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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1990

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9063 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 9063

Ministerial Statement

Earth Day. Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 9063

Mr. Cashore

Proclamation

Earth Day. Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 9064

Private Members' Statements

Tourism and the E&N Railway. Mr. Lovick –– 9064

Mr. Huberts

Services for diabetics. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9066

Mr. Perry

Budget Debate

Mr. Clark –– 9067

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, each year in Victoria about this time a marvelous event

takes place called the International Jazz Festival. It was kicked off

last night in great style, and everyone had a great time. I would urge

everyone who is going to be in this city over the next three or four

days to take in some of the jazz at the many venues.

Visiting

us in the gallery today is one of the participants in the jazz

festival, the great entertainer Igor Glenn, from Igor's Cowboy Jazz

Band. He is here with his wife Barbara and their friends Ian and Vicky

MacPherson, all from Phoenix, Arizona. I would like the House to make

them most welcome.

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen tabled the following documents: the Industrial Relations

Council annual report for 1989; the liquor distribution branch financial statements

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989; the liquor distribution branch sixty-eighth

annual report; the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia 1989

annual report; the Workers' Compensation Board statistics for 1989; and

the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services annual report for 1989.

Ministerial Statement

EARTH DAY

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I rise today to speak about British Columbia's participation in Earth

Day, one of the most important environmental events of this decade. In

April 1970, 20 million North Americans joined in the first Earth Day

celebration. In the 20 years since then, Earth Day has grown to the

point where this April 22 we expect participation by over 120 countries

and half a billion people around the globe.

In British

Columbia public enthusiasm for Earth Day has been sharpened by the

outstanding success of Globe '90, and by plans for Globe '92, also to

be held in Vancouver. Communities across the province have organized

Earth Day activities to increase public involvement in recycling,

anti-litter initiatives, and fish and wildlife protection and

enhancement.

Here is just a sampling of what is happening

around the province. In Victoria there will be a fossil-fuel-free

parade, which will feature electric and generator cars and wind- and

human-powered vehicles. In Vancouver an eco-festival will be planned in

conjunction with the April 21 Walk for Peace and Planetary Survival. In

Prince George over 10,000 trees will be planted at the first annual

tree festival.

In this province Earth Day has a special significance. We have a great abundance

and diversity of fish and wildlife — more than most areas of the continent. Our

resource-based economy depends upon a sustainable environment for continued

economic well-being. In essence, the people of this province are predisposed

to participating in an event which focuses on global action through local environmental

protection initiatives.

British Columbia we have a healthy head start on solving current

environmental problems and meeting the challenge of ensuring

environmental and economic sustainability in the nineties and beyond.

The government is committed to reducing solid waste streams by 50

percent by the year 2000, through recycling, waste reduction and

recovery of energy from wastes. We are committed to government use of

recycled paper and re-refined oil wherever possible and to encouraging

major corporations to do likewise.

We have endorsed the

national packaging protocol of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment for reducing packaging by 50 percent by the year 2000, with

an interim 1992 target of a 20 percent reduction in 1988 packaging

levels. We have called for a sustainable reduction of discharges of

chlorinated organics from pulp and paper production, as well as other

significant measures to preserve the health of our environment by

reducing industrial pollution.

It is in this climate of

commitment to change that Earth Day will take place this year. I urge

all members of this House to join with their constituents in this

important celebration, to express our commitment to environmental

sustainability in British Columbia. I suggest we in this House act in

the spirit of the motion tabled last week by my colleague the member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree). That motion calls on all

British Columbians to make at least one environmentally friendly change

in their lives in recognition of Earth Day 1990.

MR. CASHORE :

I'd like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his

statement, and I would like to thank the government for proclaiming

Earth Day. I think this is a very important move, and certainly one

that we support.

When it comes to the proclamation of Earth

Day, what we have to realize is that this is a day of reflection when

we have to look very carefully at what we have done, how it has worked,

what we have not done, and how we're going to change. I think some of

those sentiments are certainly contained in the minister's statement.

However,

we think of where the political will really is as we approach these

issues. For instance, the federal government put at least $3 million

into Globe '90. I believe that, although the provincial government was

late getting involved in Globe '90, it put some money in too. I'm not

exactly sure how much, but I think it was less than half a million

dollars.

Contrast that to Earth Day. There's been no

announcement of funding being made available to the environmental

movement, which has provided British Columbia with so much excellent

leadership, research and dedication. Surely, if we're going to be

[ Page 9064 ]

putting

money into efforts that look towards a techno fix when we're dealing

with environmental issues, we also have to recognize the grass-roots

movements — the people of organizations such as the Wilderness

Committee, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and many

others that are also a very significant part of the solution to the

problem. So when we're talking of getting on board with Earth Day, we

have to really take a look at the essence of what the meaning of Earth

Day is and find ways to truly participate in that.

We all

recognize that all of us in British Columbia have a long way to go in

terms of doing what is right for the environment and protecting the

environment. But putting out papers like this at the taxpayers' expense

to try to promote the Minister of Environment and justify what is being

done — attempts to use the taxpayers' own money to convince them that the government is doing a good job —

is not really an appropriate way to put financial resources into

protecting the environment. Protecting the environment by public

relations isn't going to work anymore in this province. It's going to

require something of far greater substance than that.

say that this is a time for the government to become involved In some

sober reflection with regard to its own activities regarding the

environment, so that there can truly be some effective changes.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, I rise to read into the record a proclamation.

"Elizabeth

II, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other

realms and territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of

the Faith, to all whom these presents shall come, greeting.

"Whereas the maintenance of land, air, water and healthy

ecosystems are essential to quality of life; and

whereas the environment is

a global concern, demanding a commitment from all residents of our planet, regardless

of international and other boundaries; and

whereas British Columbians share

an exceptional environmental heritage and a responsibility to maintain it for

the enjoyment of future generations; and

whereas the province of British Columbia

is committed to a process of sustainable development through which all sectors

of society may participate in environmental stewardship; and

whereas Earth Day

provides a focus for awareness, understanding and communication of worldwide

environmental concerns; and

whereas Earth Day activities provide opportunities

for individuals and communities to demonstrate their concern for their environment

through constructive action; and

whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with

the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased to direct

by order-in-council in that behalf that a proclamation be issued designating

Sunday, April 22, 1990, as Earth Day in the province of British Columbia; now

know ye that we do, by these presents, proclaim and declare that Sunday, April

22, 1990, shall be known as Earth Day in the province of British Columbia."

MR. SPEAKER : Perhaps in the future we could table these documents.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

TOURISM AND THE E&N RAILWAY

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to deliver a statement on behalf

of my colleague the opposition critic for tourism. She unfortunately is

unable to be with us today. She has a prior commitment that I think all

of us in this chamber will recognize the validity of. She's speaking to

a graduation ceremony for a job re-entry program concerning immigrant

women. This commitment was made some six months ago. I think we ought

to remember that women MLAs do indeed represent — and dare I say, are an inspiration for — women

in the community in terms of what can be achieved. Therefore, for my

colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) to be there is

excusable and important, and none of us have difficulty with that.

[10:15]

My pleasure is to offer this statement, and I have some connection

with the statement. We're talking about the Esquimalt and Nanaimo

Railway, tourism and the unfulfilled potential. I address this issue

with some alacrity simply because I am the transportation critic for

the opposition caucus. The statement, if I had to title it, Mr.

Speaker, would be headed "Tourism and the E&N Railway: It's Time

for the Government to Get on Board."

I want to talk about

missed opportunities; I want to talk about unrealized potential. How

interesting that we should be talking about the missed opportunities

and unrealized potential of the E&N Railway in 1990, because it was

about 105 years ago that the E&N was established, and all the talk

at the time was about the potential. It was about bringing B.C. into

Confederation in a meaningful way; this railroad would complete the

settlement, and all of us would be happy and prosperous thereafter.

that time, tourism as a concept was virtually unheard of, of course.

