1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

205 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Health care charges. Ms. A. Hagen –– 205

Mr. Rose

Property taxes for seniors. Mr. Blencoe –– 206

Funding for education. Mr. Jones –– 207

Mr. Sihota

Tabling Documents –– 207

Budget Debate

Mr. Peterson –– 208

Mr. Sihota –– 210

Mr. Hewitt –– 213

Ms. Smallwood –– 217

Mrs. Gran –– 219

Mr. Miller –– 221

Hon. Mr. Witch –– 224

Mr. Rose –– 227

Tabling Documents –– 230

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would ask all members of the assembly to

welcome in the House today two constituents from that great

constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon, Jim and Ruth Tinkess.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have two

visitors from Prince Rupert, both members of the Prince Rupert

Convention and Visitors Bureau: Miss Judy Parkin and Miss Linda Lutz,

down here to meet with the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Michael). I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have the mayor of Ladysmith, Alex Stuart. I would ask you to please welcome him.

MR. BLENCOE: In the House today a constituent from Victoria,

Mr. Don Casswell, and his father John Casswell, visiting us from

Ontario. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. PETERSON: In the House today I've got some fine people

who are very close to me, whom I'd be very pleased to introduce. First

of all, my two sons Ryan and Kevin; I might say, at their tender ages

of 10 and 8 years old they probably know more about the wonders and

mysteries of political life than I did when I was 21. Secondly, their

maternal grandparents — very good friends of mine — Norah and Bill

Howard. Thirdly, their maternal great-grandmother Laura Rushworth, and

my brother and his gracious wife, Greg and Devinder Peterson. In the

members' gallery I present to you four generations off my sons' family

tree.

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery I would also like to introduce two very good friends:

Mr. Charlie Johnson, who has been a friend of mine for 20 years; and Mr. Louis

Pastro, who is a hunting and fishing partner and a very valued friend.

Will the House please join me and welcome all of these great people.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming

here today several residents from the fine riding of Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew. First of all, my riding president Al Jones and his wife

Margaret; secondly, someone who, up until October 21, 1986, was the

best MLA that Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has ever had: Mr. Frank Mitchell,

and his wife Kay.

MRS. GRAN: In the gallery today we have from Langley Mrs. Edith Greenwood,

retired constituency secretary for Bob McClelland, and Mrs. Helen Northy, retired

teacher and member of the Social Credit Party for 52 years. I ask the House

to make them welcome. Also from Langley, playing hookey for the second week

in a row, are two constituency secretaries, Mrs. Marjorie Allen and Mrs. Ida

Fallowfield. From Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, which is my home away from home, are

my mother, Mrs. Hilda Ewen, who is also my landlady, and Mrs. Margaret Williams

and Mrs. Del Denike. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. JONES: I would like to introduce a constituent of mine

from North Burnaby who, I think, helped this House in the past by

assisting Rosemary Brown in preparing for her debates here, which I'm

sure some members will remember. She was Rosemary Brown's constituency

assistant, Barb MacPherson. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

MR. BRUCE: In my ongoing interest of introducing everybody

from Cowichan-Malahat to this assembly, I'd like the House to welcome

some members of three chapters of the women's auxiliary from

Cowichan-Malahat: the three presidents, Clasiena Atsma, Pat Guest and

Helen Aagaard; accompanied by Selma Meeres, Sheila Owen, Florence

Cockburn, Adeline Anderson, Betty Palmer, Im Vanderkruyk, Tara Van

Steenbergen, Lillian Winter, Pam Dyke, Sue Pauls, Doreen Knight, Lois

Cartledge, Rita Littlejohn, Doris Lame, Joyce Wells, Beverley Mountain,

Jean Kinney, Sheila Dickson, Helen Towe, Dorothy Mattin, Judy Gloster,

Helen Doman, Doris Andrews, Bonnie Klettke, Betty Doman, Dorothy Gray

and Eleanor Tennant. Would you please bid them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, it's also important that you note that although we have

many fine ladies in the riding of Cowichan Malahat we also have some

very fine gentlemen. Touring with these ladies today are Charles

Kinney, Alan Anderson and Eric Guest, all being watched over by my

wife, Anneke. Would you bid them all a very warm welcome.

MR. MERCIER: I feel sort of humble; I only have one person.

I'd ask the House to welcome in the gallery, from Burnaby-Edmonds, a

constituent and dedicated campaign worker during my election campaign,

Josephine Wearing.

MR. LOVICK: I was intending to be last because I wanted to

break with tradition and ask the House to please join me in welcoming

one of my constituents and a hard campaign worker, regrettably for the

other side: Mr. Dick Winkelman, a former city alderman from Nanaimo.

Please join me in welcoming him.

MR. WEISGERBER: I'd like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming three farmers from the Peace River country: Gene Lahey, Frank

Breault and Richard Johnson.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE CHARGES

MS. A. HAGEN: My question is to the Minister of Health. The

new $5 user fee for services such as chiropractic, podiatry and

physiotherapy is going to hit senior citizens particularly hard. Some

of those people will undoubtedly be either delaying or canceling

services of this nature. Why is the government targeting senior

citizens in its bid to reduce health costs instead of promoting

preventive services and community clinics as a means of ensuring that

services to our senior population are available as needed?

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: This item of course will be discussed fully

when the House is discussing my ministry and its estimates. All I can

say at this time is that the government is not singling out seniors;

it's not singling out anyone. This province knows — and you know as

well as we do — that the

[ Page 206 ]

budget has skyrocketed as far as health is

concerned. It's not just a British Columbia problem; it's a problem

across Canada. We're seeking ways and means of cutting back on the

total health budget, and rightly or wrongly we have chosen the areas

you mentioned and some others.

MS. A. HAGEN: Certainly the people who are calling our

offices don't share the minister's view. I want to quote a statement

from one of those people who called our office today. That statement,

very simply put, was: "This budget is going to put me in a wheelchair."

What assurances can this government give to the old and the frail that

their fear and despair around maintaining their independence with the

essentials of health services will in fact be alleviated by actions

other than the actions proposed in this budget?

HON. MR. DUECK: You say there is a concern; of course there

is a concern. Every time you cut back, there is a concern. When the

heydays were here and we were adding more programs, it was very popular

to be a minister. When you are in a position that you have to cut back,

it causes concern. However, I would also like to tell you that 20

percent of the population will not be charged, because they are in the

category of being either on GAIN or on welfare. As you know, anyone

earning $3,500 or less taxable income will not be charged that fee. And

with the others, of course, there's a dividing line. Very often when

you make a division there will be some people who do get hurt.

Hopefully, what you say, that they will be ending up in a

wheelchair.... I do not believe that's going to be the case.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, recently the government announced

that it was canceling a surcharge of 8 percent on people with incomes

in the $40,000 range. Most of our seniors, in fact, do not have that

protection. Will the minister undertake to consider rethinking this

particular tax on the poor and moving to rescind this onerous burden on

seniors for essential health services?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention at this time to rescind it.

MS. A. HAGEN: Another question, Mr. Speaker, to the same

minister, please. The budget proposes a new pharmaceutical charge on

users of Pharmacare, 75 percent of the dispensing fee plus an increase

in the ceiling on Pharmacare. For seniors, this erodes the universality

of the Pharmacare program. Why is the provincial government acting at

this time to reduce the very limited incomes of older citizens in this

province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, Mr. Speaker, the people on limited

income will not be charged. It is those above that bracket, the

$3,500-a-year taxable income, that will be charged. The ones that are

on GAIN or the ones that are on social welfare will not have to pay

that extra charge.

MS. A. HAGEN: There is not an opportunity to debate your

reading of your Minister of Finance's proposal, but my understanding is

that only those who are in receipt of GAIN will have relief from this

particular proposal, and those are people who have, in fact, any income

— only $1,000 a year. So there are many people who will be affected.

1 would like to ask the minister what studies have gone into this

decision that would show the kind of impact this will have on the

disposable income of seniors and that can deal with the fact that many

people cannot afford these extra costs and still maintain the

medication they need for health and well-being.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the question the hon. member asked is better put to the Minister of Finance.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Candidly and frankly,

and I hope openly, is the government of British Columbia, like the

government of Alberta, embarking on a two-tiered medicare system, one

for the rich and one for the poor?

HON. MR. DUECK: If we followed your example, we would have a

two-tiered system. I think what we are doing will guarantee that the

best system in the world, which we have in British Columbia, will

continue.

PROPERTY TAXES FOR SENIORS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Many senior citizens in this province have worked long and

hard and diligently to live in their homes and pay for their mortgages,

hoping for security in their old age. Can the minister answer why the

government has decided to assess the elderly of the province of British

Columbia a minimum property tax of $100, particularly while for those

of high income the income surtax is being eliminated? Could the

minister answer that question?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I think that question is better put to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier).

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it is this minister's

responsibility for this area, and she is denying it and will not answer

these questions. A supplementary: there are thousands of seniors in the

province who have incomes below the poverty line. Has this government

done any study of the numbers of seniors who have a home now but have

little real income in terms of paying this extra real property tax and

will now be forced to live below the poverty line? Has the government

done any studies to see the impact of this?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, I would have to take that question on notice now and bring back a complete answer for the member.

MR. BLENCOE: What we are asking is, is this government wanting...?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question is taken on notice. If you want to phrase a new question, that would be in order.

MR. BLENCOE: I have another question. I want to know, Mr.

Speaker, if this government is prepared to pay for its fiscal

irresponsibility on the backs of senior citizens in the province of

British Columbia. That's the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a question.

[ Page

207 ]

MR. BLENCOE: To the minister again, what is the government policy today

with regard to exempting low-income seniors from this tax and making it applicable

only to property owners with the income to pay for it — in other words, high-income

earners?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a question that should better be put to the Minister of Finance.

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Given that public schools in this province have suffered five years of

cutbacks, given that school boards around this province would like to

see some reinstatement of lost services, and given in the budget an

increase of 42 percent given to private schools, to the degree of $5

for private and independent schools for every $1 in increase given to

public schools, why is it that the minister has done this, and is it

the minister's plan to privatize the public school system because it

costs less?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker, certainly there's no plan

to privatize the public schools. The high percentage comes partly from

the fact that it's a lower base that is being worked on. For instance,

with the independent schools getting only one-third of the operating

cost per pupil of the others, any 1 percent at the public school level

automatically translates into 3 percent. I certainly don't know where

the member gets $5 to the independent schools for every $1 to the

public school system.

MR. JONES: Those are the relative increases given per student in the minister's budget.

If it's not the minister's intention to create this privatization —

and the impetus for doing so could be explained by his answer, in that

it does cost less — why is it then that the minister has created this

division between the public system and the private system, and why has

he been so unfair to the public school system in comparison?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think the minister has created any

division. I think some of the critics and other people are trying to

make a division out of it. We haven't created the division.

