1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9251 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 9251

Oral Questions

Government advertising of budget. Mr. Harcourt –– 9251

Contaminated fish. Mr. G. Hanson –– 9252

Mr. Rabbitt

Merritt timber supply area. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9253

Contaminated fish. Mr. G. Janssen –– 9253

Contaminated game birds. Mr. G. Janssen –– 9253

Budget Debate

Mr. Rabbitt –– 9253

Mr. Barlee –– 9257

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 9260

Mr. Harcourt –– 9263

Hon. L. Hanson –– 9265

Mr. Lovick –– 9267

Mr. Loenen –– 9271

Mr. G. Janssen –– 9274

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9278

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT :

I am very honoured today to have three special guests from Imperial Oil

Ltd.: Mr. Don Coghill, public affairs manager; Marlene Miyanaga, public

affairs assistant; and David McEvoy, vice-president of explorations for

Esso Resources Canada Ltd. They're in Victoria today. Imperial Oil Ltd.

is sponsoring the Victoria Symphony this evening. I would ask you to

make these special guests welcome.

HON. MR. MESSMER :

Visiting the Legislature today from St. Margaret's School in Victoria

are nine grade 9 students, along with their teacher Carmel Linka and

driver Allan Young. They're the young ladies up here to the right in

the red blazers. Would you please join me in welcoming them.

MR. LOENEN :

Mr. Speaker, I have the rare opportunity to welcome some immediate

members of our family. Some of our children are here in your gallery

accompanying my wife Jayne: first of all, our daughter Marianne, who

just completed her graduate work at SFU and expects to receive her

degree in criminology next month. Soon she will be leaving for Ontario,

where her husband will pursue a master's degree at the University of

Guelph. Next is our son Jeff, who has just completed his third year at

UBC in philosophy, accompanied by his wife Annette, who is a unit clerk

at the Vancouver General Hospital; as well, our youngest daughter,

Heather, who has just completed her first year of college, accompanied

by her boyfriend Bill Nederlof, who is a graduate student at the

University of Alberta. Missing from our lineup is our son, who is in

Ann Arbor, pursuing a doctoral program in economics at the University

of Michigan. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. BRUCE :

In the buildings today are 35 grade 11 students and their teachers Mr.

Foster and Mr. Towner from Chemainus Secondary School, from that "great

little town that did" just up over the Malahat. Would you please make

them all feel welcome.

MR. CHALMERS : In your gallery

this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have a friend and constituent of mine

from Okanagan South. I would like everyone in the House to make Mr. Tom

Capozzi welcome, please.

MS. CULL : In the gallery today is Mr. Chris Causton, who is an alderman in the city of Oak Bay. I'd ask you to welcome him.

MRS. McCARTHY : I would like the House to welcome to our precincts and

gallery this afternoon a Member of Parliament from that big House in Ottawa.

Sheila Copps, Member of Parliament for Hamilton East, is in Victoria today to

talk, among many other things, about her opposition to the goods and services

tax. She will be in our gallery near the end of today's question period,

and travelling with her will be her staff members Linda Conway and Bryan Baynham.

Will the House please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

In the gallery this afternoon we have a group of 23 grade 5 and 6

students from J.T. Brown Elementary School in Surrey. They are

accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Brock and Mrs. Thoroaldson, and I

would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the 1988 annual report of the British Columbia Assessment Authority.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the five-year forest and range resource program for the years 1990 to 1995.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF BUDGET

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. The BS fund

has been identified by the auditor-general as just that — b.s. Peat

Marwick also disputes the government's claim of a balanced budget. Can

the minister responsible for government advertising assure the House

that he has decided to cancel the misleading television and newspaper

ads that wrongly suggest your government has balanced the budget?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

The opposition seems to have some problems finding out who they should

ask questions of, but I would certainly defer that question to the

Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I can

appreciate, for members who lack business experience and understanding

of how public accounting is conducted, that the proper reporting of

public financial matters is sometimes confusing.

Mr.

Speaker, I have to ask you and the House to consider that we started

the year with $1 billion in the budget stabilization fund, ended the

year with $1 billion in the budget stabilization fund and reduced the

accumulated debt during the year. So, insofar as we wound up with what

we started with in the rainy-day fund and reduced, not increased, our

debt, I have to ask the hon. member who framed the question how it is

that he doesn't believe the budget is balanced.

MR. HARCOURT :

I'm pleased that the Minister of Finance questions the business acumen

of the auditor-general and Peat Marwick. It shows where his business

acumen is.

I have a supplementary for the Provincial

Secretary. Last year your government pulled a "B.C. Government News

Update" that crossed over into

[ Page 9252 ]

political

advertising when you extolled the virtues of the government's new

cabinet. Peat Marwick has exposed your government's balanced budget

claim: "The accounts are in deficit." Will the minister finally agree

to cut the b.s. and cut the ads?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Insofar as for some peculiar reason the Leader of the Opposition keeps

misdirecting the question, I will attempt to respond. The hon. member

opposite should possibly have his research staff do a bit more

homework; it might consume less time of this House.

The

fact is that the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada have lauded

the presentation of this government's financial practices. The fact is

that the chartered accountants' institute have lauded the presentation

of this material. The fact is that the Vancouver Board of Trade have

lauded the former presentation, and the budget stabilization fund and

the ingenuity that created such a fund. The fact of the matter is that

since the inception of the fund.... The fact that it exists and the

security that it will be a billion dollars to cover us in a rainy day

have resulted in an improvement in our international credit rating

among four of the most prominent rating agencies.

When it

comes to managing public finances, I suspect the Leader of the

Opposition is really out of his league, and that's exhibited by the

naivety of his questions.

MR. HARCOURT : I'm used to balancing budgets during tough times and I'm astounded you can't balance your budget during good times.

Supplementary

to the Provincial Secretary, who is in charge of the government's

advertising program. If the Minister of Finance is now in charge of

your ministry too — as he is of the Health ministry — we'd like to

know that, because my question is about these misleading ads. It is not

a balanced budget. The experts are saying that very clearly. Are you

prepared to cut the b.s. and cut the ads?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Well, he obviously wants a quick answer. The answer is no.

[2:15]

CONTAMINATED FISH

MR. G. HANSON :

I want to ask a question of the Minister of Native Affairs. As you

know, aboriginal people in British Columbia rely heavily on fish as a

source and a staple of their diet — that is their food, to a large

extent. We are shocked to find in a report from the federal government

that high levels of dioxins and furans have been found in Dolly Varden

and other fish stocks in the South Thompson and North Thompson

drainage. I would like to ask the minister what specific steps his

government has decided to take to protect the health of the aboriginal

people of the Shuswap nation.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

I'm sure the member recognizes that the responsibility for the

environment and control of pollutants within the water system....

MR. MILLER : It's your responsibility.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Don't get excited, fellas. I'll answer the question.

The

fact is, Mr. Speaker, I met with the Shuswap nation about three or four

months ago. At that time they expressed a concern about the possible

contamination of the water system where the fish that they rely on come

from. Since then, the Ministry of Native Affairs has had discussions

with the Ministry of Environment. The information you referred to has

just been published, and undoubtedly the Ministry of Environment is

investigating the issues.

If you are looking for specific

technical information about how you would deal with the issue of

pollution within the river system, perhaps you would be better off

referring your question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Reynolds).

MR. G. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, that minister

has a responsibility to the native people of British Columbia. You

should be the advocate for health matters, whether it falls within your

jurisdiction or not. The fact is that for over a year, the aboriginal

people have been concerned that they were being contaminated, because

human beings are the top of the food chain and aboriginal people eat

more wild fish and so on than the rest of the population does. There

have been warnings for 11 months.

My question is: what

specific steps has the minister taken to arrange for compensation or

alternatives to this poisoned food? Or is George Watts right that harm

is not granted as harm to anybody unless it's to white people?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

First of all, I think the member and the House must understand that the

Minister of Environment has a responsibility to look after the

environment for all people in British Columbia and that no one looks at

whether it is Indian or non-Indian people affected by pollution within

the water system. As I said the first time I stood here, the Ministry

of Native Affairs has been discussing this issue with the Ministry of

Environment for several months now.

MR. G. HANSON :

I'm going to go to the Minister of Environment on this same subject.

Health and Welfare Canada has been testing furan and dioxin levels in

human and other animal tissue for over ten years. All the documents are

available. Can the Minister of Environment tell the House whether his

ministry has taken any steps to close or place restrictions on sport

fishing for Dolly Varden or other trout in the Thompson River basin? Or

have you decided to issue another public warning, soon to be forgotten?

[ Page

9253 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, the member should be aware

that the mill in Kamloops that was producing the dioxins has been

upgraded, and the levels of dioxins are undetectable. We will be

issuing....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

It's nice to hear the yelling from the team across the House that can

only put half their members in the House on a Monday afternoon.

This government has taken the issue very seriously. It has issued new regulations in British Columbia —

the toughest in Canada. That mill has lived up to those regulations.

The problem is decreasing. We are working with Health and Welfare

Canada. We will issue warnings only in this case because that is all

that is felt necessary by both the federal government and ourselves.

MR. RABBITT :

My question is on the same subject to the Minister of Environment. I

want to know if the minister is prepared to meet with the central

interior steelhead association in order to receive their input because

of the detrimental effect that could have on steelhead fishing in that

particular river system.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Yes, I

am not only willing to meet with that group, but I'm willing to meet

with the native people and anybody else in that area who wants to meet

on this topic.

MERRITT TIMBER SUPPLY AREA

MR. RABBITT :

The second question I have, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Forests.

The minister is aware that jobs are being seriously eroded in the

forest industry, particularly in the Princeton area of the Merritt TSA.

I would like to know what steps the minister is taking to guarantee

that forest jobs in that area of my riding are going to be protected.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The annual allowable cut in the Princeton district has not been

reduced. However, there is increased competition for the wood in that

area, as the member knows — especially since two years ago, when

we took back 5 percent of the AAC for the small business program. I am

pleased to say that although there were some jobs lost due to the

closure of an old mill in Princeton, they will be more than made up for

by some of the value-added sales taking place in the area. Two in

particular should add between 25 and 50 jobs net in the Princeton area.

MR. RABBITT :

Supplementary to the same minister. A helicopter logging licence is

presently pending. I would like to know the status of that application

and whether we can expect to see the licence approved shortly.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Technical studies are underway now regarding that

licence; that is one of the sales I referred to. I am pleased to tell the member

that the value-added jobs from that licence will be going to Princeton.

CONTAMINATED FISH

MR. G. JANSSEN :

A question for the Minister of Tourism. The government's dismal record

on the environment now threatens a multimillion-dollar sports industry

in Kamloops. Has the minister decided to warn sport-fishing tourists

about the dangers of eating fish that are contaminated?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I would refer any questions dealing with the environment to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds).

CONTAMINATED GAME BIRDS

MR. G. JANSSEN :

The ministers opposite seem to be quite good at ducking the questions

today, but the ducks in Alberni are quickly becoming dead ducks.

The

highest dioxin levels ever found in B.C. game birds have been detected

near Port Alberni in birds that form part of the diet of the

Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council and the peoples of the Nuu'chah'nulth.