Today tourism is a $3.5 billion industry. It is indeed the

second-largest industry in the province. Moreover, it is projected that

by the year 2000, tourism will triple in size to become the largest

industry in the province. How ironic and how sad to note, as my

colleague the second member for Nanaimo did yesterday, that it wasn't

even mentioned in the budget. We're talking, then, about unrealized

potential.

Tourism is an industry that is diverse and is by its very nature fragmented —

that is, scattered. Surely if there were an industry in which a role

for government is obvious, it is tourism. Tourism is a promoter of

regional development. It's an industry that fosters local community

development. It is a means to achieve economic diversification. Surely

there is a role for government to assist, to coordinate, to direct and,

above all else perhaps, to create a framework that will ensure the

various pieces and parts of the industry are indeed complementary

rather than competitive and thereby counterproductive. It's an enor-

[ Page

9065 ]

mous potential largely unfulfilled, and the E&N is a classic case in point.

The

E&N has a marvelous potential. Anybody who pauses to reflect even

for a moment would agree with that. What makes it even more exciting

and makes the potential even more recognizable is that what we can do

with the E&N will cost us so very little money, just because the

people of this province, as we know, have already paid — and paid handsomely — for that particular railroad.

won't go into great detail about the history of the E&N; we all

know it too well. It's a story of greed; it's a story of payoff; it's a

story of friends in high places. Remember just one illustration of

that: in 1905, when the assets of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway

were transferred to the CPR, the main beneficiary was a guy called

Robert Dunsmuir, who was a member of the executive council of the

province of British Columbia — a member of the cabinet. One is

tempted to say, Mr. Speaker, that some things in B.C. never change;

however, I will resist that temptation.

It's time this

railway was used in the interests of the people who paid for it. To use

the E&N as it should be used will require some political will. We

do not want just the status quo. We know that the status quo was

unacceptable; indeed, everybody who has looked at the E&N knows

that the deck is, as it were, stacked against the profitable and

successful operation of that railway.

Surely the time has

come to look at a vision that is forward-looking; to talk about

expanding and improving the service in the way that my colleagues and I

from Vancouver Island illustrated some months ago in a press

conference; but also to look at the future and to talk about things

like a steam train, ski trains and train trips that connect with other

modes like the MV Lady Rose

going up the Alberni Canal and the Inside Passage tour. There are so

many things we can do that we aren't. Transportation and tourism, as we

know, are partners; there's no way one can function without the other.

Trains are not an old technology. They are not a pass or obsolete technology. Rather, they are a technology of the future —

if the government has the wisdom and the vision to seize the

opportunity. I hope the government of British Columbia, instead of

being content with merely talking about the status quo and saying let

us maintain the E&N, will decide that it has become time to get on

board. Let's make the E&N the wonderful tourist attraction that it

can be.

MR. HUBERTS : Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a great opportunity for me to respond to the private member's statement.

This government is committed to tourism development. As the House knows, we're

committed to major upgrading and improvement of our transportation structure

to help bring this about. That was made clear in yesterday's budget. If

B.C. is to gain maximum benefits in tourism, we have to be able to move visitors

quickly and efficiently.

Our approach to transportation is obviously vastly different from that of the federal government. It was this government — the government of British Columbia — that

acted to save and keep the E&N open when Ottawa wanted to shut it

down, as it was doing with all the other rail services. I recall that

when I was Minister of State for Vancouver Island, we sent two strong

letters to the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, to make sure the

E&N would be kept open. That was followed up by our

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), and that is why, today, the E&N

is still running.

The federal attitude towards rail service

was best summed up by Transport minister Doug Lewis, here in Victoria,

just Wednesday. Lewis said the cuts to Via have made its passenger

system more efficient. That is certainly arguable. Even worse, he went

on to say that the cuts have now become a non-issue. Do you know what

else he said? Lewis, the man in charge of Canada's national

transportation system, said: "People love to wave at trains, not travel

on them." That's a pretty sad statement for a leader in Canada.

The

fact is that Ottawa had no interest in enhancing the E&N service to

make it a visitor attraction or to increase traffic between the lower

and the upper Island. The future of the E&N lies with the Supreme

Court of Canada, and that may take some time. If we hadn't taken legal

action, that line would be closed today. A properly run train service

is a tourist attraction and makes economic sense.

A private

sector company will soon be operating the former Via Rail passenger

service between Vancouver and Banff, and you can bet they'll increase

rider ship and tourist benefits. As a matter of fact, several hundred

delegates to the Pacific Asia Travel Association conference, which

opens in Vancouver on Sunday, will arrive aboard the Rocky Mountaineer .

These delegates from around the Pacific Rim will pass the word about

that service, and my bet is that under the private sector the service

will flourish and prosper.

There has been much discussion

about the E&N Railway. Should it be part of B.C. Rail? Should it be

privatized? Should it be a joint venture? One thing is for sure: if the

E&N was in the private sector, the service would be a lot better

and much more people and service-oriented.

If the court

decision reaffirms that the federal government must continue to operate

the E&N, it seems to me that pressure should be brought on Ottawa

to make the E&N service a truly meaningful passenger service. They

could do an awful lot in the way of making this run a special event

that would produce revenue and enhance tourism opportunities. I for one

hope they finally see the light.

MR. LOVICK : I

hadn't planned on kicking the government around at all, but when I

listen to the comments from the member opposite, which are clearly a

prepared statement, I must respond.

How members on that

side of the House have the temerity to talk about what Ottawa is doing

to them, and why they aren't getting a better deal, after you

[ Page 9066 ]

kicked

them around the way you do, amazes me. Do you really believe that the

treatment you accord those people is going to mean they will suddenly

be more generous toward you?

To suggest for a moment that

it was your initiative that saved the E&N is ludicrous in the

extreme. Your initiative came after my colleagues and I, the New

Democrat members of the Legislature on this side of the House, issued a

press conference and forced your hand; and after, moreover, some 30,000

petitions from citizens of Vancouver Island, initiated by New Democrats

in Ottawa, were sent in. You folks were the last-minute arrivals on the

train; let's not forget that.

Moreover, how interesting that the former minister — who still lives with fond memories of another life he had —

will talk with pride about the transportation infrastructure in this

province. The studies that were completed by this government's

initiatives pointed out that the transportation infrastructure in this

province is falling apart. It's a disaster. Let's acknowledge that

little fact. We all want to save the E&N, but we sure don't want to

fall into the trap of saving the status quo. That would be the worst

mistake. The time has come to look forward to some possibilities for

new directions for that railroad.

Sadly and ironically, in

the whole five-minute prepared statement by the member opposite, we

didn't hear of a single initiative taken by that government to do

something to make that service better. As I said in the beginning, the

tourism potential of the E&N Railway is wonderful. It's time for

this government to get on board.

MR. SPEAKER : The

House should be advised that prior to the first private member's

statement there was an agreement between the House Leaders that a

change would be made in our standing orders to allow a member to make a

statement on behalf of another member who is unable to be here. Just to

clarify that, it would normally have required the Chair to ask for

unanimous consent.

SERVICES FOR DIABETICS

MRS. McCARTHY :

In introducing this subject today, I am pleased to introduce Mrs. Diane

Brown, who is in our gallery. She is the Island regional director of

the B.C. division of the Canadian Diabetes Association.

I've

always appreciated that, although there are strong philosophical

differences in this House which often divide us, we are a unique group

of 69 members who have been elected by the full electorate of British

Columbia. We have a common bond of public service and commitment to our

community. This week was an excellent example, when 25 members from

both the government side and the opposition benches united to bring a

greater awareness to people of the incidence of diabetes in British

Columbia. I want to thank those members of the Legislature who have

taken

part in the "Give It Your Best Shot, MLAs" campaign.

