Credit caucus.

[ Page 5798 ]

They are Maria D'Archangelo, Freda Jung, Barry Penner and Elaine Woodrow. Would the House please make them welcome.

[2:15]

MR. De JONG :

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Peter

Vellenga. Peter is here on a one-year assignment with the Christian

Reformed Church in Abbotsford as a seminarian and will complete his

studies following this one year. I'm pleased to have him with us today,

and I ask the House to give him a pleasant welcome.

MS. PULLINGER :

It gives me great pleasure to introduce some family and friends who are

here today: my mother, Di Pullinger, and Ted and Marcelle Jones,

Jacquie Coates, Susan Vanderberg — who is a friend and also the first

member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Lovick'

s) constituency assistant — Maggie

Warren and Allan and Marguerite MacDonald. I would like the House to

welcome them.

MR. PERRY : I wish to announce the

presence in the gallery of my wife, Beth, my parents, Dr. Thomas Perry

and Mrs. Claire Perry, and Dr. Elinor Powell, who is the international

councillor for Canada to International Physicians for the Prevention of

Nuclear War. May the House please welcome them.

MS. PULLINGER : I neglected one very important introduction, Susan Vanlerberg's son, David Vanlerberg. Will the House please welcome David.

MR. SIHOTA :

In the precincts today are a number of students from Esquimalt

Secondary School, which I've always described as the best in the

universe. Today there are 20 grade 8 and grade 9 students....

MR. BRUCE : Name names.

MR. SIHOTA :

If the member for Cowichan-Malahat doesn't mind, I will name names.

Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Jim Wallace. Would all members

please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

HEALTH FEES NOT NOTED IN BUDGET

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister please inform

this House why the recently announced increase in the Pharmacare

deductible fees, the daily fees for patients in extendedcare facilities

and the ambulance user fees were not included in last week's provincial

budget?

HON. MR. DUECK : I cannot answer why they

were not included in the budget speech. That is something that should

be asked of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier).

MR. PERRY :

A supplemental question. Can the minister assure this House that there

will be no more hidden increases in medical user fees that are not

included in the budget?

HON. MR. DUECK : I think that's an insult. We have no hidden fees; they are always upfront.

ISLAND HIGHWAY COMPLETION DATE

MS. PULLINGER :

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In the

provincial budget just tabled it was announced that "highways

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

1988-89 level." The Vancouver Island Highway project's scheduled

completion date is 1996. It's too far away, as those of us who live on

the Island and drive that highway know. The question to the minister

is: can he assure this House that he will take steps to accelerate

completion to 1994?

HON. MR. VANT : Certainly the

Island Highway is a priority. When you mention the finishing date, we

certainly have in mind the Commonwealth Games. Although the capital

funding for this current fiscal year appears to be modest, I can assure

you that with the beginning of the project.... The amount of funding

will accelerate shortly thereafter because of the magnitude of the

project.

TASK FORCE ON OIL SPILLS

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question for the Minister of Environment about the Canada-U.S.

committee on oil spills. We understand that the committee meetings will

be open to the public in Washington State but closed to the public in

British Columbia. Can the minister give a commitment and agree today

that when the committee meets in British Columbia those meetings will

be open to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, it is a complex question. I do appreciate the member's

sincerity. I will take that question on notice and return with an

appropriate answer as soon as possible.

MR. HARCOURT :

A new question. Mr. Speaker, will the minister also consider that there

be freedom of information; that the information available to the

citizens of Washington State will also be made available to the

citizens of British Columbia so they can participate as fully in those

meetings?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : To the question of whether I will consider it, the answer is yes.

SALE OF EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Government Services regarding the

Expo lands: would you confirm that since the down payment last year of

$50 million on these lands, no further payments are needed, or due,

until 1995, and that any amount of the land could be sold during those

inter-

[ Page 5799 ]

vening years — i.e., up to 1995 — without getting any more funds from Concord Pacific?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It is of a technical

nature; I will check with my staff on the details and report back to

the House.

MR. WILLIAMS : How technical can you get? When is the money due for public lands in British Columbia?

the Premier, Mr. Speaker: it seems clear that the deal was not a good

one and that your initial suspicions were indeed correct. There was a

pattern of leaks from the former Minister of Economic Development, a

process that she set in place which essentially meant a locked-in

conclusion of the sale to Concord Pacific and Li Ka-shing. Would you

agree that the process was unsatisfactory?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, in assessing the sale of the Expo lands we must also

consider the appreciation that I am sure will be expressed by all

British Columbians when $2 billion worth of work comes into effect in

the construction of a very fine development on those lands. For those

who were familiar with what the land looked like before Expo and for

those who have some imagination for what in fact will take place

following the commencement of construction.... And we have already seen

some fine plans for the land. Further work is progressing with Concord,

and negotiations are taking place with the city. I think that a good

time to assess all of that will be when those jobs are available; and

there will be 28,000 man-years, all told.

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Premier. The same member for Little Mountain said that the price

the Crown obtained for those lands would meet the debt that we had on

the Expo site: $60 million original purchase; $60 million in

infrastructure; and $245 million on the Expo lands in the form of

buildings and services. We know that in today's value, the number we're

talking about is not $365 million but something like $135 million — in

today's dollars. Would you agree, Mr. Premier, that the member for

Little Mountain made a wildly extravagant claim when she announced the

deal with Li Ka-shing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, I want to emphasize again to the member that the value for the

sale of the Expo lands, I think, should best be assessed in the

development that takes place on the lands. And it will be something

that we can all be very proud of.

MR. WILLIAMS : Would the Premier agree that maybe the minister was just fibbing a little?

There is a $230 million difference, Mr. Premier, and that does not include the cost of toxic land cleanup.

Mr.

Premier, were you or your staff advised and provided with the contract

with Concord Pacific prior to that meeting at the Expo site where the

joint announcement was made by yourself and the minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As cabinet we did review the contract and were given details of the contents.

MR. WILLIAMS :

So the cabinet was in fact given the details. Was the cabinet fully

aware of where the liability would lie with respect to the toxic land

and toxic land cleanups? I note that on May 12 in the Vancouver Sun

you said that you personally were unfamiliar with many of the details

of the sale worked out by Mrs. McCarthy. Was that not in fact the case?

Were you aware of all the details?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't suppose it's fair to say that every detail was known to each

and every individual. These were documents and negotiations for which

we charge the Enterprise Corporation to negotiate the necessary

arrangements. They had proper counsel in that respect. While I can't

say that every detail would be known to every individual without being

a lawyer and having all the books there, certainly we were informed as

to the contents of the documentation.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Further to the Premier. On May 12, after that announcement in 1988,

BCEC vice-president Rod Cameron said: "There is an understanding in the

province's sales agreement that the Environment ministry will pick up a

part of the costs in terms of toxic land cleanup." Was that the

Premier's understanding at that time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

My understanding was that we were selling a product which was

predictable in the sense that we assumed certain responsibilities with

respect to the land. I think it's fair to anyone bidding on such land

that you tell them either the extent of pollution or problems with

respect to soil quality. If you're unable to give that, you must make a

commitment to provide the lands in a particular state in order for all

people to have an equal opportunity to bid, and that was the process.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The Premier is then confirming that the senior civil servant in a major

Crown corporation was misleading the public with his statement of May

12 that these were going to be shared costs?

To the

Minister of Environment. In June '88 the minister said there would be a

joint action plan — I emphasize "joint action plan" — involving both

the developer and the Crown to make the property safe. Why did you

suggest this was a joint responsibility at that stage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I didn't suggest that. I think your question, Mr. Member, was that it would be a joint action plan.

[2:30]

[ Page 5800 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

Then the Minister of Environment is saying that a joint plan means

we're the suckers, we pay the bills, and they're just along for the

ride. Is that the deal that was made with Li Ka-shing: that we're

paying all the bills, we'll call it a joint action plan, but they will

pay absolutely nothing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Well, I

wouldn't characterize it in that language. There was a joint action

plan, but the government of British Columbia took responsibility for

any cleanup of contaminated soil. That's public knowledge. There is no

secret there.

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Minister of

Environment. Is there a due date for resolving this, after which there

will be penalties for the Crown even beyond the cost of toxic cleanup,

which may be in the tens — nay, maybe hundreds — of millions of dollars?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I don't know what type of due date you are talking about. My

responsibility as Minister of Environment is that of a regulator, to

ensure that certain standards are met. You'll have to ask another

minister about a due date either real or imagined. I would suspect that

it is imagined.

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Premier. In

January when you finally started looking at the fine print of this

contract and reflected on the liabilities to the Crown and to the

people of British Columbia, you wanted the contract opened up. You

reconsidered afterwards. My question to you, Mr. Premier, is this. You

promised that that contract would be made public within days. We still

have not seen that contract. Will it be tabled with the House?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The contract will be made available to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : When?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Soon.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I think it's time to come clean with the public on these lands and to

deposit the contract forthwith. Maybe then, Mr. Premier, we will find

out exactly what that member from Little Mountain indeed did with

public moneys.

CAPPING OF ASSESSMENTS IN VANCOUVER

MR. MOWAT :

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am in receipt of

a letter from the mayor of the city of Vancouver regarding amendments

to the Vancouver Charter due to the assessment bylaws and the capping

of the assessment. I wonder if the minister could bring the House up to

date on where it stands.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, we

have received a request from the mayor of the city of Vancouver to

bring forward legislation which would allow them to, in effect, cap the

assessments and taxation for this year. The request, after

consideration by my office, was acknowledged in a conversation that I

recently had with the mayor, and it was suggested that we did not feel

it would be appropriate to recommend that type of action to my

colleagues. Instead, we did bring forward a suggestion that, inasmuch

as the problem appeared to be in pockets of the city, I would consider

taking to my colleagues in cabinet....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I did suggest to the mayor that I was prepared to take forward to my

colleagues a recommendation that we make provision for taxation on a

district-by-district basis, for this year only, to address those

specific problems. I understand the problems are prevalent in the city

of Vancouver, North Vancouver and West Vancouver as well. So whatever

we do for the city of Vancouver must be made available to the other

communities that may have similar concerns. I am waiting to hear back

from the mayor of Vancouver.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I

rise on a point of order. Standing order 47A(

e) advises us that points

of order that were to be raised in question period should be deferred

until after question period, so I'm doing that now.

During

question period the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

attributed to an hon. member of this House the behaviour of "fibbing a

bit," which I find offensive, and I would ask you, sir, if you could

have the member withdraw that remark.

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm certainly willing to withdraw if it offends the hon. members.

Presenting Reports

MR. BRUCE :

I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing

Committee on Forests and Lands respecting the matter of timber

harvesting contracts in British Columbia, and I move it be read and

received.

Motion approved.

