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)

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9295 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 9296

Oral Questions

Chilcotin land use conflicts. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 9296

Budget deficit. Mr. Williams –– 9296

Additional school district funding. Ms. A. Hagen –– 9297

Government policy on tuna purchases. Mr. Mowat –– 9297

Forestry information fees. Mr. Miller –– 9297

Illicit use of drugs. Mr. Huberts –– 9298

Tabling Documents –– 9298

Budget Debate

Mr. Bruce –– 9298

Mr. Cashore –– 9302

Hon. J. Jansen –– 9306

Mr. Jones –– 9310

Mr. Peterson –– 9313

Mr. Blencoe –– 9316

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9319

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

It is my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Tony Joy, newly

appointed consul-general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver. Mr. Joy

has just recently moved to Vancouver from Delhi, India. We welcome him

and his family to our great province. Would the House please wish him a

warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : I would like to let

members of the House know that in the gallery today are two people

visiting us from Australia. They have been cycling around the world and

have just cycled up here from San Francisco. They plan to go all the

way to Alaska on their trip around the world. No, I'm not going, for

those who are wondering. Would all members please join me in welcoming

Julie Bros and John Siedel.

MR. PELTON : Hon.

members, in the gallery today we have two students visiting us from

Simon Fraser University: Brent Mueller and Julia Watson. Would you

please make them welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK : It is my

pleasure today to introduce members of the Child Welfare League of

America, I am very pleased to let you know that the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing has recently joined the Child Welfare League of

America. Membership in the CWLA is one of the steps my ministry has

taken to reinforce and strengthen our commitment to quality service.

Since

1920, the league has been a leader in the child welfare field. Almost

600 government and voluntary child welfare agencies participate in

league activities, including publications, conferences, training,

development of standards, public awareness and public information.

With

us today are: Miss Joan McIntosh, director of the western office; Miss

Maryanne Xavier, director of member services; and Mr. Dean Damel,

senior field consultant for Canada. Joining them is the superintendent

of family and child service, Leslie Arnold, the mother of 6,000

children. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. WILLIAMS :

In the galleries and on the grounds today are 150 students from Laura

Secord Elementary School in Vancouver East. That happens to be the alma

mater of Mr. Dave Barrett, present MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. I

think we might welcome them because of the likely trouble they might

represent in the future.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I rise to ask the assembly to welcome to Victoria and

to the precincts of this Legislative Assembly the members of the Greater Vancouver

and Fraser Valley Real Estate Boards. Would this assembly please make them welcome.

MRS. BOONE :

In the gallery today is John Ricketts, newly nominated candidate for

the Prince George-Omineca riding. I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming him.

MR. DE JONG : I'm pleased to introduce

to the House today, together with the first member for Central Fraser

Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck), two school groups from our riding. There are

20 students from Yale Secondary School, who are with their teacher, Mr.

Lee. They are somewhere on the premises, although not in the gallery.

However, in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are about 19 students from the

Pacific Christian School of Mount Lehman, with their principal, Mr.

Klassen, and several parents. I ask the House to wish them all a

pleasant welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN : It is my great

pleasure today to welcome and introduce to the House two Soviet

Georgian exchange students who have spent the year at the University of

Victoria. The first one is Levan Kverenchkilavze, who is majoring in

is Merab Manjgaladze, who is studying Canadian and U.S. history in his

fourth year. They are accompanied by Dr. Nicholas Galichenko, who is a

professor of Slavonic studies. These two students will be returning to

Soviet Georgia over the next couple of months.

I'm also

pleased to welcome today my wife's uncle from Trail, Fred Robbins, who

has just celebrated his eighty-sixth birthday. He has spent many years

in volunteer work in the province. Please bid them welcome.

MR. SERWA :

Mr. Speaker, seated in your galleries are approximately 25 political

science students, accompanied by their professor, Mr. Donald Balmer.

The students are from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. They

are the latest in a series of groups that have visited the Legislature

since 1957. This morning I had the opportunity to speak about the great

British Columbia Social Credit Party and our excellent government here

in British Columbia. Would the House please make welcome our good

friends and neighbours from Portland, Oregon.

MR. ROSE :

In joining the first member for Okanagan South in welcoming these

graduate students from Lewis and Clark, I would like to say that I am

looking forward to meeting them this afternoon, and I will be telling

them about the Social Credit Party too.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In the precincts this morning and visiting with a variety of ministries

and ministers and seated in the House now are the executive of the

British Columbia Institute of Technology student association. They are:

Dave Souder, the president; Duff Gardener, president-elect; Adrian

Wilson, the council member who is from Creston; and Lorne Hildebrand,

the executive director. Would the

[ Page 9296 ]

members of the Legislative Assembly please make the BCIT student association executive welcome.