I just want to tell the House, for Hansard

to record, that what they are undertaking is a daily routine, as if

they were diabetic: testing their blood sugar and going on a special

diabetic diet. We should thank our legislative dining room for

producing a diabetic menu selection. Norris Pettersson, our legislative

dining room manager, has done a wonderful job in that.

[10:30]

Members are also asked to inject a teddy bear — thankfully not themselves — with insulin twice daily, as if they were suffering from diabetes.

all know why we're doing this: we're being pseudo-diabetics for four

days to bring to the attention of as many people as possible what

diabetes is, how to care for it and how it can be controlled. Awareness

of diabetes is very important if we're going to have the research and

moneys that will one day find a real cure.

Those of us who

are involved in this program can now realize what the life of a

diabetic is filled with: self-discipline; allowing extra time each and

every day for the injections; costs on an annual basis which are not

covered by Pharmacare; and above all, the emotional trauma, a cost in

family and business that is very great.

We who are just

trying the regimen for four days will get together to exchange our

experiences next Tuesday at lunch. With the exception of a couple of

MLAs who are diabetic, we'll then all be able to walk away and go about

our daily routine. We'll be able to have absolutely no intervention in

our time or our itinerary for injections, blood tests, a special diet,

etc.

Mr. Speaker, 5 percent of the population has, or will

develop, diabetes. That's one in 20. There are two types. Type 1

diabetics are insulin dependent, usually diagnosed during childhood or

adolescence; 10 to 15 percent of the diabetic population have type 1.

Type 2 diabetics are non-insulin dependent; type 2 usually strikes

people over 40. The complications of diabetes include blindness and eye

damage, kidney damage and failure, heart attacks, strokes, and limb

damage or loss, because diabetes affects the body's circulation and

nerves. Diabetics rely heavily on self-care in conjunction with a team

of health professionals, including the physician and dietitian.

Insulin

and oral medication are a control for diabetes, not a cure. There is no

cure. Diabetes management involves following a meal plan, medication,

blood glucose monitoring, exercise, education, and learning to cope

physically and emotionally. Regular self-blood-glucose-monitoring and

good control of blood sugar are believed to delay the onset of diabetic

complications.

Mr. Speaker, insulin was discovered by

Charles Best and Frederick Banting in 1921 in Toronto. It was first

used in 1922. In 1923, a dedicated British Columbian — a friend of mine, Ray Sheward —

attended Dr. Best's clinic in Toronto. He was five years old at the

time. He tells me he is the only man in the world who has taken the

original treatment and is still living today. I'd like to share with

the House a little of Ray Sheward's life.

[ Page 9067 ]

For

over 20 years he was on the Mount St. Joseph Hospital board. He's been

a member of the International Lions Club for 34 years and has raised

untold numbers of dollars for handicapped children, senior citizens,

housing and many other good causes.

There are a lot of Ray

Shewards out there in British Columbia today. Some of them are very

young, as Ray was when he started the insulin treatment, and as is a

young lady in our gallery today, who will be introduced by the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey when he follows my remarks.

have an obligation to those young people and to those not so young who

are suffering from diabetes. The cost for each diabetic patient, over

and above what Pharmacare and our medical plan already provides, is an

average $1,000 annually. I am pleased that my discussions with the

Minister of Health (Hon. J Jansen) have resulted in a commitment from

the minister to look into alleviating the costs of the diabetic and to

look at research for diabetes in our province.

Regular

monitoring keeps the risk of complication down, and it is in our

self-interest in this province to put out the money that is now being

spent on an individual basis, so that we can be sure that the other,

more high-cost dollars will not be borne by the people of British

Columbia.

MR. PERRY : I thank the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain for offering the opportunity to share this statement.

have with us in the gallery Elizabeth Pungente and her mother Debbie

from Sooke, B.C. Elizabeth is 11 years old and has been paired with me

for the last few days to advise me personally on the modern management

of diabetes. I had a few special lessons from her this morning.

Whereas

I and many other MLAs have been trying to follow a diabetic diet and

monitor our blood sugar for two days so far, Elizabeth has been doing

this, of necessity, for four years. Breakfasting with her this morning,

I could only admire her vivacious energy and her determination to

ensure that diabetes does not prevent her from living a full and

fulfilling life.

It wasn't always so for diabetics, Mr.

Speaker. At breakfast I told Elizabeth a little bit about another

extraordinary and historic diabetic I've met — Mrs. Muriel

Hamilton of Vancouver. She was in the terminal stages of juvenile

diabetes in the winter of 1923-1924, when Dr. R. E. Coleman and the

nurses of Vancouver General Hospital saved her life. Mrs. Hamilton was

saved by insulin carried by a small airplane over the Rockies from

Edmonton, where it had been purified by Dr. Collip, one of the original

team at the University of Toronto that ultimately shared the Nobel

prize.

Muriel Hamilton was one of the first four diabetics

treated with insulin in British Columbia. She and her parents were way

ahead of their time. She learned to self-manage her diabetes in the

1920s, long before this became the accepted medical dogma in the 1970s.

She has lived a long and a fruitful life, spending only a rare day in

hospital in consequence. I believe she went approximately 50 to 60

years without a single day in hospital, until very recently.

There

is a lesson to be learned from these two people, and from the Canadian

Diabetes Association's experiment in consciousness-raising for members

of this Legislature. We can relearn from them the old lesson that an

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This week I hope we have

all gained fresh understanding that living with diabetes is not easy.

We have all, I hope, understood more clearly the lifelong financial

burdens visited by diabetes on patients.

I know from

experience as a physician that there are many diabetics in this

province who, by virtue of their education, financial circumstances,

geographic origin or even racial origin as native people, are unable to

practise optimal self-management of this condition.

I hope

this will lead to a renewed commitment to develop programs to ensure

that British Columbia becomes a world model for the integrated

management of diabetes in all our affected citizens.

MR. SPEAKER :

Thank you, hon. members. The Chair would like to take the opportunity

to thank the next two members who would normally have made members'

statements at this time, and explain that we have booked satellite time

for the televising of the reply to the Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations' (Hon. Mr. Couvelier'

s) statement. Only a certain

amount of time was booked and it is, incidentally, expensive to the

chamber. So if both of those members will accept the apologies of the

Chair and the thanks of the Chair, you will be first on next week's

agenda for private members' statements.

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. CLARK :

When is a deficit not a deficit, Mr. Speaker? When is a balanced budget

completely unbalanced? During the course of my address this morning,

I'll try to answer those questions. I will deal with those questions

because the government of British Columbia is trying to mislead the

public about the true state of the province's finances. I welcome this

as an opportunity to shed some light on the deceptive bookkeeping of

the party opposite and to offer some fresh alternatives for this

province.

Budgets are crucial in our parliamentary

democracy because they represent the government's economic blueprint,

its chance to influence the basic economic and social direction of the

province. But for budgets to be effective, they must be honest. The

credibility of the government's budget is crucial not only for

government planning but also for prudent decision-making in the private

sector. That's why the deception in yesterday's effort is so serious

and why the alternatives I will offer are so necessary as British

Columbians prepare to sweep the Social Credit Party from the government

of this province.

[ Page 9068 ]

During

the last year I have met with many British Columbians. They want an

effective housing program; they want a fair tax system; they want

equity for women; they want a quality education system and a quality

health care system; above all, they want a budget that is honest and a

government that is honest. As I have noted, this budget is a dishonest

budget. The government tells us this is a balanced budget; yet, as I

said yesterday, the budget figures show a deficit. The government is

planning to spend $684 million more than it will be taking in during

the coming fiscal year. That, by any definition, is a deficit of $684

million.