Perhaps the Minister of Native Affairs could be more specific than his

counterparts on the other side of the House. What specific steps has

the minister taken to protect the health and safety of the

Nuu'chah'nulth peoples?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I think the question would most appropriately be answered by the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I'm very pleased to see the member for Port Alberni standing up and

asking that question. As he knows, when I was in his community a couple

of months ago I informed the owners of the mill in Port Alberni that

they would meet this government's new regulations or they would have to

close down. I'm wondering if he is up here today recommending to me

that the mill should be closed down because of the pollution it's

creating.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. RABBITT : Good afternoon, colleagues. It is certainly my pleasure to rise today and offer my views on the recent budget.

think it was most appropriate when a press release came out dated April

19, 1990, which said basically that this budget represented more help

for the environment, more help for homeowners, more help for housing

supply— and those were just the highlights of a $15.26 billion balanced budget. I think

[ Page 9254 ]

the

Minister of Finance has done a commendable job. He probably has brought

forward the most responsible budget of any province throughout Canada.

When

we look at the overview of the provincial budget, there are a variety

of things that we can assess. The economic indicators suggested that in

1989 British Columbia's economy was by far the strongest in Canada. The

economy grew approximately 4.9 percent, and that has been the third

successive year that we've experienced rapid economic growth in this

province.

In 1989 this government promised a balanced

budget, and they delivered. In 1990 the government promised a balanced

budget, and again the Minister of Finance delivered. We actually saw in

that budget a promise for 1990 that will see all sectors of the economy

receive good, strong, solid government support.

Indicators

are only indicators. British Columbia, along with Canada, is possibly

in the late stages of prolonged expansion. Economic growth can be

expected to slow, possibly later in the year. The growth from capital

investment will moderate, and consumer spending should remain strong.

What this is all telling us is that we're in the midst of a fragile

economy. The opposition has tended, when the minister brought forward

the budget, to laugh at that concept. But those who have seriously

studied the budget procedure of this province understand that we are

living in a fragile time; the economy is a fragile economy. There are

many items that are beyond our control.

The balanced budget

of '90-91 has been brought forward through solid, good fiscal

management. The government has planned to significantly increase

investment in social, economic and environmental programs.

The

outlook for the next five years is commendable, but it's going to be

challenging. This challenge is one which I believe can be met, but it

is going to take a great amount of effort and a great amount of

planning. We can concentrate on a variety of sectors. One is the

high-technology sector. We can concentrate on research and development.

There's been a strong commitment this year, and there will have to be a

strong commitment over the next five years.

[2:30]

British Columbia has also diversified its export markets, and with

about 40 percent of our exports now going to the Pacific Rim nations,

40 percent to the American market and 15 percent to the European

market, we can see how British Columbia can be, should be and will be

stronger in the next decade as compared to Ontario, Quebec and the

balance of Canada. This has not come just by chance; this has come

because the leaders of this government — both present and

past — have made a strong, dedicated move to preserve and build a

future for British Columbia.

When we look at the budget itself, we see that the homeowner grant will be

maintained at $700 for seniors and the disabled, and it will also be maintained

at $430 for all other homeowners. In 1990 we've had the addition of the

supplemental grant, which is 25 percent of the residential school taxes that

exceed the basic grant, with a commitment for 1991 to see that supplemental

grant raised to 50 percent. This change is expected to help approximately half

a million homeowners.

When

we look at the income tax changes for the renters' tax reduction, we

see that the level has increased from $200 to $225 and a new

eligibility formula has also been reintroduced.

With

consumer taxation, the commitment by the minister not to impose our

provincial sales tax on top of a federal goods and services tax — if it does occur —

will save British Columbians an estimated $80 million a year. I can

tell you that if it was the opposition in government, we would see a

tax grab there with nothing said, and $80 million picked out of the

pockets of average British Columbians by the socialists.

Property

purchase tax. Tax relief is implemented to help those home purchasers

in the lower mainland areas who are experiencing severe market pressure

and where we're seeing real estate prices driven very high.

MR. SIHOTA :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm listening to this speech from the

member — who wishes, I'm sure, to be a minister — but

I note that he's reading his speech. Of course we have a provision in

the rules where members can refer to notes for technical administrative

matters, but I've been watching the member carefully, and he's just

reading verbatim from material he has.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House when the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has abused the rules time in and time out, and

I'm not going to stand here and let that sleazy tactic be used on me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, we'll have to actually withdraw that word.

MR. RABBITT : Would "slippery" suffice, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Nothing suffices, hon. member. just withdraw, please.

MR. RABBITT : I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you very much, and now if you'd like to continue with your presentation on the budget.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, my apologies to you for doubting your guidance. I'm sure

that you always try to guide this House with your wisdom, and I

appreciate that effort in this particular case.

Consumer

taxation affects every household, and that's why I mentioned the fact

that it was very important that the minister was not doubling up and

imposing the provincial tax on top of the federal tax.

[ Page 9255 ]

Property

purchase tax, which I was moving on to, is also one which the lower

mainland people have felt the effects of more than those throughout the

interior, where I come from. It was good to see that the minister had

the foresight to develop a plan to assist these people in purchasing

their homes, because this is what this party believes in. This is what

this party is all about.

have a few items I did want to

refer to with regard to the

summary of the federal budget and how it

affects us, Mr. Speaker. The expenditures announced in the federal

budget were basically reductions to us and resulted in changes to our

budget. The reduction in spending amounted to $2.8 billion in the

1990-91 year and is expected to rise to $3.3 billion in '91-92. That,

combined with the cuts announced in December of '89 — federal

spending will be reduced by approximately $3 billion in '90-91 and by

$3.8 billion in '91-92 — means that British Columbia is going to

feel the effects rather severely.

believe that the provinces, especially British Columbia, Alberta, and

Ontario, are being asked to shoulder a substantial burden of the

federal expenditure reductions. Again, this is unfair. It's believed

that 32 percent of these savings will come from reduced transfers to

the provinces. Again, I differ with that.

It should be

noted that, out of the budgets brought forward to date across Canada,

only one other province is delivering a balanced budget — Prince

Edward Island. Of course, when you look at the size of Prince Edward

Island compared to that of British Columbia, the dollar values are very

different. Yet for that little province, attaining that task was

equally hard. Our task was actually harder because we had our federal

participation reduced.

The cruellest act that the federal

government is playing on us now is the unreasonably high interest

rates. Canada's fiscal policy has been built around the concept that

what is good for Ontario is good for Canada. The golden triangle of

southern Ontario has determined federal policy, fiscal policy and

interest rates since the inception of Canada.

There is a need for change. There's a need for regionalization, and the regionalization of things such as interest rates.

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT : Western Canada should not be dictated to by central Canada. It's strange —

I get heckled from across the floor. If we were a little banana

republic, we would be able to set our own interest rates. But here,

because we're a segment of a whole and because of federal legislation,

we can't. But there is no reason why the federal government could not

implement rates which would reflect the needs of a particular part of

the country.

Less than 50 miles away, Stateside, we have

homeowners, businessmen, and consumers obtaining loans and mortgages at

five points and more below what we are here in Canada. That's

unacceptable. Under these conditions, consumers will stop buying major

items; they'll quit buying vehicles; they'll quit buying homes;

businesses will find themselves with less volume of sales, less

profits, less ability to pay these unreasonably high rates of interest

that are continually going up.

The province will see lower

sales tax returns and eventually lower personal and corporate income

tax returns. Fifteen percent interest is too damn high. The policy will

result in a major recession. We need change.

Compared to

the other provinces across Canada, British Columbia remains second when

you look at real domestic product. Unemployment rates are high, but our

employment growth rate is also second in Canada.

In the

budget we have a provincial effect, we have a federal effect, and we

have a local effect, which affects every individual within our

community, every individual within our riding.

Yale-Lillooet, which is made up of a consortium of 43 little communities — some organized and some unorganized —

has a variety of difficulties that it must face. One of the ways I have

been able to solve some of the problems and meet some of the needs of

my riding is through lottery grants and GO B.C. funding.

should mention to the member across the way that I've seen him argue in

this House for lottery funds when he never filled out a form.

MR. SIHOTA : That's not true. Give an example.

MR. RABBITT : The Komagata Maru — does that ring a bell with you?

MR. SIHOTA :

The member has uttered a falsehood. I never made an application for

lottery funds, and I never made an application for the Komagata Maru

for any type of funds. I understood the member to say that. If the

member can prove it, he should; if he can't, then he should withdraw

it. I take exception to the falsehood uttered by the member, and I

would ask him to withdraw his statement.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, if I might assist the Chair, the content of another

member's speech is not a point of order. If the member feels that the

member has told a lie about him, let him get up and say it like it is;

tell him. But I don't think the member has imputed any false motives,

so it's a spurious point of order.

MR. SIHOTA :

If I

may respond, it is improper, as members of the government should now

know, in light of the auditor-general's report on the affair involving

Semiahmoo House Society — for one to receive lottery funds without

having filled out an application form. The imputation by the member for

Yale-Lillooet relates to a suggestion he made — which I have no

knowledge of — that I somehow made an application for lottery

funds for the Komagata Maru in a fashion that was inconsistent with the

[ Page 9256 ]

rules: namely, that no application forms were filled out.

There are two falsehoods in that:

(1) I never made an application; and

(2) I therefore couldn't have filled out....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Minister of International Business and Immigration.

HON. MR. VEITCH : On three occasions in the last couple of minutes, that member for Esquimalt-–Port Renfrew — he is a lawyer —

has accused the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet of committing a

falsehood. That's tantamount to saying that another hon. member is

lying in this House. That is clearly against the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to have him withdraw that immediately or

leave the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

The Chair heard

full well what was said. Let the Chair just state that the reason we

find ourselves in this minor dilemma at the moment is that

members — and it was happening on Friday as well — insist on

debating across the floor instead of through the Chair. As long as that

goes on, we're going to have a problem.

[2:45]

It did seem to me, hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, that

there certainly was a straight-out inference that the member opposite

was lying. I think, in the interest of this debate going forward in a

smooth manner, It would be in the interest of all if you could withdraw

that imputation.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I'll

withdraw, on the expectation that the member will withdraw what he

said. I have no problem doing what I have done, and I would think he

would have no problem in withdrawing what he had to say. There is no

basis for the comments he has made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Would the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet now like to continue with his

speech and perhaps clarify the comment that was made. I would suggest

that the least that could be done in this instance is for the member to

assure the House that he was not impugning the reputation of the member

opposite.

MR. RABBITT : There was no intention of

impugning anybody's reputation. What I was trying to point out was that

people do support lottery applications even though there may not be an

application in place at the time. We heard the member get up in this

House and speak very emphatically in favour of a certain project, when

there actually was no lottery application in place. I was trying to

point that out to the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : This is a repeat of what you said before, hon. member.

MR. RABBITT : Yes, it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Perhaps you could move along. I notice you suggested that you weren't impugning the reputation of the member opposite.

MR. RABBITT : That's correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : We'll continue. Could we be relevant to the budget, please.

MR. RABBITT :

When I brought up the point about lottery funds, I was suggesting that

they have been a great tool to help the people of my communities. We

have had seniors build drop-in centres; we have had children's

playgrounds built; we have had community centres and civic centres

constructed; we have had information centres for tourism established;

we have had some sports facilities; we have had improvements to rodeo

grounds; we have had playing fields built; we have had swimming pools

constructed; and we have had golf courses upgraded.