MR. JONES: Is the minister aware that a small number of the

schools in this province that are receiving grants of this kind are

charging something in the order of $5,000 per year in fees; that they

are the bastions of the privileged, producing a school system that can

operate at twice the cost of the public school system? Has the minister

considered any possibility of a sliding scale, giving less grants to

those who are already charging high fees?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't say that we have, in that it's

a matter of choice that people choose to send their students to the private

schools at a cost in addition to the taxes that they pay. It may have been true

that at one time some of the independent schools were catering to the elite,

but certainly that is not true in all cases. Many students who are not among

the elite have difficulties and are going to the independent schools. Again

it's a matter of choice, and people do choose to send their students, at

personal cost, to independent schools.

Is that member suggesting that people should have no choice in this society?

MR. JONES: My answer to the question was to ask me if I would

like to see the choice created in the public school system. Is it this

minister's intention, then, to continue funding those schools that are

already charging high fees and already have a school system that

operates at twice the cost, when in fact those schools don't need the

grants in order to operate at a reasonable level?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I am not quite sure what the member

is referring to. We are funding at about one-third of the operating

cost of the public school to the independent schools. I don't see that

the independent schools with a third of the funding can really replace

the public school system. So I think the public school system is

perfectly safe with 100 percent funding for their students and only a

third of that funding for the independent schools.

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question then to the Minister of

Education. He says that the public education system is safe. In my

riding Jordan River Elementary is going to be closed down for the lack

of $40,000, and you're pouring $42 million into the private school

system. Do you consider that to be an appropriate allocation of public

priorities?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think in view of some of that member's statements, I'd have to check his facts before I could respond.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think the minister should be allowed to

duck the question on that basis. The fact of the matter is that he can

read any newspaper in this city and find out that there is a $40,000

shortage.

Putting aside the figures, does the minister consider it to be an

adequate allocation of public priorities when a public school is being

shut down and when, as we all know, private school funding is being

increased to the tune of $42 million?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, I would have to really check to see

if that public school is being shut down strictly on the basis of a

$40,000 lack of funding. I think there is quite a distortion of the

facts.

Hon. Mr. Witch tabled the report on applications pertaining to the

Public Service Labour Relations Act, dealt with by the Labour Relations

Board of British Columbia in 1986; the sixty-sixth annual report of the

Public Service Commission, April 1, 1984, to March 31, 1985; and the

sixty-seventh annual report of the Public Service Commission, April 1,

1985, to March 31, 1986.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986.

[ Page 208 ]

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and a

sense of honour and humility that I rise to speak in favour of this

government's budget. It undoubtedly will bring Langley and British

Columbia into a new and vibrant economic era.

First, Mr. Speaker, I have many fine people to thank and express my

appreciation to: first, my two boys, Ryan and Kevin, for their

enthusiasm during the campaign, their understanding during my absences

and their constant love and support; to my relatives and in-laws for

their help, good advice and loyalty; to the dedicated Social Credit

constituency executive who were always there to help; to Ida

Fallowfield, my campaign manager; and to the 600-plus election

volunteers who gave their time and worked so hard to ensure our success

at the polls last October 22. Without their efforts, my election would

have been but a pipe-dream. I shall never forget them. I would also

like to thank all the people of Langley. I very much appreciate their

confidence in me and will do my best to represent them well.

I would like to offer my congratulations to each and every member of

this House, and say that I'm looking forward to working with all of

you. My main objective is to make Langley and British Columbia an even

better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate

you on your election as Speaker of British Columbia's Legislative

Assembly. I know you will serve this House well. I also offer my

congratulations to the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his

election as Deputy Speaker, for he too is a most capable individual and

well respected by all hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, it is also with great pride that I congratulate my

running mate, the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), on her

appointment as Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. I have

great respect for the first member for Langley and her fine record of

achievement as alderman for the municipality of Langley for five years,

as a tenacious and tireless worker who stands firm for her beliefs, and

as a wife and mother who believes strongly in the family unit. She

possesses an aura of dignity and charm, and I predict that as a member

of this government she will significantly contribute to Langley and

British Columbia as a whole.

I would like to pay tribute to Bob McClelland, a good friend, who

served his constituency in this province for 14 years. He was first

elected in 1972. Bob served as Minister of Health, Labour, Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources and finally as Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. His contribution to previous governments

and to the people of British Columbia will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and his

very competent staff are to be complimented on their hard work in the

production of this budget. I believe that this document lays out a path

to continued and greater economic recovery so that all British

Columbians can fully share in the great potential of our province. This

budget recognizes and acts on the need for assistance to the

disadvantaged, but it also recognizes the detrimental effect a

continued and increased deficit will have on future generations. I am

pleased that the deficit shall be reduced by $321 million, or over 27

percent. Deficit reduction is positive action, Mr. Speaker, but I am

proud that we have approached it with consideration for all British

Columbians. We have not forgotten the disadvantaged. I feel that the

Minister of Finance has almost achieved the impossible: a realistic

budget with concern for individuals; for that, with the deepest of

sincerity, I applaud him.

British Columbia is indeed blessed. We are fortunate to have a

Premier who has set such a positive tone and direction for this

province, a leader with a zest for life and unlimited energy who

refuses to take no for an answer, yet a leader who feels compassion and

has a deep understanding of humanity, an individual who recognizes that

British Columbia's greatest and most valuable resource is its human

resource.

I firmly believe that our Premier will go down in history as one of

the most successful leaders of British Columbia. Last week the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) chose to chide the Premier for

his trips out of the province, indicating that he should stay in his

office in Victoria. I must take issue with this, and I am sure that the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) will agree with me.

Let the record show that, as mayor of Vancouver, the current hon.

member for Vancouver Centre said: "I think the time has come when the

mayor of Vancouver should be on the road a lot more aggressively to be

where the business is, a partner in helping things happen." I would

really be interested to know what the NDP's position really is.

I believe that in order for British Columbia to reach its full

economic potential, we must further develop our markets in the United

States, in the Pacific Rim and, indeed, over the entire world. We have

the good fortune of having a Premier who is a marketing master and who

well understands the importance of exporting our goods and services

worldwide. I encourage our Premier to continue with this program, for

he is laying the groundwork whereby the private sector can fully

capitalize on and develop these opportunities for world trade.

I believe this action is vital, for it will produce jobs for British

Columbians and contribute to a better lifestyle for us all. I must also

comment on statements made by some members of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition. They have allegedly stated that fed-bashing is a game

becoming popular with this government. First, let me say that I find

the word "fed-bashing" distasteful. I believe in the greatness of

Canada. There is a huge potential for growth in our country. I am a

strong supporter of the federal system and all attempts to encourage

national unity.

However, I also believe very strongly that B.C. deserves a fair

share from Ottawa. All Canadians should benefit equally from

Confederation, yet this has not always been the case. We must work in

cooperation with our federal and provincial counterparts. Only through

this process can we hope to gain what we believe is a just and fair

share. This government has stated clearly our willingness to cooperate

with the federal government in a positive manner that will allow B.C.

to play a full part within Confederation as a strong economic partner.

An important step in attaining greater equity is the successful

negotiation of a free-trade agreement between our nation and our

largest trading partner, the U.S.A. We are of the view that a

free-trade agreement will benefit all Canadians, including British

Columbians. Unlike the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), we

are not of the view that free trade with the United States will

infringe upon Canada's independence and sovereignty.

In the recent throne speech, our government stressed strongly the importance to B.C., and indeed to all of Canada,

[ Page 209 ]

of an early and successful conclusion to current

free-trade negotiations. Our provincial government has put its position

on free trade with the U.S. most clearly. It will safeguard British

Columbia's interests while strongly supporting a comprehensive trade

agreement with our neighbour to the south. At present, close to 80

percent of Canada's merchandise exports are sold in the U.S., making

continued access to this market of 265 million people of crucial

importance. Free trade would provide a significant and important boost

to our economy and guarantee greater access to American markets for our

commodities and finished products. In addition, with a free-trade

agreement British Columbia's Pacific Rim trading partners, investors

and clients will recognize the opportunities available to them — the

suddenly unfettered access to the large and lucrative U.S. marketplace.

Another way our province would receive a fairer share in

Confederation would be by having greater representation on federal

bodies and organizations. Based on the budget speech, I am optimistic

that this government has set the wheels in motion that will carry us to

this objective. I personally applaud the fact that as a result of the

meetings between our Premier and the Prime Minister of Canada, a

council of ministers has been established. The council would deal with

all matters of interest and concern affecting both levels of

government. We are confident the council will ensure that our request

for a fair share of federal procurements and contracts, as well as

increased representation on federal boards and agencies, will be met.

The restructuring of the Senate would be another positive step in

the process of better reflecting B.C.'s interests at the federal level.

Senate reform has long been an issue of concern in this country, and

there have been many solid proposals put forward by this province and

others to create a more representative and equitable Upper House.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that a free-trade agreement, the new council

of ministers, and Senate reform will constitute important steps in

British Columbia's quest for a fairer share within Confederation, as

well as for furthering our economic growth.

While I'm on the topic of our federal government, I would like to

take this opportunity to say that I am a western Canadian. I was born

in Alberta and have lived in British Columbia for my entire adult life,

but I also love and take pride in all of Canada.

When God created British Columbia I'm sure he stood back, had a look

at his masterpiece and decided it needed a crown. Mr. Speaker, that

crown is Langley. I would like to speak of some of the jewels in that

crown, and how the Minister of Finance's budget will positively impact

those jewels.

[2:45]

First, Fort Langley, our birthplace, was constructed in 1827, and on November

19, 1858, the Crown colony of British Columbia was proclaimed by Sir James Douglas.

Our government recognizes the historical significance of this landmark, and

each year on November 19 holds a cabinet meeting at the site of the original

fort.

This budget also recognizes this significance, for in these

contemporary times Fort Langley will most certainly be promoted as a

destination not to be missed by our super salesman, the Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid). The fiscal vehicle for

this promotion is of course part of the $15 million marketing plan

provided for in the budget.

Considering the growing ties we are establishing with our Pacific

Rim neighbours, I am very pleased to see that funding of about $300,000

will be provided for the establishment of the Pacific Rim Institute of

Tourism. Mr. Speaker, with the beautiful Vancouver trade and convention

centre due to open shortly, and the Victoria convention centre now

under construction. we are adding to our impressive range of facilities

to attract conferences, tourists and investors from around the Pacific

Rim.

Mr. Speaker, I share the excited optimism of the Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture about our tourist industry in this

beautiful province. I look forward to working with him in promoting

tourism in Langley as well as the rest of my province. My riding of

Langley has many existing and potential tourist attractions. We also

are very fortunate to have many parks and recreation facilities which

are havens for those who enjoy the outdoors and athletic activities.

Another crown jewel that must not be ignored is the fertile

farmlands of Langley. Agriculture is Langley's primary economic base,

and we as government must not forget this fact. I applaud our Premier's

appointment of our current Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon.

Mr. Savage). In my discussions with participants in the agricultural

community, this appointment is received with total approval, for this

minister knows well the importance of this sector in British Columbia's

economy. According to the 1981 census figures, less than 1 percent of

the province's total agricultural land is found in the Langley census

district, yet over 10 percent of the total number of farms in the

province are located there. The Langley census district produces over 7

percent of the province's total agricultural sales.

I would be remiss if I did not speak of the high calibre of the

public school system in Langley. I would like to pay special tribute to

the commitment and dedication of Langley's teachers, principals,

district administrators, school trustees and all of their support

staff, who do such a great job in educating our youth. I totally

support the increase of the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr.

Brummet'

s) budget by 11.3 percent, for this funding will contribute

much to the future well-being of our province. Mr. Speaker, Langley's

public school system is indeed a major jewel in our crown.

This government and the Minister of Finance have not forgotten about

the major importance of post-secondary education. The $38.4 million

increase for colleges, institutes and universities recognizes that fact

and, I'm sure, will be well received. A university in Langley that

deserves special mention is, of course, Trinity Western. This

high-calibre institution attracts students from all over the world and,

as my colleague pointed out, is self-supporting. Trinity Western is

truly one of the jewels in the crown of Langley.

Obtaining a post-secondary education requires dedication, hard work

and self-sacrifice for the student and often for the parents as well. I

support the government's plan to offer a tax-deductible registered

educational savings plan, because this will enable parents to plan for

their children's educational future. The scholarship credit plan will

allow grade 8 to 12 students to earn credits towards the cost of their

own post-secondary education by striving for scholastic excellence.

The high standard of health care in this province is the envy of

many outside jurisdictions. Langley Memorial Hospital, the birthplace

of my youngest son, Kevin, deserves special mention, for it too is a

major jewel in our crown. The dedication and professionalism of

Langley's doctors, nurses,

[ Page 210 ]

ambulance drivers, administrators, hospital boards

and support staff deserve a tribute from all of us. We must not forget

the Langley Memorial Hospital's women's auxiliary, for they quietly and

effectively contribute significantly to our health care system by

fund-raising, visiting the sick and many other worthwhile actions that

help alleviate the burden of illness. This coming fiscal year our

Minister of Finance has allocated $3.18 billion for health care in

British Columbia — 29 percent of our total budget. I submit to you that

this is commitment to the people of this province.

I look at this government's community economic development program

with special interest — $3 million will be provided to challenge

communities in all parts of B.C., to encourage them to establish local

industries and find seed capital for local entrepreneurs. Such

communities as Aldergrove, where the spirit of entrepreneurship is

strong, will greatly benefit from this program. I urge the riding's

chambers of commerce to work in conjunction with the municipal

administrations of Langley municipality and Langley city. We must work

in a spirit of cooperation and develop plans that will take advantage

of this program. The vision and dedication of the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) are well known throughout this

province, and innovative community economic development plans will most

certainly receive her total support. This is an opportunity for the

constituency of Langley to improve its community economic base. I know

its people will show the initiative required and come forth with great

ideas that will improve our local economy. I pledge my support in

assistance to them and look forward to their suggestions. I

congratulate the Minister of Finance on his fine program.

Mr. Speaker, to say that this budget excites me would be a major

understatement. Consider the impact that the reduction of the sales tax

to 6 percent, with the further reduction to 5 percent before March 31,

1988, will have on our economy. This puts more spending power in the

hands of British Columbians. This in turn will encourage the private

sector to open more manufacturing and retail businesses and will

provide more job opportunities.

To the opposition I say this is real and permanent job creation, not

just temporary stopgap measures. Our Social Credit government

identifies and fulfils the needs of British Columbia and its people.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the increase of welfare rates for families

and single parents. The rates will rise by 5 percent on June 1, 1987,

and another 5 percent on December 1, 1987. That is a total increase of

10.25 percent within a six-month period. The GAIN shelter allowance was

increased 4.7 percent last October and will be raised further on

December 1, 1987, by an average 6 percent. This is positive action by

the Social Credit government that cares for the disadvantaged of this

province.

The increase in day-care funding by 30 percent to $26.7 million to

help single parents get back to work recognizes the need to help

individuals who, because of their commitments to their children, may

find themselves in need of assistance. I totally endorse this program

and the individuals who take advantage of it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to set the record straight on

some statements made on March 20, 1987, by the first member for

Nanaimo, (Mr. Stupich), the opposition Finance critic. The hon. member

stated that in 1987 employment stands at exactly the same figure as it

did in 1981. In fact, the record shows that 8,000 more British

Columbians were working in the second and third quarter of 1986 than at

the previous B.C. employment high point in 1981. More specifically,

according to Statistics Canada, 1,278,000 British Columbians were

employed during the second and third quarters in 1986, compared to the

same period in 1981 when 1,270,000 British Columbians were working on a

seasonally adjusted basis.

B.C. created the second-highest number of jobs in Canada in the

month of February 1987 compared to January 1987 on a seasonally

adjusted basis. B.C. created 16,000 jobs in February t987 over January

1987. This compares with 22,000 in Quebec, 1,000 in Ontario and 2,000

in Saskatchewan. On a seasonally adjusted basis, according to

Statistics Canada, during the same monthly period, Alberta lost 4,000

jobs and Manitoba lost 2,000 jobs.

In addition, the hon. first member for Nanaimo, spoke of the virtues

of the Manitoba budget with respect to small business. I must point out

that in Manitoba's recent budget, the NDP government increased the

payout tax from 2 percent to 2.75 percent on businesses with a total

payroll of $100,000 or more. This is a harsh and unreasonable tax on

small business in that province that will impede their efforts to

create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance delivered the budget on

March 19, I was very proud to be a member of this Social Credit

government under the capable leadership of our Premier. Today I am

proud to speak in the confidence I have in this budget. I believe very

strongly that this budget will ensure the future economic success of

Langley and British Columbia. It will provide the vehicle whereby free

enterprise can flourish, which in turn will generate additional revenue

so our government and our Finance minister sometime in the future can

table a completely balanced budget, totally eliminating our deficit.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to thank our Minister of

Finance for a budget that I firmly believe will lead British Columbia

to full economic recovery so each and every British Columbian can lead

their lives to their fullest possible potential with a minimum of

government interference.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my eternal gratitude

to our Premier who has moved this great province in the right direction

and provided the leadership and understanding that is so desperately

needed in today's society. Thank you very much.

MR. SIHOTA: I listened with some interest to those moving words from the member who spoke just before me.

AN HON. MEMBER: They moved quite a few people, all right.

MR. SIHOTA: They certainly did. You know, he'd have you

believe that everything is perfect in this province of British

Columbia; that nothing is wrong, which of course begs the most obvious

question: if things are so good, why are they so bad? Why are 200,000

people out of work in this province? Why is it that we're shutting down

schools and at the same time increasing expenditures for private

schools to the tune of $42 million a year? Why is it that in our

hospitals people have to be held up in the corridors before they can

find a room for them? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker: over the years

this government has failed to deal with the fundamental economic

problems facing this province, and the budget that

[ Page 211 ]

the Minister of Finance tabled the other day does nothing to address those problems either.

Speaking about the Minister of Finance, of course it's great to see

him in the House now that question period is over. All of us on the

opposition side look forward to the opportunity of dealing with the

minister tomorrow, in light of the fact that — that is, if he doesn't

know yet — his ministers referred all of the questions back to him.

It's interesting, though, when you begin to look at this government.

The government ran on a mandate. They said — actually, they promised —

new jobs. They promised no taxes. In fact, I think as late as January

17 this year the minister was saying, in the Vancouver Sun ,

no income tax increases for the people of British Columbia. So they

promised new jobs, no taxes and a fresh start. But what do we get from

the budget? New taxes, no jobs, and a false start. That's what we got —

a false start.

The government, and particularly the Minister of Finance and the

Premier, must be just a little disappointed over the reaction they

received on the budget. I think they had planned — and hoped — that

they would receive a far more positive response than they got. In

essence, when one takes a look at the budget and its contents, and the

speech that flowed from that budget, it's evident that it was really a

public relations gimmick; and the public relations gimmick just didn't

go. They tried to touch the right spots. They tried to deal with a

number of matters. They hoped that the headlines would congratulate

them on reducing the sales tax, on increasing the welfare rates or

upping the day-care subsidies. They were hoping that all of that would

result in applause and, more important, would camouflage the real

intent and purpose behind the budget.

The real intent and purpose behind the budget is basically to make a

money grab; to try to extract as much money as they can from the

pockets of the people of British Columbia to do indirectly what of

course they were afraid to do directly: secure some funds to deal with

the deficit that this very government created. As it was, once everyone

saw the camouflage and public relations rhetoric that was behind the

budget, it was evident what the budget really was. It was antibusiness

and, in particular, anti-small business. That's interesting, coming

from a government that says it has the interests of small business

people at heart.

I received quite a few calls over the past weekend from business

people in my riding very upset about the terms and the components

within the provincial budget. It was anti-small business; it was

anti-seniors and anti-jobs, and we'll talk a little bit more about that

in a few minutes. So it didn't really come as a major surprise to me

that the Premier and the Minister of Finance weren't here at 2 o'clock

today. I think they were huddled in the comers with their public

relations experts, trying to figure out what exactly went wrong and how

they could do the best damage control between now and the weeks to come.

[3:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

MR. SIHOTA: Of course it's true. I fully expect that in the

weeks to come we'll see the members opposite stand up and say: "Yes, we

listen to the people." We'll hear them say: "Yes, maybe we should take

a second look at the changes in income tax. Maybe we should have a

study on the matter of small business taxes. Maybe we should have a

study on the matter of small business taxes. Maybe we should examine

the whole thrust of our budget."

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Finance says maybe we should do

what Manitoba does, and I say yes, you should, because at the end of

the day — let me remind the Minister of Finance of this — the Manitoba

government has the best record and now the lowest rate of unemployment

in this country. And the NDP government in the Yukon has reduced by 50

percent its rate of unemployment. So yes, Mr. Minister of Finance, do

what Manitoba did. Have the guts to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're finally starting to make some noise over there.

MR. SIHOTA: They're waking up over there now.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, let's talk about unemployment, since the

members opposite seem more interested in that matter than in anything

else. I heard all those eloquent words by the speaker before me talking

about how many more people are employed in British Columbia today than

yesterday. But let's look at the facts and in particular let's take a

look at the budget document itself: page 55, for all those members

opposite who have it. I quote: "The average unemployment rate is

forecast to remain in the 13 percent range." That's what the Minister

of Finance says. Flip it over; on page 57, to bring the point home to

the members opposite, the budget says that the unemployment rate this

year in British Columbia is expected to be 13.1 percent. Last year it

was 12.6 percent. Mr. Speaker, you don't have to be a pollster to know

that the people of this province, and indeed of this country, feel that

the number one problem with our economy and the number one issue in

this province today is unemployment, and that the number one task in

front of all governments is to begin to reduce the rates of

unemployment, and that's what we are trying to do, that's the goal.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are.

MR. SIHOTA: The members say that they are. Well, I ask them:

take a look at your own budget. It forecasts an increase in

unemployment next year, not a decrease. Those are your own figures;

they're not figures that I've dreamt up. They're right within the 1987

budget documentation. It's a shame that the Social Credit government

has embarked on a budget that seeks to raise unemployment to 13.1

percent — that finds the level of unemployment in this province today

to be totally acceptable.

MR. BLENCOE: They're planning unemployment.

MR. SIHOTA: They're planning unemployment; that's precisely

what they're doing. In fact, in a minute I'm going to be bringing to

the attention of the members opposite a little bit about what other

jurisdictions are doing about the question of jobs and unemployment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 212 ]

Let's talk a little bit about the reality of unemployment. I want to

share with you a couple of situations that I face in my life every day

that are not unique to people of this province. It's a story that I

tell often and it is not a very happy story. Several years ago, when I

was going to university, I started to play hockey with 18 chaps. At the

time we were going to university 16 of us were working; two of us,

myself and my room-mate, were not working. We were both going to

university. Today, some four and a half or five years later, 14 of

those 18 young chaps my age — somewhere between 29 and 33 years of age

— are out of work; 14 out of 18. One of those is a teacher who spent

four years obtaining his bachelor of education and who worked for three

years in the school system. Today he is driving a truck that delivers

linen supplies throughout the greater Victoria area. He's qualified; he

doesn't show up on the statistics as being unemployed, but he's

underemployed. He is not doing what he's trained to do. Another chap is

an accountant. He spent two years at college obtaining his diploma for

accounting work. For three years he worked with a bank, and since then

he has been unemployed. He's been drifting from part-time job to

part-time job in all sorts of labour, $4-an-hour tourism-related jobs.

He hasn't been able to get back into his chosen field of being an

accountant.

That's the reality of what's out there in the streets today. I ask

you, what promise does the budget hold out for those people? Nothing.

It's unbelievable and totally unacceptable that a government in this

day and age would say that it expects unemployment to increase, that it

is not willing to do anything about the basic problem in our society. I

find it very difficult to believe. The budget speech and certainly the

throne speech that came before it were full of all sorts of buzzwords.

They were full of buzzwords like "deregulate, " buzz phrases, as I call

them, like "get government off the backs of people." Let's privatize.

Let's bring in the private sector to do everything. Buzzwords,

public-relations buzzwords. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say this: if the

government wants to have one buzzword, that one buzzword ought to be

full employment. That's what this party stands for: full employment.

That's not an obscure dream. That's not something that is difficult to

achieve. The only issue is whether or not governments have the will to

achieve full employment.

The Conservative government of Ontario appointed Mr. Ken Dryden —

whom I think some of us know as a former hockey player and currently

within the honourable profession of lawyer — as a commissioner to deal

with the matter of unemployment, specifically youth employment in that

province. He was appointed by a Conservative government, and maintained

after that in the province of Ontario by a Liberal government. Not too

long ago he came down with his report, in which he said: "There must be

a clear public commitment to full employment as the first step to

lowering unacceptably high rates of unemployment." His definition of

full employment means the situation in which everyone who wants and is

able to work has a job. He said: "I find it disturbingly ironic in the

circumstances, where something is as fundamental and is in fact a real

value in this country — having a job if you want one and are able to

work — why that should represent something that is so unutterable, no

matter which party."

Well, this party is not afraid to utter the words "full employment."

This party is not afraid to say that ought to be the goal and the

mandate of government. This party is not afraid to say that the

government should use the capital at its disposal that comes through

that budget to achieve the goal of full employment. He has asked the

Ontario government to do that, and I would hope that the government

here in this province would also embrace that same policy of full

employment. Of course, the members opposite on some occasions have

certainly not hesitated to embrace the ideas of members from this side.

I would, of course, encourage the members of the government to embrace

the concept of full employment and take us to it, because it's in the

best interests of the people of this province.

The reason why the budget forecast unemployment to rise in British

Columbia is that the Minister of Finance is quickly realizing the very

flaw within his budget.

MR. BLENCOE: Where is he?

MR. SIHOTA: He's disappeared again, I'm sorry to note, but

that's not surprising. When it gets a little hot in here, I guess he

finds another room to hide in.

The budget does the very thing that results in unemployment. The

budget begins to take disposable income out of the pockets of working

people in this province. It begins to tax them enormously — from 44

percent to 51.5 percent; that's the increase in the provincial portion

of income tax the people in this province are now going to have to pay;

$600 a year extra for every family in this province. You take that

money out of circulation in the economy and pump it back into the

trivial projects of this government, and you begin to retard economic

development.

The property transfer tax. I'm sure all of the members opposite have

received calls similar to those I've received over the weekend.

Realtors, small business people, are upset about the property transfer

tax. They understand it. I had a phone call on Sunday from a small

business person in my riding who was complaining about the effects of

$1,200 now being put into a tax when one transfers property, as opposed

to being put into video recorders and TVs and chesterfields and carpets

and other goods and commodities that make the economy go. That's what

the property transfer tax does.

It's no wonder, when you raise income tax, when you impose taxes

like the property transfer tax in the way it's been done here, that you

have no choice but to conclude that unemployment is going to rise this

year in this province. That's what the budget document says: 12.5 to

13.1 percent.

[3:15]

The provincial government had a wonderful opportunity to do something with

the economy this time around. They had a windfall of about $300 million in the

lumber export tax, $300 million that they hadn't bargained on receiving.

I believe it was $90 million on the health matter that they had received because

of the decision to eliminate user fees, and I believe $70 million in other areas.

Somewhere between $400 million and $500 million the government had at its disposal

to begin to do something about the number one problem in this province, job

creation. What did they do? Absolutely nothing.

I listened with interest to the Minister of Finance, who I am glad

is now back in the chamber again, Mr. Speaker, when on an open-line

show he said: "I don't understand why people are criticizing me for not

doing anything about jobs. I can't figure out what is happening here. I

am creating 5,000 new jobs" — 200,000 people unemployed, and he's

creating 5,000 new jobs.

[ Page 213 ]

Mr. Speaker, $500 million was available to this government to put

into job creation activities, and all we're doing is putting in a

nominal amount to create 5,000 jobs. We're doing nothing about

silviculture in this province, and I know the minister — I'm glad he's

here again now — made a rather interesting comment, to put it politely,

over the weekend in Duncan about his concern that all the trees are

going to hatch at the same time in this province and will have to be

brought down, and what do we do with that problem? Well, I know quite a

few unemployed foresters that can tell the minister what ought to be

done with that problem, if he perceives it to be a problem.

In any event, it is true that the budget says unemployment is going

to rise, and it is true that there is nothing within the budget that

begins to place a dent in the matter of unemployment. But at the same

time, it hurts the very people in this province that created the wealth

of this province, seniors. Seniors have been punished and victimized by

this budget.

I want to relate another story, because on the weekend I was at a

meeting of the Active Mobile Homeowners' Association. It was their

Vancouver Island annual general meeting. A lot of the mobile home

owners in this province are seniors, and we got to talking about the

need for a bill of rights for the owners of manufactured homes. More

about that on another speech.

But the point is that there were 50 senior citizens in the hall. Unprompted — I didn't ask for

it — they all took up a petition that I have here with me today and they signed it, protesting

the government's decision to increase property taxes for senior citizens from $1 to $100. Seniors who

created the wealth in this province ought to have the opportunity to share in that wealth, not to produce

more revenue for government.

One senior, when he talked to me privately afterwards, was worried about the fact that now he would have to

find $50 a month more for chiropractic and physio fees. He didn't know where it was going to come from. He's

on a fixed income, $437 a month. That's his fixed income, and out of that, after he pays his rent and his food,

he is now going to have to find $50 more for that. He is going to have to pay more for his prescriptions on the

dispensing fees and the deductibles on Pharmacare.

The seniors in this province are upset, and if you haven't heard

from them yet — and I believe that you have.... For all the lightweight

back-benchers on the government side, if they haven't been able to

transmit the message back to cabinet yet, don't worry: we'll be there

as members on this side of the House fighting with those seniors to

convince this government to reverse the very negative implications in

this budget for seniors. Shame! It's despicable.

Mr. Speaker, I talked earlier on about the imagery and the public

relations aspect of this budget. I happen to be, of course, the critic

in our party for the Attorney-General's (Hon. B.R. Smith'

s) ministry. I

looked with some interest to see what was going to be provided in the

A-G budget this year. Of course, for all of those who practise in law

and who have an interest in the affairs of that ministry, our concern

immediately goes to the issue of legal aid.

The government in its budget speech said that legal aid funding was

going to increase by $5 million from the $14 million last year to $19

million this year. Well, I don't see anyone applauding on the other

side, so I am sure they have seen the same sham in that statement that

I have, because last year there was $14 million allocated for legal

aid. There was $4 million in additional warrants that went out to

provide assistance to the depleted legal aid system. As a consequence,

Mr. Speaker, $18 million was expended last year on legal aid. They're

putting $19 million in this year, an increase of $1 million, of which

the federal government pays half. So the total net amount going into

legal aid as new moneys this year is not the $5 million that this

hyperbole of a budget speech says. It's not $5 million, it's $500,000 —

a pittance going to legal aid.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ten percent.

MR. SIHOTA: Ten percent of what was indeed said by the minister as going in there.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, today I had the opportunity to meet with

people from the Law Society of British Columbia. They're not impressed.

They understand. They've seen the sham. They know what the government

has done. The word is going to be out: it wasn't $5 million but

$500,000. The sole purpose of that statement in the budget speech was

to generate the public perception that the government was doing

something about a public need. You tried to deceive the lawyers and the

people of this province into thinking that you were beginning to put a

substantial amount of money into legal aid. Deception. It didn't work;

you got caught.

Mr. Speaker, those are some of the concerns that we on this side of the House

have about the budget. I want the members opposite to know this: there is a

new spirit within the caucus on this side. You're going to hear from us.

You're going to see us with the seniors; you're going to see us with

the young people; you're going to see us with all the small business people

who have been devastated by this budget. We'll be taking that message out

to the doorsteps, to the seniors' groups around the province, to the chambers

of commerce, and we will be telling them exactly what this government did. Three

years from now, Mr. Speaker, there will be a new message in this province —

a totally different new spirit. Watch out for what's going to happen from

this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, when you look around this province, when you look at

its wealth.... I understand that the second member for Langley (Mr.

Peterson), who spoke before me, was talking about the jewel or the

crown that this province was and all that kind of nice stuff. It

transcends the boundaries of Langley right across the province. It is a

beautiful province. It has a tremendous amount of wealth and resources.

There is an overwhelming amount of opportunity in this province. Given

our natural resources and the desire of our people to work, there are

all sorts of things that we can achieve in this province. We don't need

13.1 percent unemployment. We don't need to have seniors hit the way

this budget does. There is a tremendous potential in this province, and

we can tap it. But when you look at that potential, and when you begin

to look at the rates of unemployment and at the deficit, you can come

to only one conclusion: that the only thing wrong with this province is

Social Credit.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise and speak in the budget debate.

I want to give the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) a

little education. I want to tell him that it is not the federal

government that pays; it is not the provincial government that pays; it

is, my friend, the taxpayer who

[ Page 214 ]

pays. And if we thought about it for a moment on

both sides of the House, we'd recognize that we have a great

responsibility in this House to make sure we are good managers of the

taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new members to the House: 39 in the class of '86,

the largest contingent of new MLAs in history, I guess. I'm not sure what

the size of the first House was when we entered Confederation, but I doubt if

it was 39. I think it was pretty small.

Mr. Speaker, we as MLAs are very privileged. We are given a vote of

confidence by our constituents. We're to represent them, we're to cut

through some of the red tape to assist them when they have problems,

and we participate both on the opposition benches and government

benches in shaping the future of B.C.'s economy and social programs.

Although the government and opposition have different philosophies — I

think that's fair to say — we respect each other's views, and we

respect each other's views and we respect each other as individuals. We

may not agree, and in the heat of debate we cast remarks across the

floor of the House, but I think we'd all agree that it is a privilege

and an honour to serve in this House, and we respect that privilege.

I, like others before me, would like to pay tribute to two former members of the House who are no longer with us.

The late Ernie Hall, former member for Surrey, was a tough opponent,

a respected opponent, an excellent debater with a sense of humour. He

could invoke a little bit of humour when we became too serious, when we

got a little upset with one another. I can recall — and I hate to bring

this up, Mr. Speaker — in the throne speech where we made a mistake and

said coal for hydroelectricity, and I think the member for Vancouver

East brought it up. Can you imagine what Ernie Hall would have done

with that line? He would have had us rolling in the aisles with regard

to making an error in the throne speech. But it's good to laugh at

ourselves from time to time, because this is serious business and it's

nice to have a little bit of humour to lighten the load.

The late Al Passarell, Landslide Al, who won it by one vote, and the

man who wrestled grizzly bears — remember that story? He was a big man

with a big heart. He was the north country's Will Rogers. If he had

something to say he said it in a simple, straightforward manner which

all could understand. To give you an example, for those of us who were

there at the time, Al's speech to this House on the availability of

medical services in the constituency of Atlin will be remembered for

many years as an impassioned speech by a man who was truly concerned

about the people he represented. It was one of the greatest speeches

I've heard in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the budget and throne speech debates allow us to talk

about our constituencies — and many members have in their maiden

speeches — or to comment on the government's economic and social

blueprint for the coming year. This budget is a good budget. It deals

with and addresses the deficit; it talks about less regulation,

additional funding for social programs, a new direction on taxation —

reducing the social services tax while, granted, increasing other

taxes. Nevertheless we all agree, I think, that the sales tax hits

everybody and probably hits the lower income carrier more than anybody

else when it comes to taxing at the point of sale. I think that budget

was excellent, and I compliment those people who have spoken on it and

the ones who spoke on the throne speech as well — good speeches and a

lot of enthusiasm. I can recall the enthusiasm I had, along with my

colleagues from "the class of '75" when we came in as a new team and

were excited and were prepared to represent our constituents and to

work together to make this province a better place. The thirty-fourth

session of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, will be exciting and

productive because of the enthusiasm of those 39 new members.

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker, as back-benchers we have an opportunity to express our

individual views at this point in time, whether it's in the throne

speech or budget speech debate. I am going to depart somewhat from the

usual speech that is given and comment on one subject only, because in

my mind this subject affects not just British Columbia but all of

Canada. It's timely, because we have a first ministers' conference

coming up later this week. The subject is Indian land claims, and in a

broader sense the future of the Indian nation. What direction will it

take? As politicians and lawmakers, do we look to the future or do we

relive and try to change the past? Do we have the right as elders — and

I use that word purposely — to deny our children, all our children,

equal opportunity in the twenty-first century?

A number of members have raised the question of native Indian claims

and concerns. The Leader of the Opposition in his throne speech debate

talked about — I quote — "the issue of aboriginal claims." I'd be

curious to know whether in that debate he was talking about aboriginal

claims or aboriginal land title. I'd be interested to know what his

party's policy is on that.

The second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) in his speech said:

"...in the spirit of our great party, which in its constitution

upholds the universally — and I emphasize 'universally' — recognized

principles of Christianity in all human relationships, it is important that

in a multicultural society with our first citizens and the rest of us coming

originally from all over the world, we are universal in our outlook."

Important words, Mr. Speaker, and ones that I think are very appropriate for today.

To quote the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) in his speech:

"...I want to make a few brief comments relating to the Indian land question,

which is of considerable importance to a large segment of the people of Atlin and, indeed, of

all British Columbia. It is a longstanding question that is casting an ever-deepening shadow

on the economic and political landscape of British Columbia....

"...I believe that it is not just a matter of land

transfer and compensation. It is a matter of reasserting a sense of

dignity as a people. It is their continuing fight to say that we as the

aboriginal people have a history. We have lived here since time

immemorial. We have our own government and governmental institutions.

We have our cultures, our languages. Of course, we had our laws and we

have our customs and traditions. In short, the aboriginal people in

British Columbia are trying to establish the fact that they have a

legitimate place here in British Columbia."

I don't deny the fact that they have a legitimate place in British

Columbia. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) said, and I quote:

"...B.C. natives have become strangers in their own house, denied

access to economic opportunities which many of us take for granted. As

my friend Charlie Bellis...put it to me, we are suffering from

[ Page 215 ]

a form of economic slavery, dependent on handouts

from government for our existence." I don't disagree with that

statement, Mr. Speaker. These comments have been made before, many

times over many years.

Let me give you a quote from a speech made in 1967 by a new member

of the House at that time who later became Attorney-General in the

Social Credit government, 1975. I'm speaking about Mr. Allan Williams.

He stated, as a Liberal at that time: "It has been the stated policy of

the Liberal Party that the Indians of this province are citizens and

should receive the same privileges and share the same responsibilities

and participate in the life of the community in which they live on the

basis of equality with other citizens." In my maiden speech in 1976, I

talked about equality of the native Indian. In my constituency, as many

know, I have several Indian reservations. I spoke in 1983 during the

debate on the resolution re the Canadian constitution, and I'd like to

read my comments at that time.

"I would like to think that I have a goal as an

individual resident of British Columbia and as a Canadian. I think it's

fair to say that we all should have — and I think we all do have — the

same goal: that is, that Indian and white men are equal and should have

equality in the true sense of the word both today and in the future.

"I cannot address the past with any intelligence, but

I think equality is where we should be going. We should do our

darnedest to get there and to do it in such a way that it can be said

in the future Journals of any House that the decision was reached after

fair discussion unbiased with regard to political affiliation, but

discussion which includes all concerns. When we end up, we should have

Canadians in British Columbia and in Canada — not communities of

Indians and communities of white men.

"The goal is equality in the way of life. Hopefully

sometime in the future, when people address the question of residents

in British Columbia, citizens of Canada, they'll see no difference

whatsoever between the Indian and the white man. The goal we should be

achieving is equality, not something more for either side: equality for

those who are alive in Canada today and in the future generations,

whether they be Indian or white man."

Mr. Speaker, it's time that the Indian community truly became part

of the Canadian mosaic, a mosaic that ensures preservation of heritage

and culture, but also ensures individual opportunity for all. Canada is

the world's last frontier, the second-largest country in the world,

with a population of only 26 million people. We open our doors to the

peoples of the world, and they come. They come because Canada is the

land of individual opportunity. We have new citizens from Hong Kong,

Korea, India, Pakistan, England, France, Germany, Russia, South America

and Africa, just to name a few. Many of those people are unable to

than the clothes on their backs. They come without skills, but all with

the knowledge that Canada is the land of individual freedom and

opportunity; all with the knowledge that the Canadian mosaic will allow

them to maintain their cultural ties. Yet in my opinion we deny our own

Indian people the same opportunity. Why? We deny it because the word

merchants, the lawyers and the politicians, both native and white, are

still addressing the errors of the past and not considering the future

which faces the native children of today.

Let me give you a case in point. Some years ago, Allan Williams, as

Attorney-General and the minister responsible for Indian affairs in

British Columbia, finalized with the Penticton Indian band the matter

of cutoff lands and land claims. A settlement of $12 million to $13

million was paid to that band — and I apologize if I may be somewhat

inaccurate with regard to the exact amount; I don't want to be caught

up because somebody says it wasn't the right amount, but it was in that

vicinity — and several thousand acres of land. That settlement appeared

to resolve the issue, which dated back to the early 1900s and the

famous McKenna-McBride commission. Well, Mr. Speaker, not so. It didn't

resolve the problem, because today the Penticton Indian band wants

compensation for a further 65,000-acre claim dating back to 1876. The

Indian band laid claim to this acreage, which is commonage land,

northwest of Penticton, and they're seeking compensation for these

lands which the band says were taken away late in the nineteenth

century.

Just to quote the news

article that deals with this issue:

"The term 'commonage' refers to lands set aside

by the provincial and federal governments in 1876 for the common use of the

Indian and white population. When the lands were used commonly, settlers used

it for agricultural purposes, and the uses were compati ble with those of Indians

who used the land for hunt ing, livestock grazing, harvesting, food catching,

summer residences and fishing...."

Commonage lands. We're now going to debate that

issue as to whether or not there should be compensation paid in almost

the twenty-first century for what happened in 1876. The point I make,

Mr. Speaker, is that we're continuing to re-examine the past through

the eyes of lawyers and politicians who were not there at the time.

They have a tremendous hindsight. It's a wonderful thing when you can

determine what happened, what was appropriate at that time, when you

weren't even there. Granted, lawyers have a knack for reading the

written word and making their

interpretation of the written word, but

who knows what the intent of that word was in those days.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the reserve system has not served the

Indian community well. It is not the Indians' heritage to live on a

reserve, Mr. Speaker; it never was. But in those days that was the

appropriate way to go. Is it today?

Some years ago, when I was a politician, I picked up a young Indian boy outside

the city of Penticton. He was hitchhiking along the side of the road in the

rain. I asked him where he was going. He said, very appropriately: "Back

to the reserve." When I let him out of the car, I saw him walking away

in the rain, and I asked myself: what chance does he have? What future is in

store for him? Does he have the same chance as others in our society? The answer

to that question, Mr. Speaker, does not lie in a debate over land claims or

compensation; the answer lies in equality and opportunity for the individual.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to consider the concept of individualizing the

Indian land, to allow title in fee simple to go to the individual native Indian.

Pride of individual ownership; we stand on that. We say it is pride

of individual ownership. Why not the Indian in Canada? Why can't he

have that pride as well? Why is it always the band land? It could be

done, Mr. Speaker; not imposed. For heaven's sake, not imposed — we've

done too much of that when we created the reserve — but after open

[ Page 216 ]

voluntary discussion, the Indian, native politician

and lawyer and the white man politician and lawyer getting together to

determine how it could be done. It would take a lot of time. It would

take a lot of understanding. But it truly would allow our native

children to be on equal footing with their fellow Canadians, both those

who were born here and those who have chosen Canada as their land.

It's a most difficult goal to achieve. I thought long and hard

before I rose in my place today to make this speech. It would be a most

difficult goal to achieve: individualizing Indian reserves. It would

take time: 10, 20, 30 years; a lot of planning, a lot of consultation,

but the reward would be worth it. It would take a lot of guts to buck

the trend that we're going on today, when we meet for the third time at

the federal-provincial first ministers' conference to talk about Indian

affairs and the Canadian constitution. It will take a lot of guts to

change the trend, but that's what our job's all about. We've got to

address these things and be prepared to stand the flak with regard to

how we change direction in this country and in this province, as

opposed to just going along for the ride. Too long have we gone along

for the ride.

Mr. Speaker, rather than maintaining the barriers that deny the native children

equal opportunity, we should be working towards ensuring that the native Indian

becomes part of the Canadian mosaic, because Canada is his country. I know that

some lawyers and politicians, both native and white, will argue that the Indians

must not lose their heritage and culture. Again, Mr. Speaker, the reserve is

not part of the Indian heritage. It was imposed upon them by politicians who,

to defend them, could not visualize what Canada would become in the twenty-first

century but only saw the reserve as a solution of the day. The question is:

do we as British Columbians and Canadian politicians, native and white, perpetuate

that decision, even though we know what the sophisticated, high-tech world of

the twenty-first century will be like? We are part of the world community, and

we must recognize that and must work towards providing opportunity for all our

people in British Columbia and Canada. I want the Indian child to be able to

participate in that world community of the twenty-first century. I don't

want him or her restricted by the barriers of the reserve. Indian culture and

Indian heritage can be maintained as it has been by other ethnic groups in Canada.

I am not sure how we are going to achieve the goal of

individualizing the Indian reserve, but we should try. We should try,

and by "we" I mean the Indian leaders and the provincial and federal

politicians. Again I say we should depart from our present course of

further debate on land claims and/or compensation and look to knocking

down the barriers to equality.

I am pleased that the Premier has established a committee on native

affairs. I sincerely hope that they will take a moment to read my

remarks in Hansard before

they embark on their discussions. I hope they will have the opportunity

to analyze and debate this issue before they enter into the in-depth

discussion at the first ministers' conference. I believe that through

this committee we could show great leadership in the discussions at the

federal level.

[3:45]

In closing, Mr. Speaker, Thomas Berger wrote a book. The book was entitled

Fragile Freedoms . You all know who Thomas Berger is, former leader of the NDP

party, former justice and author, who has done many studies with regard to Indian

affairs in this province. This book, of which I am a critic, had a thrust, and

the thrust dealt with minority groups. He talked about the Acadians and how

they were treated — the Acadians being those who came up from the States and

into Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. He talked about the Metis, the mixed race

of white and Indian. He talked about the Japanese-Canadians and how they were

treated, the FLQ, the Communist party and the Nishgas, all abused by society,

Mr. Speaker, when viewed in hindsight. But throughout his book he failed to

recognize the individual, the freedoms and rights of the individual, the most

fragile freedom of all.

Mr. Speaker, the constitution of Canada states in

section 15: "Every

individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal

protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in

particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic

origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

That

section deals with equality, Mr. Speaker, equality of the

individual. In light of the words of the constitution, the question

must be asked: why did the young Indian boy I picked up years ago say:

"I am going back to the reserve"? Why couldn't he have said: "My mom

and dad have a place on Green Mountain Road"? That's why I like to

think about individualizing the Indian reserves, this situation that we

have today. We as politicians and as lawmakers must remember our

children, for, as the Bible says, they will inherit the earth. Let's

ensure that the resolution of the Indian land issue allows Indian

children to have their place in the sun.

Mr. Speaker, my remarks today are somewhat off the original debate,

if you will, of the budget — I realize the flexibility that we have in

both the throne speech debate and the budget debate — but I think it is

important for us from time to time to break new ground and not to go

along on the basis of what we feel is the easy way out. Heaven only

knows what remarks I will get from the Lower Similkameen Indian band

leaders, from the Oliver-Osoyoos Indian band or from the Penticton

Indian band after my remarks are read — if they are ever read; who is

to say? — but at the same time, if they weren't said.... And take

yourself down the road 100 years. Do we still have the reserve? Do we

still have young people who are denied an opportunity?

I think that at this time if we are breaking new ground, if this is

a fresh start in British Columbia, then we should address these types

of questions and forget about the debate and harangue about how many

dollars did you put into welfare this year, how many dollars into

education, why did we raise the tax, why did we lower it. The people

across from me in this House know full well that the government doesn't

print the money, that we don't make the money. We are only guardians of

the money that the taxpayers and the economy provide, and we attempt to

do the best we can, and we can make the comparisons on this side of the

House and say: "Look what a great job we've done." The other side says:

"You've made a mess of the whole thing." That is not the issue.

Many people, gentlemen whom I respect a great deal — Garde Gardom,

Pat McGeer — because they were, in my opinion, very good legislators,

have said that the House had deteriorated rapidly in the past number of

years. The debate became harangues, because the issues were not

addressed for the future; we were always looking to the past about what

was wrong with one another. So if we're talking cooperation, maybe

those opposite may like to give some thoughts to my remarks and maybe

enter into such a debate.

[ Page 217 ]

Mr. Speaker, I again appreciate the opportunity to raise this issue.

The conference that comes up at the end of this week is the third such

meeting — the last such meeting — on the Indian issue with regard to

our constitution, and I hope that those people who sit around that

conference table will give serious consideration to the children of

this land, both native and white.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to follow the

previous speaker. I found some of his comments very interesting,

although I disagreed with the majority of them. I found it interesting

because he talked about equality and because he talked about

discrimination. I'd like to address three areas of the budget — three

areas that were grossly neglected, three areas that I am responsible

for as debate leader. The first area is economic issues for women, the

second area is that of B.C. Transit, and the third is environment and

parks.

As a rookie in this House, the whole process here has been a real

learning experience for me. I've been slightly frustrated by the fact

that the things that I care very deeply about don't end up on this

government's agenda. I've been frustrated by the fact that the majority

of my time is spent trying to have those issues dealt with. It's

interesting that in the budget speech women's issues — issues that are

of interest to women — are not mentioned. The word "woman" is not

mentioned once in this budget speech. However, I believe that this

budget is of historical impact on women. I believe that this budget is

very much like what happened after World War 11. I am concerned, and in

fact I fear that the job creation that this government talks about is

job creation for ideologues and job creation in moving women out of the

labour force — pushing them back into the kitchen, back to the days of

barefoot and pregnant.

I am concerned that this budget does not deal with the realities of

51 percent of the population in our province. For that reason, I'd like

to talk now about those realities, about some of the myths surrounding

women's economic status, in the hope that this government will deal

with some of these facts and design a program that will deal with

equality and with discrimination — that deals with them not in a

narrow, fundamental way that reflects a single world view but that

instead reflects the broad reality of many people's lives in this

province.

First of all I think that this government has to realize that half

of all women with children under the age of three participate in the

labour force. They must also realize that over half of all women with

children aged three to five participate in the labour force, that more

than half of the women who work outside the home do so to bring their

family's income up to the poverty line. This paid work is their second

job. Like most women, these women work in unpaid labour in their homes

raising children and doing housework. This government must realize that

if women were not out in the labour force working — if their income was

not contributing — 61 percent of Canadian families would fall under the

poverty line.

Young women can no longer count on being so-called "taken care of."

Three out of four women either never marry or lose their husbands

through death, divorce or separation. That's three out of four women.

Families headed by women run over four times the risk of poverty than

do those headed by men. Single mothers are five times more likely to be

poor than families with two parents. There are disturbing trends in the

whole issue of women's economics in Canada.

The National Council of Welfare says that in 1961 the percentage of

poor families headed by women was 13.2; 16.6 percent in 1969; 35.4

percent in 1980; and 36.5 percent in 1985. That's an incredible trend.

Sixty percent of the women who are single parents with families are

poor. One child in five in this country is poor. Children of

woman-headed households have a fifty-fifty chance of living in poverty,

compared to one in five with men heading the household and one in ten

with two-parent-headed households.

Certain groups — and this, again, comes from the National Council of

Welfare, reporting to the federal government — including female-headed

one-parent families, the young and single elderly, most of them widows,

are very vulnerable to poverty. In 1985, 50 to 85 percent of all child

maintenance orders failed for women on social assistance and housing.

Women on social assistance and housing — those that do manage to get

support — have that deducted from their welfare cheques. Sixty percent

of women fall in the category that has jobs such as waitress, cashier,

sales clerk, cleaner, day care worker, nursing assistant and office

worker. Sixty percent of these women are supporting families.

Sixty-seven percent of women in 1986 were minimum wage earners. The

minimum wage now in B.C. is $4 an hour. Full-time work on the minimum

wage gives $8,320 per year before deductions, or about $150 a week

after deductions.

All of these statistics don't even begin to touch the reality that

women are facing in our province. I find it incredibly difficult to try

to bring the realities that the majority of women in this province and,

indeed, in Canada are facing.... Without understanding those realities,

without those realities being given voice in this House, this

government is making decisions that are impacting on their lives

without understanding the reality. They suffer under the myth that we

are in a situation of two-parent families, in which women have the

luxury of staying home and raising children. Indeed, that is not the

reality. The reality is that the majority of women need to work in

B.C., that the majority of women are working just for basic survival —

no frills.

[4:00]

The raising of the minimum wage to $4 in this province — with the

full-time wage that I have just given you and the fact that that

relates to $150 a week take-home — will not bring a single person up to

the poverty line here in B.C. That won't even bring a family of three

halfway to the poverty line in B.C. For women such as these the issue

of equal pay is not a philosophy; it is an issue of survival, of

putting bread on the table.

The poor in this country are getting poorer, and when we talk about

the poor, I again want to emphasize that over 60 percent of those

people are women. The minimum wage buys 20 percent less than ten years

ago. Poverty for women is not cyclical; it is institutional. Women

cannot wait until the economy gets better. Women cannot wait until the

cycle turns round. Historically women have been the least advantaged in

our society. In 1985 the number of poor Canadians fell by 298,000,

after a five-year increase. That's according to the National Council on

Welfare. A drop of 7.1 percent between '84 and '85. The numbers of poor

women dropped by 5 percent. The reduction in the number of poor people

in this country was not reflected across the board; the number of

[ Page 218 ]

poor people who escaped that poverty level was

disproportionate. Male-headed families dropped by 10.6 percent;

women-headed families dropped by 1.1 percent.

Women make up 78 percent of employees in the clothing industry, and

their average wage is $166.53 a week. But they only make up 8.6 percent

of employees in construction industries, where the average weekly wage

is $472.46. What that means is that a brother and sister in this

province who are raised together, who have the same advantages, who

have the same educational opportunities — that the difference in their

income is going to be $166 a week for the woman and $472 for the man.

Same education, same background, same family. That is despicable.

According to the Canadian statistics, women in Canada, in B.C., have

been struggling to improve their situation, asking government to end

legislated poverty. The realities are that in 1985, women full-time

wage earners earned 64.9 percent of men's wages; in 1984, they earned

65.5 percent of male wages. We're losing ground. After this long

struggle, when it has taken women all of their energy to try to raise a

family....

We heard a lot in the budget about support for family, about family

as the centre of our society, the respect for motherhood. These are the

realities. This is the reality of women's lives. Indeed, if we're

talking about support for the family and good old mom and apple pie,

then damn it, we should be looking at these figures. We should realize

that 60 percent of all people living under the poverty line are women.

When I took on the responsibility of looking at women's economic issues

— as I say, the whole process has been one of learning — I looked at

some of the issues the women's movement has been fighting for, for so

long: the number of executives in office towers, the number of

professors in engineering, the number of graduate students in

engineering at UBC. That does not reflect the women I'm representing

here, and their reality, and I think it's about time those issues were

grappled with, that those were the realities that began to change the

legislation and the programs for this government.

I can't begin to touch on all of the issues that impact women's

economic reality. I'm fortunate in this caucus to be one of five women

who are concerned about the reality of women in this province, and many

of the women in my caucus will be dealing with those issues later on in

their speech on the budget. I'll just touch briefly on some of the

issues that I feel impact women's lives.

During the last year we heard a great deal about the housing crisis

in Vancouver. One of the things that didn't break through the din — not

to my satisfaction at least — was women's homelessness and the impact

on women and the reality that they must face. A survey done in

Vancouver of 100 women asked whether or not they were homeless; 56 said

they didn't know from one day to the next where they would be staying

that night. The woman who did this survey said that she felt this was a

very conservative number, because when she was talking to these people,

some women would say that they didn't consider themselves homeless; if

they didn't have a place to stay that night, they could stay down the

street with an old guy they knew in a hotel. They could go and stay

with him.

And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House, that sexual

favours for a place to stay make these people homeless. We are just

beginning to see the tip of the iceberg in major cities across Canada.

Vancouver is no different from the major cities like Toronto with the

problems of prostitution and the impact on young people, young girls

and young boys that are out prostituting themselves to pay the rent.

That has to be a signal to this government that there is something

desperately wrong with their myth, something desperately wrong with

this idealistic picture they have of this two-parent household with two

lovely children and a cocker spaniel. There is something desperately

wrong in this province when we have young women and young men

prostituting themselves to be able to pay for a place to stay at night.

What I have done is more or less outline some of the concerns, some

of the realities of young women who are at home raising a family,

taking on a part-time job to try to pay the rent, some of the women who

are homeless and some of the young women who have run away from bad

situations in their homes. But I think it is very important for us to

look at a cause and effect here. This is the reality that the majority

of women in this province face. They face uncertainty, they face

vulnerability, they face economic insecurity.

What that means to our senior women is that seven in ten elderly

poor are women, that women make up 83 percent of the unattached aged on

low incomes. The reason for that is because of their work history,

because they gave their lives to raising families, because there is no

income security for those who don't pay into Canada Pension Plan or the

Quebec Pension Plan. They fall off the edge of the map here. They are

in a situation now where those mothers that we care so much about are

living in abject poverty. Seven out of ten elderly women are poor.

Is that kind of vulnerability, that kind of economic insecurity,

what we want for this mythical family? The reality is that women tend

to work in occupations and industries that don't have private pension

plans. Unfortunately the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension

Plan don't make up the shortfall. They are designed to complement

private plans.

What has this government done for our seniors, for our grandmothers,

for our mothers? They have put user charges on Pharmacare. They have

put user fees on physiotherapy and chiropractic services. So much for

the myth of mom and apple pie.

In 1976, 47 percent of women did not contribute to the Canada

Pension Plan and therefore will receive only old age security pensions

after the age of 65. That bodes very poorly for those women who are

reaching their senior years.

What this government has done is put $2 million in the budget which

it says is going to help provide alternatives to abortion. I say to

this government that the realities that I have outlined will cost an

awful lot more. Those inequities and that discrimination will cost an

awful lot more than $2 million. My concern, as I said earlier, is that

that $2 million will only be money for brochures, for propaganda, maybe

a couple of media clips, but will in no way address the true lives and

the suffering that the women of this province face. This government

totally ignores the fact of polling that shows that 72 percent of those

women polled in Canada say that women should have the say, should have

the decision, on abortion, and that the decision should be between the

women and their doctors. That is totally ignored by this government,

and they are carrying forward their own particular narrow view of the

myth of how this family should conduct itself

The question that I put to this House is: given the reality that

women face in this province, should women in poverty, women who have to

go to food banks to be able to feed themselves and their families,

carry an unwanted pregnancy

[ Page 219 ]

full term? I say to you that it is irresponsible for that woman, given the reality of those women's lives.

One of the positive spinoffs of this heated debate across Canada is

the number of studies that have gone on looking at what the reality is

for sex education and how society can grapple with this problem. One of

the most marked studies — one of the studies that I think has the most

to say about this situation — zeroes in on teenage pregnancy and points

out that the number of young women who are goal-oriented, who see that

they have a society that they can fit into, that they have a place....

Those are the women who are least likely to become pregnant as teens.

If this government truly cares about the rate of abortion, truly cares

about family, truly cares about women and motherhood, then I call on it

to turn its efforts to providing alternatives, to giving these young

women the opportunity to see that they can be full, functioning,

participating members of this society, ending the vulnerability, ending

the reality that they find themselves in and that their mothers find

themselves in.

[4:15]

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I was slightly confused by the budget

speech. I sat here and listened to the Minister of Finance talk about

the money that the government was giving for the less advantaged of our

society. I saw senior members of the government, including the Premier,

making motions to the opposition, like: "Isn't that a good deal? Aren't

you guys happy? Why aren't you applauding?" This government has done

only the minimum. It is just beginning to recognize the erosion of

services, of equality, of support that the many people in this province

have worked for. It has done the least that it could possibly do in the

way of support for the family. It has not even begun to deal with the

cutbacks to social services and community services to women and

families that were so savagely put upon this province in the last few

years. I do not applaud that recognition; it is the least that this

government can do.

Indeed, not only has the government — and it was the senior members,

looking for some sort of support from the opposition for its minuscule

offerings of so-called assistance to the less-advantaged.... But what

this government has done — and we've heard time and again — is put an

additional weight on low- and middle-income people of $566 by taxation.

I don't call that justice.

One of our earlier speakers talked about taxpayers' money, and that

all the government was doing was administering taxpayers' money. What

the government is doing is facilitating a distribution of that money,

and what that government has done is to take away from the people the

least able to pay and give breaks to people who have money.

In 1985 alone the B.C. budget gave $955 million in corporate tax

loopholes, and that was over a three-year period. My question is: when

we look at all the numbers, how much money has this government, this

budget, given in corporate loopholes?

The only program that we have seen prior to the bringing down of the

budget that begins to try to grapple with the reality of poor women in

this province was a social service and housing program that put

$300,000 into a computer program, a pilot project in my riding. What

that has done is say that there are jobs all over this province. It has

made women more vulnerable, making them more isolated and breaking down

the meagre family supports that they have in their communities.

I'm running out of time, and I'm not going to be able to deal with

my other two critic areas. In the area of B.C. Transit, surprisingly

there's not a whole bunch in the budget in the way of information. I'll

be bringing what there is at further opportunities in the House. In the

area of environment and parks there are only a couple of lines. It said

something like that these changes — they were talking about the tax on

leaded fuel — are motivated by the concern for the quality of our

natural environment. That is the only reference. There was no mention

of major resource decisions in this province — decisions that were made

in total absence of any input from the people that care about this

province.

MR. WILLIAMS: We need a new minister.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's getting tiresome, another and another and

another minister. But if this minister is not prepared to deal with the

concerns of the people of this province, then he too must go. Because I

am committed to ensuring that the majority of people in this province,

whether it is those who are concerned about the environment, those who

are concerned about and need public transit, or those women that make

up the majority of poor people in this province.... I am committed to

ensuring that they have a say, because I believe that there is some

power to be given to their story. Perhaps that's my contribution: being

able to stand up in this House and name them and give their story and

make this government pay attention to their story.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the

Minister of Finance's March 19 budget, which I believe to be innovative

and completely unbiased. His budget shows the deep compassion felt by

this Premier and his government for those in need and for our health

care and education systems. I believe that it has taken courage to make

many of the decisions outlined in the Finance minister's budget and

foresight to recognize that growing deficits will eventually bankrupt

this province. Although some of the measures contained in the budget

are tough and no doubt have disappointed some, for the majority this is

a fair and realistic budget, and I compliment the Premier, the minister

and their colleagues in cabinet.

For the past two weeks we have heard a great deal from the

opposition about how much they care about the people in this province

and how little the government does, assuming that all Social Credit

members are wealthy, without problems and only interested in fiscal

responsibility.

Now I must say that the decorum in this Legislature, the cooperation

and respect shown, is refreshing, and I hope it will continue. But we

must debate in honesty, forgetting headlines in the newspapers and

one-upmanship. We must exchange ideas and listen to what each one of us

has to say. There is a great wealth of talent, intelligence and

knowledge in this room. The people of British Columbia elected not only

a good, sound government but a very fine opposition. The fundamental

difference I see between the two sides is that one wants to do

everything for everyone, and hang the cost; the other believes in

individual initiative and less government.

Somehow over the past few years the opposition has managed to comer

the market on caring. I would like to set the record straight, just as

the Finance minister did in his March 19 budget. Let's start with day

care, a subject I have personal experience with. Day care in British

Columbia wasn't started by an NDP government; it was started by a

[ Page 220 ]

Social Credit government, under W.A.C. Bennett. How

do I know? Not by asking the minister or our research people. I know

because I was one of the first single mothers to take advantage of that

program, right here in Victoria. With two very young children, I found

it very difficult to leave them in home care programs or wherever I

could find a baby-sitter. When I found the government program, I was

able to go to work, maintain my dignity and self-respect, while my

children were in an environment throughout the day that was structured

and positive.

To expand on the issue of day care — and it is an issue, used by

politicians to gain the women's vote — day care, as we know it in

British Columbia, is positive; universal day care is not, and has the

potential of destroying a good, sound, much needed program with huge

cost overruns. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the

taxpayers of this province for the helping hand they gave me when I

needed one. It wasn't the taxpayers' fault that my marriage broke up,

but I appreciate the help anyway. I compliment the Minister of Finance

on increasing the present program's funding by some 30 percent, with

the emphasis on helping people help themselves.

We have heard a lot about this budget not addressing the

unemployment problem. Yet in the minister's budget is an allocation of

$80.7 million for JobTrac, a program that includes five ministries.

Training and work experience will provide young people and income

assistance recipients with the confidence and encouragement needed to

tackle finding a job or making their way in the private sector. The

objective is to allow the marketplace to find its own level, to expand

and develop, with a minimum of government interference. Surely the

opposition members are not asking government to give money to the

private sector to create false jobs and a false economy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to dwell for a few moments on the cry from

the opposition on behalf of women — and we've heard a half-hour's

worth: women's rights, equal rights for women, and on and on and on.

Women are not a needy lot, nor are we a minority group in need of

protection by the NDP. I think you will find that most women feel they

are competent, reasonably intelligent and able to make good decisions.

Women tend not to be political and are therefore easily used. In the

last provincial election, out of 21 female NDP candidates five were

elected — less than one-quarter. Social Credit had six female

candidates and four were elected, or two thirds — no token female

candidates.

Let me tell you what kind of damage left-wing activists have done to

women and children. Many women enjoy cleaning and looking after their

homes, preparing meals for their families, and, yes, even washing and

ironing their clothes. Should she feel like a traitor, guilty because

she loves her family and likes to do things for them? Many women today

are apologetic because they stay at home and look after their families.

The left-wing women's groups demand programs, such as universal day

care, full pensions, homemakers' wages and equality with men — whatever

that is. Right-wing activists now emerging seem to want to demean those

women who have chosen to continue with their careers and have a dual

role. If ours is to remain a free society, and equality is a goal we

want to achieve, women should be allowed to feel completely comfortable

in either role. I think we'll survive a whole lot better without either

activist group.

[4:30]

1 would like to say further that the role of mother is the single

most important role in our society and should be elevated to the

position it deserves. When the protection and love that mothers offer

in such abundance is withdrawn, the family falls apart.

That brings us to young people. The second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes) is completely right when he says there is a problem

out there that needs addressing. I am not convinced, however, that any

amount of money will change things. Those young people on the streets

are victims of a morally bankrupt society. Many are not loved, have

never felt loved, and are therefore unable to give love. They are

encouraged by the media to engage in activities beyond their years, and

are bombarded daily with sexually stimulating TV programs and

literature. There are virtually no rules, no focus, no security for

these young people. Community and government leaders throughout this

province should be encouraging volunteers to get involved instead of

setting up cold, impersonal government programs. The family should be

our focus. They should be encouraging parents to work out their

marriages where possible and to accept responsibility not only for

their actions but for their children's actions. Churches could play a

larger role in demonstrating that the true Christian spirit exists.

I attended a drug seminar put on by a group called Breakaway. It is

a program designed mainly for ages 12 to 17, to help teenage drug

addicts break their habit and become useful members of society, and to

help their families cope and take an important role in the

rehabilitation of their children. These were families from all walks of

life, from all income brackets, and many had two parents. There was

disbelief, sorrow and a lot of human suffering. One statement stands

out in my mind: "We want no government involvement." That's how it

works best: people helping people.

Our young people need us. But what they do not need is to be taught

that the world owes them a living or to be told that they are a lost

generation with nothing to offer. I ask both sides of this House to

recognize the problem, and that it is too serious for right-wing or

left-wing rhetoric and instead requires a deep sense of caring. The

member for Vancouver Centre was right, Mr. Speaker: the jig is up for

all of us,

If Manitoba is being held up by the opposition as an example of good

government, then perhaps we should take a look at the budget brought

down in that province just a few days ago. The primary thrust of that

budget was to raise the revenue needed to pay for programs and to

reduce the provincial deficit. It was a tax increase budget. Provincial

sales tax in Manitoba went from 6 to 7 percent. The land transfer tax

went up to 1.5 percent. There was an increase in tobacco tax and a

personal income tax rate of 54 percent. Virtually no new programs were

introduced, and service levels in health, education and agriculture

were simply maintained. Manitoba also has a decreasing population.

Here in British Columbia local communities are being given more

responsibility. More decisions will be made locally. Community economic

development funding is a welcome item in the budget, and those

communities that accept the challenge will benefit for years to come.

Interjections.

MRS. GRAN: Am I getting to you over there?

Industrial and commercial non-residential school tax has been reduced to 2 to I from 3.4 to 1. Property taxes on

[ Page 221 ]

machinery and equipment have been eliminated for

1987. Effective March 31, corporation capital taxes are completely

eliminated except for large financial institutions, and the corporate

income tax rate is reduced. These and other measures give on an annual

basis more than $600 million in tax relief to assist the competitive

portion of B.C.'s business and industry. This means more jobs for

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of seniors and how the budget affects

them, I would like to say a few words about the changes in Pharmacare.

This government, in attempting to get a handle on costs in this area,

has encouraged seniors to shop around for a low dispensing fee. I have

personally seen differences of 300 percent in dispensing fees. The

additional burden is paid by the taxpayer. Those seniors on low incomes

are protected with an increase of $125 per year in the GAIN for Seniors

supplement, and most will be better off as a result of these changes.

This government has demonstrated that they care enough about the

seniors in this province to make changes that will at first be

unpopular, but that will ensure continuation of benefits our senior

population so richly deserves. Mr. Speaker, governments must be

responsive to the needs of our seniors, and it is my hope that our

Premier will, in the next three years, establish a ministry for

seniors' affairs. The growing population of seniors — and they're

getting younger every day — demands our attention and lots of new ideas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looking for a job.

MRS. GRAN: I'd be good at it, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their confidence.

As an alderman in Langley I assisted a company called Britco

Structures Ltd. in having the zoning bylaws in Langley municipality

amended to permit what are called granny flats to be placed on

privately held land. Britco has designed a modular home that enables

related elderly single persons or couples to live independently yet in

close proximity to their children. These are separate self-contained

cottages attractively and solidly designed, beautifully finished and,

best of all, reasonably priced. Housing and recreation for our growing

senior population must be addressed at all government levels, and the

example I have just used is only one way to accommodate the changing

needs.

My congratulations to our Premier and his Finance minister for the

good, positive image this government presents. Instead of focusing on

15 percent unemployment, let's talk about 85 percent employment.

Interjection.

MRS. GRAN: Well, it's my first time.

Instead of calling an entire generation of young people lost, let's

talk about the 80 percent that are doing really well. Let's encourage

the people of British Columbia to think positively, to strive for the

kind of excellence that we want. This government has demonstrated both,

and I'm proud not only to represent the great constituency of Langley

but to be a member of the Social Credit team.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I can't help but

comment on the remarks of the first member for Langley, who seems to be

particularly disturbed about a perceived monopoly that we on this side

of the House have about people in terms of caring about their welfare,

and I suggest that if she really wants the answer to that question, she

should examine the record of her government. Examine the record of the

restraint program and its impact on the poor and the less advantaged

people in this province; examine and ask why people on welfare have not

had an increase in this province since 1982. Maybe then she'll start to

come to the realization or the understanding about why that exists.

However, Mr. Speaker, I didn't rise in my place to respond

particularly to the member for Langley but rather to respond to the

budget document that was presented to this assembly. I must say at the

outset that I was particularly surprised during the reading of that

budget speech, because as I looked over at the Premier and the Minister

of Finance — particularly the Premier — he was exhorting the opposition

to rise up and applaud this budget. And I asked myself why was he doing

that. What in this budget did he think was so great? Why did he want us

to stand up and cheer for this budget? Did he want us to applaud the

imposition of another $125 a year on senior citizens? Did he want us to

applaud for adding a $5 user fee on medical services? I'm telling you,

we won't applaud for the fleecing of senior citizens in this province.

Would he have us cheer because his Minister of Finance increased income

taxes to take an additional $184 million out of the pockets of middle-

and low-income earners, cheer a tax system that will see the average

working person pay $140 or $150 more per year while someone earning

$160,000 will pay $4 or someone earning $180,000 will get a $50 rebate?

We won't cheer for that. We're opposed to that. We think there should

be a fair tax system in this province.

The Premier thinks we should be enthusiastic about a budget that

says we will continue to have the highest unemployment rate with the

exception of two maritime provinces; that we should be happy about a

budget that does virtually nothing to stimulate employment in this

province. We're not enthusiastic. We're not happy at all, and neither

are the people of B.C. We think 13 percent unemployment is a bad thing.

We think 27 percent youth unemployment is terrible, and we think the

government has a responsibility to do something about it.

So I was surprised that the Premier looked so pleased, as though his

Finance minister had created something truly unique, a document that

even the opposition would have to approve. Perhaps he is not so pleased

today, after his back bench have had a weekend to go out to their

constituencies to find out what the public reaction really is.

The question we ask is why, after a dozen years of government that

has failed the people of this province, this government did not take

the opportunity to make a unique and truly fresh start; why this

government did not take the opportunity to introduce a budget that

would be a blueprint for the future instead of a continuation of the

past.

Perhaps I should have anticipated this budget. After reviewing the

throne speech and comparing it with previous ones, perhaps I should

have realized that there has been no fundamental change. In 1976 the

throne speech said: "During the period of my government's mandate, it

will act to rekindle the provincial economy, " — rekindle, remember

that word — "and provide programs which will encourage

[ Page 222 ]

individual enterprise and create new job opportunities which are so badly needed."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What year was it?

MR. MILLER: It was 1976. Does that sound familiar 12 years

later? It should. I quote last week's throne speech: "My government

will act to let business get down to business and rekindle the spirit

of enterprise across our province." Some rekindling! Who put out the

fire? What was the fuel? Empty rhetoric.

When you guys started rekindling back in 1976, the StatsCan

unemployment rate was 8.5 percent, 96,000 people out of work. After

burning that free enterprise fire for a dozen years, the unemployment

rate for the first two months of this year is 14 or 15 percent, almost

200,000 people out of work. Some fire!

Let's continue: 1977, a banner year. "My government intends to

provide more opportunity to the private sector this year and in the

years ahead." Again in 1977: "One of my government's programs to create

more jobs includes a program to improve working opportunities for the

young people of B.C." Great program! What's the unemployment rate today

for young people? Twenty-seven percent.

[4:45]

Let's now move to 1978 for some more gems, this time under the

heading of deregulation — government by buzzword. Listen to this: March

30, 1978. About ten years ago, isn't it?

" In keeping with the views expressed at the first

ministers' conference, my government firmly believes that one of the

most important contributions that can be made by government is to

provide the climate in which the private sector can better respond to

the challenge of providing jobs and opportunities for our people.

"It is my government's view that government must become less of a burden and more of a servant."

Sound familiar? Well, the words have changed a little bit, but you're still singing the same tune.

There is a new buzzword: privatization. That's the new buzzword in

1987. Job one is to get government off the back and out of the way of

the private sector — and rekindle the spirit of free enterprise. It

went out there somewhere; it went out.

"My government will immediately appoint a private sector

task force to work on privatization of Crown corporations." How about a

public sector task force? You know, I really worry about that one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the Premier's Circle?

MR. MILLER: Yeah, it's the private sector. It's those guys running that corporation over there at Expo.

You know, I worked in a pulp mill that was unfortunate enough to be included

under the BCRIC umbrella. We all remember that little experiment in privatization.

I hope the members opposite at least remember. The result for me and for a lot

of my fellow workers is not something to laugh about. There were protracted

periods of extensive layoffs, and a lot of people lost their jobs in the process.

You recall that little adventurous experiment in privatization. What did it

do? It raised $400 million to $500 million in capital and then poured it down

the drain. You fleeced thousands of British Columbians of hard-earned cash.

A lot of working people I know bought those shares. They bought them because

the Premier went on TV and told them to bu