The government tells us it is reducing debt; yet

the budget shows an increase in total direct and guaranteed debt from

$16.3 billion to $16.9 billion — hardly reducing debt in British

Columbia. The government tells us it is committed to the environment;

yet the most recent information available shows that it allows every

pulp mill in British Columbia to operate in contravention of its waste

permits. The government tells us it is committed to affordable housing;

yet the government introduces no new housing programs in this budget.

Vancouver has just recently surpassed Toronto as the least affordable

city in Canada. The least affordable city in Canada is now Vancouver.

The

government tells us that it is committed to helping women. It will not

even provide the minimal core funding necessary to keep women's centres

open in British Columbia. The government tells us it is committed to

pay equity; yet there is no provision in the budget for pay equity. The

government tells us it is committed to education; yet it continues to

provide among the lowest per capita spending on education in Canada.

The government says it's committed to reforestation; yet the budget

shows a planned decrease from $240 million in this fiscal year to $170

million in future years.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest

budget from a tired government. British Columbians are looking for

honesty in government. They are looking for a government they can trust

to bring tax fairness. They are looking for a government they can trust

to achieve equity for women. They are looking for a government they can

trust to reflect the social and economic priorities for the 1990s. That

is why they have lost confidence in this government — a tired

government that tells us the books are balanced when there's a deficit;

a government that tells us it's committed to the environment, to women,

to affordable housing, to quality education and to health care. In

reality it is committed to nothing less than helping its friends and

insiders at the expense of the public interest.

New

Democrats are committed to tax fairness. As I said yesterday, we will,

in our first budget, reduce the tax burden for all middle- and

lower-income British Columbians. New Democrats are committed to the

environment. We will enforce environmental laws and implement

innovative programs, such as green taxes to tax pollution —

instead of people, as this government does. We will introduce pay

equity for women, and we will provide affordable housing, quality

education and health care, while at the same time achieving a balanced

budget over the economic cycle. As I said yesterday, above all, we will

restore honesty to government.

[10:45]

Let us look at this government's record on fairness. Since the

mid-1980s, Social Credit governments have introduced an unprecedented

level of unfairness into British Columbia's tax system. Firstly, there

was an annual $500 million tax break for corporations: the corporation

capital tax was phased out, non-residential school property taxes were

frozen, water taxes were frozen, the corporation income tax was cut,

and tax breaks were given to banks and mining companies.

Secondly,

there was a dramatic $500 million increase in taxes, charges and user

fees paid by individual British Columbians in the 1987 and 1988

budgets. There has been a direct shift in the tax burden: taxes have

been cut on corporations and on the wealthy, and raised on everybody

else.

This assault on British Columbians continued in last

year's budget, with a further $38 million increase in Medical Services

Plan premiums and a 3 percent hidden tax on hydro rates. And again in

this budget, contrary to the minister's contention, there are tax

increases. There are user-fee increases and tax increases on a host of

measures.

As a result of these increases, the burden of

financing government services has fallen increasingly on lower- and

middle-income British Columbians while the contribution of corporations

has declined. In 1984-85 businesses contributed almost 18 percent of

non-resource revenues in the form of corporate income taxes. In this

budget corporations contribute only 9 percent. In just five years the

share of revenue contributed by big business in British Columbia has

been cut in half by this government.

Homeowners have been

singled out by this government for particularly unfair treatment.

Between 1982 and 1990 the contribution of residential property

taxpayers to the cost of public schools soared from $177 million to

$444 million — an average annual increase on property taxpayers of

14 percent under this government. During the same period these taxes

were raised on homeowners, the contribution of industrial and

commercial property taxpayers actually declined from $662 million to

$535 million. The result has been a windfall gain of $250 million to

corporations at the expense of homeowners.

This budget does

nothing to restore that fairness. After dramatically raising taxes for

middle- and lower-income British Columbians, the government then boasts

that it's imposing no more tax increases, and that somehow is a

good-news budget in British Columbia under this government — no more tax increases. Even that is deceptive and misleading, because there are tax increases contained in this budget.

Now

the government promises to increase the homeowner's grant. It says in

all its budget documents that they're going to give $250 to homeowners.

But where is the $250 saving, Mr. Speaker? Virtually

[ Page 9069 ]

households in British Columbia will receive anywhere near those

savings. Except, perhaps, for a few mansion owners in Shaughnessy, no

one in British Columbia will receive $250 in tax savings. In fact,

300,000 households, property owners in British Columbia, will receive

no property tax relief and no school tax relief as a result of this

budget.

Where is the honesty? Where is their commitment to

tax fairness? It isn't there. If this government had any commitment to

tax fairness, it would have provided a broadly based tax relief for

middle- and low-income British Columbians. Those are the people that

are feeling the burden of taxes under this administration. Again, that

is our commitment: tax relief for middle- and lower-income British

Columbians in our first budget, which I hope will be very shortly.

The

Mulroney government's goods and services tax represents an

unprecedented tax assault on the pocketbooks of British Columbians.

It's a twin assault: the Mulroney Tories in Ottawa and this Social

Credit government here in British Columbia. When it comes into effect

next year, it will lead to a dramatic 7 percent increase in the cost of

everything we buy from housing, energy and clothing to haircuts,

restaurant meals and entertainment. Even funerals will be taxed by this

government in Ottawa. Its implementation will dramatically increase the

unfairness of British Columbia's overall tax system by shifting more of

the tax burden, again, away from corporations and wealthy individuals

and onto middle- and low-income families.

Where has

this Social Credit government stood on the GST? During the last session

of the Legislature, the Socreds refused to stand up and oppose the

federal government despite our repeated calls for such action. On April

10, 1989, when pressed by the Leader of the Opposition to state his

opposition to joining the federal GST, the Minister of Finance stated

only that: "We do not yet have enough information to deal with that

question." Last June 8, when I raised the same issue, the minister

replied: "We have verified that they have the legal authority, and

there's absolutely nothing the provinces might do about it." That's

leadership, Mr. Speaker.

Last September the minister went

as far as to propose cooperation with the Mulroney government in a 10

percent joint federal-provincial GST. That's leadership against the

GST. Now, belatedly, the Social Credit government professes opposition

to the GST. After reading the polls, now they're opposed, it appears.

But where were the Socreds when it counted? Where were they when there

was an opportunity to oppose the GST? Do you know where they were, Mr.

Speaker? Their officials were meeting with federal government officials

to work out the details of GST implementation.

The Social Credit government did not aggressively oppose the GST when it counted,

because they don't have any commitment to tax fairness. The GST is consistent

with the Social Credit tax policy of shifting the tax burden from corporations

and those most able to pay and onto the backs of middle- and lower-income families.

It is also consistent with the Socred policy, which they've just announced

in this budget, of property tax relief going up. The richer you are, the more

expensive your house, the bigger the tax break. It's Robin Hood upside down

with this government.

That,

more than anything else, is why British Columbians want a change of

government, because they're sick and tired of a government which has no

commitment to fairness, a government which supports its friends and

insiders at the expense of public interest, They want a government that

is committed to tax fairness. It's time for tax relief for middle- and

lower-income British Columbians. It's time to introduce fairness to the

tax system in British Columbia. I make this commitment again: a New

Democratic government will restore fairness to our tax system and

provide tax relief for middle- and lower-income British Columbians.

second thing to mention about fairness is fairness between regions. All

regions of British Columbia must share in our prosperity. What is the

Social Credit record on regional fairness? The extent of regional

disparities in British Columbia has never been greater. In 1989, the

unemployment rate in the Okanagan and the Kootenays was double that of

Vancouver. Four out of five new jobs are located in the lower mainland,

leaving the rest of British Columbia behind. Yet this budget does not

even acknowledge the fact that there is a problem with regional

unemployment. While Vancouver suffers congestion and overdevelopment,

the rest of British Columbia faces mine closures and layoffs.

government with vision would realize the benefits of more balanced

growth. A government with vision would invest resources into

diversifying the economies of our non-metropolitan regions away from

their excessive reliance on a narrow export base. A government with

vision would realize that balanced growth would take the pressure off

our overheated lower mainland region, while laying the foundations for

sustained growth in other regions of British Columbia.