These

things are all good. Unlike the NDP, I don't feel that lotteries are

bad. Lottery funding is good; it has helped my riding immensely over

the three and a half years I have been the member representing

Yale-Lillooet. I'm proud of the funding this government has allowed to

be committed to that area.

I've heard harping in this House

about giving lottery funding only to our friends. Let me tell you, the

36,000 members of Yale-Lillooet are all my friends. When I was elected,

it was to represent the members of all parties. We don't ask people for

a party card when they come into a civic centre or a swimming pool.

When people send in an application and ask me to support it, I don't

ask them whether they are members of my party or some other party.

must tell you, Mr. Speaker, lottery funding is a tremendous tool. It

can help every little corner of our province. In Yale-Lillooet it's

doing just that, and I'm proud of it.

The government has

taken a very strong position with the helping of small communities

throughout Yale-Lillooet. We've had upgradings of several hospitals.

Presently we have one extended-care facility in Hope that's under

construction, and within the next two months, we'll have one under

construction In Merritt.

I've heard catcalls from my

colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew across the floor asking me what I

am doing for my constituents in Yale-Lillooet and suggesting that while

he's heckling me down here, the NDP candidate in the riding of

Yale-Lillooet is out gobbling up the votes. Let me tell you — and

I'll tell Mr. Lali this: when ballot time comes, the people will check

both track records, add them up and make the decision about who has

done the best job. I suggest that you, Mr. Member, look after your back

yard. Then I won't have to go and remind the people over at Willis

Point how they got the road and how you couldn't help them. I won't

have to go up to Prince Rupert and tell the people in Masset how they

got the funding for their airport.

Mr. Speaker, I think this year's highways program is a substantial one. It's carrying on from last year.

[ Page 9257 ]

We're

seeing the Duffy Lake Road get a major commitment from this government.

Many of you In this House, especially urban members, may not have heard

of Duffy Lake Road or may not have travelled it, but I can tell you

that with the minor amount of money going into it, this little road

will do more to change the heart of the interior and create more

opportunities in the tourist industry than any other dollar value that

I can think of.

Naturally I'm supportive of this, because

it goes right through my riding. It comes through Pemberton, over the

pass and right into Lillooet. Lillooet — the Indian word for the little onion —

is the jewel of British Columbia. Anybody who's ever visited it loves

it; it's a great place to visit. Mr. Speaker, I'd recommend that you

and your wife travel over there this summer and enjoy some of the good

hospitality of the Lillooet area.

One project that I was

very proud to get off the ground this year was the Ashcroft Bridge. You

wonder why a bridge can tie a community together, but if a community is

built on two sides of a river and the weak link is a 60-year-old bridge

that can't take a full-loaded vehicle across it, then for the urban

members down here, I'd like to tell you that that $4 million

bridge — or whatever the final price may be — becomes as

important as water, gas and electricity Now we've got that link; it's

under construction. The foundations are in. The superstructure will be

going on, and it will be finished next year. Even if it isn't finished

before the election, the people of Ashcroft know who got it for them.

Let's

talk about Coquihalla phase 3. We've sat in this House and heard day

after day, week after week, month after month, year after year negative

replies from the NDP about phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 of the

Coquihalla. Let me tell you that the people of the interior think it's

pretty good, fellas. You bet. The people of the interior think that the

Coquihalla not only saves them time; it saves lives. It's the safest

road we have in all Canada, and I'm proud that this government had the

intestinal fortitude to build it.

I'm just sorry that my

old colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Davis) is not here. I wanted to thank him for the effort he

put into developing a policy this year that will determine whether or

not some of my rural communities get extensions to gas and electricity

We've got a $2 million program that will allow the extension of gas and

hydro lines to rural communities.

The urban members who

have everything at their doorstep forget how it gets there. Normally it

comes on a right-of-way through my riding. I hear about people not

wanting rights-of-way through their watershed. If I took the position

of not wanting a right-of-way through my watershed, there would be a

lot of people in the lower mainland who wouldn't have gas, oil or

electricity. So I think a few people should sit back, listen and

smarten up.

Mining is a very important part of my riding. I

have the largest open-pit copper mine there. It doesn't need any

handouts from government. But what does need recognition from

government are the prospectors and the little people who are out there,

and they're getting it. Prospectors are getting support, and that's

good. Also, the allocation and the commitment by the minister to see

that resources are going out to regional initiatives within the

ministry is also a major step.

To sum up here rather quickly, I just want to touch on two items first, being as I still have....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : One minute.

MR. RABBITT :

With that one minute, I'll sum up quickly. When the NDP opposition

suggested in their rebuttal that this budget wasn't doing anything, I

looked at the summaries, and the summaries throughout the news media

did not agree with them — whether it was the Vancouver Sun , the Vancouver Province or the Victoria Times-Colonist . They all disagreed.

thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for having patience. I was wondering

if you had added to my time the time that the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew had taken off by his frivolous points of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I think by now we have, hon. member.

MR. BARLEE :

I was rather interested when the member for Yale-Lillooet said that the

prospectors should be recognized by this government. They have been

recognized. Some years ago I used to pick up my free miner's licence

for $5 a year, and now it's $25. So they've been recognized for 500

percent. By the way, a placer miner's lease used to be $20, and now

it's $250. So that's a little over 1,000 percent. The miners of this

province — the free miners especially — have been recognized

very well by the government. I'm sure they're pleased with all of that.

However,

I'm not really here to dwell upon the mining fraternity of British

Columbia, although I could spend some time doing that. But I'll mention

a few things that the previous speaker just mentioned. He mentioned

that this particular government doesn't make any tax grabs, and he

mentioned fuel. Let's discuss fuel, and let's discuss tax grabs. For

instance, I stopped this morning to get some fuel in Victoria, and I

paid about 60 cents a litre. I can go across into the state of

Washington and pay 32 cents a litre. Why the difference?

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE : No, generally I buy my fuel in Canada; I believe in it.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Let's

take a look at the difference, and there are reasons that there is a

fair difference. I've done a little research on it. You'll be quite

interested if you're worried about it. You find it a laughing matter,

[ Page 9258 ]

but people on low incomes, on minimal wages, don't find it a laughing matter.

1986, the provincial government charged 9 cents a litre in tax, fuel

tax and gasoline. Now it's up to 12 cents, and it's going higher this

year, according to your estimates. Your estimates, by the way, said

that you were going to take in $505 million last year, and that was

about right; this year you're going to take in about $590 million. So

what is the fuel tax going up to? Is it going up to 15 cents a litre?

[3:00]

By the way, this government has done a very fine job. They've

actually surpassed the dreaded federal government tax on gasoline. The

federal government charges 11 cents a litre; the provincial government

charges 12 cents a litre. So every time somebody stops at the gas pumps

and orders $20 worth of gas, direct tax to the provincial government is

$4 and direct tax to the federal government is $3.75. The gas

companies — the member will be interested to know — are making $12.25.

Let's

compare this, to the state of Washington. Why the big difference? The

taxes in the United States total eight cents a litre in Canadian funds.

The oil companies — Shell Oil, Esso, Texaco and all those

multinational oil companies —

get 24 cents a litre in the United States. By the way, they have an

octane rating down there, so the gas is probably better. In Canada, our

taxes total 23 cents a litre, the majority of that from the provincial

government. But the interesting thing I find in going over this

information is that those same oil companies in Canada — Shell

Oil, Esso and Texaco — don't make 24 cents a litre up here as they

do down there. They make 37 cents a litre up here, so that's 13 cents

more a litre.

I'm

not generally a cynical man or too suspicious, but is there some sort

of unholy agreement between the federal and provincial governments and

the multinational oil companies? After all, paying double for the gas

is a little too much, especially for those people on reduced incomes

and pensions. I'm kind of curious about the 50 percent difference

between what the oil companies make in the state of Washington and what

they. make in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE :

That isn't the point. The point is: what is a fair price? Evidently the

member doesn't understand that. I do not think 60 cents a litre is a

fair price. You may think it's fine, and at the rate this government's

going it will be 70 cents a litre before this year is out. I don't

think it should be above 39.9 The member may be able to afford it on

his salary; I know there are lots of people in this province who can't

afford it. That's a direct flat tax. It's also a regressive tax, and I

simply don't think it's fair. The government is evidently looking for

more.

The

member may not know that each driver in British. Columbia pays more

than $200 every year for provincial gas tax alone — that's a lot

of bucks for people on restricted incomes. I think it's rather

disgraceful.

The

member for Yale-Lillooet was absolutely correct about tax grabs. There

are some tax grabs, and they're pretty healthy tax grabs. And how does

it affect us? Mr. Speaker, I think it affects us in a number of ways. I

come from the second part of the province, sometimes called the second

British Columbia. This is the interior of British Columbia, and it

hasn't had a lot of good times in the last decade. In my particular

constituency the unemployment rate is 11.2 or 11.3 percent. That's a

true 15 percent.

That 15 percent is double the provincial

average, and why? We have an area of chronic unemployment. In many

parts of my riding the unemployed are a real business— in places like

Keremeos, Midway, Greenwood, Grand Forks, Oliver and Osoyoos.

Practically every part of my riding is undergoing extremely heavy

unemployment rates.

There are several reasons why. First of

all, the fruit industry, which has been the backbone of our particular

area for almost 100 years, is in disarray, and I think it's in danger

of collapsing. If it does, 5,000 jobs collapse with it.

Secondly,

small businesses are not getting the deal they should from this

government. They really aren't getting the help they need, and the

small businesses this year, by all admission, are probably facing a

slowing economy. The member for Yale-Lillooet mentioned the high

interest rates of 15 percent. Not many small businessmen can afford 15

percent, so the outlook is not too rosy for them either.

Finally,

let's take a look at another area. This is an area in which I've always

been interested, and that's tourism. When we look at tourism, we look

at the industry that is the leading industry in the world. How did the

provincial government look at tourism in their budget? They barely

acknowledged it, and I'll tell you why. It came up from $23.2 million

in the budget to $24.9 million — a minimal increase for an

industry that can help the interior, the second British Columbia.

That's only a 1 percent increase. It doesn't even keep up with the

cost of living, for heaven's sake.s

What about the tourist

attractions? Is there an overall plan? I don't think there is. I don't

think this government really knows what it's doing in the tourism area,

and I'll tell you why. In my particular riding of Boundary-Similkameen

we have a number of tourist attractions, and we have, I think, a unique

area there. We have a lake system, desert country, orchards and many

other things. And we have three continent-class attractions, perhaps

four. I'll elaborate on each one of these three continent-class

attractions.

One is the town of Greenwood, an old mining

town established as a bona fide city. It's the smallest city in Canada,

established in 1898. It was a copper mining town, one of the great

mining towns of British Columbia which can be compared, perhaps, to

Nelson. What about Greenwood? Has it realized its potential? Of course

it hasn't. You can walk down its main street in the middle of July and

probably see ten or a dozen people on the streets, and that's all.

[ Page 9259 ]

Let's

compare it with a little town in the state of Washington, just a few

miles away. Let's compare it to Winthrop, Washington. Winthrop is a

made-over town. it hasn't got the stature, history or attractions of

Greenwood.