MR. BRUCE : I ask leave to move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE : I move that the report be adopted.

gives me great pleasure to present this report to the House. This

standing committee toured the province. We had representations made by

61 different individuals throughout the province, 196 written

submissions and 19 meetings — eight of them hearings.

It's

my pleasure to report that this committee has come through with a

unanimous recommendation, and it's interesting to note that the

committee worked in fair harmony. If one looks at the makeup of the

committee, I think that's a real feat in itself.

[ Page 5801 ]

this point in time, I'd also like to make mention of the fact that the

late Rich Campbell was the consultant on this report and again has

assisted the province in forestry matters. Certainly his assistance has

been very valuable indeed.

Not to overstate the concerns,

but also not to understate them, this committee believes that the

negotiating power of most licensees far outweighs that of the

contractors. As a result of the discussions we had throughout the

province, we have come through with the recommendation that although

there should not be a standard form of contract prescribed by

government, there should be a written contract between all contractors

and licensees. As the matter stands at the moment, some of them have

written contracts and some have only oral arrangements, and we believe

all of them should be written.

Also of great concern is the

fact that in the negotiating of the contracts, particularly in the

second phase of them, it is deemed by the committee and certainly by

many of those of the contracting world that the playing field is

somewhat unlevel. We have decided as a committee to recommend that an

arbitration process should be included in the written contract.

did not prescribe the form of arbitration but left it to the two

parties to decide what type of arbitration they should implement

themselves. However, failing their ability to come to an understanding

of the arbitration process, it's the committee's recommendation that

the Commercial Arbitration Act should then take place.

Also

regarding implementation, although we looked at several variables of

how it could be implemented, it's important from our standpoint that it

be done quickly and fairly across the board. To effect this, the

recommendation is that the Forest Act should be amended to include

these changes, which would then allow for it to happen right across the

board.

It's also important to note that in the

recommendations of the committee, we apply this not only to simply the

major contractor and the licensee but to the significant subcontractors

of contractors. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander

as well,

As I mentioned, the report is unanimous by the

committee. I'd like to congratulate the committee for a very civil and

worthwhile exercise. I think the submissions that we had around the

province were excellent. We had a number of private meetings, and I

believe we were able to get the full story and the full expression by

the people of British Columbia relative to these matters.

MR. KEMPF :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and speak in favour of

this report. I believe it's a historic document in this House, and I'm

sorry to see that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) is not in

his place today, because....

AN HON. MEMBER : He's out working.

MR. KEMPF :

I hope he's doing a lot more work on behalf of the small logger in this

province than he has done in the last two years, Mr. Member.

Mr.

Speaker, this report was drafted and accepted unanimously by an

all-party committee of this House, finally giving recognition of the

plight of the ordinary British Columbian — in my estimation enslaved in

their own resource industry for a number of years, a resource industry

which for far too long has been in the stranglehold of primarily giant,

integrated, multinational, off shore and out-of-province corporations.

Let

me say that had there been fairness, had there been opportunity, had

there been access to the resource by entrepreneurs, by real British

Columbians in the forest industry, there would have been no need for

this report. There would have been no need for the work of the

committee or for the heavy hand of government to once more descend in

the form of yet more legislation and regulation. But there is no

fairness. There is no opportunity. There is no access to our own

resource. There is no free enterprise in the forest industry of British

Columbia today. Therefore some measure of fairness must be forced upon

those in control. To a small but very positive degree the report does

that, and I commend all members of the committee for that. It's not the

entire answer, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

What

remains to be seen now is whether or not the government will accept the

committee's report and the recommendations therein and allow this House

to pass them into law. Had we done that very thing with recommendations

in consecutive royal commission reports, our forest industry wouldn't

be in the mess it is today. It also remains to be seen whether or not,

given the concise, positive, rational nature of this report and its

recommendations, the Premier is now prepared to give a select standing

committee of this Legislature some real clout, some real

responsibility, and to empower the next Standing Committee on Forests

and Lands — soon to be named, hopefully — to do a full investigation

into all aspects of the forest industry in British Columbia today, with

full power of subpoena.

[2:45]

That's the question: why not enlighten a number of politicians on

both sides of this House as to what is really going on in our primary

resource in order that they may make a positive, fair recommendation —

or number of recommendations — as to what, after those investigations,

they feel should be done.

Again I commend the committee for

its work, and particularly its chairman, the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). It wasn't an easy job. Although at times

he used somewhat jackboot tactics toward the member for Omineca, 1

nevertheless think he did an admirable job and I commend him for it.

MR. MILLER : I'll try not to take too much time and to make too impassioned a speech. I want to make a number of points.

First of all, it was the first time in, I understand, something like 20 years — at least since the early

[ Page 5802 ]

seventies

— that the Forests and Lands standing committee had traveled around the

province. I can certainly confirm — other members probably will too —

that there was a great deal of response throughout British Columbia,

and we held our hearings right across this province. People were very

glad to see a committee of MLAs out examining an issue. That's surely a

message for the government in terms of maintaining a committee

structure that actually means something, that is given useful work to

do.

I disagree with the member for Omineca in terms of a

full inquiry undertaken by a standing committee of the House. Clearly

that should be the purview of a royal commission, something that's

badly needed in this province.

Unfortunately the former

member for Vancouver-Point Grey, who was a member of the committee, is

not here today to see the fruits of her labour, but she did participate

quite well in the committee. I think a vote of thanks is owed her for

that.

It was pointed out that the report is unanimous. I

think that's important in terms of committee work: given the variety of

political opinions on the committee, that they arrived at a unanimous

report. I note that some members on the committee are now in cabinet,

which would lead me to conclude that there should be no delay at all in

terms of some kind of swift action to implement the recommendations.

Finally,

just confirming what has already been touched on, this is really not a

recommendation that brings the heavy hand of the state down between

parties. As the granter of the initial licence, whatever that licence

might be — tree farm licence, forest licence, etc. — we're simply

saying that we have conferred that right on a single party and that

that party in turn has to have, in terms of its relationships with its

contractors, a standard form contract, and parties have to have the

right to arbitrate disputes. It provides some fairness, Mr. Speaker. I

look forward to speedy implementation on the part of the government of

this report.

MR. BRUCE : I too would like to urge the

government to accept these recommendations and to move as swiftly as

possible to see implementation. I think it's necessary for the

credibility of both the committee and the government as a whole to

follow through with what has been put to the government by this

particular committee.

I'd like to thank the Clerk of

Committees and his staff for an excellent and very proficient job. We

saw much of the province without any delay because of the very fine

work of our Clerk and his committee. With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude

the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Michael

tabled the twentieth annual report of the business done in pursuance of

the Pension (College) Act for the year ending August 31, 1988.

Hon.

Mr. Ree tabled the seventeenth annual report of the Criminal Injury

Compensation Act of British Columbia to December 31, 1988; the annual

report of the Justice Institute of British Columbia for the year

1987-88; and the forty-eighth annual report of the Motor Carrier

Commission covering the licence year ending February 29, 1988.

Hon.

L. Hanson tabled the sixty-seventh annual report and financial

statements of the liquor distribution branch for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. PETERSON :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with a great degree of pride not only in

this government but in all British Columbians, because I think

Thursday, March 30, 1989, was a turning point in British Columbia's

history. It was brought about partly by this government; it was also

brought about by previous Social Credit governments. Most importantly,

it was brought about by British Columbians who in the past, during the

restraint years, had the ability — knew what it was and took the action

— to bite the bullet when it was required. It was short-term pain for

what has resulted in long-term gain. This has been proven out by the

excellent, balanced budget produced by our Minister of Finance last

Thursday.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of

Finance. I would like to congratulate our Premier for providing

leadership. And I would also like to congratulate our committee of

Social Credit backbenchers, who worked very hard going through all the

budget proposals and coming forth with that great document presented by

the Minister of Finance last Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, there

were some statements made by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Clark), who I know.... It's the first chance he's had to reply to a

great budget. As one of my good colleagues said, to tear that budget

apart they really had to grasp at straws — and he wanted to buy them

some straws, but I guess the Clerks wouldn't let that happen. However,

when I listened to the member's speech and reread in the Blues some of

the things he said, I have to ask the question: what document was he

talking about? What was he speaking about? Did he read the budget? I

can't believe he did. He must have been taking lessons from the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

Let me get down

to some brass tacks. He said: "It is clear that it is not a balanced

budget." He likes that word "clear." He really likes to play on that

one. But let's look at the facts. The facts are: it is actually the

province's first balanced budget in a decade. It is really simple

arithmetic; he should probably be able to understand it. When you take

the general fund revenues, which are estimated at $13.487 billion, and

the general fund expenditures, which are estimated at $13.487 billion,

and they are exactly the same, obviously it's a balanced budget. It's

simple arithmetic. My ten-year-old son understands that, and he is no

mathematician.

[ Page 5803 ]

I will refer to an

article In the April 3 edition of Maclean's .

Even our good friend Peter C. Newman says: "Couvelier has actually done

better than balance his accounts; by year's end he expects to have

stashed away a $1 billion surplus in something called the budget

stabilization fund." Even Mr. Newman agrees that it's a balanced

budget. I may not agree with the rest of his article, but I certainly

agree with that.

I would like to repudiate a few more statements made by the second member.

MR. BRUCE : They're listening to you too.

MR. PETERSON : They are listening. I must be touching a raw nerve there somewhere.

says it's a government that practices "yo-yo economics." Our government

has taken a province that was running yearly deficits and changed it

into a situation whereby we are now managing to eliminate the yearly

deficit and beginning to pay off the debt. If you want to talk in terms

of yo-yos, I can stoop to that level. At least our yo-yos bounce back

from a deficit to a balanced budget,

whereas the NDP's yo-yos would

just sink further and further into debt.

In the area of

environmental protection the second member for Vancouver East says the

Social Credit government's record has been bad. He says the $200

million amounts to "smoke and mirrors." What the NDP overlooks is the

fact that we all have a role to play in environmental conservation and

protection.

AN HON. MEMBER : A non-partisan role.

MR. PETERSON :

Correct. For that reason, budgets for environmental programs in various

ministries have increased. This is in accordance with our mandate for

the integrated resource management plan that we have talked about.

Our

government has increased the budget for the Ministry of Environment by

some 90 percent. How can you argue with that? The figures are there.

Typical smoke-and-mirror arguments coming from that side of the House.

would also like to talk a little about the arithmetic of the second

member for Vancouver East. Again, I'm positive he read the wrong budget

document, because it's there in black and white. I can find it quite

easily and I'm no accountant. He talked about the Ministry of Health

and the failure of this budget to address the increases required in

that ministry. He said the increases don't even meet inflation. Let's

look at some facts again, not the smoke and mirrors and all the

razzle-dazzle you people like to talk about.