Instead

of an imaginative strategy to achieve balanced growth, we have seen a

patchwork of ad hoc programs that have failed to deliver. Widely

proclaimed by the Premier, the restructuring of provincial economic

development represented little more than a mechanism of channelling

public money to friends and insiders. Not surprisingly, this approach

was finally scrapped in the last cabinet shuffle, and the budget

contains no new regional strategy.

The recent closure of

the Sullivan mine symbolizes the incompetence of this Socred government

in achieving regional fairness. In 1986 — four years ago —

the province and the federal government provided $124 million in

assistance to Cominco for modernization. On January 18, 1990, Cominco

announced the closure of the Sullivan Mine as of January 31 — less

than two weeks' notice. The government was not even informed, even

though Mr. Hallbauer, chief executive officer of Cominco, sits on the

Premier's own Economic Advisory Council. What sort of gov-

[ Page 9070 ]

ernment

would provide assistance to a company and not even monitor the results

to ensure the protection of jobs? What sort of government would allow a

major corporation to hold a whole town to ransom? The lack of foresight

and creative management does not bode well for the future of our

non-metropolitan regions.

In the forest industry, layoffs

by Fletcher Challenge on southern Vancouver Island clearly illustrate

the threat to forest workers resulting from over-cutting and inadequate

investment in silviculture. In the Peace River, the northeast coal

project is clinging to the brink of bankruptcy as arbitrators decide

the fate of 2,400 workers in the very near future. Again, where is this

government?

The parties involved in the northeast coal

project tell me that the government has not even monitored the

developments or prepared any strategy to protect the jobs and

livelihoods of the families depending on the coal mines or the

taxpayers who have invested over $1.5 billion in this project. It is

unprepared to deal with regional problems in British Columbia. It is

unprepared to deal with regional unfairness.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Agriculture

underpins about 20 percent of the economic activity of British

Columbians; yet our industry is suffering. Our tree-fruit growers in

the Okanagan are particularly hard hit. Yet this budget has singled out

agriculture for an 11 percent funding cut, the only area of government

that received a cut this year.

This is a government with no

vision, no commitment to our regions and no commitment to balanced

regional growth. The people want a government which shows leadership in

protecting jobs in B.C.'s regions. They're sick and tired of a

government which exploits regional equity to support its friends and

insiders. It's time we had a government committed to regional fairness,

a government which ensures balanced growth in British Columbia, a

government which would protect all regions of the province.

guarantee British Columbians that a New Democratic government will

ensure fairness between our regions, and will support regional

development strategies which will ensure prosperity and diversity

throughout British Columbia.

A third dimension of fairness

is fairness among and between individuals: fairness between men and

women; fairness in providing economic opportunity for all British

Columbians; fairness toward aboriginal people.

Women are

not treated fairly in British Columbia. Throughout the term of its

office this government has tried to curtail a woman's most fundamental

right: the right to make her own decisions about her body. Despite the

fact that a woman's right to safe, legal abortion has been upheld by

three court decisions, the Premier has recently again encouraged

hospital boards to restrict this medical procedure via referendums. And

the government still provides no financial assistance to abortion

clinics.

Women are treated unfairly in British Columbia's

labour market. In the last three years the average pay for women has

dropped to 64 percent of what men earn. In the last three years under

this Social Credit administration, women have fallen further behind in

terms of their pay relative to men.

Participation in the

labour force is not a luxury for women; it is a necessity. Three out of

four Canadian women of child-bearing age are now in the labour force.

Sixty-one percent of all families would fall below the poverty line if

it were not for women's employment income. Women are confined to

low-income, relatively unskilled job ghettos; 50 percent of women work

in clerical and service jobs compared with 16 percent of men. Even if

women are successful in breaking out of these ghettos into managerial

and professional jobs, their incomes remain 30 to 40 percent below

those of men.

[11:00]

Many other jurisdictions in Europe and in North America have

effective pay-equity legislation in place for both the public and the

private sector. In Ontario, for example, 1.7 million women in both the

public and private sectors are now covered by pay-equity legislation.

In British Columbia we have no such legislation, and this budget

contains no real commitment to pay equity beyond vague promises, with

no budget commitment. Instead we have a women's minister who does not

even understand, let alone support, pay equity — a minister who

has stated, "Girls need to have the same attitude as boys," and that

women themselves were to blame for choosing low-paying clerical jobs

instead of getting a higher education. That's the attitude of this

minister of women.

If this government had any commitment to

women, it would immediately restore funding to the women's centres in

British Columbia that are closing. Yet in a budget which contains total

new spending of $1.9 billion, there is no commitment to provide the

$500,000 necessary to keep B.C.'s 33 women's centres open. I make this

commitment today, Mr. Speaker: a New Democratic Party government will

restore and expand funding to B.C.'s women's centres, because we on

this side of the House are committed to women.

Wide

differences between rich and poor also engender social conflict,

undermining our human potential and reducing the quality of life for

everyone. The persistence of grinding poverty in the midst of general

affluence is ethically unacceptable in a civilized society.

During

my response to last year's provincial budget I pointed out this

government's dismal record on individual fairness. I noted the findings

of the National Council of Welfare that "family poverty grew faster in

British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada in the 1980s." I pointed

out that one out of every six people in this province lives below the

poverty line, and stated that any governing party which introduces

budgets that have no funding of any sort for food programs for hungry

children is a party that does not deserve to govern a day longer.

[ Page 9071 ]

Well,

Mr. Speaker, this government is still in place, unfortunately, and the

lot of the poor has not improved. Poverty is still widespread, lines at

food banks are still there, and B.C. kids are still going to bed hungry.

Rent

increases, which are a direct result of this government's refusal to

provide any protection for tenants, have made the situation even worse.

In British Columbia single mothers in poverty now spend as much as 70

to 90 percent of their income on rent. At the same time, those released

from institutions for the mentally ill are often forced to sleep on the

streets because of inadequate backup in the community. All too often

they don't make it. In this capital city of Victoria alone, 20 homeless

people have been found dead on the streets in the last two years.

That's a statistic that we don't normally associate with Canada, let

alone British Columbia.

Most of the victims of this

appalling poverty are women and children. In 1986, over two-thirds of

British Columbia's single-parent families headed by women lived in

poverty. One out of every five children in this province lives below

the poverty line; that's 16,000 children. Canada has the second-highest

rate of child poverty in the industrial world, and the poverty rate in

British Columbia is higher than the national average.

What

does child poverty mean? We have two recent studies in the last month

by the federal government that show that the death rates for poor

children are 56 percent higher than those of higher income families.

Poverty

is literally robbing our children's future. A Harvard medical study, in

the last year, has shown a direct link between poor nutrition and the

ability to learn. Poor children are twice as likely to drop out of

school as other children. The result is a vicious cycle of poverty and

dependence.

This government has no commitment to removing

these inequities. Last year, for example, the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing underspent its allocation by $25 million; the

ministry responsible for dealing with poverty underspent its allocation

by $25 million. This government has no commitment to fairness and no

commitment to assisting those in greatest need. The government has a

commitment to one thing: to help their friends and insiders. That is

why British Columbians again have lost confidence in this government;

that's why they want a change in government; that's why they support

this side of the house in greater numbers than ever before. They know

that we have a commitment to fairness; they know we will introduce

programs to help women; they know we will ensure real pay equity, and

that we will help those in need. This government simply ignores the

grim reality of many of our citizens. It pretends it doesn't exist, or

it blames the victims.

This government has been unfair, as

well, to aboriginal people. Many of our first citizens live in

intolerable conditions and are systematically discriminated against.