I see that one of the members on the other side

is listening rather intently, and I think he does understand. That's

kind of interesting.

Greenwood has a lot of possibilities.

There are old towns around Greenwood like Eholt, the famous city of

Phoenix, Boundary Falls, Deadwood and all those storied camps of the

past. But we haven't done anything with them. Greenwood lies there

virtually unused. It's a terrific, potentially valuable tourist

attraction.

We've done something, and I'll commend the

government on it. Something has been done in Nelson, as we well know.

Baker Street in Nelson looks fairly good. It's proven to be valuable;

it's a good tourist attraction. We haven't done that in Greenwood, and

Greenwood needs the help, because the unemployment rate is very high

and their tax base is very low. What have we got there? We've got

virtually everything.

Old Copper Street — you know it

as well as I do. The member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) knows

that Copper Street is very interesting. The false-front buildings there

are the original buildings from 1898. There is no phony town in

Greenwood. It's not like Winthrop, Washington. You can't even get down

the main street of Winthrop in July and August...

HON. MR. DIRKS : There are no socialists down there.

MR. BARLEE :

...because they've had a long-term look at the possibilities of that

town, Mr. Member. I think you realize that. It doesn't ask for a

flippant remark. It really requires a long-term projection, a long-term

tourist plan. I don't think we've had it.

Greenwood will be

celebrating its one-hundredth birthday this decade, and it has all

sorts of potential. It has never realized it, and it won't realize it,

because it has been given nothing but handouts — a bit of ad hoc

help but not a long-term plan. If Greenwood were to receive a long-term

plan, it would be much more successful than Winthrop or even

Leavenworth, Washington. They've realized it down there; we haven't

here.

Let's talk about another area we've missed the boat on — that's

a bit of a pun. There is one area in the central and south Okanagan

where we also have not touched the potential. That's the historic SS Sicamous ,

an old CPR sternwheeler which first began to go down Okanagan Lake in

1914 and sailed for over 20 years, until 1935. It's the last of the

great sternwheelers of the northwest.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE : No, I'm afraid it isn't, if you compare the length and the history of the Moyie , or the Minto , for that matter, or any other sternwheeler. I can go over the Okanagan and the Aberdeen; I know them all. The Moyie is a marvelous little ship. It's not bad, but it does not compare to the SS Sicamous . The SS Sicamous compares to the Nasookin ,

which was in Nelson as you well know. It was the sister ship, a great

ship. It broke its back in Nelson in 1949. 1 know the history of all

these ships; I've studied them for years, But we have not realized the

potential of the SS Sicamous .

MR. REID : Why don't you put the money into it?

MR. BARLEE :

I see that the member on the other side from White Rock realizes that

it does have some potential. Indeed it does, but it isn't well known. I

phoned up the city of Portland and asked them about their little mud

sternwheeler the City of Portland . I sent them down a photograph of the SS Sicamous .

They couldn't believe it, nor the lousy job we've done on tourism. Mr.

Member, I'll tell you what a lousy job we've done on tourism. The last

words they said to me were: "By the way, we think your sternwheeler is

marvellous. We've never heard of it. Where is Penticton?" That's what a

good job we've done in tourism. Money spent on the SS Sicamous

is money well spent. It is a steel-hulled sternwheeler. It will be with

us a hundred years from now. Putting money into that ship is not a

loss; it's looking to the future. It's looking to the tourist

attractions of the 1990s, the year 2000 and beyond. You know it as well

as I do, Mr. Member, that it's a very valuable tourist attraction — and it's not the only one.

Let's

talk about another tourist attraction, the Kettle Valley line. The

Kettle Valley line winds through the interior. Some of the members on

the other side know it fairly well; indeed they do. The member for

Yale-Lillooet probably knows the Kettle Valley line as well in his area

as I know it in mine. I also know it fairly well in his area, by the

way.

The Kettle Valley line was allowed to be abandoned by

the CPR a few years ago without a whimper, by the way, from this

government. It's very interesting, because the Kettle Valley line was

designed by a genius — a man called Andrew McCulloch. By no

stretch of the imagination, he was definitely a genius. It is

considered one of the great lines of the Pacific slope, and what did we

do?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Cowichan-Malahat has risen to speak.

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the very informative discussion taking

place here, but I wonder if I may seek leave from the House to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE :

In the House this afternoon along with those I mentioned earlier from

the Chemainus high school are 30 grade 11 students from both Lake

Cowichan Secondary School and Cowichan Senior

[ Page 9260 ]

Secondary

School, which happens to be my alma mater. They are here under the

guidance and through the assistance of Fletcher Challenge. I would ask

the House to please make them all very welcome.

MR. BARLEE :

We were alluding to the Kettle Valley line. I think this is a shame.

They have little lines in England, such as the lower Seven Valley line,

which does not have the attraction that the Kettle Valley line has. The

Kettle Valley line has, in a 214-mile stretch, two massive tunnels and

about 12 bridges and trestles. It's marvellous scenery, cut through

rock walls, leaning over canyons. It really is an unusual railroad line

for any part of the west. We really have not made much of its

potential, which is quite magnificent. The government has leaned away

from it. Now the CPR is going to abandon other parts of that line, and

we still haven't done anything about it. I think that's very remiss of

the government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that the

member for Yale-Lillooet, whom I listened to rather attentively for

about 15 or 20 minutes, mentioned our highway system. He didn't mention

one thing: the privatization of the highway system.

There

may be certain areas where privatization is required, where it's

advantageous, but I don't think they've taken a good look at it. I

travel the Hope-Princeton probably a hundred times a year —

approximately 50 return trips. I occasionally fly, but usually I drive.

I have never seen the Hope-Princeton in the condition it was this year.

I thought: okay, maybe I'm biased. And perhaps I am. But then I got a

call — I think it was on February 2 — from the Greyhound bus

drivers. Representing 144 years of driving experience, 13 drivers were

there. They said they had never seen the roads by and large in British

Columbia as bad as they were in the last two years.

The

privatization system hasn't worked very well. I'll tell you why. I see

the member nodding negatively. In three months this year there were

eight fatalities and hundreds of accidents on the Hope-Princeton. They

didn't do the job. I would travel 100 kilometres on that highway and

never see a truck by the private company now doing the work on that

road. It was really quite atrocious.

In concluding, I think

the record in all of these areas is wanting. Its rather dismal. It

leaves a good deal of room for improvement.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honoured to rise in the House today and speak

to you about the 1990-91 budget presented by my colleague the hon.

Minister of Finance. I'm extremely proud to be part of a government

that has proven its responsibility year after year in presenting not

only another balanced budget, but a budget filled with vision and

leadership built on a stable foundation for the 1990s.

[3:15]

One year ago, I rose in this House to announce my joy at the birth

of my first grandchild. What a year she has had to grow up in in

British Columbia. I would like to say aloud: thank you to my Social

Credit colleagues in this House, my colleagues in cabinet, the Premier

and the citizens of British Columbia for pulling together and giving

this province the quality of life that has been so good for her to live

and to have the opportunity to grow up in such a well-managed province

as this.

also feel very secure in the future for her in British Columbia and in

the knowledge that I am aware — and I hope everyone is

aware —

that each of us will see a responsibility and bear that responsibility

to see that this little girl has the opportunity to grow up to be a

fully contributing adult with the support of services and programs this

government has announced in its new budget for the 1990s.

feel secure in knowing that our health and social services are fully

operational and flexible to meet the needs of this one-year-old and all

the other one-year olds in British Columbia.

The future will demand new skills, but she has before her — without a doubt —

one of the best education systems anywhere in the world. It is backed

by a government committed to preparing for the future; a government

which has a long-term vision for this province and its people and whose

budget leaves no room for despair or doubt or, for that matter, too

much complaining.

We are in a positive mood on this side of

the House, and it's a mood wanted by British Columbians in their

government. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is growing. It's a mood

that is getting stronger in every home, town and region of this

province.

Never forget that we, the Social Credit

government, are a disciplined government who do not take our

responsibilities lightly. I echo the words of the hon. Minister of

Finance from his budget speech when he said that the government has no

money of its own. It only has the money of hard-working taxpayers of

this province. It is our commitment to manage our way to a strong,

enduring, sustainable growth in a stable, secure and sensitive way.

This

province was built by citizens through hard work. The rewards of these

fine citizens' hard work goes beyond personal reward and supports the

services and programs that assure us all of a high quality of life. I

congratulate the taxpayers of B.C.

It's the same hard work

that the agriculture and fishery sectors are built upon. It's the same

hard work that fuels the economic growth of this sector. It is based on

real wealth generated by people who know the values of our free

enterprise system.

Has the opposition done its homework

this time, or are they presenting only a convenient part of the picture

for the people of British Columbia? Has the opposition studied the 1990

Agriculture Canada projection on farm income in Canada? Have they read

the analysis in the Globe and Mai l?

This is public information. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I've read it.

It says that the realized net farm income in 1990 in the whole of

Canada is going to be down by some 33 percent. In Saskatchewan it's

going to be down by 87 percent — a phenomenal drop. In Alberta

it's going to be down by some 46 percent. In Ontario it's going to be

down by approximately 7 percent.

[ Page 9261 ]

But right here in British Columbia, the projection for farm income is up by 5 percent —

the only province in Canada to have such a forecast. That success is

showing in the ledgers on the right side. In 1990 the projection for

all the country to see is that British Columbia is in the black. We do

not want figures in the red in this province, and I, as one member of

government, will do everything I can to make sure we continue a

balanced budget.

The nature of the new global economy

requires our best people, our best products and, let me assure you, our

best efforts. British Columbia's agriculture and fisheries sector know

this very well. They understand the pressures and demands of the

international marketplace, and right now they are competing

successfully with some of the best in the world.

British

Columbia foods have an international reputation for excellence. They

are priced competitively We do not need the doomsaying members of the

opposition undermining the confidence of the sector by telling the

farmers and the fishermen that they are not quite good enough. This

government believes in the innovation and ability of the people of the

province. It's about time the opposition started doing the same thing.

The

agriculture and fisheries sector in British Columbia is worth over $10

billion annually. It employs close to 200,000 workers and is growing at

3 to 5 percent per year. It is growing because the people in

agriculture and fisheries do not believe in the myth that

competitiveness and production are best helped by a government of free

lunches. They have never believed this, and I doubt they ever will.

Theirs

is work based on values built up over many generations: the love of the

land, the immense pride in their independence, the quality and respect

between men and women that you find nowhere else Their hard work, their

partnerships with their land, and their families create that $10

billion of real wealth in this province. They know in their hearts from

years and years of experience that this isn't the type of progress that

grows from an easy-street giveaway mentality.

This

government is committed to the agriculture and fisheries sector of B.C.

because we genuinely know what it means to every individual and family

in British Columbia. We know that in times of fast change some systems

can and do fail to make the grade. We pick up the pieces and we

survive; that is how it works. But we know that if our agriculture and

fisheries system failed, it would mean none of us would survive. That's

why our plans assure there is strength in the system to survive. That

strength would slip away bit by bit if the giveaway mentality was ever

to take over and undermine those real values that give this sector its

capability to challenge the best in the world.