MR. CASHORE :

I would like to add my welcome to Mr. Fred Robbins. I've known Fred for

many years in Trail, and Fred has had a tremendous influence on a great

many young people in the Kootenays, especially working through Camp

Koolaree, so I am glad to add my welcome to Fred.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf and on yours as well, I would like to

introduce to the House two people from Vancouver who are known to you

and me, and who have done a great number of good things in the

province, including volunteering and working and contributing. I would

like the House to make welcome Will and Patricia Preston.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Visiting the House today are Sarah Heywood, daughter of Deputy Minister

Claude Heywood, and 12 grade 5 students from her social studies class

at St. Margaret's School in Victoria. I would like the House to give

them a warm welcome.

Hon. Mr. Speaker tabled the 1989 annual report of the ombudsman.

Oral Questions

CHILCOTIN LAND USE CONFLICTS

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Has the Minister of

Forests commenced negotiations with the Toosey Indian band and other

resource users in the southeast Chilcotin to resolve costly and

disruptive land use conflicts and to ensure an orderly flow of timber

to the mills in Williams Lake after breakup?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Yes.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

A supplementary. I have written to the minister twice on this issue.

Can he tell the House which forest user groups and government agencies

are involved in the process and when he expects a negotiated solution

to these conflicts?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : No.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Is the question "why" in order, Mr. Speaker? I would ask the minister

why he won't tell us. The reason I ask the question is that there's a

lot of fear and concern on the part of both parties. I would like to

know why the minister won't make known the process of discussions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The member's question, Mr. Speaker, was: can the minister tell us when

these negotiations with the user groups will be concluded? The answer

is no, I can't. But I can tell you that I have had meetings with

several user groups throughout the province and that this government is

committed to involving the native Indians wherever possible in the

economic part of forestry in this province. To that end, I have met

with several native Indian bands throughout the province and have

meetings scheduled with others. I believe the first meeting is

scheduled with the Toosey band next Monday or Tuesday, and I am going

to Williams Lake to meet with them. I have met with other bands in that

area. I have also met with bands in the northern and coastal parts of

the province in regard to timber supply, because we want very much to

involve them in the economics of the forest industry.

[2:15]

BUDGET DEFICIT

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the hon. Premier. Peat Marwick Thorne and Peat Marwick Stevenson and

Kellogg, Canada's largest accounting firm, state on page 1 in this

review of the budget that there's a real deficit of $502 million this

year. Will the Premier ask the Minister of Finance to quit smearing the

integrity of this accounting firm of some 6, 000 members and accept the

conclusion that the budget is indeed not balanced?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, it's coincidence perhaps, but I have a whole big file in

front of me, and I'm just reading this one rather extensive report from

Rampart Capital Corp., wherein they say that they enclose their latest

issue of their economic overview, which is now read by more than 1,000

investors, banks and government officials, etc., in 16 European

countries. I haven't read all the detail, but it certainly appears

extremely complimentary. I expect we will go through all of this pile

and find many more that are extremely complimentary about the balanced

budget we have this year — as we had last year and as we will have next year and the year after.

MR. WILLIAMS :

On page 2 of this same report by Peat Marwick, our country's largest

accounting firm, they refer to "a manufactured surplus." This company,

Peat Marwick, has offices in Abbotsford, Barrie, Bathurst, Brampton,

Brockville, Calgary, Cambridge, Chatham, Chilliwack, Cranbrook,

Dartmouth, Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Fredericton, Grimsby....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Perhaps if the member wishes to table the list of the

offices, it would be worthwhile. Now would you please come back to the

question.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Premier, are you saying that Canada's largest accounting firm doesn't know what it's talking about?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I have here a letter, which again is one of many, and it represents, I

believe, something in excess of 10,000 such offices, so I won't begin

to name them all. It's the Institute of

[ Page

9297 ]

Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. They

say; "There is lot's to laud and little to fault in this year's

provincial budget." And on they go. And certainly they say, too, that

they "could nitpick and find small things to criticize." But: "Overall

we have to say our provincial government could give lessons in fiscal

integrity and smart money management to the federal government."

ADDITIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

MS. A. HAGEN :

My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister's last-minute

attempt to correct inequities in block funding by providing an extra

$4.8 million to 22 school districts has created great confusion in

those districts facing referenda. How does the minister explain this

last-minute decision — as political interference or simply incompetence?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Of course, the short answer is neither. The budget for the districts

when they were initially calculated — and I think reasonably so — was

the total of the provincial grant and the supplementary amount. That

indicated the total expenditures. It's still a correct figure. Some

people raised a point, but it changed the position between districts,

because their supplementary amount was affected by whether they used

the previous year's surplus to hold down the supplementary amount. That

came to our attention.

Yes, we could have just said: "No

adjustments." But whenever we find a legitimate adjustment is

warranted, then we act on it. In this case we checked to see how many

districts were in a position where putting their surplus in would put

them at a disadvantage to the others, particularly as they could carry

forward their surpluses in the future. It involved about 22 districts,

and Surrey happened to be one of them.

Last Wednesday

afternoon we phoned them and said that this was now added into their

budget in fairness to those other districts, and they could adjust

themselves accordingly. So I think it was a responsible action on our

part.

The answer to the member's next question is no, I don't intend to change it.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Supplementary to the Minister of Education. Would the minister agree

that providing this funding at the last minute — after that board had

sought for weeks to meet with you and had pointed out the problem they

were facing — when

it was too late to incorporate it in the ballot or too little to avoid

a referendum, actually jeopardized the outcome of the Surrey referendum?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : First of all, Surrey was notified last Wednesday afternoon.

They had time to change the ballot, had they chosen to do so. Secondly, since

they are going to referendum for what they have dearly said are extra necessary

items, if and when the referendum passes, they can submit a final budget. At

that time they can reduce their final budget by that amount or they can have

that money to do the things they want to.

is not jeopardizing the referendum. Their referendum was for extra

items not included in the block funding. The block funding is a little

bit bigger now, and they can adjust their operations accordingly.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TUNA PURCHASES

MR. MOWAT :

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. In view

of the minister's new policy of supporting only dolphin-friendly tuna,

will he undertake to provide purchasers in the province with the

information needed to ensure that they will be able to cooperate in

helping to protect the dolphin by encouraging the purchase of dolphin

friendly tuna?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I can assure the

hon. member that we will do everything we can in this province to

ensure that when tuna is bought, it is in fact dolphin friendly. We're

asking for total certification at source — where the tuna comes from before it is processed — that it is dolphin-friendly.

think it's important to recognize that we have a concern about the

marine biology of the Pacific Ocean, where a lot of the tuna is caught.

I believe very strongly — as we did on the driftnet issues that we led

in this province on driftnet issues, as you well know, and we will

continue to do so. Therefore I'm very cognizant, and I have advised

members who are sourcing tuna — outside sources — that they certify it is in fact dolphin-friendly.

FORESTRY INFORMATION FEES

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Forests imposed a $50 per hour

fee on people who legitimately requested information from his ministry,

and this has obviously thwarted the legitimate desires of people to get

information about what's happening on our Crown lands. Has the minister

now decided to eliminate this unnecessary charge and to make

information on forestry freely available to the public?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

All information is freely available to the public in this province

regarding anything we do in the ministry up to a certain point, which

involves person-hours. If it involves more than the normal request and

would take a staff person's time for an inordinate length of time, then

there is a charge attached to it.

We're reviewing the

policy to see if it indeed is having the desired effect but, more

importantly, to make sure that it is not curtailing any information

from those who genuinely require it or genuinely need it up to — as we say — a

certain point. But as you can imagine, some information regarding

forestry harvesting plans requires hours and hours of research and

compiling of information. If we get some organizations requesting the

information time after time, there is a tremendous cost to it. So we are

[ Page 9298 ]

reviewing the policy to make sure it is not working a hardship on anyone and to make sure it's fair to everybody.

MR. MILLER :

I have a new question to the minister. Written and verbal requests for

information on tree-farm licences have been denied to the people of

British Columbia when they approach your ministry. Could the minister

explain why people who request information on Crown lands and TFLs are

being denied this information?

I'll quote very briefly from

a letter dated January 18 regarding an individual who requested

information: "In regards to your request for information on MacMillan

Bloedel scale information, this is confidential under the ministry's

access to information policy." If the minister is going to review the

fact that he's charging people for information in this province, would

he also undertake to have his ministry make available information on

waste billings and other information pertinent to TFLs available to the

public as well?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I am sure the

member must know that due to the very nature of the forest industry and

its competitiveness, some information is confidential. A lot of

information is not confidential, and in that case it is freely given.

If it is confidential information, then it will remain that way.

ILLICIT USE OF DRUGS

MR. HUBERTS :

One of my concerns is the illicit use of drugs by our teenagers. A new

drug called methamphetamine — popularly called "ice" — has

been introduced into the Victoria market. My question is to the

Solicitor-General. What are we as a government doing about preventing

the spread of that sort of drug in Victoria? Is there an educational

program, and are resources available to combat that drug as well as

other drugs?

HON. MR. FRASER : For the benefit of everybody in the House and the galleries,

the ministry is very much aware of the problems related to drugs in the province.

Certainly the officials of my ministry and those of the Attorney-General — in

fact, all of us — are making every effort to prevent the spread of drugs. Indeed,

we're prevailing upon the federal authorities to do something with respect

to the length of sentencing, so we are indeed addressing the question addressed

to me.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the auditor-general for the fiscal year ending March 1990.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, I finished off prior to lunchtime just mentioning a few

items about the budget this year, and I would like to carry on from

where I left off. I'm sure most of you would like to join with me in

talking about this budget, which I happen to think is a very good

budget for the province of British Columbia.

There's been

a tremendous amount of debate as to whether or not this budget is

balanced. Whether it's balanced or not — or whatever the words — a

few questions that you might want to ask are: has the deficit been

increased in this budget? The deficit has not been increased. We talk

about the aspect of debt reduction. Tell me, has the deficit been

reduced in this budget? Yes, it has been reduced. Tell me, has there

been increased spending in most of the social ministries in this

province in this budget? There, has been, has there not? Have there

been any tax increases? There have been no tax increases — none

whatsoever. Has there been property tax relief in the province? There

has been property tax relief in the province.

I really don't mind if the opposition has a hard time getting their

minds around whether the budget is balanced or not. The simple answer

to the whole question is: is it a good budget for the people of the

province? Most certainly it is.

[2:30]

Let me just carry on a little about what the budget means to the

people and what it means to our economy. The economy is fragile, and

it's important that we understand that and build with what we have to

shore up the economy. But while it may be somewhat fragile.... You

people would like to hear this because normally you — the members of the opposition — would

like to stand and talk about all the bankruptcies you may find in one

province or another, all the things that are going under and all the

bad things in this province and this country. Ladies and gentlemen, my

colleagues here and Mr. Speaker, there are good things happening in the

province.

You might want to take note of a column just written in the Vancouver Sun , and I know that you collectively read all of the columns in the Vancouver Sun ,

so I might just bring this one to your attention, because I didn't hear

any questions asked in question period relative to this. This is

relative to bankruptcies.

Did you know — and I'm sure my colleagues would agree — that

bankruptcies in British Columbia are at a lower rate than anywhere else

in Canada? I thought the members of the opposition might like to ask

some questions of cabinet about what is actually happening in the

economy, and how it affects some of these changes we're making and the

total economy.

If I could quote I'm sure you would like to hear what Jenny Lee had to say. It's a little column called "Your Money" in the Vancouver Sun , April 30, 1990. It says: "The rest of Canada may be heading into bankruptcy, but here in British Columbia we're

[ Page 9299 ]

doing just fine, thank you very much." Those are nice things to hear.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE :

If I can just go on a little bit.... I'm sure you would all like to

hear these words, because they're good words, and we'll come back to my

colleague here.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I must

ask the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) to restrain himself.

Thank you. You've been absent for some time, and the House has noticed

your absence; with your return, the House has noticed your repeated

heckling. Perhaps the member could try to just tone it down a bit.

MR. BRUCE :

Debating the budget is serious business, and I think it's something

that we in this House should deal with in a quiet and orderly fashion.

I'd

like to carry on, because this is something that the second member for

Victoria would like to hear, as would other members in the opposition.

Just

carrying on from the aspect of bankruptcies, it says here: "So although

consumer and business bankruptcies across Canada have soared 29 percent

in the first three months of 1990, British Columbia saw an increase of

only 1.75 percent for the same period, according to Consumer and

Corporate Affairs figures. 'In fact "' — and I think this is really important — "says

Doug Welbanks, chief of the B.C. debtor assistance branch in Vancouver,

'we've noticed at debtor assistance an improvement in the overall

financial health of people in the last two years.'"

friends, that is good news, and I'm sure that all of you join with me

in welcoming that news and sharing it with the people of the province.

This

budget has a number of good things to it, but we come particularly to

transportation and highways, and I'm very keen on what's taking place

in transportation and highways. The other day the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) had the gall to ask where I stand

in respect to the development of the Vancouver Island Highway. I have a

problem comprehending where this member might be coming from. Let me

tell you, my friends, in the spring of 1987 construction started on the

Island Highway on a

section called Tunnel Hill, which happens to be in

the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I make no bones about where

riding boundaries are. If there's a job to be done, I don't mind

getting on with the job and seeing it through to conclusion.

I got — and my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) would like to hear this — right

down there. I got in touch with the then Minister of Highways and said:

"The ministry owns all of the right-of-way. The plans have been done,

and the design work. It's all set to go. Can't we find enough dollars

right away to get on with that

section of highway?" I then went right

to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and said....

Interjections.

MR. BRUCE : Listen! I'll come back to that.

went right to the Minister of Finance. We needed $2.5 million to get

that project up and running. You will appreciate this, too, because you

drive that

section of road now. By the time the fall of 1987 came

around, not only was the job started, not only was that

section of road

moved from three lanes to four lanes, but it was all done. That's

action.

I say to you again: the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew has the gall to ask where I stand in regard to the Island

Highway development. My friends, let me tell you, I'm right there at

the lead, making sure that that highway construction is completed, not

only through Cowichan-Malahat but also through the entire route of

Vancouver Island. I wonder where that member stands when it comes to

the development of the Island Highway.

Sure, there are some

problems. Whenever there's development, whenever you are going to be

progressive, there are going to be problems. You're going to take a

route of road, and you're going to expand it. Then you're going to

impinge on people's property, on access to the highway. You could turn

tail, run away from that and say: "Gee, there are too many problems

here. I've got to satisfy all the special interest groups. If I have to

satisfy all the special interest groups, there's no way we're going to

get this project done."

Listen, my friends, it's needed.

It's needed for the economy; it's needed for the people of Vancouver

Island. The job will be done, and it will be done by consultation with

the people. Granted, there will be problems. But this government will

work out those problems with the people who are affected.