The consequences of this treatment are well documented: high rates of

unemployment on most Indian reserves — 50 percent to 80 percent —

widespread poverty and inadequate housing. Mortality rates among native

infants are twice as high as non-native infants in British Columbia.

These problems cannot be corrected by a paternalistic government in

Victoria. Aboriginal people require access to land and to resources in

order to create the economic opportunities essential to their continued

survival.

Yet this budget completely ignores the question

of aboriginal land claims. It continues the Social Credit government's

steadfast refusal to discuss the land claims question with native

people. In fact, this government has spent more than $100 million in

taxpayers' money on expensive and time-consuming litigation in the

courts. When questioned on land claims, the Premier stated that he

doesn't believe there are any.

Everybody loses from this

government's intransigence. Native people are forced to rely on

government assistance and substandard services, while they press their

claims in court. Non-natives find their economic opportunities

threatened, as court decisions tie up economic activities over large

areas.

New Democrats are committed to the resolution of

land claims in British Columbia. We believe that justice for British

Columbia's native people is a win-win proposition. It will stimulate

sustainable economic development in aboriginal communities, breaking

the cycle of poverty and dependence. It will inject millions of new

federal dollars into communities and businesses throughout British

Columbia. It will end investment uncertainty and facilitate badly

needed employment in both native and non-native communities.

British

Columbians want a government whose budgeting reflects the social and

economic priorities for the 1990s. They want a budget that protects the

environment, because they know that the beauty of this province and the

well-being of its residents depend on a healthy environment. They know

that a sound economy depends upon a sound environment. They know that

without new policies and new actions, we are all at risk. This was the

message carried so cogently and eloquently by Mme. Gro Harlem

Brundtland in Our Common Future . It is a message which tells us....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

just wait, and we'll get to the better policies that we'll propose, Mr.

Member. The message of Gro Harlem Brundtland tells us of choice —

a choice between innovative and thoughtful solutions to achieve

sustainable development, and the other choice, which is inaction that

threatens our very quality of life and our economic well-being.

This

government in this budget has clearly and unequivocally chosen

inaction. It ignores the calls by British Columbians for leadership and

commitment to solving our environmental problems. It ignores the

imaginative and thoughtful solutions so convincingly articulated by

Mme. Brundtland in Our Common Future ; it ignores common sense.

[ Page 9072 ]

Through

successive budgets this government has gutted the Ministry of

Environment. In last year's budget, the government had the audacity to

include spending on the Vancouver Island pipeline and burning wood and

coal as environmental programs. Only a Social Credit government would

describe building a pipeline and burning coal as the touchstones of an

environmental action plan. Sadly this budget again reflects no

commitment to the environment.

The government proposes a

new sustainable development fund, yet the fund is largely a repackaging

of existing programs and spending. Existing reforestation spending of

$212 million has been transferred to the fund as if it were new. A

vehicle emission inspection program is promised again, for the third

time. A hazardous waste management strategy is announced again as a new

initiative. Funding for existing agencies, such as the Forest Resources

Commission and the Round Table on Environment and Economy, is alleged

to be new.

What is new, Mr. Speaker? A $3 per tire disposal

levy which the government says will prevent a crisis similar to the

fire in Ontario. A $3 tax on tires, that's what's new. Only a Social

Credit government would think that imposing a $3 tire tax would solve

our disposal problem of tires in British Columbia. Only Social Credit

would think that removing the sales tax exemption and taxing disposable

diapers would have any impact on waste management. How many fewer

disposable diapers are going to be purchased next year in British

Columbia because this government is now taxing them? None.

The

government's environmental initiatives are repackaging of programs.

There's no action, no commitment and no imagination. The result is a

continuing neglect and a continuing decay.

Pulp and paper

pollution in this province remains an international disgrace. Last year

I cited independent studies by the University of Victoria and by the

federal government which show that existing pollution standards for

major industries are routinely unenforced. What progress has been made

since last year? A report last month by the West Coast Environmental

Law Association's research foundation states that every pulp mill in

British Columbia is in violation of its provincial air and water

pollution permits with respect to one or more pollutants. Every single

pulp mill is breaking the pollution permits that were granted. Of those

21 pulp mills, 17 are classified as having serious environmental

problems. That is the progress since last year — 17 pulp mills with serious environmental problems.

December 1, 1988, portions of Howe Sound and Morse Basin in Prince

Rupert were closed to shell-fishing due to high dioxin levels. On June

15, 1989, the shellfish closures were extended to include crab, shrimp

and prawns in nearly all of Howe Sound; shellfish in Porpoise Harbour

and the coast island area surrounding Prince Rupert. On November 1,

1989, the new Minister of Environment decided to act. Relying on his

considerable expertise as a scientist and his environmental expertise,

he boldly pronounced: "There are no more dioxins going into the water

and if you want to go to Howe Sound to eat crab with me, I'll take you

any time." Just three weeks after the minister's invitation, the

federal government announced closures of seven additional areas in

British Columbia due to dioxin levels in the shellfish.

is time that we have a financial commitment to cleaning up our pulp

mills and providing a model for the world on how to achieve sustainable

development. Lack of commitment to sustainable development in our

forest industry has jeopardized employment and created a divisive and

needless conflict between logging and wilderness preservation.

recent study by Simon Fraser University shows a backlog of not

satisfactorily restocked forest land of 553,000 hectares. That amount

of NSR land exceeds the total area proposed by environmentalists for

preservation by a ratio of two to one. If this government could only

ensure that reforestation and silviculture were given as high a

priority as cutting down trees, we could preserve wilderness areas and

maintain an adequate supply of timber to protect existing employment in

the forest industry. This is the type of commitment a New Democratic

government will have to solve this unnecessary and divisive conflict— a commitment which leaves everyone better off. A win-win commitment, Mr. Speaker.

lack of commitment to sustainable development in agriculture is also

jeopardizing our food supply. We witness this government's approval of

the development of agricultural land to increase the profits of

developers — promoting, again, in agricultural land the narrow self-interest at the expense of British Columbians.

January of this year the Greater Vancouver Regional District issued a

report on environmental problems in Burrard Inlet. The report

documented excessive levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons — PAHs —

which are known to cause cancer. It also documented high levels of

PCBs, copper, zinc, lead and raw sewage. The report by the GVRD was a

plea for action after years of Social Credit neglect of the Burrard

Inlet. Where is the provincial leadership and commitment to solving

this problem?

[11:15]

Victoria is one of the few cities in North America still dumping raw

sewage into the ocean. Vancouver is cited as having one of the most

serious air pollution problems in North America. Most people associate

the kind of pollution problems we see in parts of the Burrard Inlet as

California-only problems. We have among the worst air pollution

problems in parts of the Burrard Inlet in North America.

British

Columbia has one of the worst records on recycling of waste. We recycle

2 percent of our waste, compared to 10 percent in the United States, 16

percent in Germany and 51 percent In Japan. Where is the leadership on

recycling? Where is the vision? Where is the commitment to

environmental health? When British Columbians are looking for action on

waste pollution, the government responds by inviting them to eat toxic

shellfish. When British Columbians

[ Page 9073 ]

are looking for action on recycling of waste, the government's action is to reward its friends.

When

British Columbians are looking for creative solutions to wilderness and

forestry conflicts, the government takes action which leaves everyone

worse off. When British Columbians are looking for protection of our

agricultural land base, the government responds by sacrificing land for

the benefit of its friends. This is a government without vision,

imagination or commitment; this is a government that has been in office

too long.

On this side of the House, we have listened to

British Columbians' concerns about the environment. We have met with

groups across this province, we have talked to local and international

experts, and we have developed an environmental policy with vision and

commitment, because we recognize the importance of a healthy

environment.

In one budget we could provide the funds

necessary for the enforcement of air and water pollution regulations.