Right

now a very real problem facing this sector is overabundance — not

famine, but overabundance. Because of this, in the western world many

governments are competing to outbid one another in subsidization. The

marketplace sees this as merely one more negative factor contributing

to overabundance. The tragedy is that not every country in the world

which needs and wants our food has the stable economy that produces the

purchasing power to buy what they really need. If you want to see food

problems, go to the socialist countries and see how their systems have

failed.

This government believes in the free enterprise

system. We believe that those people who participate in an industry are

the most knowledgeable about their industry. It is only common sense,

therefore, that those stakeholders who stand to benefit from a decision

should be the primary decision-makers in their own industrial strategy.

Government should not be telling them how to run their businesses.

The

Berlin Wall has fallen, and those of us on the government side of the

House know very well why it fell. Most of the world knows why, except I

don't believe the opposition has figured it out yet. We have listened

time and time again to the whining of the opposition about every little

change that requires adjustment in a sector due to global factors. They

will try and interpret facts and figures to point to the negative side

of any adjustment. But we know it is only a tactic, and the people of

British Columbia know that all too well too.

Last year, I

announced the grape and wine agreement to finance more than $11 million

to assist in the adjustment in 1990 of the grape and wine industry.

What we have witnessed is an $11 million success In just one year, as

this industry — mainly through its own foresight and planning —

has positioned itself to compete successfully in the world. They have

their feet down. They are ready, and they will succeed in the nineties.

The

NDP paints the end of that very successful first year as a lack of

support for agriculture in British Columbia, because the $11 million

did not appear in this year's budget. The grape and wine farmers and

producers in British Columbia do not want to be wards of the state.

They want real fair returns for their efforts in the marketplace, not a

politically motivated welfare state for farmers.

We do not

believe you can build a viable agriculture and fisheries industry on

the principle of constantly rewarding failure and constantly punishing

success. Farmers and fishermen are adults and, unlike the opposition,

this government treats them like adults and not like children —

adults who have rights and responsibilities in the marketplace and live

with the real consequences, both positive and negative. That's how free

enterprise works. With it, British Columbia has created one of the

highest standards of living and one of the greatest qualities of life

on this planet.

This year the support for the second phase

of the grape and wine agreement is over $1 million. If the opposition

carefully studies the budget, they will see that the 1990-91

operational budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has

increased by some 8.7 percent. This increase will be used to continue

existing programs and to build exciting new programs I will be

announcing in my ministry estimates later in the spring.

[ Page 9262 ]

will still have more complaining from the opposition, this time about

the tree-fruit industry. They ignore the reality of the $384 million of

taxpayers' money that has already been spent. I wish the opposition a

lot of mileage on this tactic, as time runs out for their whining and

opportunism. The NDP are fully aware that the government is awaiting

the report of the commission of inquiry into the tree-fruit industry.

Their constant bickering and negativism is an attempt to derail that

report and is typical of NDP tactics of interfering with the democratic

process.

Commissioner Lusztig is dean of the faculty of

commerce and business administration at the province's largest

university. When his thorough, in-depth review of that industry is

complete — and only when it is complete — I will report to this House.

Withdrawing

from tax dependency is not a failure it is a sign of success. I

understand that the tax addicts on the other side of the House don't

understand that. But they should report to us what they and their

socialist pals saw when they visited Nicaragua. The farmers and

fishermen of Nicaragua did not vote to support the Sandinistas, and

farmers and fishermen will not vote to support the "Spendinistas" on

the other side of the House.

The opposition has made

promises in the past few days that if they were government, they would

give all things to all people. I repeat: balance the budget? It is

obvious to me that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to impose his

narrow religious views on the people of British Columbia, because

everything he has promised could only be done by divine intervention.

British

Columbia has a great role to play in the world. Our agriculture and

fishery sector will be part of that contribution. We are uniquely

positioned in Canada to tap into the fastest-growing market in the

world: the Pacific Rim. These sectors will contribute to the billions

in exports that lead us to a positive trade balance, which in turn

helps us pay for our first-class health care, education and

transportation systems.

We will grow in agriculture and

fisheries in B.C. because of our real and long-term commitment to the

environment. It is this partnership and commitment that will create

real wealth. You see this commitment in the eyes of the cowboys in

Merritt and in the strong hands and backs of the deck-hands in Prince

Rupert. Their work is based on values that work for real people in the

real world. They are the values of free enterprise, which is growing

and getting stronger every passing day in British Columbia.

[3:30]

You won't find these values etched in the soft pink hands of the

opposition leader. These values say that individuals and families have

a right and a responsibility during their lifetime to work in a system

that rewards them. It is a system that offers real-world rewards, not

handout giveaways that spend more and more taxes. Any party that tries

to take those values away from the people should not have the word

"democratic" in its name.

When I look forward to the

direction British Columbia is going, I am filled with pride and promise

for this little girl I mentioned at the outset, my granddaughter. She's

growing up in a healthy environment with the best services available if

she needs them. She is growing up at a time when there are tremendous

educational and economic opportunities for her, and when she has

opportunities equal to those of any little boy in British Columbia. She

will learn to use a computer as early and as easily as learning to ride

a bicycle, because her family and government are looking forward to

that day and are planning for it.

Most of all, she will not

grow up shackled with the debt of a socialist government. I'm not sure

how the opposition defines democracy, but their vision of the future is

based on a taxation and debt philosophy. And what is debt? Debt is the

taxes plus interest to be paid by future generations. I don't want my

granddaughter burdened with debt and fiscal mismanagement.

This

government will not write a blank cheque in our children's and

grandchildren's names. That's what this budget says, and that's exactly

what this government is saying. The challenge of the nineties is for

the people of British Columbia to be allowed to aggressively develop

their potential for our share of the bounty that is available for

anyone who wants to work hard. That is the promise of free enterprise.

That is the promise of the future of this year's budget. People do not

want to hear from the opposition, who keep saying — especially the financial critic — that

we'll have to have more and more taxes. People want to have money that

they can spend to enjoy themselves, not pay it all to governments.

believe that the Finance minister has brought in a very responsible

budget, and I believe, on behalf of the people of British Columbia,

that they will benefit from the budget that has been brought forward,

like the previous two, to make sure that future generations have some

stability in their future.

I also believe that when you

look at the number of programs offered by the province and paid for by

the people of British Columbia, it's important to recognize that we

have to show leadership, which I believe our Premier has done very

well. We have to show leadership as a cabinet in making decisions that

guide future generations, that guide decisions with regard to those

people, with regard to people that are presently with us, and I believe

we will always be responsible in making decisions on behalf of the

people. Therefore I believe strongly that we will continue to serve the

people of this province come an election.

I would like to

thank the hon. Minister of Finance for bringing forward the budget that

he did, on behalf of every single individual in this province.

MR. JONES : I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 9263 ]

MR. JONES :

I would like to introduce a group of 45 grade 11 social studies

students joining us today as part of their education. As you know, Mr.

Speaker, it was the Burnaby North students who sent all the members

last year a calendar as part of their campaign to establish, as a

recreational corridor park, the Harrison-Lillooet Trail. This is a

historic gold rush trail as well as a favourite hiking destination for

these Burnaby North students.

I would like you to welcome

them. They are accompanied today by their teacher, Mr. Shannon, as well

as by Miss Elsie Jang, Mr. Josh Aubut and Ms. Debbie Redenbach.

MR. HARCOURT :

I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), who has

now left. When he started his portfolio we thought he would be the

Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and over the last couple of

years he has turned into the minister of condominiums and golf courses.

The

discussion that he had about his granddaughter enjoying the education

system that we have, and his mentioning that there are no free lunches,

brought to mind some children that I see in my riding association....

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Point of order. In spite of the immense popularity of the Leader of the

Opposition, I note that there is not a quorum in the House Perhaps,

sir, you could ring the bells to summon members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. members, we now have a quorum. The debate will proceed.

MR. HARCOURT :

I heard the discussion by the minister of there being no free lunches

in this province. May I say that there are no lunches for a number of

grandchildren and children in this province. There are over 600

children in the Vancouver school system who are hungry at noon. We know

that that lunch costs money to provide, but it costs a heck of a lot

more for those children not to have a lunch and not to be able to learn

and to improve their circumstances in life. They're from poor families;

they are from families that are suffering the burden of poverty. They

are suffering from the problems of adjusting to a new country.

The

priorities of this government are what we're speaking about here today.

The priority of this government is not those low-income students. The

priority of this government is to send snoops and inspectors out to

track down, punish and penalize the parents, rather than to feed the

children. The priority of this government in this budget is not to

provide affordable housing, or to deal with the environmental pollution

it has allowed for the last 15 years, or to bring about equality for

women, or to deal with the question of settling with our aboriginal

people. The question of priorities is very important.

listened to the previous speaker talking about this government's

priorities. You can see that, in the opinion of the majority of British

Columbians, they are basically dealing with the priorities of their

political friends and insiders when they bring in their budgets.

Basically what we have is a dishonest budget that is now using

misleading advertising to try to sell the fact that this government is

spending taxpayers' money to mislead voters.

The latest

"B.C. Government News Update" boasts of a balanced budget. Those who

watch this government every day have exposed the truth. The Vancouver Sun 's

post-budget headline was: "$500 Million Deficit Incurred in Record

Spending Budget." Peat Marwick has exposed this government's balanced

budget claim. It says very bluntly, in accountant's language: "The

accounts are in deficit." The auditor-general has questioned the use of

this technique to bring about a balanced budget, using borrowed money.

What

we have here is the great Socred myth that they and they alone can best

look after the people's money. After 15 years of deficit financing, how

can they make a statement like that? Through good times and bad,

there's been deficit financing — not balancing expenditures with

revenue. The only ones in the black on this are the political friends

and insiders who have benefited and who get the GO B.C. grants and $25

million worth of financing to put in a particle-board plant up in the

Peace, and then sell it back to them for $18 million after they've had

six years of interest-free loans.

Of course, we know about

the great deal we got on the Coquihalla, don't we, Mr. Speaker? I sure

hope the Island Highway doesn't go the way of the Socred bookkeeping on

the Coquihalla. What I want to do is look at the facts and make a few

comparisons. I want to look at the wrong way to run the people's

business and to take care of the money we're entrusted with by the

people of this province. I want to look at the wrong way to do a

highway.

The Socred Coquihalla overrun. They originally

predicted that it would cost $375 million. They committed, in this

House, that it was $375 million; they misled this Legislature. It

wasn't until there was a royal commission, which was pushed through by

this side of the House, finally demanding that the truth be told....

When the truth was told, it was a billion-dollar misleading of this

Legislature,

The Social Credit government finally had to

realize that you can only mislead the public for so long; you can only

have dishonest budgets for so long. The truth will come out. The public

inquiry led to the fact that this Legislature was misled by the Social

Credit government. The government sheepishly had to change the

accounting methods of the Highways ministry in order not to mislead the

people of this province, just like they're going to have to change the

BS fund to stop misleading the people.

If they finally want

to deal with real money instead of what we call Socred funny money....

They're going back and reading Major Douglas; they're reading the

funny-money theory of the Socreds. They're regressing; they're going

back decades.