The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) — the highways critic — just

yesterday, if you can believe this, stood in this House and said in

regard to, the highways budget.... There were a lot of very big, long

words involved in this, so I might have to paraphrase a little bit. At

any rate, he said: "There is less money for transportation in this

provincial budget this year than there was last year." I looked at the

numbers. There's about $300,000 to $400,000 more this year than last

year. No wonder they don't understand whether or not this is a balanced

budget. There's $400,000 more this year in the budget than there was

last year. Yet the highways critic is commenting that he thinks there's

actually less money. The numbers clearly show that there is more money,

my friends.

All of these issues, these things that cause us

problems.... It is important that we know where people stand. One of

the biggest issues that have affected a number of us here on Vancouver

Island — and, really, throughout the province — is the Carmanah Valley.

Where do they stand on the Carmanah? Where does the member for Alberni

(Mr. G. Janssen), who spoke yesterday about it, stand? Is he in favour

of a park?

He talks about the fact there will be 150 jobs lost and that it will affect his riding. Do I take from that

[ Page 9300 ]

the

inference that he would have liked to have seen the entire Carmanah

clearcut and that he doesn't want to see a park established there? Is

that what the member for Alberni is saying — that he would like to see the entire Carmanah clearcut? I don't know.

What

about the two members for Nanaimo? Are they in favour of the Carmanah?

Are they in favour of the park that's been established? Or would they

have preferred that the entire Carmanah was saved? Not only would they

have lost, as that member says, 150 jobs, but maybe a couple of hundred

jobs. Where do they stand on that?

What about the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew? Where does he stand on the Carmanah? Is he

happy that we have a new park in the province, while at the same time

preserving jobs in the forest industry, which happens to be the

backbone not only of this province but of the economy of this country?

Do we hear from them?

What about the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) ? What does he think about the Carmanah?

friends, I am looking forward to debating the Carmanah legislation when

it is brought forward by this government. I'm looking forward to

finding out where the members over there actually stand. It's really

incredible. You wonder all the time where the NDP actually stand. Are

they in favour of higher income taxes or not? Some of their members say

that they are in favour of higher income taxes; and then, sometimes,

other members say they're not.

Yesterday there was an

exchange. I think it's important that we clarify it. I come along the

lines that the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) does. I will quote

him again, because I think what he says is important: "I think we are

all honourable members of this House, and we all like to come into this

House well prepared to set the facts straight and, if we're going to

make quotes, to make sure that those quotes reflect the honesty and

integrity of this House." I subscribe to that. I believe we should make

sure our quotes are correct.

The member for Alberni got up,

made a great to-do with respect to the Minister of Municipal Affairs'

(Hon. L. Hanson'

s) comments and inferred that perhaps the minister was

telling less than the whole truth, giving less than the entire

statement about what this member's colleague and friend, Mr. Krog, the

candidate for Parksville-Qualicum, had actually said in respect to his

beliefs on higher taxes. I think it is important that we read into the

record exactly what Mr. Krog did say.

Mr. Krog, a Nanaimo

lawyer, is going to run for the NDP in Parksville-Qualicum, and I will

quote his first statement. It is important that we are correct, not

only in the quotation but in the chronological order of these things

that were said. What Mr. Krog said initially on March 8, in Bowser at

an all-candidates meeting, was: "If we're going to be honest with the

people in the next election, that's what we're going to have to tell

the people of British Columbia; that these things" — that's programs — "are going to cost a great deal of money."

went on to promise higher corporate taxes, and he said: "Believe you

me, we're all going to have to pay higher income taxes." That is what

Mr. Krog said. I want to underline the fact that he said, "If we are

going to be honest with the people...we're going to have to tell them"

— we being the NDP, the opposition — "that we, " you and I, all of us

in this province, "are going to have to pay higher income taxes."

You

can imagine the ripple. You can imagine the storm that would have been

caused in the NDP caucus. I can bet you my bottom dollar that the

Leader of the Opposition was on the phone almost immediately when those

words came out of that candidate's mouth.

Then we had the

clarification which the member for Alberni read into the record, so we

are totally correct in the quotation and chronological order. Let me

read that quote. I am sure this was said after the Leader of the

Opposition had spoken to Mr. Krog:

[2:45]

"It

was my intention to remind everyone that good government requires

careful choices about which important programs and projects B.C. can

afford. I was speaking to the high expectations British Columbians have

about a New Democrat government, and I was calling for realism about

the cost of reversing years of Socred neglect."

Well, my

friends, it is extremely important that quotations are: (1) correct;

(2) complete; and (3) addressed to the House in the proper

chronological order. I am sure you would agree.

I have

heard members in this House stand and say there is nothing in this

budget to improve the lot of women in British Columbia. I really have a

hard. time when they say that, because there are a number of things in

this budget — and more that will be coming — that deal with the aspect of women in the workplace and in society as a whole.

They

will talk about the pay equity package, and some of them will stand up

and tell you that it's equal pay for equal work and all that sort of

stuff. But this government has proposed discussion In bringing in a pay

equity package which is equal pay for work of equal value, a very

comprehensive way of dealing with what's inherent in the workforce

today where the majority of women are in jobs that are lower-paying

than those of their male counterparts. I think it is important. It is

something that will cost an incredible amount of money, but it's

something this government is prepared to do in trying to balance the

situation in the workplace and improve the lot of women.

Let

me talk to you about the B.C. pension plan, the White Paper that's

going to be put together by this government and released for discussion

throughout the province. That's another important document. Not only

will it help small business persons without the ability to develop

their own pension plans, but it's also going to be extended to cover,

overall, women at home. That too has a significant impact, because in

our society right now — although it is changing — the majority of

people at home are women. This particular pension plan proposal will go

a long way.

[ Page 9301 ]

There

is nothing more important than making sure that those who contribute

greatly to the overall well-being of family — and, in the end result,

the majority of those people are women — are given the same pension

coverage similar to their spouse who may be out there in the workplace.

when somebody stands and says that there's nothing in this budget for

women, they clearly have not read the document. Apart from that, there

are a number of inherent programs in other ministries — through the

Ministries of Attorney-General, Women's Programs and others — which go

a long way to assisting women and which will greatly improve the lot of

women in this province.

Education

funding. By golly, we always hear from the opposition that there is

nothing in the budget for education funding. How can there be nothing

in the way of increases and funding in the Ministry of Education when

the total global budget for the ministry has gone up 15 percent and is

now pushing over $3 billion? Yet some people still have the audacity to

stand up and say there is not enough in the education budget. Well,

listen, not only has there been a 15 percent increase brought forward

this year, but inherent in that increase will be steps taken to address

and implement another whole range of the royal commission report

recommendations, which will go a long way to improving the educational

system in British Columbia. And as I mentioned earlier, action has been

taken to ease the burden on property taxation within British Columbia.

These are significant steps, and that is only in K to 12 — 15 percent,

now pushing $3 billion for education in British Columbia today. I think

we are moving in the right direction, and we are doing well.

Then

you hear that there's not enough for health care funding. The second

member for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. Perry) is always quick to talk

about the fact that the health system and health care funding are in

jeopardy. There has been an increase of $500 million for this year

alone in this year's budget — incredible! Yet in an

article in the Province — just written today, I believe — the

health critic, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, goes on with

his prescription, so he says, for how to improve the health care system

in this province. He ends by saying: "It may take a little more money

than what we now spend on health."

Well, how much is a

little more money? In 1986 British Columbia spent $2.6 billion on

health; in 1987, $3.2 billion; in '88, $3.9 billion; in '89, $4.3

billion; and in '90, it is estimated to be $4.8 billion. How much more

is "just a little more"? Are we talking $5 billion, $6 billion, $7

billion or $8 billion? Could you give us some idea? Could you tell me,

my colleagues in this House and the people of British Columbia where

you would finally draw the line if you actually had to bring in a

budget dealing with health? What would you target as an estimate?

Truly

the health budget is ongoing; it doesn't just stop. If you're in the

hospital, and we come to the end of the estimates, they don't just

close the hospitals down and say you don't get health care. What and

how much is enough? When will it ever be enough? Will you just continue

to stand up in your same negative way time after time and simply say

that there isn't enough money in health?

Well, my friends,

perhaps we would like to spend more and more on health. I'm sure, as

God created little green apples, that this government will continue to

spend more on health. But it's important when we talk about health to

understand the capacity for taxpayers not only in this province but

across this country to have the ability to pay.

In case you

don't know, right now there are five people supporting one, with

respect to those not working. By the year 2000, that will flip around

to two supporting three. Since I will be about that age around then and

will start to fall into that aspect of not working, I think it's

prudent for us today — and you too — to have at look at not only what

these rising costs mean in this year's budget but what it means when

one extrapolates them, multiplies them and takes them down the road to

the year 2000. I want to make sure that we have a good, solid health

care system not only for 1990-91 but for 2000-01. 1 want to have a good

health care system for many years to come, and that takes some prudence.

it's okay if the opposition wants to continue to stand up and simply

say, "Well, I think it takes a little more money for health," when from

last year to this year we've already put in $500 million more. How much

is a little more? Is it $500 million and $1? Because if that's what it

would take to make them happy, I'm sure we could find one more dollar.

Is it that little more, or is it another $100 million or another $500

million?

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE :

another billion. I think it's important that you tell us. Perhaps the

next speaker would like to get up and tell us how much money is enough

when it comes to health. Would you like to just keep on spending? You

have to take a look at that. You have to understand that it's not only

today; government's responsibility is not only for this budget, for

this fiscal year; you have to take a global view — for the year 2000,

the year 2001, when things will change, when the demographics will

change.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

talk about regional economic development. Lots of things are happening

in the province. I want to speak about Vancouver Island, if I may, Mr.

Speaker, in regard to this budget and economic development. I don't

hear either the first (Mr. Lovick) or second (Ms. Pullinger) members

for Nanaimo, or the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota),

jumping up from time to time and explaining some of the wonderful

things that are happening on Vancouver Island. Sometimes I get

concerned, because people might think, not hearing from the others,

that what I'm talking about is all rhetoric. It's not all

[ Page 9302 ]

rhetoric when you look at what's happening on Vancouver Island.

think it's important for the record and, really, for the people of the

province to understand the things that are happening, particularly in

central Vancouver Island, and what they mean in regard to the economic

future of central Vancouver Island.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Which riding are you going to talk about?

MR. BRUCE :

I can talk about a whole pile of Vancouver Island ridings, pretty well

north to south. But there's one very good riding called Cowichan

Malahat; it's a progressive constituency. Some great things are

happening there.

One thing you'd all be interested in is

the development of the Artisan Village. It's something that is coming

alive in the community of Chemainus, and artists from around the world

will come: a multimillion-dollar investment; a native cultural heritage

centre, which will be opening its doors soon, where you will be able to

see the arts and crafts being made by native people. There are jobs and

economic development for native people, cultural preservation,

language, heritage and all the rest of it. The doors are opening in a

couple of weeks. They are the ones that are driving the development of

the Native Heritage Centre, and I'm sure you will want to take

part in

that.

There is the Somenos Marsh interpretative centre in

downtown Duncan, one of the most important flyways for birds as they

come north and south. It, too, will be a major economic and incredibly

important environmental initiative for the people in my area and,

really, for all of Vancouver Island.

I could go on at great

length, but the members of the opposition.... Everybody should know

your role; everybody should know what you do best. If you do it best,

stay there and carry on in that role. The NDP are the natural

opposition party. They know how to service special interest groups;

they look after special interest groups; they know that only the

opposition can look after special interest groups. It's inherent in the

NDP philosophy just to look after special interest groups.

They

always come back to the fact that government must do everything. It was

kind of inherent in the member for Alberni's (Mr. G. Janssen'

s) speech

yesterday, when he talked about wheelchairs and the fact that somebody

had to go to the Kinsmen to look for assistance to get a wheelchair.

Well, I'll tell you, those fraternities, associations and volunteer

organizations like to participate in the community. They like to be

there. It's what building a community is all about: having those types

of groups and associations.

It's not government that makes

a country; it's not big business that makes a country. What makes a

country and a community strong are the volunteer groups and

organizations that want to participate in building their community.

It's the individual enterprise of people that builds this province.

That's why this budget is a good budget: it builds on individual

enterprise.

MR. CASHORE : It's wonderful to hear the

hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat spouting home truth from abroad at the

conclusion of this speech. I'm glad to see the Premier is in the House

to hear this speech, because obviously we have just heard from one of

the chickens that came home to roost.

It's interesting to

hear this member talk about the opposition, when he tried to form his

own opposition party. He tried very hard; in fact, he was going to be

the cock of the walk. He was going to have his own chicken coop, and he

was going to be the head rooster. But that all got sorted out, and now

we have to ask ourselves: '"What did he gain?" It's still the same

Premier. The leopard hasn't changed its spots. No, the Premier hasn't

changed; I'll grant him that. He's been consistent: he's doing now the

same kinds of things he did during his first year in office.

[3:00]

What about this member and his cohorts, who were bent on

establishing a new era in British Columbia politics, on forming a new

opposition party that would be the party-in-waiting — a new way of

achieving power? I haven't heard one thing from this member or any of

the other chickens that came home to roost that indicates anything

about values or that has anything to do with the decision they made and

why they returned. It had nothing to do with what they believed; it

only had to do with power. Let's make no mistake about that. It only

had to do with power, and they saw the writing on the wall. If they

were going to have any chance at all, they had to back this sinking

ship, because they didn't want to go down in their own ship.

The

debate is about the budget. It's a budget which, contrary to what that

hon. member just said, fails to deal with issues of women's equality in

any substantial way. It falls with regard to pay equity, women's

centres and child care. I guess the crowning touch is that we have a

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) who has not

been given the financial wherewithal to fulfil the tasks that the

Socreds try to create the impression she is about to fulfil.

fails to address lists of people waiting for surgery. It fails to deal

effectively with mental health issues, although again we have the kind

of propaganda that tries to make it look as though they're dealing with

the deinstitutionalization situation of this province — when

anything but that is the case. It fails to address the need for

affordable housing.

fails to address key environmental issues of our day. As a matter of

fact, what we see when we look at the environmental aspect of this

budget is really disgusting, because it repackages existing programs

and tries to dress them up and make them look new. There's no new money

for environmental protection. We find that if we really look at the

part of the budget that is being put into a special fund — some of it

pulled from here, some of it pulled from there — there is less than a 1

percent increase in the environ-

[ Page 9303 ]

mental budget when you compare last year's programs with this year's programs. That's the way it is.