We would provide funds for monitoring. We would introduce a

comprehensive environmental impact assessment system to ensure that all

industries are designed in a manner consistent with a healthy

environment. We would create a new air pollution control agency to

develop and implement an air pollution strategy for our major urban

areas We would provide funding for sewage treatment, to improve our

water quality. We would tighten land use regulations, to protect the

erosion of our agricultural land. We would set up a self-financing

utility to handle recycling in the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

would make a commitment to reforestation to increase the supply of

timber available for harvesting, thereby allowing us to protect

employment in our forest industry while preserving sufficient

wilderness areas to meet the needs of British Columbians.

would look to innovative approaches such as green taxes, which

encourage environmentally sensitive behaviour while generating revenue

for environmental programs. For example, we would set an effluent

charge on all pulp mills based on the amount of pollution generated. In

this budget, they say they're going to increase effluent charges not

just on pulp mills but on municipalities; that will generate a grand

total of $2 million. That is simply a licence to pollute. We need real

penalties, real fees and real taxes on polluters in this province to

generate revenue to clean up the mess, the legacy left by Social Credit.

Such

a polluter-pay policy would provide an incentive to pulp mills to

reduce their toxic emissions while generating revenue to support

research into new environmental abatement technology, which could then

form the basis of a new high-technology export industry to assist other

countries in cleaning up the environment. This is the type of

innovative and imaginative approach we are prepared to take: one that

protects our environment, taxes pollution instead of people, and

generates new high-technology industries, exporting environmental

expertise and technology throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker,

in reply to last year's budget, I pointed to the housing crisis created

by this government's record of inaction and neglect: its failure to

introduce programs for affordable rental housing, which caused vacancy

rates in the lower mainland to fall; its failure to reintroduce

effective protection for renters, which led to unconscionable rent

increases throughout the province; and its failure to introduce

programs to increase the supply of land for housing, which has led to

rising housing prices and an end to the dream of home-ownership for

most working British Columbians.

In last year's budget, the

Minister of Finance announced a provincial housing action plan, which,

he claimed, "addresses the issues of affordability of housing...and the

supply of rental accommodation." I predicted at that time that this

series of ad hoc measures and subsidies to wealthy developers would do

little to solve the housing crisis. Unfortunately, my predictions have

proven to be an understatement. Last year's programs did absolutely

nothing to ease the housing crisis in British Columbia; it is worse

today than it was a year ago. This year the Royal Bank of Canada's

affordability index showed that Vancouver has surpassed Toronto as the

least affordable place to live, with the least affordable housing in

Canada. Our major urban areas — the entire lower mainland — are now the least affordable. The dream of home-ownership is now even more remote for most British Columbians.

For

renters the situation has gone from bad to worse. Continuing low

vacancy rates, combined with this government's refusal to protect

tenants, have led to a feeding frenzy by many landlords. Huge,

unconscionable rent increases are literally forcing tenants from their

homes. Let me cite a few of the dozens of examples which have occurred

in the last month: the Morningside townhouse complex in Victoria — rent increases of 40 percent; View Towers in Victoria — rent increases of 60 percent; Centennial Manor, North Vancouver — a tenant's rent was raised 45 percent; another tenant in the same building — an 80-year-old woman living on a pension of $750 a month — has a rent increase of 55 percent, from $400 to $620; Beacon Hill Apartments in North Vancouver —

rents for a one-bedroom apartment are raised from $620 to $850; in New

Westminster, a 75-year-old pensioner living on $1,000 a month sees a

rent increase of 30 percent, to $595 a month; and in the Kerrisdale

district of Vancouver, hundreds of long-term tenants are forced to move

as their apartment buildings are demolished to make way for luxury

condominiums.

In this budget, Mr. Speaker, you would think

there would be something to address the crisis for renters, the crisis

of affordability for housing — and there are no new housing

initiatives in this budget. There is a continuation of the failed

programs that the government introduced last year. The government talks

about 8,000 affordable rental units. As of April 6, 1990, only 62 units

had been completed, and they're

[ Page 9074 ]

hardly

affordable. The average rent requires an income of over $32,000. The

government has no commitment to provide affordable housing. The neglect

has gone on long enough. British Columbians are demanding that their

government take action.

New Democrats have put forward

again a new and innovative housing program for the 1990s. We will

restore the dream of home-ownership for British Columbians by working

with municipalities and builders to provide 5,000 economical starter

homes for young families and first-time homebuyers.

We will

exempt first-time homebuyers from the property purchase tax. We will

relieve speculative pressures on housing prices by taxing windfall

profits made by speculators who flip houses. We will introduce an

effective land-banking program to increase the number of serviced lots

for housing, and we will create a B.C. savings and trust corporation to

work with credit unions to reduce mortgage rates in British Columbia.

government, we will move to end the rental housing crisis by

introducing effective rent stabilization legislation to protect tenants

against unfair and unjustifiable rent increases and arbitrary

evictions. We will double the number of non-profit and cooperative

housing units started each year, leasing or selling Crown land to

encourage the construction of low-cost rental housing, rather than

simply selling large parcels to a single developer.

These

are the types of innovative solutions to our housing problems which we

are committed to. These are the types of actions which will be

undertaken when we form the government very shortly.

Adequate

levels of investment in human resources and social capital are equally

as important as our investment in natural resources. Both are essential

for our long-term economic and social development. However, the record

of Social Credit government in developing our human resources is just

as bad as it is in protecting our natural resources. We have lagged

behind in the key areas of social capital: education, health, housing,

transportation and social services. In place of a well-thought-out plan

for the province, we have had a decade of neglect.

The most

important priority in ensuring an economic future for our children is

education. Our success in moving from a resource-dependent economy,

vulnerable to world market fluctuations, to a more sustainable

self-reliant society will depend on the quality of our educational

institutions and the ability of our children to take advantage of the

new economic opportunities of the 1990s in environmental enterprises,

in new value-added manufacturing, in marketing new ideas and

technologies to the Pacific Rim. It will all depend on the priority we

give to education.

This government, in its expensive,

high-profile advertising paid for by the taxpayers, has tried very hard

to portray itself as a champion of education in this province. It

clothes its policies in catchy phrases. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is

quite different. In the public education system, our spending per pupil

in 1989 was among the lowest in Canada. Despite the rhetoric, we still

spend one of the lowest per capita per pupil in all of Canada. The

underfunding of the public education system by the Socred government

put an increasing pressure on property taxpayers to maintain the

quality of our system. As a result, between 1982 and 1990, residential

school property taxes paid by homeowners jumped an average of 14

percent annually.

The commitment of this government in last

year's budget to implement the recommendations of the Sullivan

commission provided some hope that this decade of neglect would be

reversed. Sadly, this is not the case. This government has recently

introduced legislation which gives it total control over the finances

of school districts. Anybody concerned about education, who sees a

Social Credit government take complete control of financing education,

should be worried.

It now requires all spending above the

levels determined by this government to be approved by referendum. This

is nothing more than a cynical attempt to pit parents and school boards

against property owners, to combine a pre-election tiny property-tax

cut with a campaign to convince British Columbians that spendthrift

school boards and teachers — not government neglect — are to blame for increases in school property taxes.

With

this single act, with referendums, the Social Credit government has

created chaos and uncertainty in our school system. Instead of renewed

cooperation between government and school boards, as recommended by the

Sullivan commission, we now have a return to confrontation, conflict

and instability.

How can school boards provide effectively

for our children's education if they don't know from year to year

whether provincial funding will be adequate or whether the referendum

necessary to overcome the shortfall will be successful? How can schools

confidently develop long-range educational programs when those programs

could be eliminated next year because of inadequate funding?

Nine

school districts have already been forced to go to referendum. In the

Richmond School District, the Premier has publicly come out in

opposition to the extra money which must be raised by referendum to

protect the quality of education. Another six school districts have

declined to go to referendum because the odds are stacked against them.