For the

fiscal year 1989-90 the total spending of the Ministry of Health has

increased by some 9.9 percent. During 1989 inflation in British

Columbia is forecast to reach 4.2 percent. What you do is subtract 4.2

from 9.9. That's the real amount; that is the increase to the budget

for Health that our Minister of Finance has provided. The 4.2 percent

came from the department of economic research at the Toronto Dominion

Bank in February 1989, so it's relatively new. Its simple arithmetic.

Again, I don't know what budget documents he was referring to.

would like to bring up one other point he talked about. I almost think

he is quoting the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch).

Listen to this. This is a statement made by the second member for

Vancouver East: "All regions must share in British Columbia's

prosperity. This is not only ethical but essential to smooth economic

development." Well, of course. Who would argue with a statement like

that? Why can't he come up with his own statement? I wish he would quit

taking statements from the Premier and the Minister of Regional

Development. Come up with something original. Our government agrees

that all regions in this province must share in our prosperity.

[3:00]

Let me show you a few of the initiatives. The Ministry of Regional

Development received some $3.9 million in new funding for the expansion

of community-based initiatives. Additional funding was also provided

for the regional seed capital programs.

I don't want to

spend all my time being negative against the second member for

Vancouver East, but I have a word of advice for the hon. member: read

the budget before you try to criticize it, because it is obvious that

you didn't. Okay?

MRS. GRAN : He's a nice guy, though.

MR. PETERSON :

Yes, he is really a nice guy, but a little young; he'll mature in time.

After he spends some 20 years in opposition like the previous member,

he'll be better at it.

I'd like to talk about some of the

good things that I saw on the global basis, in terms of British

Columbia and the budget. I'd like to talk a little bit about my

colleague the first member for Langley's (Mrs. Gran'

s) and my

constituency.

On the global basis, the Ministry of Health

is very important. That budget was increased by some $388 million for a

total budget of $4.3 billion. That is well identified, and I think that

number hits home. That's an increase of more than a million dollars a

day for that ministry.

There are some good ideas in there

that should be highlighted. I think the hospital innovative incentive

program is an important new-initiative which provides $4 million in

seed funding to encourage hospitals to make investments that will

reduce operating costs. Any way that we can reduce operating costs and

provide the same level of health care that we do in this province

should be identified and proceeded with right away. I totally agree

with that concept.

The three-year $137 million alcohol and

drug program is designed to reduce health and other social costs

created by substance abuse through prevention, education, treatment and

research. I totally support that initiative. Many times I have wondered

— particularly when some of our youth get tangled up in drug problems —

about the waste of the greatest resource we have in this province,

which is our human resource. So I give full marks to this ministry and

[ Page 5804 ]

the

Minister of Finance for providing those funds. I think the ministry's

initiatives will definitely be the envy of all governments across

Canada.

I talked about the remarks of the second member for

Vancouver East regarding the environment, and I'd just like to talk

about the environment in a positive tone. I think our government

demonstrated in the proactive budget that it is giving the environment

top priority with new measures designed to preserve the quality of air,

water and land. Environment programs received nearly $200 million — a

90 percent increase. This includes $28 million in lottery funds for a

series of innovative projects that will benefit the environment,

create, jobs and aid research.

With the new enforcement

measures, upgraded enforcement is being undertaken with an 85 percent

increase to $10.1 million in the enforcement and recreation safety

program of the Ministry of the Environment. The polluters will pay, and

so they should.

Mr. Speaker, our government has a high

regard for the quality of our environment, and it has demonstrated that

by the many initiatives designed to protect our much-valued

environment. The quality of life for British Columbians must always be

protected, and I totally endorse that concept.

MR. WILLIAMS : You are better when you are mean.

MR. PETERSON :

No, I mean it. I am serious about it, and all members of this

government are serious about it. We don't just pay lip-service to it;

we provide action and substance behind that action, Mr. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS : Have you visited a pulp mill lately? Woodfibre?

MR. PETERSON :

Yes I have — the one in Kamloops where we have all those beautiful fish

coming up the same stream that uses the water. Have you been up there

to visit that one? It is the latest state of the art and an example for

all the world to follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

MR. PETERSON : You see, talk is cheap, Mr. Member.

I'd

like to talk a bit about transportation. Funding for the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways increased by some 50 percent to more than

$1 billion. Overall, 50 percent more money to a total of approximately

$154 million has been provided for highway rehabilitation, and funding

will more than double for highway construction.

To finance

the many multi-year projects planned, the Highways capital construction

budget has been increased by 145 percent to $411.8 million. Some of the

multi-year projects, which are each estimated to be in excess of $50

million, are: the Cassiar connector in Vancouver; the Fraser River

crossing; the upgrading of the Burnaby freeway; the Trans-Canada

Highway located in the Vancouver-Langley area. All this has a great

benefit to our constituencies in Langley, because a great many use this

access into Vancouver and are feeling the frustrations of an overworked

transportation system which has to be addressed. I look forward to this.

notice that the first member for Vancouver East particularly really

enjoyed taking shots at this government for providing.... How did he

word it? Something to the effect that all you do is put together these

task forces, but you're not doing anything. When he was making

statements like that, I couldn't help remembering that, when I was

sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts with him

last year, he was pounding the desk — and I asked him if he'd had his

normal breakfast of raw meat and eggs, and he said: "Yes" — and saying:

"We need more studying done. You guys spend money without any studies.

We need some economic analyses done." I agreed with him, and you'll

remember that, Mr. Member. We're doing that, and what's he doing this

time? He's standing up and saying: "Too much studying, not enough

action." I wish you'd make up your mind, Mr. Member, because it's

getting so that we never know where you're coming from. When you're

sort of a will-o'-the-wisp, people start to think of you as being a

joke, and I wouldn't want that to happen to you, because I think you

may have a few brains.

MR. BRUCE : Whatever special interest group is big.

MR. PETERSON : That's right, whichever special interest group is big.

Anyway,

Mr. Member, that's just a little bit of advice from a young buck to an

old pro like you — through you, Mr. Speaker, of course. Just having a

little bit of fun. We've all worked hard, but we have to have some fun,

too, in our business, don't we? It would be a dull life if we didn't.

I'd like to talk a little bit about Langley.

MR. WILLIAMS : Good idea.

MR. PETERSON : Why, was it getting a little too hot when I was talking about you? Can't handle the heat down there.

talk about Langley with the greatest of pride, first of all, in the

member I work with, the first member for Langley. I think we're a heck

of a team. We work hard for our constituents. Sometimes we're referred

to as beauty and the beast, and then the first member says: "I wish

you'd stop calling me a beast, Dan." I really do enjoy working with

her; I think she does a great job for Langley, and I'm pleased to be

part of a team that does such a great job for Langley.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON :

I'm hearing noises from that squawk-box over there. That noisy guy,

whatever his name is. How about some gross statistics from Langley?

Let's put some dull stuff on. I'll give him facts, because he doesn't

know how to deal with facts.

[ Page 5805 ]

Industrial

building permits totalled some $3 million at the end of February 1989,

and that's a massive increase over the same period last year when they

totalled some $400,000. Housing starts in Langley increased over 86

percent from the year 1986 to 1988. All that growth — I could give you

a lot more, but I won't bother you with a lot of the stats — causes

difficulties with our transportation and with our education system.

During

the throne speech debate the first member for Langley alluded to two

things that need to be done right away. We can't wait. She talked about

the reconstruction of 200 Street from Highway 10 to Highway 1, and we

must have that. I'm sure that if we look very hard at the new figures

announced by the Minister of Finance, we'll find those dollars in

there. The first member and I are expecting an announcement very

shortly from, number one, the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Vant) of the total commitment for the completion of the

widening at 200 Street, and, number two, from the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Brummet) of the total commitment for the Walnut Grove senior

secondary school.

Maybe I'll just talk to you about that

school. It's in planning documents right now. It'll have a capacity of

some 1,000 secondary students. It'll be built in the core of a new

community, Walnut Grove, which is one of the fastest-growing areas in

Langley. The project, we hope and believe, is one of the many high

priority projects in the 1989-90 ministry capital budget. Students are

to be drawn eventually from five elementary schools in the area, and

Walnut Grove will relieve some overcrowding in Langley Secondary and

Mountain Secondary and will allow for the conversion of Fort Langley

Junior Secondary to a fine arts school for elementary and junior

secondary students.

Both the first member for Langley and I

really want to see this get going as quickly as possible and are

looking forward to some announcement — maybe even this month. I just

wanted to add my vote to the vote of the first member. We must have

those funds just as soon as possible.

I'd like to talk a

bit about agriculture in Langley. With all that growth in population

and the new businesses moving in, it still is a fact — and I talked

about this in my maiden speech — that agriculture is the number one

economic driver in Langley. I don't think that we as a government

should ever forget that. I'll give you some statistics. Gross farm

sales in Langley were $89.8 million in 1986, which is 8.5 percent of

B.C.'s gross farm sales. Farm expenditures in Langley were $82.9

million. Farming is a $90 million industry in Langley. The total farm

value in Langley township is $409.4 million. The value of land and

buildings is $356.3 million. The value of machinery and equipment is

$31 million.

I think we should point out that 78 percent of the land in the Langley township

is in the agricultural land reserve. With the other 22 percent, there is room

for urban population to probably double. This government should never forget

the roots of British Columbia, which I believe is the agricultural industry.

I'll have more to say about that later, perhaps in private members'

statements.

I'd

like to talk about two other things regarding advanced education.

Kwantlen College has a campus in our constituency and owns some 20

acres. They have prepared a five-year plan in which they have requested

planning money from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training

for the construction of the campus on the property they own in Langley.

I would like to say that I totally support that undertaking and their

request for funds from the ministry. The need for post-secondary

education in the Langley area cannot be neglected.

[3:15]

I'm also aware that Simon Fraser University is looking for a new

campus in the Fraser Valley. Trends indicate that the population in the

valley will increase by some 139,000 by 1994. The Ministry of Advanced

Education and Job Training has asked Simon Fraser University to work

with Fraser Valley and Kwantlen Colleges to address issues which will

arise from this rapid growth.

We must and will overcome

geographic barriers to post-secondary education. I would like to make a

suggestion to both Bill Saywell and to the Minister of Advanced

Education (Hon. S. Hagen): locate your campus in Langley. Its services

would be utilized by the students throughout the Fraser Valley; it

would be the centre of the growth; and it's a beautiful place to locate

a new university campus. We have a private university, Trinity Western,

up and running, and it is very successful. I'm sure everybody in

Langley would welcome with open arms a new satellite campus from Simon

Fraser University.

I want to talk a bit about horse-racing.