[ Page 9264 ]

want to tell you the right way to run a highway project. I'll give you

an example in the city of Vancouver: the Cambie Bridge, built in the

depths of the Depression. It was accelerated by the Social Credit

government. It had full public participation. It went out to a

plebiscite which I supported, and it received the highest vote that any

plebiscite in Vancouver's history has had — 75 percent of our

citizens showed confidence in the way that our city hall was running

the finances and conducting projects. There wasn't a secret set of

books like the Socreds had on the Coquihalla. There wasn't a misleading

of the Legislature. There wasn't an overrun of $600 million, Mr.

Speaker. I'll tell you what there was.

[3:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition just

accused the government of misleading the Legislature. That is clearly

against the rules of the House. I realize he's not in here very often

and doesn't understand the rules, but he ought to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

I'm not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition said the government

had deliberately misled the House. Perhaps he wants to clarify his

position.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

I was just answering to the point of order by the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, who indicated that the Leader of the Opposition had

stated that the government has misled the House. I've asked the first

member for Vancouver Centre to clarify the point made in the debate.

MR. HARCOURT :

I will clarify it. We had a royal commission headed by Doug MacKay. He

made it very clear that the Social Credit government misled the

Legislature. The Social Credit government of the day, when the

Coquihalla was being talked about in the House.... It's very clear what

the inquiry said. I'll read into the record what the inquiry had to say.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Point of order, Mr. Speaker The Leader of the Opposition is going to

unwarranted lengths to perpetuate what he has done in the House: that

is, to say something that is clearly against the rules of this House.

He clearly said that this government had misled this Legislature.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH : There he goes again.

The

penalty is withdrawal from the House, if the Leader of the Opposition

refuses to withdraw that statement. I would ask that you bring him to

order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I do not believe that the first member for Vancouver

Centre said that the government deliberately misled the House.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the MacKay commission of Inquiry did say on December 22, 1987:

"...the commission finds the financial reporting of the

Coquihalla Highway project to be tainted with an atmosphere of deceit and prevarication....

The Legislature was avoided and misled by the documents presented to it, the

true costs were not presented in a forthright way.... These deliberate and planned

actions were politically motivated and were designed to give the impression

... the Coquihalla Highway was on budget."

That's

the same as the budget that has been put down in this Legislature. It

is not balanced; nor was the Coquihalla balanced. It was to have cost

$375 million; it cost over $1 billion. I am saying there is a better

way to do projects, and I am saying you can bring a highway project

in — particularly in the middle of a depression, as we did in

Vancouver with the Cambie Street bridge — 25 percent under budget,

seven months ahead of time and built by all-union labour.

I'm

glad to see that some of the Social Credit members are applauding the

fact that somebody in this province can balance the books and bring in

projects under budget.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

the Social Credit members aren't prepared to accept the wrong way that

they went about the Coquihalla and the right way that the city of

Vancouver went about building the Cambie Bridge — balancing six

budgets, not laying off staff, working through the depression with our

citizens, and increasing our credit rating from a double-A to a

triple-A, the highest in the world during the recession — then

I'll give them another example of a wrong way to conduct the public

business that Social Credit has shown our citizens; that is, the sale

of the Expo lands.

Only a Socred could sell the largest

undivided parcel of urban land in North America, a quarter of the size

of downtown Vancouver, to one developer, in one chunk, in a housing

boom, and lose money. Only a Socred could do that. I couldn't believe

it. Not only did they not learn from that.... And the Premier trying to

slide it over to his best friend and bagman, which was a disgraceful

performance and started the slide of this....

AN HON. MEMBER : Why didn't you buy it?

MR. HARCOURT :

Because an offer was put forward for $100 million of pension funds, and

this government turned it down, when I was the mayor. The new mayor

made the same offer, and this government turned it down because they

wanted to flog it at a loss, just to get rid of that valuable land. If

you want to establish a real rainy-day fund and you want to use the

public's assets the way they should be used, you don't sell land. Mark

Twain said it:"Buy land. Buy land, my son. They're not making any more of it." Particularly not in downtown Vancouver — a

[ Page 9265 ]

quarter of the downtown. They're not making any more of that.

That

wasn't good enough. They decided they had done such a good job of

losing money on the Expo lands, but that was only a couple hundred

acres: "Let's sell 1,400 acres — the Westwood lands — and

really lose money, and in this one we won't even keep back some land

for the schools." The school board in Coquitlam had to go and buy the

land back to build schools for the people going in there...let alone

keeping some of the land back for the social housing that should go in

there for people to be able to afford housing.

Mr. Speaker,

they're not only going to mess up that sale, they're going to do the

same thing out in the Mission lands. Two hundred and seventy-five acres

of prime land in the middle of a zero vacancy rate, and they're going

to flog that land which could be used to build affordable housing for

working people, senior citizens, people with disabilities and

low-income women trying to raise their kids. They're going to sell that

land and do an equally rotten job as they did with the Expo lands.

Mr.

Speaker, if they ever want to see a way to do it, if they are ever down

there visiting the B.C. Club or looking at the lost cause of how they

got rid of the Expo lands, all they have to do is go and stand on the

north shore and look south at the city-owned lands on the south side,

which people come from all over the world to look at — a model

development. Or if you want to know how you could do a suburban

development of prime land, go and look at Champlain Heights and see

what you could have done with the Westwood lands, the Mission lands and

the Colwood lands out here in one of the fastest-growing areas of

greater Victoria. It's the missed opportunities that are the disgrace

of this government — what they could have done.

We put

in housing for 5, 000 people, from senior citizens on fixed incomes to

millionaires like Herb Capozzi and Art Phillips, the ex-mayor. It's got

a full mixed community that gets along, that works well. You could have

done that on the north side, Mr. Speaker, and you could have leased the

land. I'll give three examples of what the government could have done

instead of this misleading of the Legislature, instead of the phony

balanced budget they put forward and instead of selling off prime

assets. They could have put together, as the city of Vancouver did, a

property endowment fund, where the resources of the south side of False

Creek and Champlain Heights — worth $70 million when we started in 1976 — are

now worth over $400 million, creating revenue of $30 million to $40

million a year, an asset that will be worth even more in 40 to 50 years

when the prepaid leases.... That's what they could have done.

They

could have followed the example of Alberta, which in the good times

took the resource revenue and put it into a heritage fund, because they

knew that in a boom economy there's going to be a down economy. They

took the resources of the people of Alberta and put them aside for the

difficult days — instead of squandering resources as Social Credit

has done and instead of being the prodigal sons and daughters, the

spendthrifts this government has been for political friends and

insiders. Thirteen billion dollars later, it's pumping out the funds

required during the down days in Alberta. It pumped out revenue that

allowed the government to write off the municipal debt in the early

1980s and allowed those municipalities to start fresh, instead of being

burdened down with debt as the municipalities in this province are

because this government didn't have the foresight to take the natural

resources of this province and put them into a heritage fund, a

property endowment fund.

They

could have looked at the New

Democratic government in 1972-75 with the Petroleum Corporation and the

revenues from that, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars—-

and the billions now — that formed the basis for the municipal

revenue-sharing program that New Democrats started.

I say there are better ways. Social Credit has squandered the resources and opportunities of this province for far too long.

I'll

close by saying that the principle of free enterprise is supposed to be

that you buy low and sell high. Social Credit has redefined that to

Socred enterprise, where they buy high and sell low. That's Social

Credit.

We want to get past the flimflam government we've

had and get to the basic fact that this is a dishonest budget, that in

1990-91 the current government will spend $684 million more than it

takes in. By anyone's definition — except the Socreds — that's a huge deficit. That's a dishonest Socred budget.

HON. L. HANSON :

It's my privilege to rise and offer some comments on the budget

recently introduced by my colleague. It's interesting to note that when

the Leader of the Opposition gave quite a long discourse just now, it

was necessary to ring the bells to get a quorum for even his own

members to listen to him. It has been written in a number of articles

and letters to the editor, and very well documented, that the biggest

difficulty the NDP are having with this budget is that it's such a good

budget that they're grasping at straws to find things wrong with it.

[4:00]

It's

interesting to mention at this point that a new candidate, who will be

entering the race in an election coming up, said that if they were

going to be honest, they would have to say that the policies the party

had enunciated and would put into place would mean an increase in

taxation. I don't have the words of the actual individual, but the

clear message was that if they were going to be honest as a party with

the people of British Columbia, they would have to say that their plans

meant an increase in taxation. That honesty was good for a short time.

Obviously some pressure was exerted on that candidate, and very quickly

there was a retraction of that statement. The retraction said that

wasn't what he meant to say. In case there is any suggestion that

someone doesn't understand, that was a member of the New Demo-

[ Page 9266 ]

cratic Party who is going to contest one of the seats here on Vancouver Island.

believe that the budget that was recently tabled represents to the

people of British Columbia good management and fiscal responsibility. I

am a small business man of some years, and I say to you and to the

people of British Columbia that that responsibility is as important in

government as it is in business, and this has demonstrated it.

Despite

the fact that a candidate was being honest, we on this side of the

House feel that the taxpayers of British Columbia have already been

burdened enough — and we would not introduce new taxation in our

budget. I don't think the members opposite have researched a lot of the

issues in the budget. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition was

negative on Expo, and then all of a sudden came on side when it seemed

to be a success. He was also negative to transit, and is now supportive

of it. I believe he represents a party that at one time enunciated a

policy that there should be no private land ownership.

The

leader also suggested that the revenue-sharing which, I will admit, was

started during some dark years in British Columbia, would have

eventually ended up.... For the benefit of the House — I am sure everyone here knows —

the revenue-sharing that is allocated to our local governments in this

province is made up of a specific percentage of various British

Columbia government revenues. I would suggest to the House that if

British Columbia had not re-elected a free enterprise government, there

would have not been any moneys for the local governments to share.

show how well that has worked: in the budget it was announced that

there was an 18 percent increase to the municipalities in the amount of

money they would share. It was also announced that there would be an

almost 100 percent increase in the amount of funds available for

specific revenue-sharing programs such as the sewer and water

infrastructure grants. I say to you that that demonstrates good

government, good fiscal management and responsibility to the province.

The

Leader of the Opposition also got up and said recently — just now,

as a matter of fact —

that it wasn't a balanced budget. I am not going to get into a long

discourse about balanced budgets, because I am not an accountant, but

something to me seems pretty simple: the government of British Columbia

was able to reduce its debt by almost $1 billion over that period of

time. That says to me — and I don't care if the budget was

balanced — good fiscal responsibility and good management of money.

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON :

It is interesting to hear the members say: "Go back to your script." I

don't have a script; I'm just working from some notes here. I wish I

did have a script.

MR. G. JANSSEN : You'd get the numbers right, then.

HON. L. HANSON : The numbers are correct.

would like to, just for a second, deal with the balanced budget issue.

There was a suggestion that a private accounting firm had made some

remarks about the balanced budget. I think that most of the members of

the opposition and the House have been made aware of some comments made

by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which I believe the firm

mentioned is a part of. I would like to quote directly from that.

It says very simply — and in language that I, who am not an accountant, can understand —

that they could nitpick and find some small things to criticize, but

that overall they have to say our provincial government could give

lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management to the federal

government. That is a news release from the Institute of Chartered

Accountants.

They go on to say that, apart from the fact

that the budget stabilization fund has an unfortunate acronym, the

concept of averaging over a period of years is sound financial

management. I think that demonstrates that the budget presented to the

people of British Columbia is a responsible one. It is certainly a

budget that the people of this province will see as good fiscal

management, good business management and good for the future of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that was raised by the

member opposite is the environment. The Ministry of Environment's

budget has been increased by over 100 percent in the last two years.

The government's responsibility is demonstrated again by the

appointment of an environmental round table and an Environmental Appeal

Board.

The pulp mills in British Columbia now face the most

stringent regulations in Canada regarding dioxins. Finally, I think the

April 19 budget showed just how committed this government is to the

environment; and as a result of that, the sustainable development fund

was created.

I heard a lot of talk about honesty in

reporting things. I have here a letter that was circulated to British

Columbians signed by the Leader of the Opposition. It says in here—

and there's nothing leading up to it and nothing qualifying it: "Bill

Vander Zalm asked Brian Mulroney to cut federal funding to our

hospitals and universities." Mr. Speaker, that is just not true.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Did he send that out at public expense?

HON. L. HANSON : I don't know how this was mailed out, but I suggest it probably was at public expense. I have no comment on it.

Another quotation from that letter: "Why are we paying Seattle hospitals

for surgery when British Columbia hospitals need the funds to provide this care?"

If you were reading it literally and didn't have any political motivation

for misconstruing the mean-

[ Page 9267 ]

ing,

you might interpret that to mean — in my mind — that we are not

providing enough funding to hospitals, and that's why we are going to

Seattle.

The

truth is that heart surgery in British Columbia is specifically funded

separately, and we are currently 300 to 400 cases behind. The reason

for that is staff shortages. Those staff shortages are not peculiar to

British Columbia; they are worldwide. The hon. Minister of Health (Hon.

J. Jansen) has put in....

Interjections.

HON. L. HANSON :

The member over there who is waving his arms and making all of the

noise is suggesting that there is a shortage of doctors. I would remind

the member that in order to perform heart surgery, a number of people

are involved, and not all of them are doctors.

[4:15]

As a short-term solution to the difficulty, the Ministry of Health

provided funding for 200 cases — if the patients requested

it —

to be handled in the United States. The plans of the Ministry of Health

are to open new facilities this summer in the Royal Columbian Hospital

in New Westminster and in the Kelowna General Hospital. The Ministry of

Health is also taking action to hire more nurses. They are going to

assist training in critical care for those nurses, and they're going to

implement that training very aggressively, to handle the difficulty as

quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that is good

government and good management, and that we are responding to that

issue.

The main issue is that in a publication, the Leader

of the Opposition, who accuses us of doing things that are

misleading.... I suggest to you that the evidence is here that they

should clean up their own back yard.

have increased the

budget for health care funding by almost $500 million. I'm sure the

members across the floor are aware of this, but I'd like to remind them

that every day, we spend $13 million on health care in British

Columbia. To break that down even further, we spend $4,000 a year per

household, on average. We have one of the best health care

systems — the best health care facilities — in Canada, North

America and, I believe, the world. We should be proud of it.

talk about things that the opposition has put in place. In past

debates, I believe the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was

raised. Mr. Speaker, the socialists brought that in during their short

term in office, and I think it demonstrates one of the very basic flaws

that that party faces. It took the Social Credit government to make the

plan work; that's why ICBC is in the position it is in today. When I

was minister responsible for ICBC, we had a number of applications for

ICBC to provide coverage in other jurisdictions because it was such a

well-run, responsible insurance program.

I have to say that

the idea was that of the NDP in their short term in office, but it's

the Social Credit government that has made it work.

By the

very definition, the opposition have to be negative. I think they carry

that definition beyond what is reasonable. They appear to be negative

by nature. They appear to be negative by party policy. The biggest

difficulty they were having with this budget and this budget debate is

that the budget is so good that they're having trouble finding ways of

complaining about it. I have to give them credit for being very

inventive, because as much as they have tried to bring up substantial

and reasonable problems with the budget, they cannot. They keep

frittering around the edges with things that aren't really the topic of

debate for this budget for 1990-91.

I think the House should support this budget, and I appreciate the opportunity for comments.

MR. LOVICK :

You know, I am accustomed to listening to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs engage in debate. He is normally, of course, affable,

mild-mannered and fair-minded. However, he made a couple of comments

today I must take issue with for the record. When he presumes to begin

talking about our lack of ethics on this side, I would just remind

everybody that never, ever in a New Democrat government did we have a

cabinet minister sitting next to his senior deputy minister, listening

to that individual lie and not correct the record. Never.

would also remind members opposite of a saying from a former

Attorney-General of this province, one of ours, the hon. Alec

Macdonald, who once said: "Those who throw dirt tend to lose ground." I

would remind members opposite, you'll have considerable difficulty if

you get into that game. Be careful, I admonish you.

I don't

propose to engage in that kind of personal attack. I want to talk in

somewhat different terms about this budget. I want to talk about what I

think is fundamentally a problem with credibility that that

administration — that collection of members on the other side — as

government happens to have. As I listened to the budget speech, I was

reminded of a conclusion that a number of academics and other political

analysts have come up with over the years in recent times to do with

the nature of government. The conclusion that a number of those people

draw is that government, sadly, is increasingly becoming a matter of

public relations and public opinion polling. When I heard all the

particular threads and all the particular themes in that budget speech,

I thought: "Yes, indeed, here is a government that is clearly

responding to what the polls are telling it."

Of course,

we've been having public opinion polls for a long time. We all know

that. We also all know that it's quite understandable and legitimate

for governments to conduct polls to find out, in fact, what the public

perceives about issue x, y or z. There's nothing wrong with that. The

problem, though, is when governments begin to take the public opinion

polls and use those results only for changing the message — not

for new action, not for new initiatives, but to change the message.

It's a matter of talk versus action. One can go through the motions of

saying that we are committed to the same issues that

[ Page 9268 ]

the

public expresses to us, but the question, surely, is whether there is

an action commensurate with the rhetoric, whether in fact government is

doing what ought to be done or is rather, essentially, talking about it.

There's

governing essentially becomes no more than an ongoing public relations

campaign, and if governing becomes a matter of telling people what they

want to hear rather than addressing the issues, then we can get deceit

in government. We can get misleading activities by government. We can

get misleading budgets. That's precisely what has happened in this

budget.

We have a document that is frankly misleading.

There's something terribly wrong with a government that will produce a

document that's misleading as well as the fact that the document itself

is.

Let

me give you some examples of that, Mr. Speaker. I want to make my

point, and I want to do so carefully. We all know — all of us who

are familiar with the political landscape in this province — that

Social Credit is traditionally identified with — God help us how

this could happen, but it did — fiscal responsibility and being

sound managers.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK :

And just on cue, I note members opposite, in the good old tradition of

trained seals, thumping on their desks, those same individuals, of

course, who have no difficulty saying that the Expo lands, northeast

coal, Coquihalla Highway are all examples of good fiscal management.

The tragedy is that despite all the evidence to the contrary, the

mythology remains intact. This government knows it. This government

therefore tries to couch everything it does in terms of its fiscal

responsibility. Thus it is that the principal claim to fame of this

government in last year's budget and this year's budget is the

"balanced budget." For these people, that is the summum bonum , that is the greatest good; and that is the best they can come up with.

The

predicament, of course, as most modem economists will tell you, is that

maybe it's not the case that a balanced budget is the greatest of all

possible goods, because it's debatable whether a balanced budget is

something to brag about if, in fact, we have people dying because they

can't get the required surgery from our health care system. It's

debatable whether a balanced budget is a desirable commodity or entity

when, in fact, we are wasting millions of dollars on our education

system because we're sending young people to school who are hungry and

therefore can't learn, and can't take advantage of that

million-dollar-plus education system. It's debatable whether a balanced

budget is desirable when we have a housing crisis in this province.

The point, though — and I'm glad that for a change somebody on the other side has picked up on it —

is that it's debatable whether the budget is balanced. That's precisely

the point. If this government's greatest claim to fame, the great

achievement it wants to trumpet to the world, is a balanced budget, and

if the budget isn't balanced, what then, Mr. Speaker? What kind of

credibility can this government have if its greatest claim to fame is

suspect? And it is very clearly suspect.

Let me just give

you a couple of brief examples to make the point. The day after the

budget came out, we and the people of this province witnessed some

interesting newspaper headlines. The Times-Colonist headline was: "Budget Flimflam Insults Voters." The Vancouver Sun

headline, equally significant, was: "$500 Million Deficit Incurred in

Record Spending Budget." Note "deficit, " Mr. Speaker. There's a

Canadian Press story, the headline of which is: "'BS' Fund Is

Confusing" — a little understatement, but the point is made. There's a Sun editorial describing the fiscal wizardry of this government that has a headline as follows: "Now You See It, Now You Don't."

The

simple truth is, by all the normal economic

definitions, by all the

normal means of calculus, we have a deficit in this budget. You can

talk about creative bookkeeping; you can talk about financial sleight

of hand. The reality is that there is a deficit, and there's no denying

that — just as there is no denying the fact that we have not decreased

the accumulated debt. The minister can hint and intimate as much as he

wants in his speech and in that budget document; the reality is we are

seeing the same old Socred game — namely, we're not taking into

account Crown corporations and other government agencies, and we're

hiding the debt there.

The

reality is, and the government's own documentation makes the point very

clearly, the public debt has increased by a factor of some $414

million. The government, nevertheless, persists in saying that it is

the great fiscal manager.

That is the government, of

course, that is offended when somebody talks about its ethics or

absence thereof. You recall very well, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, what

happened on the first day in the chamber when we moved our motion for a

select standing committee about ethics. The Premier of the province

almost leapt out of his chair. I feared for the chandeliers 40 feet

above. They are so sensitive to anyone questioning their ethics. The

reality, however, is that we have all the evidence in the world that

leads us to the conclusion that their ethics must be questioned.

[4:30]

This government and this Premier are so quick to impose their moral

views on the rest of us. But, sadly, they don't recognize the

immorality of telling us that we have a balanced budget and that we've

reduced debt when the opposite is in fact the case. This government

can't recognize its own immorality. That is our predicament.

This

government, I think it's fair to say, has been around too long. I think

it's become arrogant. I think it has lost the confidence of the people.

I don't believe this government deserves another chance, and I suspect

that more and more British Columbians will come to just that

conclusion. The people of this province want a number of things. That

is fundamental; that is clear. Among other things, they certainly

[ Page 9269 ]

want fair and open and honest government. They do not want to be misled.

The

mellifluous Minister of Finance tried to describe what was happening in

the budget. As I listened to him talk I was reminded of Humpty-Dumpty.

You probably recall Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland . What people

don't recall is what Humpty-Dumpty said. He told Alice, when she was

being confused by the words he was using, that a word "means just what

I choose it to mean." Alice said to him: "The question is whether you

can make words mean so many different things." Humpty Dumpty's

response, you'll also recall, was to say: "The question is which is to

be master — that's all." The important point — don't be fooled by the fact

that it's a children's classic — is

that we're talking about using and

abusing language for purposes of power and control. The question

is...to be master; that's all. That's what I think is the reason for

the

Minister of Finance's answers.

I just might add, to lighten

the tone somewhat, that this same minister ought to remember the

conclusion that Humpty-Dumpty came to: "All the King's horses and all

the King's men couldn't put Humpty together again." This minister is

also, I think, cruising for a fall, and some of us are watching avidly

to see it happen.

I'm watching my time, because I want to

devote a little attention to the critic area of transportation. I just

want to make a couple of riding-specific comments, briefly, before that.

The

budget makes various claims — and this is especially offensive to those

individuals who are not benefiting from government programs or

government largesse — about the wonderful work we're doing in the areas

of health, education and even, dare I say, this government's claim that

it is doing something about women's equality. I'll touch briefly on

each of those.

During the throne speech debate, I read into

the record a statement from the board of trustees of the Nanaimo

Regional General Hospital, pointing out what in their terms was a

crisis in health care in our community. They were talking not about

some token gesture towards patching up the system — not about

something loosely called palliatives — but rather about a significant

infusion of funding. They haven't got it.

We can

understand this government crying poor and saying: "Look, we recognize

that health care is a huge expenditure, and we simply can't satisfy all

the demands." If government would come clean and tell us that, I think

we wouldn't have so much difficulty. But when we have to listen to this

government constantly tell us that everything is wonderful, we have the

best system in the world and nobody has a right to complain about that

system, then the people of my constituency — and I suspect others like

it throughout the province — have every right to be offended.

Similarly,

when we hear this government talk about education and the referendum

system, I think the government ought to recognize what the people in

the constituencies out there are saying. In my community, for example,

the new funding formula for education amounts to a $2 million

shortfall. That's something that the local school board had to grapple

with. They're tossed into the position of having to go to referendum,

which they know they can't win in my community.... The people simply

won't. The reality, however, is that they do not have sufficient money,

under the new formula, to provide the good and necessary programs that

they have been providing for lo these many years.

I also

struggle when I listen to this government brag about its fiscal

responsibility and how good times are. I confess I struggle when I

reflect on the reality of their commitment to women's equality, despite

their vaunted reference saying that they are indeed going to bring in

something like a pay equity program. There is a minister sitting in the

House right now, responsible for women's programs, who is on record as

saying that she does not agree with the proposition of pay equity.

There are at least two other cabinet ministers on the other side who

have said the same for the record. We nevertheless have the spectacle

in the budget statement of the government accepting something like a

pay equity program, or the principle of one. The obvious question is:

which statement is the true one? We're certainly anxious to check that

out; and believe me, we will be doing so during estimates.

When

I talk about this government's problem with credibility.... Let me give

you a very specific example of why we pose that question and why I

think it's fair to do so. Everybody knows, if you do any polling or

examination of what the electorate is feeling right now, that the

single biggest issue is environment. I see some young people sitting in

the chamber here, and if anybody is well aware that that has become an

"in" or a hot issue it's young people. We all know that the environment

has suddenly become the issue. This government reminds me of the

born-again environmentalist movement. They suddenly got the call; they

suddenly got on side. The trouble is, has what they've done in any way

measured up to the rhetoric that goes with it?

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

Let's take a quick look at the budget — to the member opposite. The

sustainable environment fund is some $293.3 million. This was

advertised as a brand-new, authentic commitment to the environment. The

reality, however, is that some $238 million of that sum comes from

existing programs that have been thrown into the hopper. And those

folks have the temerity and the gall to sit there and talk about this

program as if it's something new and significant. That is outrageous;

it is misleading; it is misrepresenting. And it will not be tolerated

by these folks — meaning the people of the province. The problem is

credibility.

I want to touch very briefly on my own critic area, transportation — again to make the point about credi-

[ Page 9270 ]

bility, to compare what the government says it's doing with what in fact is happening.

Page

9 of the budget speech is where we get the

section on transportation.

We get there some 32 lines on the subject of transportation out of

roughly 750 lines in the budget. That represents — if anybody's

calculating — about 4.6 percent of the total attention in the budget.

you recall, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Finance began his

section

on transportation? He said: "My friends, as I...." It sounds like the Minister

of Finance, doesn't it? "My friends, as I drive around this great

province of ours, I am proud that Social Credit governments have had

the foresight to invest in the transportation links that tie this

province together."

Oh, isn't that interesting that the

members opposite suffer from the same tunnel vision and myopia as the

Minister of Finance. If they didn't have that particular affliction,

they would recognize that the Freedom to Move study completed last

summer said that B.C.'s highway system is in an absolute state of

shambles. It's in a crisis. We're going to have to spend billions

putting the system back together because of the neglect by this

government for lo those many years. Rose-coloured glasses — but that's

only a part of the problem with this.

The Minister of

Finance said in his comments: "I am today able to announce a new

Freedom to Move special account. Through this account we are committing

$3.5 billion over the next five years...to transportation

investment." And everybody said, "Isn't that wonderful! My goodness,

$3.5 billion!" — forgetting that it's over five years, which means it

ain't so much money. But let's remember just how real all that money is.

Unfortunately

for the ministry, some of us have a little sense of history. We

remember, for example, that last year's budget for highways was the

first $1 billion budget. We also remember that it wasn't that very long

ago that the former Minister of Highways announced a $10 billion

ten-year plan. Suddenly it looks like we are retreating. Now it's $3.5

billion for five years. Yet the minister, despite his propensity to

hyperbole, says nevertheless that his $3.5 billion program is the most

comprehensive highways construction program ever. How can you reconcile

those two statements?

A year ago, $10 billion over ten

years; now we're talking $3.5 billion over five years. How can you call

it the most comprehensive program ever? You know, Mr. Speaker, it's

even worse than that. It's not just a simple contradiction in math. The

other problem is that if you look at the Freedom to Move document, you

discover it's all old stuff. There is nothing new there. Everything in

it was announced before. Here's what I mean by the financial sleight of

hand, by the deliberate misleading of the people of this province. If

you have a look at the Freedom to Move special account, you will

discover that it's just an old-fashioned highways capital construction

and major highways capital construction program.

MR. MILLER : No, would they do that?

MR. LOVICK :

In answer to the question from my colleague from Prince Rupert, I think

they would do that, and that's the tragedy of it. Last year in the 1989

estimates we had a capital construction budget of $225 million. Then we

had a major highway capital construction budget of $187 million. We

also had contributions to B.C. Rail of $15.3 million, to B.C. Ferries

of $55.8 million and to air transport assistance of $4 million. All of

last year's capital budget totals about $487 million. This year the

Freedom to Move account — this brand new budget, this great new pile of

money we are injecting into the system — amounts to $576 million. And

you say, "Well, wait a minute. That's okay, because after all, we've

got the difference between those figures — almost $90 million-odd." But

something else is buried in the Freedom to Move special account,

something called a grant to B.C. Transit, which of course used to

belong to Municipal Affairs. In other words, if you put in B.C. Transit

with all the rest of the 1989 capital construction

part in the Ministry

of Highways, you know what you discover? You discover that we're

getting less money, not more. I submit to members opposite that that is

simply dishonest and misleading and misrepresents the case.

The

Minister of Finance standing up and talking about a new "Freedom to

Move" special account, as if that is a matter of significance and as if

that's new money, is patently misleading all of us. It's scandalous

that it should happen; it shouldn't happen in this province.

I would remind members opposite also of the simple fact that the total....

MR. LOENEN :

Point of order. Mr. Speaker, we on this side love to listen to the

words flow from the member for Nanaimo. Many times over the past 20

minutes he has talked about dishonesty and about misleading. He used

those terms just now in respect to the Minister of Finance. Is he in

any way impugning the motives of our Minister of Finance?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member might like to comment, but the Chair listened

closely and couldn't pick up anything where the member was impugning the

motives of any individual or said that any person had deliberately done anything.

Perhaps the member would like to comment. He has used the terminology on a number

of occasions.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me your ruling makes the case very clearly. I

would rather not waste my time on frivolous and dilatory points of

order by people opposite who obviously haven't learned to listen

closely. I accept your ruling, and I thank you for it.

point is that the new Freedom to Move special account is a new name

masquerading and hiding the fact that we are getting less under the

heading "Transportation." There are no new projects. The total budget

for Highways is up by some 1.5 percent

[ Page 9271 ]

over

last year. Of course, that doesn't factor in inflation. The clear

conclusion is that we are getting less. We're taking steps backwards.

That's the problem.

Mr. Speaker, by the way, may I ask you how my time is? Thank you.

In the few moments I have left, I would like to raise another very

serious question that may have the effect of making members opposite

somewhat more attentive and somber. It worked.

I just want

to draw everyone's attention to something else — something curious — in

the Freedom to Move special account that I detected after spending a

little time. It's been the practice for a number of years for the

government of this province to make an operating subsidy available to

B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail. Last year, the amount approved under vote

73 to B.C. Ferries was $55 million, of which some $51 million was for

operations. This year under the Freedom to Move account, it says: "No

funding is provided in 1991 since an additional contribution was made

to the corporation in 1989-90."

The obvious question is:

where did that authorization come from? There is no special warrant for

1989-90 for that purpose. How then was the money paid? Also, how much

was in fact paid? On what legal authority? I would pose those

questions. I hope that members opposite are listening. They are serious

questions. My fear is that the Freedom to Move special account may be

hiding much more than the fact that there is less money for

transportation in this province this year than there was last year.

[4:45]

MR. LOENEN :

It is a delight for me to take

part in the budget debate; I can't get

enough of it. This is such an excellent budget. I have talked about

this budget ever since it was brought down and, as I said, I just can't

get enough of it. There are policies which this government has brought

in over the last three years that are starting to pay off. It

represents a wonderful achievement. Instead of servicing debt, we are

servicing people. That is the essence of what is happening here.

we know, so many other provincial jurisdictions, and in particular the

federal government.... All they do is use taxpayers' dollars to service

debt. We don't have that problem in British Columbia. We can instead

extend our services to people.

As some of my colleagues

have noted, the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of

British Columbia, Mr. Rick Acton, said: "There is lots to laud and

little to fault in this year's provincial budget. Our provincial

government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money

management to the federal government."

Mr.

Speaker, the

Investment Dealers' Association of Canada, as has been noted, also put

its support behind our government and our Minister of Finance when it

noted: "B.C. sets the example for fiscal management in Canada." Good

management has resulted in the fact that, since the current

administration formed the government in '86, we have paid our bills. In

addition, we have reduced the debt, and we have a privatization fund of

$423 million. We have been able to accomplish that with very few tax

increases. In fact, this year's budget has a substantial decrease in

property taxes, particularly in the lower mainland and the lower end of

Vancouver Island.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

We've

heard it said this afternoon and before by the members opposite that

somehow this is not truly a balanced budget; that somehow it is

deceptive and dishonest — on and on it goes. We have statements from

the firm of Peat Marwick and from the auditor general that seem to lend

some support to that. The fact is that the experts, the specialists,

the purists, those who are interested in splitting hairs and in using

technical jargon, will forever go on to talk about whether something is

truly balanced or not. But the people in my riding who pay the dollars

and cents know that this government has paid its bills, that it paid as

it went, and in addition, that it has been able to reduce the debt from

$5 billion to $4.2 billion. It means very little to them what the

so-called experts, who use nothing but technical jargon, say about it.

They know that we have delivered good government and sound management

of their dollars, a