Instead, the trustees say — as they've said in North Vancouver — they will have to increase class size, lay off staff, cut maintenance and cut earthquake safety programs.

summary, Mr. Speaker, referendums have never worked in the United

States; they didn't work in British Columbia. In the short term, they

create instability and confusion, and in the long run, they lead to a

two-tiered education system in which the quality of our children's

education varies according to the income of the homeowners.

contrast, New Democrats believe that achieving a high-quality education

for all our children should be the primary goal of our education

policy. We believe that responsibility for funding should be shared

between the provincial government and dem-

[ Page 9075 ]

ocratically

elected school boards. We believe that block funding levels should meet

the basic educational needs of all regions of the province. It is

possible to combine property tax relief for homeowners with local

accountability in a high-quality education system.

[11:30]

The record of this government on post-secondary education is no

better. Over the last decade our universities have been systematically

underfunded, while our post-secondary education participation rate is

among the lowest in the country. In this budget the government

announces again its so-called Access for All policy and claims to raise

student assistance by $8 million. But last year the government cut $7.5

million for student assistance, so what they've done is restore a cut.

That inconsistency is symptomatic of a government which is not really

committed to access to post-secondary education.

Since 1980, college tuition fees have risen by an average annual rate of 14 percent —

more than double the rate of inflation. University tuition fees have

increased by an average of 11 percent a year. British Columbia's

university tuition fees are now among the highest in Canada, yet this

government dismisses the concerns of students by saying that high

tuition rates don't pose a barrier to post-secondary education. The

budget contains no relief from rising tuition fees. The reality is that

low- and middle-income British Columbians are paying taxes to fund

post-secondary education only to find their families are shut out by

ever-increasing costs.

A New Democratic government would

address this problem head-on by introducing a moratorium on tuition fee

increases and a comprehensive review of student assistance programs.

Child

care is a necessity for a majority of British Columbia families. Today

in British Columbia there are 300,000 children under 12 who need

non-parental supplementary care on a full-time or part-time basis

because their parents are working. Currently there are only 20,000

spaces licensed in British Columbia.

The waiting-list for

infant child care at Simon Fraser University, for example, is over two

years. At Simon Fraser, parents are forced to register their children

before they're even conceived. The salary of a senior supervisor in a

day care centre is one-third less than the starting wage for a

zookeeper. That's what we pay our custodians of children in British

Columbia.

This government remains one of the few in

Canada that continues to refuse to provide operating grants or start-up

grants for child care, despite the evidence that shows a good day care

actually saves money by allowing parents to work. This is a bottom-line

government that can't even see the bottom line. It is time we had a

comprehensive child care system in British Columbia. It's time that we

stopped using the federal government inaction as an excuse and

developed our own child care program. Just as Saskatchewan took the

initiative in developing a medicare system which became a model for the

rest of Canada, British Columbia should have the vision and the

commitment to provide national leadership on child care, and that is a

commitment we have on this side of the House.

Last year I

observed that the major health care preoccupation of this government

was with increasing premiums and user fees. I also observed last year

that this government's poor planning led to long waiting-lists for

surgery of all kinds. Mr. Speaker, shortages of nurses and other key

medical staff have increased the problem of hospital waiting-lists over

the last year.

Let me cite just a few examples: Victoria

hospitals now have 6,500 people on surgery waiting-lists; Prince George

Regional Hospital has 600 people waiting for elective surgery, with an

average wait of six to eight weeks; Royal Inland Hospital has more than

2,300 people waiting for elective surgery, with waits of four to five

months for some procedures; Langley Memorial Hospital has 492 people on

its waiting-list, with waits up to five months.

The problem

is most critical for heart patients. There are now more than 700 people

waiting for heart surgery in British Columbia. Of those, 400 are

considered urgent. This represents, in one year, a 75 percent increase

in the number of people waiting for heart surgery in British Columbia.

Patients have waited up to ten months for heart surgery, and at least

12 people have died awaiting surgery in the last year. The government's

response to this crisis, to their own lack of foresight and planning,

has been to send patients to the United States for surgery. It is

unacceptable in a rich province like ours that we are forced to send

patients out of the country for essential surgery.

Yet

there is not even any mention in this budget of the crisis facing our

health care system. There is no plan to end surgery waiting-lists and

no assurance that any of the 11.3 percent increase in this year's

health budget will be devoted to achieving this most critical goal.

Let

me turn to the matter of fiscal competence. British Columbians not only

want a government which is fair and which is in tune with the

priorities of its citizens; they also want a government which can

manage the taxpayers' money competently, which budgets soundly and

lives within its means over the full economic cycle, and that knows how

to get the greatest possible value for each dollar of taxpayers' money.

decade of Social Credit rule has been a decade of mismanagement. Social

Credit led British Columbia in the 1980s with an accumulated debt of

$8.5 billion. After ten years of Social Credit, our provincial debt has

now doubled to $16.9 billion. This year it's planning a deficit of $684

million at the peak of the economic cycle when we should be running a

surplus.

Has this government managed public assets wisely?

There was a $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla Highway and close to

a billion dollars in northeast coal, which is on the verge of

bankruptcy. Then there's the sale of one of the most valuable pieces of

real estate in North America: the Expo

[ Page 9076 ]

lands.

In 1988 this government sold the Expo lands to a single offshore

developer, Concord Pacific, for a price of $140 million. The cost of

acquiring these lands by the previous Bennett government was $113

million — an apparent profit of $27 million. Then we learned that

the government would be completely responsible for cleaning up the

contaminated soils on the site at a cost ranging from $40 million to

$100 million. We also learned that the government will have to buy back

land for affordable housing at a cost of $30 million.

This

means that the government of British Columbia will end up losing

between $40 million and $100 million on the Expo sale — losing

money on the most valuable piece of real estate in North America to

subsidize a foreign-owned development corporation. Only a Social Credit

government could lose money on the most valuable piece of real estate

in North America during a booming property market.

If this

government operated in the public interest instead of promoting the

interests of its friends and insiders, it would have realized an

estimated $500 million profit for local builders, as was done in False

Creek. If this government had operated in the public interest instead

of promoting its friends and insiders, there would be an extra $500

million today in revenue, which could be used to clean up the

environment, improve health and education services and cut taxes for

hard-pressed middle- and low-income families. Five hundred million

dollars was lost on the Expo lands deal; that's $500 for every family

in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's not hard to

understand why British Columbians have lost confidence in this

government. This government has no commitment to tax fairness; it has

no commitment to women; it has no commitment to affordable housing, and

it has no commitment to openness and honesty. It is a tired government

that has run out of ideas. It is a government that is out of touch with

British Columbians. It is a government that needs a long rest in

opposition.

British Columbians are looking for a government

that is committed to tax fairness. They are looking for a government

that understands their priorities and concerns. They are looking for a

government that is honest.

On this side of the House, we

are committed to tax fairness; that is why we will introduce, in our

first budget, tax relief for middle- and lower-income British

Columbians. We are committed to the environment; that is why we are

prepared to enforce environmental laws. We are committed to equality

for women; that is why we will introduce pay equity and provide the

budget support to implement it. We are committed to quality education;

that is why we will end shortsighted funding by referendums. We are

committed to innovative housing programs and to health care. Above all,

we are committed to honesty in government.

This is a

beautiful province. We have a rich resource base. We have a highly

skilled and talented population. We have potential second to none. We

have the opportunity to lead the world in innovations and imaginative

policies, and we look forward, very shortly, to providing leadership

and commitment so that we can realize our full potential.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and

Technology (Hon. Mr. Strachan), I move adjournment of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

Just before we adjourn, I would like to remind the House that we will sit on Wednesday next at 2 p.m.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1990, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada