1991 Legislative Session: 5th 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, MAY 27, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12215 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Inland water projects. Mr. Cashore –– 12215

Environment ministry regulations. Mr. Cashore –– 12215

Former chairman of Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

Mr. Sihota –– 12216

Soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 12216

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 12216

Power- and gas-line extension program. Ms. Edwards 12217

Tobacco industry lobby. Mr. Perry –– 12217

Budget Debate

Mr. Sihota –– 12217

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 12219

Mr. D'Arcy –– 12222

On the amendment

Mrs. Boone –– 12224

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 12226

Mr. Clark –– 12230

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12223

Mr. Gabelmann –– 12237

MONDAY, MAY 27, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery this afternoon we

have Patricia and Ted Jensen, who are visiting from Toronto, Ontario.

Patricia is the sister of our hon. Law Clerk, Mr. Ian Izard. I wonder

if we could all welcome them to our Legislature.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, seated on the floor of the House is

a distinguished guest, my Member of Parliament for Port

Moody-Coquitlam, Mr. Ian Waddell. Would the House please join me in

making him welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would ask this assembly to welcome from

Burnsview high school, 60 grade 10 students with their teacher Mr.

Westlake and a number of parents. Would this assembly please make them

welcome.

MR. LOVICK: In the gallery are two good friends of mine. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming Ms. Debbie Parhar and Mr.

Tarlock Parhar. These two friends also have the distinction of being

related to my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Mr.

Parhar is my colleague's father-in-law, and Ms. Parhar is his

sister-in-law. Please join me in making them welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like the House to welcome 50 grade 7 students and their teacher Mr. Herrin from Hillside Middle School, West Vancouver.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I won't reintroduce my in-laws, but

I would like to take a moment to introduce my wife Jessie, who is

joining us today as well.

HON. MR. FRASER: On behalf of the MLAs from Vancouver South,

I would like to introduce Ms. Ramsay and Mr. Carpenter with their class

from Captain Cook Elementary School. Would the House please join with

me in making them welcome.

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I have just noticed in the House

an ex-adviser to this government for many years, a man whose opinion on

constitutional matters and suchlike is well respected and who isn't

afraid to put pen to paper to express them. I ask the House to welcome

Mr. Melvin Smith.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Visiting the House today are Dr. Jack Yang

and his wife Elsa Yang. Also with them are Scott Coffin and Daniel

Chin. Dr. Yang is from Taiwan and has his PhD in nutrition from

Washington State University. For the last two years he has lived in

Canada. He is the general manager of Sunrider International. Would the

House please make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: I have just noticed in the gallery my good

friends Ken and Mary Fowler, and I'd like to ask the House to join me

in making them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a document.

Recently, accusations were made of an improper process by Mount St.

Mary Hospital and Saanich Peninsula Hospital in awarding contracts for

laundry services without following the proper purchasing procedures. As

a result, an investigation was ordered into the process followed by the

hospitals, and I'm tabling the results of that investigation today.

Oral Questions

INLAND WATER PROJECTS

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Environment. The flooding season is upon us, and British Columbians are

naturally concerned about diversions and other projects that affect our

inland waters. Does the minister agree that to protect our water

resource, his ministry should review and approve all projects that may

have an impact on rivers and streams?

MR. SPEAKER: This question is much more appropriate for the estimates, or certainly for the order paper.

HON. MR. MERCIER: I'm certainly happy to agree that we will take a look at the things that were mentioned.

MR. SPEAKER: I would just caution the member that the scope

of the question would really restrict question period to the point of

no other members being advised.... So perhaps the member could narrow

it down to something a little tighter.

MR. CASHORE: Channel relocations and the construction of

bridges, culverts, docks and wharves are projects that currently

require statutory review and approval, Is it the minister's position

that the environmental impact of these projects justifies the current

requirement for statutory approval?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I didn't hear a question there. I would like to have a question.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to changes in and about a stream, is

the ministry currently proposing to reduce its authority over channel

relocations and other projects?

HON. MR. MERCIER: We're in the process of reviewing a number

of regulatory areas, and this could be included. I take that part of

the question on notice.

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY REGULATIONS

MR. CASHORE: A new question, Mr. Speaker. The minister

recognizes that the ministry is developing regulations that weaken

ministry powers. Under the

[ Page 12216 ]

regulations, these projects could be built without

the authority of a licence, order or other ministry approval. Will the

minister confirm that such regulations now being developed are going to

essentially weaken the requirements for review in dealing with these

applications?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The difficulty with the position taken

there is that the member opposite ignored what I said in answer to the

previous question: the regulations are under review. So if you hadn't

been determined to go on with your next question and had listened to

what I said, it would have given you the answer to the last question:

yes, we have the regulations under review. As to the specific ones that

you're commenting on, I'd be happy to report back in due course.

MR. CASHORE: Will the minister recognize that these

regulations, which are under review, will significantly weaken the

protection of the environment in this province where those

installations are involved?

[2:15]

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the member doesn't have to

speak louder; I understand what he was trying to say. My answer still

applies. The regulations are in the process of being reviewed and until

that review is complete, I will just say to the member that we will

take those comments into consideration,

FORMER CHAIRMAN OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Environment. By way of an order-in-council, dated August 2, 1990, a

number of people were appointed to the Hazardous Waste Management

Corporation, including the current member from Delta. Apart from the

usual arrangements — for example, per diems — could the minister advise

the House what other arrangements were made with that member for

additional benefits and/or employment?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the previous chairman was

removed from the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation by an

order-in-council. The matter of any other arrangements is presently

under discussion. The former chairman's position is that there might be

some additional remuneration forthcoming; the position of this ministry

is that there is not. Because the matter could well develop into a

claim situation, I believe that any further comment at this time would

be unnecessary.

MR. SIHOTA: Any remuneration payable would, of course, be paid for by

the taxpayers, and this is the vehicle through which that minister has to be

accountable for that expenditure. What offers were extended, or purported to

have been extended, to that member concerning prospects for employment or otherwise?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, this minister extended no

offer. As I have already stated, the Position is a matter of

disagreement between the former chairman and this minister. The matter

could well develop into a claim situation, and in due course we will

know if it has. At this point it has not.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says there is a dispute. Would he care to tell the House what the parameters of the dispute are?

HON. MR. MERCIER: No.

MR. SIHOTA: Will the minister advise the House what offer was made by the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation to that member?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, as I've already advised, the

position taken by this minister is that there is no claim in existence.

Until such is received in a formal manner, the response to the question

is that there is no claim.

SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: I have a question to the Minister of

Environment. Some crews removing soil from the Expo site have been

ordered to wear protective clothing and respirators. Six years ago,

hundreds of workers spent months constructing that site and were never

told to wear protective clothing, nor were they warned that the soil

they worked in contained potentially hazardous substances. Has the

minister decided to find and notify the workers involved and to offer

medical tests to those concerned about their possible exposure to

hazardous materials?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The problem with the position taken by this

member is that of all the information available — and as commented on

by the Vancouver municipal health officer.... The degree of concern was

such that it would not seem necessary to do what the member suggests.

But I will take it into consideration and review the steps taken. The

member does not serve the public by heightening concerns — such as the

misstatement made with respect to the soil. If the member opposite

understood the hierarchy of soils and whether they're hazardous or not,

then he would not have misused the term "toxic" with respect to soils

removed, and he would not have been causing the concern of the public

in cases where it's not warranted.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: I have a new question to the same minister. Your

officials went to Richmond council, but they refused to answer

questions from the public. They have now agreed to go back to Richmond

and answer those questions — which is a departure from the minister's

position to date, I must note. However, it appears that such a meeting

has yet to be scheduled. Has the minister instructed his staff to meet

with Richmond

[ Page

12217 ]

residents as soon as possible, and can he tell us when this meeting will take place?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, this member continues to

manage misinformation. I think I'll take the position that I'm fairly

well in touch with the situation in Richmond, and I am satisfied that

the soil being moved to Richmond is not a health concern nor in any way

hazardous. The purpose of having the meeting escapes me. In due course,

I'm sure that before the site is used in the future, the municipality

of Richmond will have to have the usual types of public hearings.

Please don't confuse the issue of the soil that is moving to the

site with the matters which may properly come before Richmond council

in due course.

POWER- AND GAS-LINE

EXTENSION PROGRAM

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. British Columbians in the

interior and the north feel abandoned by this government. My colleague

for Boundary-Similkameen has already noted that agriculture wasn't even

mentioned in the budget and, reinforcing this statement of neglect and

resistance, this minister has cancelled the power- and gas-line

extension program which was introduced just last year. Has the program

been ended because there is no more demand for the extension of these

services in the province?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I would disagree with the first part of

the question. I think northern British Columbians feel very well served

by this government, and their voting patterns show it.

The gas-line and powerline extension program has been one of the

most successful programs this government has ever introduced, and it

has been used very successfully in both northern and southern British

Columbia and the interior. In fact, there's a great demand for gas line

extensions in particular. We are presently trying to identify a process

that would allow us to broaden the service to people desiring to have

natural gas in their homes and their businesses. The ministry is

looking at ways to work with the Utilities Commission and the gas

companies to offer that kind of service, as we have done so many times

in the past.

MS. EDWARDS: In announcing this program last year, the budget

proudly announced that more people in the north and the interior will

be able to enjoy the full benefits of our energy resources. More than

100 communities have requested natural gas line assistance through B.C.

Gas under this program for 1991, and far from expanding it, the

ministry has cut it off. Why has the minister abandoned these people

just when they had hopes of getting gas service extended to their

communities?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: One of the difficulties when you have 100 communities

wanting a service is deciding on priorities: who you give service to; who you

don't. As I said earlier and as my friend the Minister of Environment noted,

the members opposite rarely listen to answers but simply respond with question

number two, three and four regardless of the answer to the first question.

As I said the first time around, we are working with the Utilities

Commission and with gas companies on ways we could expand the base and

make more gas service available. There are no funds in this year's

budget for gas-line extensions, and we are continuing to review that

with the Minister of Finance as well.

MS. EDWARDS: The communities applying for this program in

1991 used the equivalent of 610,000 barrels of crude oil in a single

year. Most of this could be replaced with cleaner gas. If he's serious

about replacing this and about broadening the program, could the

minister explain why he did not simply say that he couldn't decide who

is going to have it, and cut it off? Why didn't the minister do that?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's refreshing to see that the member

is going to continue with her series of questions regardless of the

answer. The greatest example of expanding natural gas service to the

residents of British Columbia has to be the Vancouver Island gas

pipeline. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being expended to take

natural gas up the Sunshine Coast to Sechelt, to Texada, across to

Comox, up to Courtenay, and down the Island all the way to Victoria.

That is the biggest natural gas extension program in the history of

British Columbia. It's by far the biggest and best program we've ever

introduced.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY LOBBY

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. Is the

minister aware that the tobacco addiction lobby has recently begun a

new campaign to waste public funds through abuse of the franking system

and the lobbying campaign against the Prime Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, yes, I've seen the advertisements.