The Horse Racing Industry Task Force was appointed — by the former

Attorney-General on February 2, 1988. Since then they have completed

their deliberations and have come up with some recommendations. I know

government is studying them very closely now.

The input

received by the task force confirmed a widespread — almost universal —

concern about the future of horse-racing in the province, particularly

the thoroughbred races. The consensus among those who work in the

industry is that it is an industry heading for disaster if nothing

happens. The final analysis is that we must construct a facility so the

sport can be enjoyed by all who are interested. Much more, this

enjoyment will without a doubt result in a substantial economic benefit

to the community and the entire B.C. thoroughbred racing industry. The

horse-racing industry has enjoyed a long tradition in this province,

and it is a source of livelihood to a significant sector of the

population and a source of enjoyment to many more.

I would

like to say, on behalf of the many, many breeders and people who are

active in horse racing in our constituency of Langley that that

industry has the potential to be a major economic driver in this

province, and if we as government don't take affirmative action, the

industry in total is going to die. I urge the Solicitor-General (Hon.

Mr. Ree) and the cabinet to

[ Page 5806 ]

act

as quickly as possible. We must have a first-class facility located

somewhere in the lower mainland; I don't care where. Let's get it done,

and let's get it done as soon as possible so that we can have a great

thoroughbred and standardbred racing industry in this province.

MR. WILLIAMS : At Hastings Park?

MR. PETERSON : I said I don't care where it goes, as long as all the amenities that are required are there.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON :

He's getting noisy over there, so maybe it's time to have fun again

with the first member for Vancouver East. It's easy to shut him up when

you attack him. He likes to sort of nibble when your back is turned,

but let's take him on head-on.

I want to talk about your

leader for a while, if you don't mind. How much time have I got, Mr.

Speaker? One minute? I'm afraid I'm going to have save this for another

day. I really want to talk about that closet yuppie socialist.

MR. LOVICK :

If I were to entertain some slight bit of self-indulgence, I think I

would call my remarks the "Lead me not into temptation speech,"

because when I listen to the member opposite I must confess to a

powerful temptation to rebut and repudiate all of those silly comments

that we heard. Happily, I am going to rise above that particular

temptation, as I often rise above other temptations that come from that

side of the House. Instead, I'm going to do a much more orthodox kind

of thing in my remarks.

My focus today is going to be on

three particular areas that I want to talk about: privatization,

highways and transportation. I know this is somewhat contrary to the

customary approach in the budget debate. The customary approach is to

talk in

chapter and verse details about the impact on one's own

constituency. I'm in the wonderfully fortunate position of not having

to do that, even though I would like to, because I was joined today in

the chamber by the new member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger). For her

first speech to the chamber I will leave to her the task of reporting

on the constituency. I'm pleased to have that opportunity.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Before

turning to those three specific areas, let me offer a couple of general

comments about this budget, and I do that with, I think, some

justification. After all, I'm the first person after our designated

speaker to respond to the budget. I ought then to have a brief

opportunity to say something in general terms about that budget to

remind this chamber of some facts that might have been forgotten in the

outpourings of the previous speaker.

The great claim to

fame of this government, of this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier), is that we have a balanced budget. Indeed, that line has

been repeated so many times in the course of the budget remarks that I

began to think the minister was perhaps some kind of gymnast earlier in

his career and had worked on the beam or some such thing. Never have we

heard so many references to balance. However, never have those

references been so totally misplaced. The fact is that the budget isn't

balanced, by any normal correct accounting reckoning of that budget.

I'm

sure we would all agree that the budget can only be said to balance if

we add this wild card called the budget stabilization fund, otherwise

known as the BS fund. The problem then is that the debate about whether

or not the budget is balanced has become rather contrived, rather

formulaic, perhaps indeed irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, if we can no

longer talk of a balanced budget in terms we can all agree on, the

obvious question is: why is that so? And the answer to that obvious

question is: because of some financial jiggery-pokery and some

financial hocus-pocus performed by this selfsame government in its last

budget, namely the BS fund. That's the reason we're in this

predicament. That's why we can have two otherwise honest and

well-meaning members on opposite sides of the chamber, one saying the

budget is balanced, the other denying it with equal passion — simply

because we don't any longer know what the rules are. The BS fund has

changed all of that; it's put us into that predicament.

Let me just remind members of what the BS fund is. Oh, here we go. I see.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

I rise on a point of order. Much as I enjoy the member, I do feel that

he really is inebriated with the grandiloquence of his own verbosity

and that he should return a little more closely to the subject at hand.

wonder if the Chair would consider whether the language

"jiggery-pokery" is entirely parliamentary. Maybe in doing so the Chair

could consider "jiggery" and "pokery" separately as well as

collectively.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Chair appreciates the member's remarks and would ask the first member for Nanaimo to proceed.

MR. LOVICK :

How fascinating, Mr. Speaker. I have a sense of dj vu as I hear the

member from Oak Bay. This was exactly the kind of thing he did the

first time I ever spoke in debate, and he got beaten down at that

point. I am surprised to see him leap up again with such alacrity and

enthusiasm. However, frivolous and dilatory points of order

notwithstanding, we shall carry on.

The BS fund, as I have

suggested, is fancy financial footwork. Let me remind members of that

case the best way I know, and that is to quote my departed — from this

chamber — colleague, Dave Stupich, who is now, of course, as we know,

the Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Cowichan. Just about a year ago,

on Friday, March 25, 1988, Mr. Stupich explained to us in succinct and

very clear terms what the BS

[ Page 5807 ]

fund was. Responding to the statement that there was some $450 million in that fund, Mr. Stupich said:

"...it

really is a BS fund. It could just as easily have been $4.5 billion as

$450 million. Just add another zero, and it would have increased the

deficit accordingly. It means nothing because there isn't one nickel to

back up that fund. The government doesn't have the money. It's $6

billion in debt right now, and to say that we owe $450 million to a new

fund means nothing, except that it will be politically useful."

Let me go on for just one more paragraph to make a further point about that.

"The

government is proposing to add to that fund next year; they say by $124

million. It doesn't matter what the figure is; they can make it

anything they want to produce the deficit that the minister is now

saying we are going to have next year. It can be any figure at all, and

it doesn't mean a thing...."

That's the crucial point: it

doesn't mean a thing. The notion, then, of balancing your budget by

drawing on the BS fund is certainly sleight of hand. Thus it is that

the Vancouver Sun 's treatment of the story.... The headline writer

picked it up very clearly by saying: "Government BS Fund Used to Hide

Another Deficit." Now if that is not true and if members opposite are

offended by that, I would suggest it would make prima facie a wonderful

legal case. They can say, "You're lying, " but the truth is that what

the Sun says is absolutely correct. It cannot be disproven. Thus the

budget stabilization fund, understood for what it is.

A few

other very general observations about this budget. I fear that once

again I've become enamoured of pointing out foolishness from the other

side and therefore perhaps want to carry on at greater length than I

have time for, and must then restrain myself. But a few other brief

observations about this budget in general terms, if I might.

[3:30]

I wonder, first, about the next budget. I wonder whether we might be

going to see a variation on an old theme. We all know what traditional

Socredism is, Mr. Speaker. You remember the system very well. What you

did in those days, of course, was to underestimate revenues and to

overestimate expenditures, and that way you were able to get a surplus.

I think what might be happening this time is something novel and

unique. I think what we might see is an overestimation of revenue and

an overestimation of expenditures. That, of course, will produce

something like a balanced budget. I think this may be the new reality

for this government and this Minister of Finance. The reason I say we

may see an overestimation of expenditures is that we are now talking

about throwing huge amounts of money at new programs, but we have not

taken the necessary preliminary steps to ensure that we can even spend

that money.

Case in point: environment. The staff levels

in the Ministry of Environment, as my colleague the learned second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) pointed out the other day, are

down 25 percent from 1983. Yet those people are going to be asked to

spend mega dollars on new programs. How can you do it? I don't think

you can.

A second general observation. Much has been made

already — and quite justifiably — about this government's latter-day

conversion to things like post-secondary education and the importance

of the environment. Indeed, that conversion has been so sudden it makes

Canada's switch to metric look like child's play. A cautionary note,

though. I remember well, because I was sitting in the House when it

happened, when my leader was speaking in response to the Speech from

the Throne about the environmental package we were going to be

presented with by way of private members' bills. We talked about

charging polluters for the damage they do. The response we heard

directly from opposite — from the Minister of Regional Development

(Hon. Mr. Veitch) — was: "If you do that you'll drive industry away."

That was said in this chamber. However, less than a week later the

Minister of Finance had the temerity to tell us the government's policy

is to crack down on polluters and make them pay. Contradiction,

conversion — you bet. Those things are here.

I would just

add, too, that sloganeering — "Think Globally, Act Locally," which was

a bumper strip 20 years ago, as I recall — is not a solution to the

problem.

The

third point I would make in general terms

about this budget is the reference to the nature of B.C.'s economy on

page 12. 1 am not going to quote it now, because I am running out of

time, but the basic contention there is that we are a resource-based

economy and therefore vulnerable to trends and developments beyond our

control; therefore we must plan accordingly. That was offered, let me

remind you, Mr. Speaker, as if this were some kind of new lore, some

kind of new wisdom, some kind of new truth about B.C.'s economy. It's

25 years since I attended university for my first years. At that time

that statement about B.C.'s economy was a truism. Anybody who knows

anything about B.C. and about economics knows that. Twenty-five years

later we have a Social Credit Minister of Finance announcing this as if

— viol! — we have discovered the new Holy Grail. Rather shocking, I

suggest.

Let me turn now to the three areas I want to touch on: privatization, highways and transportation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask for information regarding my time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : You have approximately 16 minutes to go. Please proceed.

MR. LOVICK : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That, I am sure, will do me nicely.

must say that under the heading "Privatization" I rather expected some

trumpeting, crowing and bragging from this government. In case we have

all forgotten, that was the flagship of Social Credit initiatives for

the past year and a half. Indeed, it was the new approach to solving

all the problems of the eighties and beyond.

Curiously

enough, the subject is barely mentioned in this budget. Rather, out of

a 26-page document of more than a thousand lines, we have half a page

and

[ Page 5808 ]

lines devoted to privatization. Out of about one and a half hours of

reading time, we have about 30 seconds devoted to that subject. One has

to wonder why. Why should that be? Instead of substantive comment, what

we get is a marginal notation — it was even in blue ink, lest we missed

it — that says: "Economy benefits from privatization." No explanation,

no justification; just that flat, elliptic statement.

How,

then, do they support the claim? They do so in two ways in that

30-second hit. The first thing they do is say: "We sold off some

assets." That's really something to brag about — that it's an economic

success because you sell off assets. I am not sure that's much to brag

about. What's more important is whether you got the right price for the

assets.

The second thing they do say is that we are going

to have all kinds of business opportunities as a result. But what do

they choose to quote when it comes to enunciating these business

opportunities? Of all the things that have been on the block, what do

they choose? They choose the rather unique one formerly called B.C.

Steamships and now called B.C. Stena.

I would remind the

members opposite that B.C. Steamships is a joint venture; it is not an

outright privatization. That is one of the reasons why all of us in

this chamber were prepared to say this might be a good idea. Secondly,

B.C. Steamships, while it was a public corporation, undertook the

expansion and increased its vessel fleet by 100 percent, and therefore

it became a suitable, workable, viable economic entity for the private

sector to purchase. And this is the example we are given in terms of:

"Boy, privatization sure works!" Needless to say, it stretches

credibility somewhat.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it now seems —

given new evidence — that B.C. Stena appears to have cut back its

service, compared to the promises of last July. In July of last year,

we were informed that from May to September there would be three

round-trips. What we now find is that this has been cut back to zero

trips for the period of May 1 to May 12, one roundtrip for the period

of May 13 to June 9 and two round-trips for the period beginning June

10. This is the new expanded fleet? This is all this great stuff that's

going to work? This is the example of privatization's economic benefit

to the people of the province? You bet, Mr. Speaker. Some benefit! It's

the kind of benefit we can do without.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

I hear somebody chirping in the corner, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, however,

I'm running out of time, so I don't even have time to listen, let alone

respond. But don't worry, I will do so later.

There is no reference whatsoever in this speech to one of the biggest of all

the privatizations: namely the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. And the obvious

question is: why not? I think the answer is that, far from providing us opportunities,

we're going to discover that that particular project is something for which

later generations will be as likely to curse us as thank us.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, there is no reference to the hidden costs of

privatization, and there are lots. For about a year I have had 12

detailed, written questions on notice asking about the costs of

privatization and asking for information about what we actually paid to

advertise, what we actually paid to commission agents, and such like.

What did it cost us in terms of people losing their jobs and having to

move from the province to search for other employment? All of those

questions have not received one smidgen of an answer in response, I am

sad to relate.

Moreover, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr.

Davis) in the debate of a late-night sitting last year — I believe it

was June 27 — took as notice, under some persistent questioning from

this side of the chamber, a whole bunch of questions. And he promised

us.... I shouldn't say "promised," Mr. Speaker, I suspect that's the

wrong word. But rather, he gave us assurances that we would get answers

to our questions in terms of costs.

Six months later, my

colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) wrote to the

minister and reminded him of the promises he had made, and still we are

without answers. Moreover, the new minister has also thus far refrained

from giving us any answers. We now have a new minister. We have a new

committee, a cabinet caucus committee. I wonder how much that's costing

us in terms of members' time. I wonder what that committee is

producing. So far they've been as mute as mollusks; we haven't heard a

word. We don't know if they are doing anything.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : They have clammed up, as my witty colleague says.

Mr.

Speaker, we have a privatization group in position which is composed of

some very highpowered civil servants — some competent, capable and

highly paid people who still meet once a week. But I don't think they

have produced a single report, and I don't think they have done

anything. I don't think we can in fact point to that group and say:

"Show us what you're working on." I don't think they can do so.

the focus now moving away from privatization? Are we talking about

government reorganization? Are we in fact not getting anything for our

labours? Those are the kinds of questions about privatization we still

want to pose, Mr. Speaker, and I think we deserve answers.

Turning

briefly to the matter of highways privatization, I notice that there is

an appendix to the budget: Budget H, pages 71 to 76. The purpose of

this appendix is "...We provide estimates of the cost savings to

government resulting from this initiative." I think I can take some

pride in ownership for this

section of the budget, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MOWAT : Oh no.

MR. LOVICK : Yes, I know that sounds a little self congratulatory, but it's quite true — to the second

[ Page 5809 ]

member

for Little Mountain. The reason is because I was given the Treasury

Board document that showed the overrun of $20 million in highways

maintenance, and this is the answer we got. This is the same answer we

got in what was called a "technical briefing." It was an unsatisfactory

answer then; it is still an unsatisfactory answer.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

main conclusion the government gives us to the allegation of a $20

million overrun is wonderful. The gall of these folks! What they say

is: "Well, it wasn't really $20 million; it was only $10 million."

That's the main answer we got. Note, by the way, that the first answer

was to deny it outright. Indeed, that's the Minister of Transportation

and Highway's (Hon. Mr. Vant'

s) predilection and propensity in terms of

everything: to deny it outright and one week later, of course, recast

the story. Certainly that's what has happened here.

What we

got was an effort to explain the $10 million overrun after the fact.

Curiously enough, the predicted overrun is now called "a restatement."

That's the new language: a euphemism for "overruns" is "restatement."

How I love it!

Various claims were offered about why this

was not in fact an overrun and why it was entirely understandable. The

arguments, unfortunately, don't hold up. What we got first of all was a

denial that there was an overrun in terms of the highways stabilization

program. We were told that that cost had been transferred to capital

maintenance, and that's not the case.

As it happens,

stabilization programs have not been transferred from capital

maintenance as was claimed by the ministry. Indeed, that particular

program formed part of the package on which contractors were asked to

bid. Moreover, in terms of the other parts of the denial — so-called in

appendix H — what we have is a cost breakdown that is not even close to

$10 million. Rather, it's closer to $14 million; in other words, 40

percent more than what we were told in this budget. I could share this

with more time. The estimate, in short, is not very helpful, nor is it

even close to the mark.

In the few minutes remaining to me,

I want to touch briefly on two other areas: highways and transportation

in general. Most people, of course, are pleased to see the increased

amount of money going into highways. I would remind them of a couple of

points, though. Firstly, last year there was a 14 percent decrease in

that budget. Secondly, the pride in talking about the acceleration of

the Okanagan connector has to be balanced against the fact that what we

have in the Okanagan connector is a considerably scaled-down version of

the original. It's not as big or as expensive as was the original.

[3:45]

We also had the reference to the Island Highway. I'm happy that my colleague

the second member for Nanaimo asked that in question period today. The words

are not reassuring. We are told the Vancouver Island Highway is not forgotten,

but the amount of money we're spending in this coming fiscal year is only

$30 million. If in fact it's a $600 million project, as the minister earlier

suggested, and if it's supposed to be completed by 1996, then we are really

going to have to scamper in the next five years. If there's only $30 million

this year, I'm rather worried about the completion of the rest of the project.

note also that in terms of the ministry's claim about doubling the

funds for capital construction, they are going to be supervising all

those projects with 35 percent fewer people than were available in

1982, not to mention what we've lost in terms of human capital and not

to mention what we've lost in terms of morale within the ministry.

The

other major announcement regarding highways is that we're going to be

having a 50 percent increase for "highway rehabilitation." Do you know

what, Mr. Speaker? We used to call it maintenance. Because of the

record of this government in letting the highways fall into the sad

state of disrepair they are now in, we have to call it rehabilitation.

In fact, some of the roads are so close to dying, I suspect they ought

to call it resuscitation. In any event, so much for all the vaunted

claims about highways.

I want to touch also on the....

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I'm zipping through rather quickly because I

want to get to some other things.

The consultative approach

in terms of transportation, the creation of all the transportation

subcommittees that are going to meet throughout the province and are

going to do all these great things — all of that on paper sounds

absolutely wonderful. The predicament is that we had our test case,

ironically enough, this morning. We've had a ten-year $550 million

ferry expansion program announced, and guess what? Instead of all the

clients jumping up and saying, "Isn't this wonderful!" we have instead

the people of Saltspring Island and the president of the Islands Trust

saying: "Once more we've been led down the garden path." The fact is

that there was not the kind of consultation that has been promised time

and time again.

Indeed, some 18 months ago, I attended a

meeting on Saltspring Island — interestingly enough, which neither of

the members for Saanich could attend, despite the long notice — at

which the meeting resolved to try and get answers to whether the ferry

terminal would be changed. Instead we find out this morning, and nobody

in fact was given that advance warning. Needless to say, the Islands

Trust is scandalized and is convinced that it has indeed been led down

the garden path again. They feel that this is a rather shoddy and

shameful process of constantly saying: "We want to talk with you; we

want to hear your concerns," but when it comes to decision-making: "We

don't have time for you." That's what happened in terms of highways.

couple of other points regarding the transportation study. When the

Minister of Highways — you recall, after the transportation study was

first announced — was pressed about whether there was any money

attached he said, "Yes, indeed, all kinds of money; we're going to be

doing all these things," and everybody of course quickly came to the

conclusion

[ Page 5810 ]

that

there wasn't any plan. I wonder why there was no strategic dimension to

that report at all. Rather the minister had simply multiplied the

normal highways budget for the next ten years for seven years and come

up with a figure of $700 million.

MRS. GRAN : How do you know that?

MR. LOVICK :

That point was made by 50 different people and was never refuted

effectively by the ministry. It was also corroborated by ministry

officials.

But isn't it interesting that with that evidence

in hand, with the claims made by the Minister of Highways, there is no

reference to a long-term spending program for highways in this

province. We got six-year plans for two or three other ministries but

not for highways. The question then obviously is: what was the Minister

of Highways talking about when he made that reference to a ten-year

plan with money in the bank?

I wonder who indeed is minding

the store these days. I would hope that other opportunities will

present themselves to me, and certainly I shall raise other questions

at that time.

MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, as I rise to address some remarks to the

budget presented before this House last Thursday, I wish to pay a tribute to

the new members of this House: the member who has joined us from the riding

of Alberni and those introduced today — the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger)

and the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry). All these members

have arrived to do the public's business in this Legislature at an exciting

time in British Columbia's history. I congratulate you on the honour that

you have to serve in this unique position in this House, the parliament of British

Columbia.

will be addressing my remarks to the thirty-fifth budget brought down

by a Social Credit administration in this province — 35 years of

progress and positive administration. While this budget primarily deals

with the next fiscal year — the one that we begin today, as a matter of

fact — I intend to look also at greater challenges beyond today.

Last

week when the Finance minister presented this budget to our

Legislature, it was heralded across this nation as one that would be

the envy of all jurisdictions in Canada. The national press services

were absolutely correct, and I would go even further, Mr. Speaker: it

should be the example for our federal administration, which

consistently leads our nation into more and more sustainable debt.

talking about the budget and its impact on British Columbia, I am

honoured, along with my colleague the hard-working second member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), to address the concerns and the

impact it will have on our constituency in Vancouver.

This

great province stands on the threshold of its fifth great decade of

opportunity since the first Social Credit government took office in

1952 — almost four completed decades and standing on the threshold of

the fifth remarkable decade. It is no surprise to those of us on this

side of the House that we have a balanced budget. It is no surprise to

those of us who have the privilege of representing the legacy of

strength and early vision left us by the leadership of W.A.C. Bennett,

because we represent a party that understands — and has understood for

four decades in this province — the importance of wealth creation and

sustainable growth for the people of British Columbia. Our Minister of

Finance has laboured long and hard these past few months to bring a

balanced provincial budget to this assembly, and for that we owe him a

debt of gratitude. It is not easy in this society to balance the

taxpayers' ability to pay and the taxpayers' desire for services in a

world that approaches rapidly the twenty-first century.

Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver-Little Mountain, whom

we represent, I want to say that I am grateful for this balanced

budget. I also thank the minister for the care and attention he and his

staff in his ministry have given to meeting the needs of those in our

society who rely on government for good health care, education for

their children and grandchildren, and an opportunity to re-educate

themselves to keep pace with the changing world.

The

Minister of Finance has given attention in this budget to seniors, to

the environment and to those in our society who need some assistance

with housing — especially first-time homebuyers. I am delighted to hear

about that progress.

The official opposition's response

last Friday to this budget was an unsuccessful attempt once again to

change their image from the negative Nelly approach perhaps to

something more positive for the future. The opposition wants us to

believe that they would maybe allow some development, but only if it is

sustainable. But they distort the past while ignoring the future. When

this Minister of Finance and this Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker)

talk about one billion seedlings being added to our forests, don't you

think that provides evidence of a commitment to sustainable

development? And when this Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

talks about tougher measures against polluters and big industry, don't

you think that is evidence that we in Social Credit understand the

importance of our environment?

Mr. Speaker, let us not

forget the emphasis this government put on tourism and new-technology

industries, because we knew long ago that these were pollution-free and

good for our environment.

We have a Social Credit

administration that has laid the foundation for British Columbia's next

decade, leading up to the year 2000. In the 1950s Social Credit began

to lay the infrastructure for highways and bridges that would open up

the province for development. They began to establish the health care

system that was to make us the envy of the world. In the 1960s Social

Credit turned their attention to hydroelectric generation: clean,

environmentally acceptable power for the future. We continued to build

on our educational system, with the addition of Simon Fraser University

and a new campus for the University of Victoria, and we added to the

homeowner

[ Page

5811 ]

grant, which was introduced in 1957 to assist with school costs.

The

1970s were a rarified-opportunity decade. We lost 38 months of it, but

midway through the decade we faced the job of recovery from the chaos

caused by the socialists. We started to get our finances back in order.

We began a Science Council, a research park network, and encouragement

of new high-technology industry. We gave tourism emphasis and

encouraged a film industry, which has provided many jobs to our

province, and does even today.

In the 1980s we invited the

world to discover British Columbia through Expo 86. We started a new

transportation route to the interior: the Coquihalla. I'm proud of the

Coquihalla. We opened one of North America's newest rapid transit

systems, technology that has been looked at from all over the world,

and at the same time we coped with the world recession like no other

government in this nation.

Mr. Speaker, wealth creation

doesn't come overnight. This budget builds upon the success and

examples of past Ministers of Finance and Social Credit

administrations. It is only possible because we on this side of the

House have been responsible British Columbians. We now have the basis

for the next stage in British Columbia's history, the next decade,

which is movement into a fully diversified economy, with a continued

change in product mix of what we offer to the world — a new

commercialization along with a new phase of industrialization. We move

towards the year 2000 and a future that draws more upon our

technological skills, our educational resources, our trading

capabilities and our excellent location in the new world economy. This

move into the new economy, balanced with our supernatural resources,

will provide strong growth and wealth for our future generations.

[4:00]

have the balanced budget, and I commend the Minister of Finance for

preparing for a rainy day. That budget stabilization fund will now have

in it, I understand, about $1 billion. We'll never have to count on a

rainy day fund — and I hope we don't have to — if we better prepare

ourselves now for a fully diversified economy, if we build for

prosperity, if we use our advantages, our geographic locations, for the

production of goods and services based on higher skills from a more

competitive workforce. I'm talking about economic expansion through

training, retraining and education for tomorrow.

As Social

Credit knows, there's no point in creating that wealth which the Leader

of the Opposition now believes in if you just have to spend it on

interest, on having spent the wealth when you didn't have it in the

past. The citizens of this province need to know that we have a plan to

get our house in order so that their tax dollars will not be squandered

in the future on unnecessary provincial debt.

In the Ministry of Economic Development that I had the pleasure of working

with during the first two years of this administration, we identified four growth

industries to focus on a business plan for '88-89 and beyond: electronics,

aerospace, subsea technology and value-added wood products. We had ministerial

advisory committees hard at work in all of those areas, and I believe they continue

today. We knew where we were going. When the Leader of the Opposition stood

up during his official reply to the throne speech earlier in this legislative

session and tried to list some value-added wood products that we should be concentrating

on in British Columbia, we were way ahead of him. We are already doing it. He

should ask his research staff for a briefing from both the Ministry of Forests

and the Ministry of Regional Development so that in future he won't appear

so poorly informed.

About a week ago I had the pleasure of addressing a Rotary Club

luncheon in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. It was the day after

we heard of the loss of Barry Sullivan. At the end of my address a

gentleman, someone who knew him well, got up to say: "When people say

to me that this government has no conscience, no commitment to young

people, I remind them that this is the administration that appointed a

man like Barry Sullivan to head its Royal Commission on Education."

That, of course, is a tribute to both the late Barry Sullivan and this

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

A new economic

vision for the decade ahead is achievable by using this budget and past

budgets as the building-blocks. But that diversified economy for

tomorrow is dependent upon an even greater commitment to the Sullivan

royal commission when it speaks to the new focus for our young people,

the new focus between learning and British Columbia's economic

prospects. The Sullivan commission warns us that the shift to an

economy based more on information and knowledge than on natural

resources has .serious implications for the provincial future and for

the role that schools...will play in our lives." On page 12 of that

same report, there is a most important paragraph dealing with the need

to urge higher levels of education for our citizens, and it says in

part: "...the likelihood of intensified economic competition from other

regions around the world argues strongly for providing higher levels of

education for the young...help them learn new skills as employment

circumstances demand, and become generally more entrepreneurial in

their attitudes towards work and in establishing themselves in a

career."

Barry Sullivan leaves us all a challenge. The

final page of the

summary report of findings says this — and I'm sure

many of you have read it: "The truly difficult task is the one that the

commission bequeaths to school governance officials at provincial and

local levels" — and others. "For it is they who must work together

cooperatively to develop the structures, processes and avenues of

communication that will allow for the discussion and resolution of

competing democratic ideals and values."

This budget is to

be commended for its new financial support to meet this challenge in

the decade ahead. I personally applaud its continued support for the

Pacific Rim initiatives program of the Minister of Education and the

access for all post-secondary initiatives of the Minister of Advanced

Education and Job

[ Page 5812 ]

Training

(Hon. S. Hagen). Politicians, all of us in this Legislature, sometimes

dwell too much on the ever-present ballot box horizons. There's so much

here and now that commands our attention but we must change because

planning for the next century requires an even greater commitment than

governments traditionally have had to marshal.

Today we

must focus more on the job that Barry Sullivan left us all to do. We

must see that the challenge of this decade will be to equip our young

people for an ever-changing world as we approach the magic year 2000.

This budget and the accompanying appendix F that deals with education

into the twenty-first century lays the foundation. There is more yet to

be done.

Our Finance minister said in his opening remarks

that our young people must learn more about our important trading

partners. We need to ensure this and more.

I want to fully

support our Finance minister's efforts to encourage Ottawa to fight

inflation some other way than on the backs of the homeowners of western

Canada. Certainly an immediate challenge not really addressed fully at

all in this budget is the prospect of ever-rising interest rates on

home mortgages.

As a provincial government, let us not act

too late to protect, if possible, our own British Columbia homeowners

from Ottawa's and eastern Canada's fight against inflation. I don't

have an answer today for the Finance minister, but I challenge us all

to work on one this session.

Another challenge of this

decade is to get us out of this unfair assessed value for property

taxation. We are paying over $35 million a year to run an Assessment

Authority that equates a homeowner's equity in the family home to one's

ability to pay. In the decade just ending and in the one we are just

about to enter, that's just not to be described as fairness. I'd like

to see the Minister of Finance give a few extra dollars to our Minister

of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) to

examine the situation and see if we can't do better. I think you will

find she will welcome the challenge.

Nothing brings to mind

the fragility of our environment as the recent oil spills: one in

January on the west coast of Vancouver Island and the most recent

Alaska spill which has caught world attention by its dramatic size and

its tragic effect on the area. I believe that our province can and

should find the answer for such accidents. Here we are 11 days after

the fact, yet no one has been able to find an answer for the cleanup.

We have people from all over the world wringing their hands and saying

that we can't clean up an oil spill that happened a good 10 days ago.

This province has the most effective subsea engineering experience in the world,

and where it counts in technological circles, we're recognized as being

the very best. I'd like to see our government put meaningful investment

into research and development for the cleanup of such spills and call on the

subsea engineering experts: Phil Nuytten of Can-Dive, James MacFarlan of International

Submarine Engineering, and all others. We must challenge them — including our

universities and the expertise of other interested parties — to find a solution

that would be B.C.'s contribution to the cleanup of oil spills the world

over. Challenge them to find the answers, and I believe we would find the answers.

But R and D money should be made available now for that job. Let's use the

expertise we have and make sure that kind of tragedy doesn't happen again.

We can do it in this province, and we should be funding it in this province.

want to comment on maximizing British Columbia's opportunities under

the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. This budget addresses the subject in

supporting financially the announcement from the Minister of

International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen) regarding the

new B.C. Trade Development Corporation. That corporation will assist us

in reaching out to all our trading partners, as will the expansion of

our trade offices in Ottawa and San Francisco. We probably need the

help more in Ottawa than in San Francisco however.

These

offices and others are to assist firms exploring free trade

opportunities south of the border. Appendix B in this budget talks

about the economic outlook for British Columbia and the prediction that

the free trade agreement will help stimulate capital investment in

1989. It further looks at the risks of the forecasts made in this

budget, touching on the cloud that exists because of huge trade and

fiscal imbalances internationally that would directly affect this

province. This means that British Columbia industry and business needs

to firmly put its foot in the international door in 1989, and our

government must be at the ready to help open those doors and keep them

open. This new export development corporation can help, but we must be

ready to give it a very strong mandate.

The Minister of

Finance did not have the advantage of seeing the recommendations of the

report of the Prime Minister's free trade advisory council when he was

drafting his budget. It was made public right after the budget was

tabled in this House. That council, headed by Quebec industrialist A.

Jean de Grandpr, reported last week and has urged new initiatives to

help train Canadians to compete with our greatest trading partner to

the south. I think we in British Columbia want to move very quickly to

obtain this report and understand its recommendations, and we will need

to move quickly to urge Ottawa to implement some of those

recommendations as quickly as possible. But in this House and in this

government we could move quickly to work on our own programs for

training workers that would dovetail with what Ottawa will be

contemplating. There is money in this budget, I believe, for that job:

to take some initiatives this year that would once again put British

Columbia in the lead for Canada, as we are in so many other things.

This

government understands the importance of partnerships with industry. We

need a new partnership in this area not only to help industry recognize

and seize upon new opportunities for trade but then

[ Page 5813 ]

help them train their workforce to meet the challenge. It is imperative

to have an exceptionally well trained work force in the international

competitive marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the

government to look with caution in entering as a government into common

stocks of industrial businesses. What stocks would not be a conflict of

interest? What would be considered good long-term risks? If we are

going to go into short-term, government would maybe become speculators

in the short-term market. What about the conflict between interest rate

management for government bonds? It's less than 18 months since October

19, 1988, a date when some of the most sophisticated money managers in

the world took a financial bath of major proportions. I emphasize to

government: be cautious. Maybe a second look?

Social

Credit's earlier vision of supporting the new industries of tomorrow

that fit so well with four decades of good government, emphasizing

sustainable development even before the phrase was coined, leads me to

believe that there is a will in this Legislature to eliminate the debt

of our province. We could show Ottawa how to do it.

MR. R. FRASER : We always have.

MRS. McCARTHY . We always have before, and we can do it again.

Even

the Leader of the Opposition now believes we have to create wealth in

order to spend it. Surely he knows that if you spend it on interest

rates — on debt — it's not benefiting our people.

With good

planning, a diversified economic base, a people educated and trained

for the new economy, for international trade and competition, I believe

a legitimate goal would be to eliminate the debt by the year 2000 or

before — a legitimate goal that this House and this government could

work towards. Through a scheduled commitment of debt repayment, we

could have a clean slate to begin the next century.

Mr.

Speaker, those are but a few of the many challenges that lie before us

on the eve of this fifth decade of Social Credit leadership for British

Columbia - this last decade of the twentieth century that belongs to

Canada and to British Columbia. This budget is balanced, regardless of

what the opposition says. This is a balanced budget.

[4:15]

That balanced budget was not easily achieved. It was done by the

commitment of all British Columbians; the commitment of this

government; the commitment of the Finance minister. In this House we

owe a great debt of gratitude to our Minister of Finance. The interest

on this debt will not be paid in taxpayers' dollars but in the pride

that we will all share in knowing that we have moved in a major way to

meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

MR. D'ARCY . Mr. Speaker, I hope there aren't too many pauses

in this speech. I am a long way from my notes without my glasses.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY . That's right. No, I'll perhaps save the other

side of the House from some of the details if I have to skip a few things.

the outset, I want to congratulate just a few people, changes since

last we met here: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on his

appointment, the three new members of the Legislature who have been

elected, and also those people who have been elevated to cabinet since

we last met in the House. I wish all of them well.

There is

no question, as has been discussed here, that expenditures in this

budget are up significantly — unrealistically, some would say. However,

I suppose at this point I would want to give the government some

benefit of the doubt in having recognized that their attitude toward a

number of aspects of life in British Columbia over the last few years

has left a lot to be desired. High on that list would be the

environment, health and education. If there is some indication outside

this chamber that electorally the public is in a mood to give the

Social Credit Party a thrashing at the polls, I am glad to see that the

government — on behalf of all British Columbians who, after all, are

paying the bills for everything — has decided that it is going to

recognize some of these areas which it has savaged over the last few

years.

I have heard some members of the House talk about

neglect over the last few years. I think the general public in British

Columbia would have been comparatively thankful if the government had

neglected them instead of constantly taking things away. The public

would have enjoyed some benign neglect instead of what many feel has

been a malevolent desire to lower the standard of education, both

schooling and post-secondary, to lower the standard of health care in

this province, to lower the standard of environmental controls, to

lower the standard of monitoring of the use of publicly owned

resources, in particular forest resources and to a lesser extent

mineral and water resources.

We really are, in this

province, evolving in many important ways. The previous speaker, the

first member for Little Mountain, was speaking on how important it was

to recognize the tourism industry as an environmentally non-polluting

industry. I think this is an important point relative to our

long-standing heavy industries, because just as a significant number of

the tourists who come to British Columbia are not even Canadians and

not British Columbians moving around the province — they are from other

countries — so a significantly higher proportion of raw materials for

our industry is beginning to come from foreign countries.

this regard, I want to talk about the smelting and refining industry,

which is the heart of the economy in my constituency. Initially, we had

a smelting and refining industry in the Trail area going back to the

1890s because of proximity to ore within the region. Gradually over the

decades, the ore supplies became further and further afield. That

complex, which is today and has been for a number of

[ Page 5814 ]

years

dependent on large supplies of low-cost hydroelectric power — not on

the proximity of ore — is now very quickly, with the exhausting of the

ore supplies in Kimberley.... The Sullivan mine is not exhausted yet,

but it will be in about ten years unless significant new finds are

made. That is a long period of time for a mine, I might say. It has

been mined since the 1900s, much longer than most mines and

particularly underground mines. When that happens, some 90 percent of

the ore supply for that smelting, refining and manufacturing operation

in Trail will come not just from outside the province but from outside

the country. There have been grandiloquent speeches made across this

country about how Canadians should not be hewers of wood and drawers of

water. The fact is, we have come to an evolution where our

long-standing industries no longer can rely on Canadian sources for

their supplies of raw material.

To me one of the most

disappointing aspects of the budget was the disincentive to the

maintenance of a manufacturing base in base metals in British Columbia,

which is the inordinately high sales tax on electricity — it's

euphemistically called a "water licence rental" by the government, but

it's a sales tax on electricity — about 20 percent on every consumer in

the province and a much higher percentage if it is an industry.

major disincentive could — I don't predict the future, but it could —

lead to a loss of a major manufacturing expansion which would benefit

not only my constituency in the southeastern part of the province but

all of British Columbia and Canada as well.

The American

ore supply being developed this moment by Cominco in Alaska, the Red

Dog supply, will be producing substantially more — not just somewhat

more — zinc ore than the operations in Trail can absorb. That ore will

be mined and will be shipped elsewhere, probably not even anywhere else

in Canada; it will be shipped elsewhere internationally.

the government of British Columbia is not prepared to create a taxation

climate where the only incentive for using raw ore in British Columbia

is low-cost hydroelectric power, if the government continues to tax

that power to the point where it is not low-cost, we will lose a major

part of that industry.

Already in Trail, the midpoint

having been passed in the lead-silver modernization and technological

change in operation, we are seeing another decline in the numbers

employed in the Cominco operations there. Even if there is a major zinc

expansion — which I sincerely hope there is — there will still be a

decline; it just won't be as severe. Yet the government of the day —

relatively speaking, rolling in money — cannot see its way clear to

ensure that that ore supply and operation continue in a viable way,

providing employment and wealth for the province in valueadded and

multiplier effects of employment opportunities over a long period of

time.

The government has a mentality, Mr. Speaker, which

still sees British Columbia as an exploiter of raw materials. We are

rapidly evolving past that point, if we have not done so already

The

other major industry in my constituency, again one that has hardly been

recognized by the government, is the forest industry. The part of the

province that I'm from is the only part of the southern interior to

have a substantial surplus of pulp fibre and increasing shortages of

sawlogs, probably in keeping with the rest of the province. It is

tremendously important that it be utilized within the region because,

with the kind of prices being enjoyed today by the industry, unused

pulp fibre, if not used locally, is inevitably going to be shipped away.

For

some reason that has escaped me over the past 20 years, there has been

no operation to utilize pulp fibre south of the 49th parallel in

eastern Washington and northern Idaho. The result is that if you add

that to the surplus in the West Kootenay, there is an enormous excess

of available, uncommitted pulp fibre, either being underutilized or

being shipped to mills elsewhere in Canada or the United States. In

fact, there is an increasingly large cross-border transfer of pulp and

fibre, not usually in the form of round wood; usually in the form of

chips.

Mr. Speaker, it is tremendously important, I

believe, for both the short- and the long-term interests of the

province, and certainly of my region, that a manufacturing operation, a

mill, environmentally up to speed in terms of the familiar pollutants

from pulp mills as well as the unfamiliar ones recognized recently,

such as dioxins, without these problems — and technology is moving right

along these days — be constructed within the region to utilize this

underutilized, sustainable — in fact, overly sustainable — pulp fibre

supply which exists not only on the Canadian side of the border but on

the American as well. If that does not happen, especially with today's

market prices, somebody somewhere will find a use for those chips, and

it probably won't be in the interior of British Columbia; it may not

even be in British Columbia at all.

Mr. Speaker, I don't

predict a recession. I do suggest, though, that with the Federal

Reserve in the States and the Bank of Canada continuing to put brakes

on the economy by interest rate increases, it is probable, perhaps even

certain, that there is going to be a slowdown in growth on both sides

of the border. I don't say stopping or going backwards, but there's

going to be a slowdown in growth, and that means a slowdown in

commodity prices as well. If the government of the day simply wants to

boast about being — in their terms — in a good way as far as revenue

and expenditure go, when they're at the top of a cycle, they should be

looking out for tomorrow, when we're no longer at the top of a cycle.

They should be making darned sure that the industries of B.C. are not

only paying their fair share in terms of natural resource rent, but are

also providing long-term employment and long-term economic benefits for

British Columbia. If those aspects are not secured now, it will be much

more difficult to secure them when we get into a downturn.

[4:30]

[ Page 5815 ]

Mr.

Speaker, an aspect of the budget which disturbed me.... I'm not a nay

sayer as far as the future goes, but apart from the crushing effect of

the water tax on future tax revenue for British Columbia from other

sources.... But a disturbing aspect is that so many of the promises

made in the budget speech, as well as in the throne speech a few weeks

ago, seemed to be dependent upon federal participation. Some observers

suggest that all of the talk of deficit-cutting by Ottawa and the hints

of not entering into new agreements or backing away from existing

provincial agreements may be there simply to soften us all up for tax

increases. Or there could be a combination of both.

Either

way, I have a concern about the number of aspects of the budget which

seem to be dependent on federal participation. Until Mr. Wilson brings

down his budget federally, we won't really know what's going to happen

in those regards, which is all the more reason for the government of

British Columbia to be prepared to stand on its own two feet and

develop British Columbia in a sustainable way for all British

Columbians. I don't mean, as I've said, just in a sustainable way when

we're at the peak of a cycle, but in a sustainable way in the valleys

as well.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major shortages of funding

in my constituency and one of the major problems — it relates to some

degree to the use of the forest resource — has been the lack of funding

assistance for water systems. I know the budget spoke of increased

assistance to municipalities for water and sewer. In passing, I'm going

to note that it was the same Social Credit government across the way in

the late seventies who reduced the level of funding available to

municipalities for water and sewer.

The real crying need in

my area for assistance in those areas — particularly with fresh water —

is not for the municipal governments; it's for the rural areas. There

is a particular urban bias in the budget which simply does not

recognize the problems that exist in the rural areas. Mr. Speaker, when

I use the term "rural," I mean it in a dictionary sense. "Rural" in

the province of B.C., to many people, has come to mean anything outside

the lower mainland or greater Victoria. I'm not talking about the small

towns and municipalities; I'm talking about the really rural areas —

the improvement districts and irrigation districts.

They

have a major problem with water supply — quantity and quality in many

cases. I would like to see the government address these areas with

equal emphasis. I'm not suggesting taking anything away from assistance

to municipalities, but rather giving the rural areas equal opportunity.

I have long felt that the rules surrounding municipal status —

cost-sharing, policing costs and so on — were far too hard and fast,

depending upon whether an area was in a municipality, a regional

district or whatever its status was under the Municipal Act. The fact

is that all British Columbians pay taxes, and the tax rates are fairly

constant. So they should have available the same services and

opportunities from government.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the

increased capital expenditures on highways. I want to make a note to

the House that I see in the budget the word "rehabilitation" of

highways. People who drive the highways of B.C. — particularly in late

winter, especially in the interior and the north — find that the

surface of the roads by and large are in absolutely atrocious

condition. The highways of the province — the existing infrastructure —

have been neglected over the past few years. Not only have capital

expenditures — the Coquihalla notwithstanding — been a decreasing

portion of the provincial budget, but as the highway network has

matured and grown, there is an increasing demand for simply maintaining

the status quo. Most of the public would think of that in terms of

maintenance; they would think of resurfacing and maintaining a highway

which has perhaps been there for a number of years as simply a

maintenance expenditure. The government, though, considers that a

capital cost, so I think it's a mistake for any member of this House,

let alone the general public, to look at the doubling of what the

government proposes to spend on highways for capital as all going to

new highways, modernized highways, larger bridges or new bridges. A

significant proportion of it will have to be spent on what most people

would consider to be mere maintenance, because the surfaces of the

highways, particularly in the interior and the north, are in absolutely

abominable condition. Strictly speaking, that is from years and years

of neglect. Weather, time and heavy truck loads have taken their toll

on the highways of this province.

The

West Kootenay itself,

of course, needs major expenditures on new and modernized roads. For 15

years now I, the people of Trail and various civic councils have been

fighting for an improvement in Highway 22, which was built in 1922,

essentially, and the southern end of which is still at those standards

— the part that winds through the smelter complex. Property was

acquired more than ten years ago, and preliminary work has been done,

yet we're still waiting for the completion of that project. It's

tremendously important to the area for safety and for the proper

delivery of supplies of ore to that plant that this highway be

finished, and quickly.

That is only the biggest eyesore,

the major eyesore. We have a number of major needs in the constituency,

and it's a small constituency geographically. I shudder to think what

the needs are around the province in those constituencies that are much

larger than mine. We need significant work on the Pass Creek road. We

need improvements to the Seven Mile-Nelway road. We need a connecting

highway between Highway 3 and the Champion Lakes.

The

province proposes to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new

ferries. Yet last year they closed down the ferry, which did carry

substantially more people and more vehicles than any other interior

ferry. Indeed, there are only three routes on the coast — the Albion

ferry and the two southern Georgia crossings — that carried more people

and more vehicles, yet the government shut that ferry down.

[ Page 5816 ]

Now they propose to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new ferries.

increasing number, the people of my riding, along with those in many

other parts of the province, are elderly; that's a demographic fact. We

have a shortage of housing for senior citizens. I'm not talking about

care homes; there's a shortage there too. What about the senior

citizens who are unable to maintain their own house anymore and wish to

move in to a self-contained, self-sustained apartment building? We have

a major shortage of that kind of social housing. I'd like to point out

that it's usually self-financing over the long term. The housing that

is vacated becomes available for younger people, so it's actually

additional to the housing stock. With all the sudden realization of the

sins of its past, I hope the government makes room for substantially

greater expenditures on housing for senior citizens.

Friday afternoon after this House adjourned there was on the news — I

was surprised it did not come up here in the Legislature — a story

about the very first hydroelectric project to be mooted in .British

Columbia since the construction of the Revelstoke Dam was commenced

some ten or more years ago. A private company submitted a proposal to

B.C. Hydro to build a dam on the Columbia River. I'm not making this

up; this happened on Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock. Another dam on the

Columbia River — purely for export, not for domestic use. My goodness,

are there a lot of unanswered questions around this one!

Why

is it that a private company feels that they can invest in an entirely

new dam in British Columbia on a river that is controlled by

expenditures of public money — which the Columbia is — purely for

export, when the sales of export power now are subsidized by the

electrical users in British Columbia? Export power, the price in both

volume, unit price and quantity goes up and down depending on the

supplies in British Columbia and the market price outside of the

province. But export power has almost invariably been sold at below the

cost to which individuals, businesses and industries can buy it in

British Columbia. It is as though a farmer were selling his produce at

one price in the B.C. market and a much lower outside the B.C. market.

The

provincial user of electricity has long subsidized electrical users

outside the province. Hydro had a problem getting electricity to

California. They'd have loved to have gotten a lot more — electricity

not being something you can put in a boat and ship out of the country.

You have to be able to transmit it. Now we have a private company that

says that we can submit a proposal to B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Hydro is

going to have a look at this in-house, and then perhaps down the road

there may be a public hearing process. We may under the Energy Act have

a hearing on this. I hope we do. We may have a hearing before the

comptroller of water rights.

I would hope that all British

Columbians, and the government in particular, and its energy arm B.C.

Hydro have very sharp pencils when they look at this proposal. If power

exports are to be locked up and not available for those of us in

British Columbia — or, indeed, even for Canadian use in general — we run

a grave risk of having one of our major rivers supplying power to

industry across the line without our being able to recover that energy

if we need it.

We've come a long way from Hydro constantly

denying they ever intentionally built power projects for export to the

point where B.C. Hydro appears with the political blessing of the

government, if not having been ordered by the government, to be going

out of their way to develop entirely new projects solely for the

purposes of export.

I want to hope that the provincial

government, in increasing its funding to education in this province,

instead of just taking the attitude that we're going to increase

expenditures by 5 percent, 10 percent or 15 percent, is going to have a

plan in what they do. As people across the way used to say when they

were destroying all of these programs in British Columbia: "You can't

just throw money at a problem." Well, I agree.

When you

decide you want to have a win-friends and-influence-people budget,

which is what the Socred government has done this year, you can't

suddenly correct all of the sins of the past few years by throwing

money at the problem.

[4:45]

I think it's wonderful there are some nebulous plans for

post-secondary degree-granting status in various parts of the interior

north. I think that's great, but I certainly hope good planning has

gone into it in terms of meeting the post-secondary education needs of

all British Columbians, meeting the needs of employers. As a taxpayer,

I want the very most from our education dollar.

People of

my area have post-secondary education needs as well. We are a little

bit disturbed throughout the interior, especially in my area, with

having such a low participation rate when we have such bright people

who certainly have contributed long and hard in their tax dollars to

the quality of life in British Columbia.

Instead of just

throwing money at the problem, I would hope that school boards and

educators, both at the school level and at the post-secondary level,

will be given the tools to do the job in terms of a management and

technical ability and not just be handed money and told to go ahead and

spend it however way you can. It's tremendously important for British

Columbians to become competitive in terms of our training programs for

all British Columbians.

Just before I sit down I want to

re-emphasize to the government the tremendous importance of encouraging

our value-added industries and recognizing that we can no longer live

on our raw materials in this province. We aren't really living on them

now. We have to encourage the importation of raw materials to British

Columbia, and that means lowering the disincentive taxes, like the

water tax, on our manufacturing industries in this province before we

lose them entirely.

[ Page 5817 ]

MR. De JONG :

I rise today with a sense of pride and satisfaction in support of this

year's budget. I believe that through good government, dedication and

consultation, we've been able to achieve a great amount in the last

three years. In fact, our achievement has been that from a $1.2 billion

deficit operation in '86-87, we have come to a balanced budget for

'89-90. It's not only a balanced budget; we also anticipate paying down

on the accumulated debt of previous years.

This balanced

budget is not a result, as the members of the opposition have said, of

neglect or cutbacks in education, health and social services; in fact,

to the contrary. Neither was it a result of increased taxation; just

the opposite. Didn't we reduce, in the first year of our mandate,

'87-88, our sales tax by 1 percent, thereby pumping over a quarter of a

billion dollars into economic activities of this province?

This

achievement is not just as a result of failing to meet crisis

situations. In fact, this government is known for its spontaneous

response to many crisis situations. just to name a few: the

grape-growers in the Okanagan had immediate response to the problem

when the free trade agreement came about; and again, I am happy to

note, they are considered for further assistance in this budget. Did

this government cancel the interest rebate program for agriculture

prior to its commitment that they would continue this until five-year

mortgages were available below 12 percent? No, this government carried

on with those programs. This government's timely and valued response to

patients suffering from the AIDS virus, coupled with appropriate

measures in an attempt to protect society at large, is another very

positive step. This government's immediate response to the technical

advances which are now in the area of health care, advanced education

and job training, as well as introducing computer programming and

training at the elementary level.... This government didn't fail; it

acted.

The question may be asked why the British Columbia

government is able to achieve what no other province has been able to

do. First of all, this government has, under the capable leadership of

its Premier, established a clear goal and a firm direction to achieve

that goal. The goal was to balance the budget and reduce the

accumulated deficit and to enhance those programs essential to the

well-being of all British Columbians.

This government,

unlike the members of the opposition, has recognized that there is, in

fact, a limit on the ability to pay for the average British Columbian.

This government has recognized the fact that in order to provide,

improve or expand on programs which enhance the lifestyles of those

less fortunate of those who are caught by the storms of life, be they

financial, physical or mental, there must be an economy not only to

implement these programs but to sustain such programs in less

prosperous times. The key, Mr. Speaker, is to maintain the many good

programs within this budget, and I'm confident that with a good,

continued administration we can do that. This government knows that to

pass on additional debts accumulated in times of economic growth is

just not an acceptable practice. Doing that and continuing to add to

our accumulated debt during good economic times is irresponsible on the

part of any government.

This government was elected by the

people of this province. They not only speak about fiscal

responsibility but act, and the people expected nothing else. I'm truly

pleased that by this government accepting the challenge of preparing a

climate for economic expansion, we have been able to meet the

expectati