The member probably knows I would not support that at all, because I'm

a vigorous anti-smoker and would support any anti-smoking campaign. But

I'm not aware of how a tobacco company could have franking privileges;

that's extended to MLAs and Members of Parliament, but certainly not to

any private industry.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has ten minutes left in his speech.

MR. SIHOTA: Before adjournment on Friday we were talking

about the budget that the government brought forward and how it failed

to articulate a vision

[ Page 12218 ]

for the province and continued to perpetrate the

big lie as to the extent of government finances. We have here an

administration which on the one hand says it has been managing the

economy well, but on the other hand fails to reveal to the public the

extent of the overall budget. In fact, if my memory serves me

correctly, the government documents show that we have a $1.2 billion

deficit in the budget this year, and yet we have the Minister of....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'll just wait for it to settle down a bit in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Please continue.

MR. SIHOTA: As I was saying on Friday at the conclusion of my

comments, there are a couple of things that I want to touch upon this

afternoon in concluding the debate on the budget. The first, of course,

is my concern about what the Premier has been saying across the

province with respect to federal-provincial negotiations. As I pointed

out on Friday, and wish to sort of pick up today, in my riding I have a

military base...

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: If the members would settle down, they might appreciate the importance of this comment.

... as does the Minister of Finance. The federal government is

currently in the process of making a number of cuts with respect to

defence expenditures in Canada and, as a consequence of that, there is

a fair bit of concern across military installations and in ridings such

as mine about the impact of those cuts. In fact, right now there is a

lot of concern in my riding with respect to the impact of those cuts,

in terms of both the base we have there and Royal Roads, as an

institution of higher learning in the riding.

[2:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

About a week ago I called upon the Premier, as I will again today,

to express on the part of the province the concern that the closure of

these bases will have a significant impact on the economy of

neighbouring areas, and that it is essential that the federal

government clarify its intentions vis-à-vis defence policy in this

country. To date, I note that the Premier has not seen fit to take

action with respect to that call. Be that as it may, what bothers me —

and I wish she were here today — is that the Premier has in fact taken

a position in support of those kinds of cutbacks.

I note that about a week ago she indicated that she was not in a position to

criticize the federal government for any reductions in expenditures because,

after all, she was making the same argument here in British Columbia. I wonder

to what extent that argument now colours all other federal-provincial negotiations

between British Columbia and the federal government.

The federal government and the province are currently in

negotiations over the kaon factory. Will that now be the position of

the provincial government — that it can go ahead and scrap any funding

for a program because the province is not in a position to criticize

federal cutbacks?

Will it now be the position of the provincial government that it

sees nothing wrong with cutbacks on shipbuilding agreements — because,

again, the federal government should be left alone to pursue the same

type of economic policies as this administration does here in the

province?

Will the province now be abandoning its court case with respect to

Canada Assistance Plan cutbacks? As the hon. members of the House know,

the federal government cut back — to the tune of some $200 million, in

the case of British Columbia — the payments under the Canada Assistance

Plan known as equalization payments. The feds made that cut. The

province, I think to its credit, took that to court a year and a half

ago and argued that those payments should be made and that the feds

cannot back out of a contractual agreement that makes sure that there

are equalization payments coming to British Columbia.

Will it now be the position of the provincial government, in light

of what the province has had to say, that it will not oppose those

cutbacks in transfer payments — which, I may say, have an impact on

just about every minister, be it of Municipal Affairs, Government

Services, Women's Programs, Energy or Agriculture? They are in the

House right now and appreciate that those payments from the federal

government have an impact on the programs the province can offer.

Given the fact that the Premier, the first minister of this

province, has said that she is not in a position to argue against

federal cutbacks, are we now vacating the field of taking on the

federal government? One cannot help but conclude that that is indeed

the position of the provincial government, in light of the statements

with respect to defence.

While I am on defence, let me use this opportunity to call on the

Premier of this province to say to the federal government that it is

one thing to make decisions to cut back expenditures on defence, but

it's another to do it without a plan. Surely a better way for the

federal government to proceed is to lay out a White Paper on defence,

state its positions, state what type of intentions it has, develop a

national consensus around those changes and then make the cuts or the

changes that are necessary. One of the biggest problems right now is

that there is a cloud of uncertainty around many of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you will appreciate this more than perhaps

most other members in the House. In a riding like mine, there's a lot

of concern with respect to Royal Roads and the future of that facility.

It is an institution of higher learning; it trains and equips our young

men and women to deal with the technological changes in the world

today. At the very time that the federal government is contemplating

making cuts in the defence budget, surely it's also got to make sure

that it has its best minds able to deal with the gaps in the service.

Royal Roads takes the best minds in

[ Page

12219 ]

Canada and trains them to serve the country well —

in, as I am sure you would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, a tri-service

capacity in a tri-service training facility.

If the federal government proceeds with its cuts or decides to

declassify Royal Roads as a tri-service facility, then many young

people from ridings like mine will find themselves faced with the

choice of either staying home, where they can now get training, or

going to Ontario or Quebec to get training, which is an expensive

proposition.

Again, it would seem appropriate to me that the provincial

government would call upon the federal government to reconsider its

plans, or at least to outline its intentions, with respect to an

institution of higher learning such as Royal Roads. And the provincial

Ministry of Advanced Education should give some thought to the

utilization of the facilities we have in Colwood at Royal Roads, and

perhaps to using portions of that facility for some of the provincial

training that takes place.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to see the Premier take a different

position than she has, and I would hope that she will in the next few

days.

I see that my time is nearly up, so let me recap a number of the

points I was trying to make the other day. First, this budget continues

the lie. The government has not come forward honestly and indicated the

extent of its deficit. It has a $1.2 billion deficit in this budget,

the highest deficit in provincial history. If you take into account the

comments of the auditor-general, we have a $9 billion accumulated debt

built up during the time this government has been in power. We have had

a history of this government misleading the people of this province as

to the true state of its finances. As I said the other day, one need

only remember the famous phrase in the Coquihalla report which

indicated, if I may quote, that the government had embarked upon a

process of "deceit, prevarication and lies." That began with the

Coquihalla and regrettably continues here today with respect to this

budget.

HON. MRS. GRAN: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and speak in favour of this budget.

Before I get into the specifics of the budget, I'd like to spend

some time reflecting on why I personally became a member of the Social

Credit Party and not the NDP. The best example that I can use is a

piece of material that the NDP don't like to talk about: it was called

the Waffle Manifesto. It's required reading for anyone who cares about

their country, their province or their future.

The interesting thing about that manifesto was that it told us very

clearly that what the NDP intended to do was to infiltrate the unions,

education and women's groups, and they would then control any given

government. In this case it was British Columbia. One of the authors or

editors of that Waffle Manifesto was an individual called Ken

Novakowski. He is now the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I

don't know if that means that they control education, but I think it

tells us that they've been successful in some measure.

That particular piece of paper spurred me into caring enough to join a political

party, to help that political party get elected and eventually to become elected

myself. It's the one issue that made someone who didn't pay much attention

to politics become very interested.

I hope that the groups that I mentioned — unions, education and

women's groups — have not been captured by the NDP. I have met many of

the people who belong to those organizations, and I know that they

haven't. But it's a scary thought when one group sets out to

deliberately capture and infiltrate that organization and take over the

management, to fight the government. We must always remember that

fighting the government means fighting the people, because that's what

the government is: the people of the province or the country concerned.

Budgets are all about philosophy. They represent what those governments stand for.

I want also to reflect on a man called W.A.C. Bennett, who I am

extremely proud to have known — not well, but to have known. All Social

Credit members and all people who live in British Columbia are indebted

to W.A.C. Bennett. He had great foresight. He was not just a

bottom-line man or Premier, and he was a very caring man. I think it's

important for all of us in this House to remember that just about all

of the programs in this province date back to W.A.C. Bennett. We owe

him a great debt.

The next Premier I knew far better: Bill Bennett. I worked for ten

years in the Bill Bennett administration, and I enjoyed every minute of

those ten years. I enjoyed, it because it was consistent government,

and because you always knew where you stood. That included the people

who were elected, the taxpayers of the province and the NDP. They

always knew where they stood in opposition. Bill Bennett was a

consistent leader, and he was a caring man. He was loyal to the people

who served in his cabinet, and he never created an atmosphere that made

it difficult for his colleagues.

There has been criticism of this budget from many quarters — some

from Social Credit quarters. I guess it's healthy, but for me it's

difficult to hear a member of our own party talk about our budget in a

negative way. But that's the democratic process, and it's every

individual member's right to do so. I thought it important for me today

to make that point and to talk about other Social Credit leaders and

how they behaved.

The controversy over the deficit of this budget is a healthy one,

because what we're talking about are budgeting principles. If the

budget deficit is $395 million or if it's $1.2 billion, we're talking

about budgeting principles. That debate has taken place just about

every time we've had a budget in this House. What we on this side of

the House need to remember is that if this were an NDP budget, the

deficit would be $6 billion.

I use that figure because that's the figure we have come up with in

line with all of the promises made by the NDP over the last four and a

half years. Six billion dollars is a whole lot different than $395

million or $1.2 billion. That's six billion dollars worth of NDP

promises. It tells you that Ontario is not unique, and that 1972-1975

was not unique. If the NDP are to retain power after the next election,

they will do exactly what

[ Page 12220 ]

the other two NDP governments did. The debt will be at least $6 billion in one budgeting year.

By the time the NDP raises the welfare rates, triples the day care

costs and gives the farm to the BCTF and the BCGEU, there won't be much

left for anybody else. That's only in one budget year. Those are the

issues we have to talk about for the next few months. We have to talk

about the difference between those two philosophies, and then the

people of this province will decide.

[2:45]

I watched the Leader of the Opposition on the news the other night

respond to John Shields's attack on the government. As usual, he danced

around the issue, never answering the question, In fact, in four and a

half years the Leader of the Opposition has never squarely answered a

question.

I found the comments of John Shields repugnant. His attack on the

government is incredibly irresponsible. What I find even more

interesting — and it goes back to my comments about the Waffle

Manifesto — are the comments reported today in the Vancouver Sun

attributed to the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, who says

that he expects major legislative and policy changes under a New

Democratic Party government. In fact, he told the convention that some

of the changes could occur immediately upon change of government. How

does Ken Georgetti know that? Does he have an inside track? I guess the

sad truth is that they have infiltrated the unions, and they owe those

organizations. They owe each and every one of them, and we all know

what the end result will be for us as taxpayers. We know what will

happen in this province.

For the members of the BCGEU, though, is that going to translate

into more money for those public servants? I don't think so, because

the money is not there. What it means is that under the NDP there will

be more money for fewer people or a broken NDP promise or, more likely,

a massive debt load for the taxpayer.

Public servants need to reflect very carefully on being told by

their union leader that they should not vote Social Credit. He didn't

say that they should vote NDP but that they shouldn't vote Social

Credit. I would be offended at paying someone a large salary to come to

that conclusion. I would be particularly offended if I was a woman

working in the public service, because it's this government that

introduced a pay equity plan. This government has put $40 million of

extra money on the line for the women who work in our public service.

We made that decision, and it wasn't necessarily a popular one

throughout this province. Pay equity is very controversial and

difficult to implement, but it spells fairness for people.

There were many difficulties with the leader of the BCGEU while we

were doing this, but it has turned out to be the best pay equity

initiative in Canada, if not North America — and now Mr. Shields has

taken credit for that initiative. Fair pay increases is what this

government wants for its employees. Fair is what the taxpayers can

afford to pay.

We've also gone a step further. We've put child care into the workplace

where we've been able to in this government. That's a first, and it's

very important to those families who work in government, particularly the mothers

with new babies who must go back to work because their family income dictates

that they must.

This government, just as all Social Credit governments, has done a

lot of good things for people. But all of us who take our paycheques

from the people must always remember that we must never allow ourselves

to become the elite in this province, with bigger paycheques and better

benefits than people in the private sector. This government is trying

to control the expenses on behalf of the taxpayer to make sure that we

don't take more than is there and more than is fair.

I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about education, because the

NDP spends a lot of time talking about education, taking shots at some

of our initiatives and always saying that we never spend enough money

on education. It's interesting because from 1986 to this year, the

education budget has almost doubled — from $2.7 billion to $4.1

billion. Mr. Speaker, that's a lot of money out of the budget of a

province with only three million people to pay the bill.

In my community education is a big issue. We have more families per

capita in Langley than any other community in this province, and we

have extreme growth problems. The average teacher's salary in Langley

is $50,619, including benefits. That's not bad. I don't underestimate

what teachers have to do in their day, what they have to put up with or

how difficult their job is. But $51,000 is a fairly good paycheque in

British Columbia, and that's for a young teacher who hasn't had

experience.

Growth areas like Surrey, Delta, Maple Ridge and all of the rest of

the Fraser Valley have very unique challenges. When we build a school

in my community, before that school even opens its doors, there are

portables all over the yard. The growth is absolutely impossible to

keep up with.

This year the Ministry of Education doubled the capital budget to

over $600 million for communities like Langley to try to keep up with

the growth and to put students into proper classrooms and teachers into

better working conditions. We are going to have to be very creative in

our communities in the Fraser Valley and lower mainland to keep up with

the rapid growth.

I guess we have to ask ourselves: does more money translate into

better education? I read some interesting comments in the paper the

other day by students who had graduated from school. They didn't give

the education system good marks, because that system didn't provide

them with the background they felt they needed to survive in the

society they ended up going into.

We have to look at a lot of things in education. We have to look at

the responsibilities of teachers, who are now parents, babysitters,

psychologists and social workers. It's a stressful job. As the family

breaks down, more problems come into the classrooms and more teachers

find their jobs stressful. We have to look at the entire education

system. We have to look at what students need to be equipped with to

survive in today's society. We all know that education is the key to

economic freedom for men and women, and if that's

[ Page

12221 ]

true, then education has to be one of the single

most important issues in our society. That means we all have to pay

more attention to what happens in that system.

In school districts, we can ask if they are top-heavy with

administration. Are we spending too much money on administration? Are

we helping teachers enough? Do we have enough support in those schools

to help with the social problems? Those are questions that society has

to answer. Those are questions that good politicians should be putting

forward and talking about in election campaigns and in between.

As a mom and a grandmother, I worry about education. I worry about

the confrontation created by the BCTF and the NDP, the climate of

confrontation that pits parents against teachers and teachers against

the government. There has to be a better way for us all to work

together.

Perhaps unionization of teachers was not the wisest move for us to

make. Many teachers in my district tell me that they wish they didn't

have to belong to a union and that they far preferred to be

professionals.

And so in this next election campaign, I would hope that the NDP

wouldn't use education, that they wouldn't make people think that

education isn't funded and scare children about their futures. Most of

all, I hope that the biggest, best-funded union in British Columbia

never becomes government in this province. If the NDP are elected, the

B.C. Teachers' Federation will be our government.

It's important in this budget debate to touch on all three of the

big ministries in government: Health, Education and Social Services.

And for the Finance minister and cabinet it's a balancing act — not

who's most important, but how do you fund them all. How do you fund all

of the programs that people need and want in a country drowning in debt?

In this particular budget that has a deficit, this government has

increased the funding in all three of those areas. No budget cuts.

That's really important for us to remember. No budget cuts in a time of

recession.

We've protected the health care system, which is the very essence of

being a Canadian. Canadians believe in fair treatment for everyone, and

if there is any one single thing that I as a politician want to see

protected, it's our health care system. I want to know that all

children, regardless of their parents' income, have the same access to

medical care as everyone else does. That's the Canadian way. And we've

done our

part in this province in keeping that health care system well

funded.

[3:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think about the families in the United States that I've talked to who,

even if they are fortunate enough to find an insurance company that will give

them coverage, surely can't afford the premiums every month. It's not

easy for a government to put the rates up for health care coverage, but I can

tell you that what we pay in this province is absolutely nothing compared to

our neighbours to the south, and it's money well spent. We also spend a

tremendous amount of money in subsidies helping those families whose incomes

are lower and who can't afford to pay the full rates.

I think that this Finance minister in this budget has done a really

good balancing act. Right across Canada, hospitals are struggling to

stay alive and to fund all of the programs and surgeries — everything

that makes a hospital what it is in this country

When I think about the months that this government endured the

advertisements paid for by the doctors undermining the health care

system, it makes me wonder, sometimes, who really cares about the

health care system. Is it government that cares? Is it the people who

benefit financially like the doctors? Who cares about this health care

system? Surely an organization like the doctors cares about our health

care system. If they do, why would they use that very health care

system as a club to better their own financial position? We all have to

remember, in the heat of political battle, that there are areas that

should not be used as political baseballs. I believe that health care

is one of them.

In this government we don't talk very much about the privatization

initiative that went on. I think the first member for Richmond should

feel very proud of that fund — half a billion dollars sitting in a fund

gathering interest. One of the proposed uses for the interest on the

fund is a B.C. retirement savings plan which would benefit, in

particular, those parents who stay at home raising children. That's an

initiative by a Social Credit government, one that surely would never

have been done by an NDP government. But we did it, and the money is

there, and nobody talks about that — they just talk about the deficit.

If we were to put that money into this year's budget, there wouldn't be

a deficit, but that wouldn't be a very wise thing for us to do.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about my own ministry — about

women and children and families. I want to talk about how this

government over the last year and a half has done such a tremendous job

in assisting families, in changing attitudes and in just overall really

caring about the families in this province.

We have, as I said before, a choice coming up in the election. The

choice is a helping hand from a Social Credit government or a handout

from the NDP. Nowhere in government is the difference in philosophy

more apparent than in my own ministry.

Social Credit, from the beginning — from 1952 — has cared about the

family, has supported the family and has taken pride in talking about

the family. My own observation of the NDP philosophy is that they

patronize families and in many ways, through some of the things that

are said and the accusations that are made, encourage bitterness and

hatred, pitting women against men and creating even more conflict for

children to deal with.

The Ministry of Women's Programs and Families has to be dealt with

in a very sensitive and caring way. It can't or shouldn't be used

politically. The issues of child care and violence are two of the most

important issues that I have dealt with as minister in the last year.

In this year's budget there is over $12 million in additional money

for child care. That's in addition to the $60 million in the Social

Services budget for child

[ Page 12222 ]

care subsidies. That $12 million will partially go

to communities to help them put into place the kind of child care they

want. There will be $4 million in additional money for violence-related

matters — real money to help real families pull themselves together in

our community.

I'd like to end my remarks by saying that I hope

the people of this province will look at this budget, see the intent in

which it is meant — not to hurt people but to help them — and continue

with sound financial management by keeping British Columbia Social

Credit.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: The member knows it is improper, but shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. VANDER ZALM: On behalf of the member for Surrey–White

Rock–Cloverdale, I'm very pleased to introduce in the gallery now 48

grades 9 to 12 students from White Rock Christian Academy. I would ask

the House to make them welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: Before I get into my remarks on the budget, I want to briefly pay tribute to the former member for North Vancouver–Seymour,

now deceased, and make a note that this member of the House was a

friend of the resource industries, particularly those in my riding. He

was originally from the interior, and whether working with the old B.C.

Electric Co., the federal government or in this chamber in different

ministerial capacities, he was a contributor to the ability of British

Columbians to earn a good living from the abundant natural resources of

this province. We could use more of his kind on both sides of the House.

Before I get into the budget, I want to make some comments about

some good things that have happened in the past year in my own riding.

I know we hear a lot of....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Some good things. I'll get to some other things

that maybe aren't so good later on, but there are some good things that

have occurred in my riding, and some have involved the government,

which deserves some notice.

For instance, a centralized access centre recently opened in Trail to serve

the region. We have long needed two kilometres of new highway bypassing the smelter,

the smelter hill and various railway crossings in Trail. We have the hospital

expansion in Castlegar — again, much needed — and we have seen improvements in

our provincial parks — in particular, Champion Lakes and Syringa Creek Parks.

You'd almost think this was a Social Credit riding, wouldn't you? We've

also had three major paving contracts completed: the highway between Salmo and

Fruitvale, the highway between Trail and RossIand through Warfield and Highway

22A from Waneta junction down to the U.S. border, including a resurfacing of

one of the former railway bridges, which is now used as a highway bridge across

the Pend d'OreiIIe River.

We needed some of these projects because they were greatly overdue,

of course, and also because of increased economic activity.

Nonetheless, I have to take note before the chamber that they did occur

within the last fiscal year. Perhaps one should also mention that we

also have a commitment — no money, but a commitment — for a new bridge

across the Columbia River in Castlegar. In the private sector, I

suppose the most noted new projects would be a care centre and finally

— after 30 years we've been waiting — an expanded and modernized pulp

mill in Castlegar.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to make some comments about

the economy of the province — particularly the way we don't pay much

attention to that in this chamber. Since this budget has come down, and

even during the budget, the Minister of Finance talked about some of

the people issuer, in the province, and what a good minister he was —

or thought he was — because he was authorizing new expenditures and

higher expenditures of money. He didn't really want to talk about the

fact that there was a major deficit in British Columbia, the largest

that has ever occurred.

But Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Minister of Finance, I got the

distinct impression that he was doing what Social Credit has always

accused the opposition of doing: he wanted to throw money at problems.

He didn't want to do anything about them; he just wanted to throw money

at them — money that he didn't have. He didn't have the money because

the economy of the province is in a downturn. Throughout his entire

budget address, and indeed in the debate that has ensued in this House,

we have not heard anything about the resource industries of British

Columbia, the manufacturing industries, the export industries or the

difficult times they are in, and how the public — all three million of

them, if they were very interested in what happens in this chamber —

would be wondering why those people, to whom we are paying all this

money to represent us, aren't trying to work together to do something

about the economy in British Columbia.

British Columbians don't expect the government or the people in this

chamber to work miracles. They don't expect us to have easy solutions,

but they do want to see us sincerely and honestly working to improve

the opportunities in British Columbia so that British Columbians can

work their way out of the recession we're in.

There was no mention at all of the forest industry in the budget

speech. There was a recycling of the reforestation plan, There was no

mention at all of the difficulties facing the industry in sawmills,

veneer plants, pulp mills, paper mills, plywood plants and

remanufacturing operations or the problems that loggers face — both

contract and those who work for larger companies.

There was no mention at all of the difficulties that the agriculture

industry faces in British Columbia. There was no mention of the

difficulties that manufacturers are having, particularly as we get

further and

[ Page

12223 ]

further into the trade agreement with the United

States and the difficulties they may have even in future when and if —

maybe when — a trade agreement goes into place with Mexico.

Is the government not going to deal with any of these things, or are

they going to try to deal with them after the fact? It's one thing to

have a brush-fire approach to problems, but it doesn't do you much good

to have a brush-fire approach when the building has burned down. The

government needs to anticipate problems and deal with those that are

out there.

Mr. Speaker, the mining and smelting industry is in difficulty in

this province. The smelting industry in my area faces punitive taxes on

electricity which their competitors in both the Third World and the

main world don't have to pay. They face taxes on electricity levied by

this province that their Common Market competitors don't pay, Mexican

competitors don't pay, Pacific Rim competitors don't pay and American

competitors don't pay. Will the government do anything about that? Oh

no, we won't even talk about that. Not only could that industry be

maintained, but it could be expanded if the government was prepared to

enter into a dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, we all know where government gets most of its revenue.

It isn't from resource taxes; it isn't from corporate taxes. It might

be nice if it did, but it doesn't. Government gets most of its revenue

— the kind the Finance minister wants to spend on education, health

care, paving highways and so on — from people who are working, who are

in business and earning money through their business. Government gets

most of its money from sales taxes, income taxes and transaction taxes

of various kinds that happen when the economy is humming.

[3:15]

Does the government propose any measures to get the economy moving

faster? No. Have we heard the government members talk about that? No.

Mr. Speaker, people in this chamber need to deal with some of these

things. As I say, nobody expects miracles, but they do expect to see us

moving on some of these issues.

Small business and retailers are having difficulty in this province,

in part because the retail trade is simply not out there the way it

was, and in part — especially if you live within driving distance of

the U.S. border — because people are going across the line to buy

things. Are they going across the line because they're disloyal to

Canada or British Columbia? No, they are going across the line because

in many cases they simply don't have the personal income to maintain

even the bare necessities of life without looking for lower-priced

goods and services. Is the government dealing with that? No. The

government doesn't even talk about it Maybe it will go away,

The only worse recession affecting some of these industries is the

one that seems to be affecting Social Credit. Unfortunately, that is

not a good thing, because Social Credit is the government in British

Columbia — at least until an election.

Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely like the government to look at the ways in which

British Columbians earn a living and pay taxes, and to take some initiatives

— they can still do it, even though they weren't in the budget — to allow

people some opportunities to get work in this province. British Columbians are

a very able group of people, but they would like some opportunities through

the government.

What about training programs? The Minister of Advanced Education,

Training and Technology was talking about training programs for

occupations. What's happening to training programs for occupations?

Colleges and post-secondary institutions are being cut back to such an

extent that they are cancelling entire programs. In my area they are,

and I suspect they are in every other college around the province as

well. I don't know about the universities. They are the glamour things.

But out where I live, where people really earn their money and the

resource industries are what keeps the economy humming, the colleges

are cut back to the point where they have to eliminate entire programs,

and not academic programs — not yet — none of the high technological

programs people notice, but the occupational ones where unemployed or

underemployed people can learn something so they can go out and make a

living. Those are the programs being cancelled. And the government says

that they care about people; that's how they care about people.

What about the underemployed? Let's just talk about the

underemployed and the unemployed, the working handicapped and the

working poor. Will the government help them work their way off their

handicapped allowance or off their social assistance? No. Every time

they earn over $100 a month, they have to take a deduction. One of the

first-things the government could do is help people get off welfare and

get off their handicapped pension, if they have the initiative, which

most of them have, to try and do it. That means letting them keep more

of their own money. They take a paper route and have to pay it back to

Social Services. It is really dumb. It is not only inhumane; it is

really dumb.

Little things like that can help this economy. This is particularly

true for those families with dependents. I have cases in my

constituency where it pays the head of the family, usually a her, to

stay home with her children because she does better on social

assistance than working outside the home, even if she wants to work. It

doesn't make sense. Just little things like that, not major budget

items.

While we're talking about the government spending money on people

programs, again, we don't hear about it because it's not a glamour

thing in the lower mainland or greater Victoria. One of the major

public problems in British Columbia is an adequate and safe drinking

water supply. How many of those little licensed community water systems

— some aren't so little but a lot are — all those water companies,

improvement districts and irrigation districts, are on boil advisories?

A few are even on boil orders. Any mention of that? If we have

something that is precious in British Columbia, it should be our fresh

water. How many communities throughout the interior and north do not

have an adequate supply either in quantity or quality of fresh water?

Are there any initiatives from government to help those ratepayers put

those systems

[ Page 12224 ]

in place? No. There was an initiative from

government in the 1970s, and they cancelled it, and then brought it

back when 50 percent to 75 percent.... Again, it's a brushfire

situation: it depends on how serious the health care problem is. It

depends on how bad the water is, but only for municipalities.

What about all of those communities that don't have municipal water

systems? They pay taxes too. They have to meet the same standards.

They're under the same Health Act and Water Act. There's no assistance

for them. Again, a minor budgetary item that government doesn't want to

deal with or talk about.

Again, I was amazed listening. I had to go over it again. I didn't

want to think I had imagined something. I was trying to imagine things

that the member for Chilliwack should have had in his budget speech. He

did a lot of politicking. He didn't deal at all with one of the major

problems in the province: people out there increasingly see us in

government as irrelevant. They see us as a hold-back on the situation

they face. A good example is in my own riding, where for nearly a year

the public did their best to try to persuade government and the

approving agencies that they wanted clean and modern industry. Did we

have to go through an excruciating approval program to be allowed to

have a clean and modern industry that was going to utilize the forest

resource properly!

It's news when these huge bulk-carrier loads of logs go out to Japan

or Korea. However, it's not news when bulk-carrier loads of chips —

that's raw wood too — go out to Japan or Korea. It's not news when

trucks are steadily crossing the border — and occasionally railcars —

loaded with raw wood for U.S. markets. That's not news. If we are ever

going to use our forest resources properly, you can't just throw out

words like "full utilization" and say it's going to happen in the

forest. You've got to make sure that the industrial capacity is there

so that the B.C. industry can fully utilize those resources. That is

true fundamentally for the wood industry. It is true for the mineral,

commercial fishing and agricultural industries. It is true for every

raw-material industry in this province.

I don't have any instant solutions to offer, but I do know that —

what have we now, 68 people in this House? — if we put our heads

together, we could do a lot to improve the opportunities that people

should have in British Columbia to work themselves into a better

standard of living. We're not getting that from government.

What was the waste hotline that the member for Chilliwack talked about? My

friend from Nanaimo had a good comment on that. It was about how people wanted

to waste the government. Anyway, I have constituents who constantly tell me

they've been trying to phone the government. They want to phone because

for six months they've had a Pharmacare application in and they haven't

heard. They're wondering if it got lost. They say that they keep phoning

the line but that it's busy all the time. They have problems with their

Medical Services Plan, and they will phone and phone I would suggest to the

government that one of the things they could do, a very minor thing — I know

it might involve hiring one or two more people — is making sure that those phone

lines work. If you're going to advertise a phone line where people can get

information, make sure it works and make sure that the people there have time

to answer.

Also, I would suggest that if the systems themselves worked a little

bit better, maybe people wouldn't want to phone all the time. Nobody

would put up with that at the local level, you know. If you couldn't

phone ICBC, if you couldn't phone city hall, if you couldn't find a

live body at the other end, they wouldn't put up with it. But as long

as they're phoning in here from Trail or Revelstoke and it's Victoria,

the government can get away with it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a long period of time in which to debate the

budget, and perhaps — depending on the government's whim — time after

that to get down to specifics and maybe even some legislation. But in

the meantime, I have an amendment to the motion put by the member for

Chilliwack. Perhaps you could tell me by a nod, if you wish: do I need

to read the amendment into the record book, or is it adequate that a

notice of motion has been given?

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment appears on the order paper, page 4. You may read it if you wish. It won't appear in Hansard ; it will appear only in Orders of the Day . It's up to you.

MR. D'ARCY: Perhaps to remind myself, and the other members

in the chamber, of its content. I know everyone else here can read, but

just in case they have not bothered. It's seconded by the member on my

right, Mrs. Boone:

"Be it resolved that the motion 'That Mr. Speaker do

now leave the Chair' for the House to go into Committee of Supply be

amended by adding the following words: ', but this House regrets that

the 1991 budget continues the current government's practice of trying

to hide a record deficit of more than $1.2 billion and a direct

provincial debt of $9 billion while failing to protect the jobs and

businesses of British Columbians during hard times in the forest,

mining, smelting, manufacturing, farming and retail sectors'."

I would hope that the debate would continue, perhaps with specific reference to those two general topics.

[3:30]

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: I am pleased to second the motion. It's

unfortunate, after having had to wait one and a half months for a

budget — and we did have to wait a long time — and wait for three

ministers to review this budget, hopefully giving some advice that

would attempt to address some of our problems, they still failed to

address the major problems facing this province: unemployment and

protecting the jobs, paycheques and businesses of this province.

Perhaps it's because these three ministers came from Vancouver, from

Saanich and from the Fraser Valley that they failed to realize that

there is a second British Columbia out there, and that this other

British Columbia is suffering desperately. [Applause.]

[ Page

12225 ]

I see that came from.... I even got some applause on that from across the way

This second British Columbia is hurting badly, and I was really

amazed to hear the minister say that he didn't feel that B.C. had been

hard hit. I see that Sunday's Province

states: "...last month's bankruptcy figures reached record-high

proportions, and B.C. is wheezing as badly as every other province."

That's very true. If the Minister of Finance were to go north or into

the central interior or into the Kootenays and try to tell them that

B.C. wasn't faring so badly, that times were not very tough, he'd get

an earful, let me tell you, from the people there.

We've seen mills close. We've seen shifts cut. Job-sharing is very

common, and redundancy is a very common thing now with people too. I

hate it when some fella comes to me, an elderly man usually — around 50

— and he says: "I've been made redundant." The redundant person is

usually around 50, because they don't face.... We've got a lot of

redundant people on the other side there.

But at a time when jobs are being made redundant because of

technological changes, we've seen cutbacks in the training programs

from this government — a fine way to treat people who are trying

desperately hard to find another means to get themselves back into the

economy, earn a living for their families and bring a paycheque back to

their families. That's what the people of this province want to do, and

this government has denied that time and time again and has done

nothing in this budget to assist them.

There are many companies out there trying desperately hard to keep

afloat. The effects of our high dollar value coupled with the high

interest rate, the decreasing housing starts in the U.S. and the MOU

are many, and our forest industries are suffering badly. One of the

mill managers in our area recently commented to me that he didn't feel

that the government members or many of the government cabinet members

understood the dire straits that the industry was in. I found that hard

to believe, but after hearing the Minister of Finance's speech, I can

understand it.

They truly do not understand what effect the memorandum of

understanding is having on the forest industry in this province. I was

amazed to hear the member for Omineca stand in this Legislature on

Friday and defend the memorandum of understanding — the member for

Omineca, whose loose lips actually caused us to have the memorandum of

understanding, who spoke out with the Premier of the day in 1986 and

brought about the memorandum of understanding.

The previous Premier and that member sold out British Columbia. When

the high stumpage rates were brought in, the previous Minister of

Forests, who is in the Legislature there.... I said: "What are you

going to do when our industries go bankrupt? What are you going to do

when our sawmills go bankrupt and they close down?" He said nobody

would go bankrupt.

You know, he's probably right. The companies in my area have not gone bankrupt;

they've sold out to the multinationals in order to keep going. They had

no choice, because they couldn't exist in the economic climate that this

government brought about for the industry in this province. If the goal of this

government is to have two or three industries in our forest sector, then they

are achieving it rapidly in this province. Some determined individuals are hanging

in there, but the clock is ticking.

The memorandum of understanding has taken away our right to manage

our forests. We must go to the U.S.A. on bended knees to try and get

any changes to anything that we do in our forest sector. You know what

their response is to that. They laugh at us, tell us to go away and

come back again some other day, but they're not going to assist us in

any way, and are certainly not going to allow us to do anything to

change the memorandum of understanding.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In 1988 the free trade deal was the whole basis of the federal

election. This government supported that free trade deal by the

Conservative government, as they have supported every other initiative

by this Conservative government. That free trade deal was supposed to

change things. It was commonly understood and said by many in the

forest sector that they supported the free trade deal because that

would enable us to change the memorandum of understanding. Guess what.

We have the free trade deal, we still have the memorandum of

understanding, and there's been no change to that memorandum of

understanding at all.

For those that don't understand why the independent mills can't make it, given the MOU, let me explain.

The stumpage rates are paid on the logs that are shipped to the

sawmills. Chips created from those mills, are sent to pulp mills.

There's a high value for the chips, but the pulp mills do not pay the

stumpage; it's paid by the sawmills. There is no shift of costs of the

stumpage to the pulp mills. I see in the paper right now that there's a

pulp mill closing down for three months because they have an oversupply

of chips. When there's an oversupply of chips, the pulp mills can pay

virtually whatever they want for the chips and the independents have to

accept whatever they want.

Mills aren't buying the chips right now. When you get into a

situation like that, the independent sawmills cannot exist and they go

under. They go under because they do not have the ability to sustain

themselves; they have nothing there to fall back on, such as the

integrated mills that the pulp mills had.

Had this government tackled the chip price at all, they would have

helped a lot. But they didn't. They've never tackled the price of

chips; they've never even thought about tackling the price of chips. So

we will slowly watch as our independent mills go into nonexistence

within the province of British Columbia.

Timber licences were originally given out to provide community

stability. Many today make that argument in favour of the various forms

of licences and tenureholders that we have. However, this government

has failed to make companies meet their licence requirements. There

have been many over the years who have failed to produce the facilities

they were to have in

[ Page 12226 ]

order to keep their licences, but they're still in operation.

In 1988 this government changed the licence to allow companies to

close facilities. They still maintain access to the timber. So much for

community stability New technology has been introduced, and we've seen

more and more timber being used, and we're employing less and less

people.

A question this government should look at and should have looked at

prior to the budget: should industry be allowed access to our timber if

they're not creating jobs? That's a valid question but one this

government never even thought about. Or does it care? Does it care

about the jobs out there? Probably not.

Should we be providing profits to multinationals to ship out of the

province or out of the country if they're going outside the country in

establishing a facility just outside the border — which is happening?

Should we be shipping wood that has a minimum amount of value-added

done to it across the border when many of our own companies here can't

get access to that timber? Should we be doing that? These are issues

that are affecting the hinterland of this province, and no mention has

been made of that in the budget or in the throne speech.

In the past we've asked this government to take a stand against free

trade, and they refused. We asked them to take a stand against the GST,

and they refused until it was too late. Now we see free trade with

Mexico coming. Why wasn't free trade with Mexico mentioned in the

budget? Will you sell us out again? Which of your friends will you

listen to now, or will you listen to the workers of this province who

are telling you what free trade with Mexico will do to them? Who will

gain from you and your Conservative friends' agenda? It certainly is

not going to be the workers of this province.

Mr. Speaker, this government boasts about its job creating policies. The reality

is that they have created low-paying jobs: 54 percent of the jobs that have

been created are full-time core jobs. That means there are a vast number of

people out there who have to hold down two jobs just to make a living. Many

are working at very low-income jobs and are being subsidized by the government,

because their income is not even enough to make what they would make on welfare.

These are the types of jobs that have been created by this government: low-income

jobs.

We saw just prior to this budget the ending of the small business

loans. That has affected a lot of small business people, who this

government talks about caring for. I just heard — the Minister of

Women's Programs should be well aware of this — that women's programs

have been affected by this. We've been trying to assist women get

started in the business world, yet the small business loan program that

would provide them with some assistance in getting into the business

world and becoming entrepreneurs has been pulled out from under them.

Where is the commitment here?

Mr. Speaker, this government has failed the workers. You've talked about

diversification, yet we still see many communities entirely dependent on one

industry. We see more and more companies going after less and less timber. We've

seen community versus community in order to gain some access to timber out there.

This government has forgotten who it represents and whose interests must be

protected. It has failed in the past to protect the jobs and paycheques of workers.

It sold out the fishing industry, the Okanagan fruit growers and the forest

industry

Quite frankly, my daughter, who is in her first year of Little

League, plays a much better game of hardball than these guys over here.

They have failed to come up with any ideas to help our economy. The

first throne speech that came from this government said: "Get the

government off the backs of business." Yet when times were good and

there were record profits for companies in this province, and this

government was boasting about how wonderfully it was doing, they

reduced the corporate tax. They reduced the corporate tax and increased

taxes on the average person. You should have been saving money during

those days. You should have been saving some of the money to put aside

into that rainy-day fund that you talk about, which has no money in it.

You should have saved money, but you've never done that. You now have

the largest deficit in the history of British Columbia, and that has

been brought about by this government.

Now times are tough, and profits are down. And what do they do? They

introduce an increase in the corporate tax. Times are tough, so we're

going to give you a little boost by giving you an extra tax. Smart

move, Mr. Speaker! Lord save us from the rationale of a government as

economically blind as this one.

The people of this province deserve more than the rehash of the old

programs that this government has proposed. They need a government that

is prepared to tackle the problems facing this province and bring out

policies that will protect the jobs and paycheques of British

Columbians. This government is tired and worn out, and it deserves some

time on the bench.

The people deserve a government that can at least be honest with

them. The Minister of Finance says there is a $395 million deficit. The

Premier admits that we have a $1.2 billion deficit. Get your act

together, members, and find out that the deficit is $1.2 billion. This

government has not got the guts to admit it to the province of British

Columbia. No one denies that this government singlehandedly has brought

about a $9 billion debt for the taxpayers. You promised to protect

taxpayers, yet you increased taxes again. Every year this government

has increased taxes to the tune of $3,000. They've picked the pockets

of every single, solitary person out there, and they're doing it again

after promising two months ago that they would not do this again. They

said: "I will not tax you again." Two months later, guess what. They're

taxing us.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, this government does not have the ability to be honest.

They do not know the difference between right and wrong. It's time for

a change.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Bear used to say: "It

sounds like déjà-vu all over again." I've heard this same speech from

Dave Stupich, Rosemary Brown and Dave Barrett, and where are they now?

Two of

[ Page

12227 ]

them are warming their toes in Ottawa. And I'm hearing it again from the hon. member for Prince George North.

I rise to speak against the amendment. I want to say that this 1991

budget is more than our finances for a single year. This is the first

budget since the government introduced the taxpayer protection plan. It

lays out the economic road map for British Columbia for the future. It

clearly sets out the philosophy of this government with respect to the

direction and destination for the people and businesses of the

province. This budget delineates the priorities of this government and

clearly differentiates between the government's plan and that which

would be pursued by the opposition side of the House — there is no

question.

As such and in the absence of any detailed, constructive plan by the

opposition, I'd like to examine the differences between the solid

policies of this budget and our taxpayer protection plan, and those of

the opposition, their transition team and their taxpayer destruction

plan. I'd like to draw some clear distinctions here. Today I'd like to

focus my remarks beyond the horizon of this fiscal year and examine how

the budget will contribute to the overall goal of economic

competitiveness in British Columbia.

Hon. members on the opposite side may not understand the word

competitive. If British Columbia is going to be able to afford

increasing levels of health care, education and social services, then

the money to pay for those services must come from somewhere. You can't

live today by mortgaging tomorrow. It's irresponsible, short-sighted

and an intellectually bankrupt economic theory that maybe deserves to

be back in the nineteenth century. In every political jurisdiction in

Canada except Ontario this idea has been totally abandoned.

You see, Mr. Speaker, it is not only an economic problem we have in

Ontario but a moral problem as well. What the transition team from

British Columbia went down to do, in establishing the policies for

Ontario that are there now, was to mortgage the future of not only our

children but also those yet unborn. There's a moral problem. When you

pass on your debt from one generation to the next simply to pay off an

election debt, that's a problem.

I'm a very fair person. I believe in giving my opponents a very

clear chance to defend themselves, and I'm very glad to see the Leader

of the Opposition here in the House today. Welcome back, Mr. Leader of

the Opposition.

Before I continue my remarks and compare the opposition to their

Ontario counterparts, I'm going to allow the Leader of the Opposition

to put this troubling issue to rest once and for all. I hope he's

listening. I challenge the hon. Leader of the Opposition to name those

colleagues who are responsible for setting the policy agenda in

Ontario, the people who are responsible for destroying the Ontario

economy, and remove them from your caucus today for horribly

misrepresenting the moderate policies your party claims to have.

If you refuse to do this, hon. Leader of the Opposition, and continue to associate

with the policies of the members of the transition team, then be honest enough

with the people of British Columbia. State now for the public record that you're

not going to have anything to do with Ontario or with the members of the transition

team who established that policy in Ontario. You can shrug and you can be dour

over there, hon. member. Socialism is socialism. Whether it's a recently-elected

— and, I believe, short-lived — socialist government in Ontario or a never-to-be-elected

socialist government in British Columbia, it's still socialism. I want to

thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for setting the record straight.

British Columbia is a small, open economy. To survive economically,

and therefore to survive at all, we must sell our goods and services

abroad. We've got to export, and to export, we have to be competitive.

The hon. member for Prince George, who spoke just prior to me, was

talking about a free trade agreement with Mexico. I don't know whether

we're going to have a trilateral free trade agreement. If we do, I know

that British Columbia needs to be at the table to ensure that its

interests are protected. I also know that I don't want any socialists

at that table giving away British Columbia; I want people who

understand business and people who have built this province.

Competitiveness requires more than just lower interest rates or a

lower dollar, as the hon. member from Prince George spoke of.

Competitiveness extends to the health of the citizens, to the level of

training and education of our labour force and to the costs of working

and doing business in British Columbia. We must compete on all these

fronts because if we fail to meet all these challenges, we fail our

children, our children's children and generations yet unborn. We have a

moral responsibility in this province not to mortgage those people in

the future. Mr. Speaker, I put it you and to the House that the

policies of this government — and every Social Credit government since

1952 and every Social Credit government in the future — are consistent

not only with this goal but with enhanced competitiveness. That's what

has made our economy thrive. We have given business the opportunity to

move forward in the province and have tried, as much as possible and

given the proper checks and balances, to stay out of the way of

businesses and have them do what they do best.

The policies of the opposition — the same policies that are

destroying Ontario, the heartland of Canada — are clearly opposed to

and clearly inconsistent with the goal of competitiveness. If these

people across the way, benign as they look today, are given the chance

to be government, they'll destroy British Columbia. That's the message

we've got to get out to every nook and cranny, hon. member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound. It's important to us and to future generations.

In that light, this debate may be the most important debate to take

place in this chamber in the history of the province to date.

Today our government is faced with failing revenues and increased

demands for services, conditions caused to some extent by the fiscal

mismanagement of successive federal governments. It was interesting to

me to pick up the newspaper the other day and see that

[ Page 12228 ]

the junior Minister of State for Finance for the federal government was berating

business people who had gone bankrupt. Over 6,000 people had gone bankrupt,

and he said the reason was that they didn't listen to Ottawa. Isn't

that something? Imagine a government in Ottawa telling people that they

have to be fiscally responsible! Can you imagine the irony of it? It would be

almost like Pink Floyd in Ontario doing the same thing.

MR. CLARK: Where's your wig?

HON. MR. VEITCH: You're just mad because you couldn't get into Mozart, that's all.

Other governments faced with similar circumstances have chosen the

route pioneered by Social Credit in the last recession. There is

government economic restraint in every jurisdiction in Canada except

Ontario. The Ontario NDP, I believe, in consort with members opposite,

have chosen a route pioneered here in British Columbia by the late and

unlamented last NDP government, the one headed up by David Barrett —

the washed-out, long-abandoned road of big government, big taxes and

big deficits. In doing so, the Ontario NDP have plundered the people

and the businesses of the province to pay off their election debts.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, debts owed to special interest groups, debts owed to

privileged friends and insiders of the socialist movement.... Every

socialist hack who couldn't get a job anyplace else in a socialist

administration is working in Ontario. If these people ever win, the

rest of them will be out here. Watch it.

I heard the member for Vancouver East announce — a little

self-righteously, I think — that the NDP government would not be

deterred by corporate phone calls. I don't think they're going to have

to worry about any corporate phone calls; that's not the problem, as I

see it. I believe that. Because, as we have seen in Ontario, I don't

think there are many friendly calls coming in to Pink Floyd. I don't

think he's getting many calls saying: "Get on with it. Go deeper in the

hole. Put us out of business." I don't see that happening in Ontario.

Recently, when auto industry executives tried to voice their concern

about the new NDP legislation in Ontario that increases taxes on cars,

they were denied even the courtesy of a meeting. That's what they think

about business. Listen to what they think about it. There's nothing

that makes a socialist's blood run better, you know — that makes the

adrenalin pump more — than jumping on business, attacking business;

that's what does it. But when Bob White, president of the Canadian

Automobile Workers' Union and vice-president of.... Listen to this,

hon. Minister of Women's Programs. When Bob White, president of the

Canadian Automobile Workers' Union and president of the NDP, phoned up

old Pink Floyd, he gave him a meeting right away.

Privileged friends and insiders, blatant conflicts, paying off political debts

— that's what they are doing in the province of Ontario. That's what

they will do if they are ever elected here. We can't allow that to happen

in British Columbia. The Ontario NDP are exchanging financial debts for political

debts. It seems that this year they are going to pay off a tremendous amount

of those debts with $9.7 billion of the people's money. Terrible! It's

an economic crime of high proportion.

[4:00]

Do you know what the member for Vancouver East had to say when he

was asked to comment on the disastrous budget in that province — the

same kind of legislation they would like to bring in here? Given the

opportunity to clearly take a stand and denounce the outrageous $9.7

billion deficit.... Do you know what he said when he was asked if the

deficit was too large? The hon. member — the only remaining member for

Vancouver East, the would-be Minister of Finance, the NDP fiscal

conservative over there — said: "I have no idea." That's what he said.

Mr. Speaker, the Finance critic of the NDP has no idea except the idea

that spurred their movement during the Industrial Revolution. They

haven't had an idea since then.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since when?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Since way back to the time of the Industrial

Revolution in the nineteenth century. Perhaps the member opposite would

like to tell this House the other important topics relating to public

finance of which he has no idea, aside from fiscal policy.

MR. HARCOURT: This is an easy one: is it A.D. or B.C.?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I can't tell. The light's shining off the top of your head, and it's bothering me.

Perhaps the member opposite would like to tell the House the other

important topics relating to public finance about which he has no idea,

aside from fiscal policy. The investment community definitely has an

idea about the deficit in Ontario, and I quote from last Friday's Financial Post

describing a meeting between Premier Bob Rae and the New York financial

community. Robert Morse, president of Morse Williams and Co., described

the NDP's management of provincial finances as "an absolute lack of

reality." That's what they think about NDP policies in New York. He

said: "I have an action I'm going to take. I'm going to take my money

out of that system. I'm going to withdraw my support for that

ideologically bankrupt system which is socialism operating in Ontario."

Economist Anita Lauria said: "We will vote with our pocketbooks."

You watch them vote in Ontario next time around. They'll vote with

their pocketbooks.

At a convention of Ontario development officials, Haydon Mathews,

chairman of the prestigious Urban Development Institute said: "This

government is virtually shutting down the development industry in the

province of Ontario.

Those are the economic plans — the lack of economic plans — that you

have for this province, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You further

commented: "Our green-society revolution may turn out to be a

green-card revolution." They're heading south, Mr. Speaker. They're

wondering why free trade won't work

[ Page

12229 ]

under a system like that in Ontario. Who will

invest in such uncertainty as is being caused by the fiscal policies in

Ontario, many of which were brought about by the transition team from

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia do not want to have to

become Americans to be able to afford to live. They want to be able to

live and work here in British Columbia. The people of B.C. know that

$10 billion in the glue is just too much. The members on this side of

the House know that $10 billion in the glue is just far too much. But

in typical NDP fashion, the opposition has no idea at all.

I'd like to state that this is an economic time bomb in Canada, and

it's going to blow right up in the faces of Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren.

Unfortunately, it's going to blow up on a whole bunch of other people

in Ontario, and the cost of this mismanagement is going to rip right

across this country, if they are allowed to remain.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Can you imagine what would happen, Mr. Speaker, if we allowed the

same kind of administration to carry on here in British Columbia?

Although I said the time bomb is going to explode over 2,000 miles

away, the fallout will land squarely on the hon. members opposite as

they go around this province during the next provincial election in

B.C. Mr. Leader of the Opposition, they're going to ask you who your

transition team is. You better have an answer. You've got to ask what

kind of policies they foisted on Ontario, the industrial heartland of

this country. This is the first distinction between what this Social

Credit budget seeks to do and what those on the other side of the House

would do if they were in our place.

Next I'd like to take a very quick look at some other differences

between the two visions and how they will affect British Columbia's

competitive position. This budget — and I reject the amendment —

recognized the need to balance books over a five-year economic cycle.

In the debt-reduction plan tabled by the Minister of Finance with

the budget, the government has clearly laid out its plan to ensure that

the size and scope of government remains within the taxpayers' ability

to pay. And by doing so, we're able to keep taxes well below the levels

of other provinces. That makes British Columbia competitive and makes

our business expand so that people have jobs. This keeps them from

having to invest in the United States.

The NDP model contains no such plan. Higher and higher taxes and

even more debt is all that is planned for those who pursue the model

that the NDP pursued in Ontario. Nothing else. It's economic

destruction With his budget, Pink Floyd announced — much to the

amusement of Premier Rae — that his government would plunge Ontario

over $30 billion further into debt by 1995. What kind of a legacy is

that to pass on? Follow that example and you'll not be competitive.

This budget protects the job security of tens of thousands of public

servants while not unfairly burdening the people or businesses of

British Columbia. By staying in the workforce, these people remain

contributing members of society, not additional drains on the social

service network and ultimately the taxpayer's pocketbook, as the paying

taxpayers become fewer and fewer, as they do in Ontario. In the NDP

model, generous wage increases are planned for public sector employees.

Here in British Columbia, with the B.C. Government Employees' Union

lining up with the NDP, can taxpayers expect anything different if the

NDP were ever elected in this province? I want to ask you and the

people that question.

What would that do for British Columbia? There is a 40 percent

increase in the cost of welfare in the NDP model: a clear recognition

that socialist policies are going to put people out of work. By

removing people from the labour force and placing them on welfare, NDP

policies will again add to the size and cost of government by dealing

with unemployment in the only way that they know how: by increasing

welfare, not increasing jobs.

Our government recognizes the need to provide for those who can't

provide for themselves. At the same time we've taken steps to minimize

the employment effects of recession on the people of British Columbia.

This means that people will be working. They'll be learning skills

and paying taxes, again making British Columbia more competitive in the

Canadian and international marketplace. By reinvesting in our forests

and by providing for education and training, this government will help

keep people employed as productive members in our society.

This budget recognized the need for affordable housing. To provide

for the shelter needs of the people of British Columbia, this

government is continuing its commitment to encourage property

ownership. Yes, hon. members opposite, private property. You understand

that? We encourage private property in Social Credit. I know it's

foreign to you.

The homeowner grant and the property purchase tax relief work to make home-ownership a reality for British Columbians.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You've been on the dole longer than I have, hon. member. That's why.

Because the marketplace is and always will be the most efficient

means of stimulating the vast majority of housing units, this

government has shunned the rent control policies of the NDP, which were

so disastrous during the Barrett administration — policies with fixed

prices in the rental housing market, causing shortages and ultimately

chaos in the rental market. As a result of Bill 4, recently passed in

the province of Ontario.... Ask the people in the housing industry in

Ontario.

This budget contains a provision for maintaining the finest-quality

health care system in all of this country. This government recognizes

that healthy British Columbians are vigorous, hard-working British

Columbians. In Ontario the NDP government has attacked the universal

medicare system by placing limits on coverage for those people who live

in Ontario. The sick will suffer just as much under

[ Page 12230 ]

socialism as anyone else. Don't ever forget that for a moment.

This budget is a budget for the future. It plans for prosperity

rather than the deliverance of poverty. This budget is honest about our

finances in British Columbia. It doesn't paint an unrealistic picture

of growth, as our Ontario counterpart does.

I'm proud to reject this amendment. I'm proud to speak in favour of

this budget today, and I'm looking forward to comparing the Ontario

budget every day here in this chamber, in my constituency, around the

province and on the doorsteps during the next provincial election. The

people of British Columbia will once again say no to big spending.

They'll say no in the next election to big taxes and special interest

groups that serve socialism — thanks to the Ontario NDP — and they will

say yes to Social Credit once again in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Little Mountain seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. McCARTHY: In the House today are six students from Lord

Tennyson Elementary School. They are grade 3 students. I just met them

outdoors, when they were here to have a tour of the buildings, and I

can attest to the brightness and the interest of these six students who

are now in the Legislative Assembly. They are accompanied by Ms. A.

Ptucha and Laurie Linton, their teachers. I'd ask the House to give

them a warm welcome.

MR. CLARK: I'm going to tax the patience of the grade 3 students, I'm sure.

I'm very pleased to rise in this debate, particularly after the

former Minister of Finance, who held the office for a brief period —

too brief, I'm sure, for the minister. It's always interesting to

speculate on how much of this budget that was actually delivered had

the imprint of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, the former Minister

of Finance. We didn't get too much in his speech today that would give

us a sense of how much of an impact he had on that budget document in

the all too brief time he held that chair.

But I must say that it was interesting that the former Minister of Finance

who spoke previously, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, announced to all through

the television stations that there would be no deficit this fiscal year. A few

weeks and a few Finance ministers later, we see a record deficit — the largest

deficit in the history of British Columbia. I would like to read, just for the

record, a

section of this motion again: this House regrets that the 1991 budget

was the current government's practice of trying to hide a record

deficit of more than $1.2 billion and a direct provincial debt of $9 billion

while failing to protect the jobs and businesses of British Columbians during

hard times in the forest, mining, smelting, manufacturing, farming and retail

sectors."

It's an appropriate amendment, because we have a record deficit. I'd like

to answer the question for people watching and people in this chamber of what

a deficit is and how to define it, particularly when you hear all the bafflegab

coming from the current Minister of Finance and the last two or three Ministers

of Finance.

[4:15]

It's very simple. How much money is this government taking in this

fiscal year, and how much money are they spending this fiscal year?

When you do it that way and strip away all the manipulations and all

the bookkeeping, it's pretty clear that we're taking in $1.2 billion

less than we're spending. In other words, we have a $1.2 billion

deficit in British Columbia — a record deficit, the largest in history.

Everyone agrees with that — everybody except the government members

on this side of the House and the Minister of Finance. On a cable show

the other day, even the Premier acknowledged the government had to

borrow $1.2 billion to cover the costs of running government for this

next fiscal year. The chartered accountants have said it. The certified

management accountants have said it. All the certified general

accountants in the province have said it. On Friday the board of trade

told the government: "Fess up on the deficit." Even the Fraser

Institute, usually a group that can be relied upon to support this

particular government no matter what happens, acknowledged that the

real deficit in British Columbia is $1.25 billion.

The question is: why does the government persist in pretending that

the budget deficit is only about $400 million? Every speaker in this

House persists in pretending the deficit is dramatically smaller than

it really is. When this Premier announced she was running for leader of

the Social Credit Party, she said that she would be honest and

straightforward. One of the things she said was that she talks in a

language that people understand. Well, people understand that the

deficit is $1.2 billion, and yet the government refuses to acknowledge

that.

In a democracy, the most important things politicians do and should

be held accountable for are their taxing and spending decisions.

Frankly, that's the reason why we're here: all of us here as members

elected by our constituents have to be accountable for the decisions we

make, particularly in a time when the public feels cynical towards

politicians, and overtaxed and underserviced by governments at the

national level and by this provincial government and other levels of

government. People feel very strongly that they are being alienated

from the political system. They're cynical about it.

It's more important than ever before that governments tell the truth

when it comes to their financial status. It's more important than ever

before that the government tell people the bottom line. That's why in

the past the auditor-general has said that the government is not using

the appropriate set of books. That's why the in the past the

auditor-general said that the BS fund was a device to manipulate the

bottom line. That's because the auditor-general understands that one of

the most important things for a government to be clear about is what

the bottom line is, how much we owe and how much we have to borrow to

cover the operating costs of government. It's that very critical point

that this administration persists in being less

[ Page

12231 ]

than truthful about. It persists in pretending the deficit is only $390 million.

It's not just this year. Not only is this current budget, which

takes us through the end of this fiscal year, a $1.25 billion deficit,

but this budget also documents what the real deficit was in the last

fiscal year. The real deficit then was about $800 million. Remember,

last year the government said the budget was balanced. This year the

government says we have this little tiny deficit. But in the last two

years the deficit amounts to $2 billion. In the last two years we have

spent $2 billion more than we take in as revenue. By any definition,

that is a deficit budget.

Not only are they not telling the truth about the deficit, and not

only are the books cooked when it comes to the deficit in this current

fiscal year, but they're also being less than truthful about the direct

debt associated with this administration. The direct debt is the

accumulated deficits of the government in addition to debt that has to

be repaid every year in terms of the interest payments. This year's

auditor-general's report says that the government is understating their

direct debt. He said before this budget that it was really more than $6

billion — not the $4 billion or $4.5 billion that the government is

pretending it is. When you look at this budget, the direct debt

associated with this administration is $9 billion.

How do they do that? How do they hide $3 billion in direct debt?

This government does something that no other government in Canada does,

and it's unacceptable. Hospitals, schools and the transit authority all

require large amounts of public money to build capital works —

hospitals, schools, the SkyTrain system and the like. Instead of

recording that debt as a direct debt to the government, they pretend

the debt is associated with other people: the hospital financing

authority, the education financing authority or the B.C. Transit

authority. The reason that's unfair and doesn't tell the truth about

the government's finances, as the auditor-general points out, is that

every year the government has to pay the interest on that debt. That

comes out of our spending in this fiscal year.

It's not that hospitals don't need to be built; surely they do. It's

not that schools don't need to be built; of course they do, and

particularly in places like Surrey where they're desperately needed.

It's not that we don't need transportation vehicles or rapid transit

vehicles, which are very expensive. We need all those things. But be

honest. If you're honest about it, that debt has to be paid back by the

taxpayers of British Columbia and is therefore a direct debt of this

administration. The direct debt, according to the auditor-general's

formula, has gone from $4.5 billion to $9 billion in the term of office

of the current Social Credit government. In four and a half years the

debt has increased by $4.5 billion That is $1 billion a year that we're

in debt as a result of the actions of this administration. That works

out to about $3 million a day. Every day that they've been in office,

this administration's direct debt has increased by $3 million.

It's like that big debt clock that we see downtown from the board of trade.

We could have a big debt clock here in Victoria. Three million dollars a day,

365 days a year for four and a half years: that's how much the direct debt

has increased in British Columbia as a result of this administration. That's

as a result of accumulated deficits and increased spending on capital projects

which have to be paid back. Instead of the kind of cooking the books that we've

seen repeatedly with this administration....

We have a record deficit which the government doesn't tell the truth

about. We have a deficit last year which was one of the largest in

history. So not only do we have a deficit for last year and for this

year, but they're not telling the truth about it. Not only have we got

a $9 billion debt, but they don't tell the truth about that either.

It's dishonest to try to portray the books differently, and it's

fundamental in our democracy that the taxpayers who elect us have a

right to know what the bottom line is. They have a right to know what

the true financial position of the government of the day is so that

people can be held accountable. That's not happening. It's unacceptable

that in this age, when politicians are held in low esteem and

mistrusted, when the public are fed up with political manipulations, we

would not have a government that would tell the truth about the

finances of the province.

Not only are the books cooked with respect to not telling the truth

about the bottom line, but we have some other examples which I think

prove the case that the government is being less than truthful when it

comes to their financial plans. That's in the guise of the taxpayer

protection plan. The former Premier, the first member for Richmond, was

right when he decried the breaking of the taxpayer protection plan.

Just a month or two ago this government passed a bill called the

Taxpayer Protection Act, and members on that side of the House all

stood up defended it, saying: "We will not raise taxes. Tax rates have

been frozen." The Premier said it on television. They said it in the

House. One after another, members of this administration stood up and

defended the Taxpayer Protection Act. They said: "We won't raise taxes.

Elect us and we'll freeze taxes." And then just a few weeks later they

brought in a budget which essentially breaks their law. It undermines

that legislation. It says: "Notwithstanding that act that froze taxes,

we've decided to raise taxes."

It's not that they've raised taxes. The issue is not that they've

decided to raise corporate taxes or the wealth surtax. That is an issue

which the public can rightly judge and vote on. The real point is that

when they thought they were going to call an election, when it was just

before an election, they brought in a bill that said: "We will freeze

taxes. We won't raise them. Vote for us and we'll keep a freeze on

taxes." Then just a few weeks later they broke that pledge. They broke

that law, and they've raised taxes again.

Most governments wait until after an election to break an election

promise. This government has broken an election promise before an

election. How is it that members on that side of the House could have

stood up in this chamber just a few weeks ago and supported legislation

which just a few weeks later they decided to break? It's unethical for

members on that

[ Page 12232 ]

side of the House to have said that they wouldn't raise taxes before

an election that didn't happen, and then a few weeks later raise taxes

to circumvent their own legislation.

We've seen a pattern of dishonest bookkeeping right from the first

incarnation of the BS fund till today. The deficit is understated. The

debt is understated. The tax freeze has been broken. As I said, the

most important thing that we do in this chamber is scrutinize the

taxing and spending of government. They have to be held accountable for

those actions. Essentially, they undermine democracy itself by not

telling the truth about those fundamental questions of the taxpayer

about financial management of the province.

I want to spend a few moments on the other aspect of this amendment

other than the dishonesty in terms of the bookkeeping. It also talks

about the fact that there's nothing in here that deals with the real

hardship being faced by British Columbians. In the last ten years or so

we've seen a dramatic structural change in the economy of British

Columbia. We really see two British Columbias: the lower mainland and

southern Vancouver Island, which are heavily urbanized areas, and the

rest of British Columbia, which is still largely resource-dependent.

In the urban areas, we have a more diversified economic base. There

are lots of problems in the lower mainland. As a member from Vancouver,

I could go on at length about problems associated with growth, housing

and poverty that have not been dealt with by this administration. There

are problems in the lower mainland as well. But outside the lower

mainland in resource-dependent communities.... I see the member for

Yale-Lillooet here, and he knows what I'm talking about. The

forestry-dependent communities have been hit hard in the last few years

and months because of a variety of factors: high interest rates and a

high Canadian dollar by the federal government, which we hear very

little about from this Social Credit administration.

[4:30]

What else has happened is that we've seen technological change which

has reduced the workforce. We see a government that has severed the

connection between access to public timber and manufacturing rights so

the companies now.... Since the 1800s, people got access to public

timber if they created jobs. That unwritten and written contract has

been broken in recent months. So we see an ever-diminishing supply of

jobs from our resource sector. That is particularly devastating for

communities outside the lower mainland.

Yet there's absolutely nothing in the budget that deals with unemployment

in places like Nelson, Merritt, Kamloops, Kimberley, Trail and others. Those

resource-dependent communities look for help from the provincial government.

They look for help from this administration. They look for leadership from the

government. They look for plans that can ease the kind of insecurity faced by

workers in British Columbia, whether they lose their jobs and whether the forest

industry will be here tomorrow. Sadly, there's nothing in here.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Just a couple of examples. Firstly, in Kimberley we know the mine

has about ten years of life left, depending on what happens with the

price of minerals and the like. It has a limited life. What would most

governments do when faced with a community who's major source of

employment may decline? What most governments would do, regardless of

ideology — Conservative, Liberal, NDP; it doesn't matter — is say: "We

know that town is going to face hard times. What can we do to help

Kimberley?" They would send in a team of interdisciplinary people and

say: "Are there other minerals in that community that would keep miners

working? Can we assist companies to explore for new minerals? Can we

give some subsidies to companies to look for minerals? Should the

government do it itself?"

Secondly, what about the people that work there? How old are they?

Is there a role for government to top up pension plans for those

workers so they stay in the community? Is there a role for the company?

Should we require the company to assist older workers in that community

to stay there? Are there other economic development activities that

could take place? Is there a potential for tourism? Clearly there is.

Should the government go out of its way to encourage tourism in

Kimberley? What can it do to help? Are there other manufacturing

opportunities? What is the credit union doing? Can we help the credit

union? Should we provide high-risk loans to entrepreneurs to go to

Kimberley?

I'm just giving examples of what normal governments historically

have done all across Canada to try to assist a community like

Kimberley. Yet very little is being done for Kimberley. Fortunately the

mine has reopened, and that is important. There was a fertilizer plant

there that closed without a word from the government. There are other

industries up there that perhaps could be helped. But this is not an

ideological thing; this is just good, rational, sound government.

How can we help? How can we diversify that economic base? How can we

deal with those workers who may lose their jobs? How do we deal with

the tax-base loss? How could we look for other mines, minerals or the

like? There is a whole range of initiatives that would be done by any

rational government, and very little is being done. There is some help

for the ski hill, and I applaud that. That's an initiative that perhaps

might be worth.... It might not be — I won't judge the merits of it —

but at least there is some initiative on the part of government to deal

with a problem in the community.

But let's look at all the other communities in British Columbia that

have had downsized resource bases. We've got forests; we've got

sawmills. Almost every sawmill in the province is for sale. What is the

government doing to protect the jobs and paycheques of workers in the

forest industry? What are they doing to diversify the forestry resource

base? How can we induce valued-added? Very little is being done.

[ Page

12233 ]

This isn't an ideological speech, from my point of view; it's good

rational government, looking to try and help resource-based, dependent

communities throughout British Columbia. Those communities are seeing

double-digit unemployment rise even higher in this current recession in

Canada and in British Columbia.

The lower mainland has problems, but outside the lower mainland

there are particularly acute problems around economic development.

Sadly, this government does nothing to allay the fear of workers or

deal with the job insecurity that workers have outside the lower

mainland. It does nothing in terms of forestry — very little. It does

nothing in terms of value-added in the forest sector. It does nothing

in terms of diversifying the economy. It does nothing in terms of the

kind of interdisciplinary work that other governments undertake,

regardless of ideology.

We have a dishonest government and a dishonest budget that doesn't

tell the truth about the bottom line. It doesn't tell the truth about

the deficit. It doesn't tell the truth about the debt associated with

this administration. We have a government that doesn't have its

priorities right — in job creation, in economic development and in

diversifying our economy outside the lower mainland.

For those reasons I'm pleased to rise to support this motion. The

current Premier has indicated that she would like free votes in the

House more often. I know the former Premier has spoken in this chamber

and quite correctly criticized the dishonesty of breaking the taxpayer

protection plan. A little more honesty from that member over time and

he'd probably still be sitting in the Premier's chair over there. But

he's right when it comes to the government breaking its own law on the

taxpayer protection plan.

I hope that the Premier, in the spirit of her comment that she'd

like more free votes, would consider a free vote on the budget and on

this amendment. I know there are members on the other side who are

concerned that the budget doesn't deal with the real concerns of

British Columbians. I hope we have a free vote on the amendment and on

the budget, and maybe some of those members on the other side will have

the courage to stand up for their constituencies and for the priorities

they have that are absent in this budget.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot support the

amendment, because it doesn't make any sense; but that's usual for

submissions by the opposition. But I would like to reproach them for

some of the things they've said. They certainly are quite confident

when handing it out, but they're not very good at taking it. Perhaps we

should rethink some of that. I'm sure they will have their day in

court, though, and I hope they will be able to take as much as they can

give We'll see; I somehow doubt it.

Of course, I think what we have to concentrate on is the secret

transition team, the Ontario budget and all of those things that tie

them to the province of Ontario They're all true. Of course, they won't

admit to knowing who is on their own transition team, they won't tell

us how many there are — three, maybe four — and they won't tell us who

the resource people are

Goodness knows, you wouldn't want the people to know who's on it.

The people who talk about open government aren't even good at open

opposition. Isn't that interesting!

Mr. Speaker, I just happened to do a few calculations, which is my

bent anyway. I have in my hand a couple of loonies, just to give you

some indication of how big a deficit $9.7 billion really is. I would

encourage anyone who has a loonie in their pocket to take it out now,

hold it in their hand and....

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member has suggested that there are

loonies. I see quite a few of them on the opposite side of the chamber,

Mr. Speaker, so there's nothing wrong with that.

If you take a loonie and put it edge-to-edge, you will find out that

a $9.726 billion debt would stretch 19, 452 kilometres. Now the debt of

Ontario, with loonies standing on edge, side-by-side, would be two

return trips to Ottawa — almost 3,000 miles. That gives you some idea

of how big a debt Ontario has. I thank research for those calculations

— and it's official, by the way.

Who can forget the Premier and the finance minister of Ontario

laughing while they presented a budget of $9.7 billion? It's an

unbelievable record of shame for that government, which obviously has

no idea of what it's doing or why — a government that was ridiculed by

the financiers in New York, laughed out of New York and, as my

colleague said a few minutes ago, given credit for having a budget that

has a total and absolute lack of reality. That tells you something

about the New Democratic Party — the party that says that it wants to

run the beautiful province of British Columbia; the party that can't

run anything. In fact, now with the resignation of Mr. Williams, we can

see them slowly disintegrating. Indeed, question period is going all to

pieces.

So, Mr. Speaker, we don't have any problem connecting the NDP with Ontario, because once NDP, always NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's important to remind you every now and

then just how bad you really are. I know your spirit's good; you

understand all those things that are soft. But when it comes to

leadership, you know you're weak. When it comes to administration, you

know you're weak. When it comes to management, you know you're weak.

You've shown it everywhere. You've shown it here in 1972, you've shown

in it in the Prairies, you've shown it in Ontario and you just can't

get away with it.

It is interesting to see who is supporting the New Democratic Party

and their budget ideas. We notice in the paper, for example, that John

Shields said to his members: "Defeat the government." That presumably

means that the special interest groups and the management people in

some unions believe that they can do it better. John Shields's idea of

serving the Government

[ Page 12234 ]

Employees' Union is to defeat the government. Some campaign, Mr. Speaker.

Luckily, in this province we find that many of those who claim to

run the big unions are out of touch with their members — those very

same members who didn't go to the convention, who didn't vote for John

Shields and who will vote for the Social Credit government of British

Columbia on election day, because they always have — except one time.

Now we notice that things are going quite badly in Ontario. We

notice in Ontario that the heartland is missing. We notice in Ontario

that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, some of your special interest friends

have said they don't like the government, but actually the people of

the province do. That's why they vote for us — and will. The member

opposite said they did. He's suggesting that they won't, but Mr.

Speaker, they will because they understand....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's interesting, because one of your

members over there said to me today that it, doesn't matter what we do

on the government side of the House, we're going to lose. I love it

when the opposition gets arrogant, Mr. Speaker. I just love it when

they feel so confident. "Come to my riding," he said, "and tell me all

about you." I said: "I'd love to do that, and I probably will. If I get

a chance, I surely will." There's nothing like going into opposition

territory and picking up votes on the strength of running a good

government, on the strength of good policies and on the strength of

telling people what the opposition really is all about: weak at the

top, lacking in administrative skills and no experience. They can't do

it.

We watch the pitiful exercise in Ontario, and we know that the

transition team the opposition sent down — bragged about by their

leader — led Bob Rae into the gloom of deficit disaster and into

becoming the laughingstock of the whole financial world. It's critical

to understand how serious this problem is. We can't continue to do the

things for people that we want to do, if we can't create the work.

Those opposite would say that one of the best things about Canada is

the social safety net. What I say is this: one of the best things about

Canada is that hard work in a good country produces the wealth, which

then gives us the money with which to provide social services. That's

how it's done, Mr. Speaker.

[4:45]

In the province of Ontario — the engine we used to have in this country to

drive a major manufacturing sector — what do they do down there? We learned from

the budget that they spend more money on welfare than they do on education.

That has to be backwards. In British Columbia we spend more on education than

we do on welfare. We want the people of British Columbia to be able to change

from one industry to another if they choose to do that. Let them have the capacity

to think and to reason. We want them to feel confident about their future in

British Columbia, and they do. How can you possibly have a country where you

can make more money sitting at home on welfare than you can working, and expect

it to survive? How can Ontario put up so much money for welfare that people

can stay home and have the money sent wherever they want? They will mail it

electronically to wherever the recipient has to be. You don't even have

to live there.

Why does that bother us? Why do we care? Because we in British

Columbia pay for part of it. It's costing everybody in this province

money for Ontario to get sloppy with their system — no checking, no

residency requirements,