It's

been interesting as we've heard speakers on different sides of the

House talking about this budget. Is it a deficit budget? Isn't it a

deficit budget? It reminds me of a story I once heard. It was about a

little boy, and we'll say his name was Melvin. Melvin joined the sea

cadets in his home town. Melvin went there and learned how to march

with the sea cadets. One day there was this great parade, and Melvin's

mother went to watch the parade. Melvin's mother was there with a few

other women and men of the town. As she watched Melvin marching in the

parade, she said: "Everybody's out of step but Melvin." That seems to

be the way it is with regard to this issue of whether this is a

balanced budget.

Let's look at what Peat Marwick says:

"If

the proliferation of funds to be created by this budget is any

indication, the B.C. government must be pleased with the general

confusion created by its budget stabilization fund — the so-called BS

fund.'

It goes on to say:

"In

reality, this is not a fund at all — at least not a fund in the sense

that there is money in an account identifiable with this fund. In fact,

a review of the balance sheet of the general fund, budget stabilization

fund and privatization benefits fund discloses that liabilities are

projected to exceed assets by $2.667 billion at March 31, 1990."

In other words, the accounts are in deficit by $2.667 billion. This report goes on to say:

"The

privatization benefits fund receives the proceeds from the sale of

government assets sold as a result of privatization. Since the costs to

acquire these assets were expensed, it would seem reasonable to treat

the proceeds of sale of these assets as revenue. However, the proceeds

flow to the privatization benefits fund, and an arbitrary amount can

then be transferred to revenue of the general fund, thus also

arbitrarily impacting on the surplus or deficit.

"The

newly created sustainable environment fund will have its own revenue

sources and expenditures, but since these are consolidated with the

general fund, there can be no impact on general fund surplus or deficit

resulting from the existence and operation of this fund. The other new

fund is the science and technology fund. In fact, this is treated the

same as any government program with its sole revenue coming from a

budget allocation and all such amounts scheduled to be expended on

program items.

"Clearly, the government is

not assisting with the understanding of its accounts by describing each

such different arrangement as a fund."

Let's not forget the

words of the MacKay commission on the Coquihalla Highway, because I

think we have echoes of this same type of thing. In 1987, the MacKay

commission report concluded that: "The Legislature was avoided. The

Legislature was misled by the documents presented to it. The true costs

were not reported in a forthright way." It found "the financial

reporting of the Coquihalla Highway project to be tainted with an

atmosphere of deceit and prevarication...."

This budget is

more of the same. Therefore our finance critic — that father for the

second time — was right on when he called this a dishonest budget. What

he was saying was timely and appropriate.

We, as New

Democrats, when we look at the environmental aspect of this budget, are

committed to a new air-pollution control agency. We are committed to a

self-financing recycling agency, not this joke of a process where a

small pittance is being made available to municipalities and regional

districts. We're committed to farmland protection. We're committed to

community-based reforestation.

One of the things that we

find in this budget is that the sustainable development fund is

referred to as unique. It makes one wonder what is meant by unique in

this sense. It certainly is unique in the sense that it is not very

clear that It is being straightforward with us in calling its total

increase at 24 percent. The sustainable development fund is being used

to try to make it look as though it's that kind of an increase. In

actual fact, it has rolled an unspent $28 million from last year's

Lottery Fund into this new fund, so it's unspent money from last year.

It's money that the Socreds were too scared to spend following the

fiasco that we had in Surrey White Rock over the so-called recycling

payment out of GO B.C. funds.

We have this process that is

certainly inappropriate; it's not going to fool the citizens of this

province, but it's incredible that we have to deal with such a thing.

It ends up with a fund that is going to be controlled by cabinet, which

means that again political decisions are used to decide how these

moneys are going to be used. We've seen political decisions all too

much in this province. As my friend and colleague for Coquitlam-Moody

said: "With that amount of money, you can buy an awful lot of pork."

need sound consistent programs that year in and year out will address

the crucial and pressing environmental concerns we have in this

province. We cannot carry on. It's to the peril of the environment if

we carry on with this cat-and-mouse routine where they cut ministries

of government, where they reduce the number of people working in those

ministries so that they are hard-pressed to accomplish the volume of

work that comes before them. They start going around as though it's a

gravy train in the year before an election. It's very inappropriate.

just want to mention in that regard that I have the highest respect for

the people who work in the Ministry of Environment and in the Ministry

of Parks, and I take exception to remarks made by the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) at the beginning of his response to the

throne speech, when he said that he was glad to see that the opposition

environment critic was present, and he took a shot at me and accused me

of criticizing his staff. That is a very inappropriate statement the

minister made which I take as a personal affront. I have made it a

standard of my work as an opposition advocate for the environment that

I would never criticize those people who are so hard done by political

decisions that have decimated their ranks through the removal of

conservation officers and environmental protection staff. That he would

characterize me as having

[ Page 9304 ]

criticized

his staff is most inappropriate and most untrue. I regret that the

minister did not have the fairness to withdraw those remarks, because

he knows that one of the things I have stood for since I have been in

this role is to uphold a great deal of respect for those dedicated

people who work within that ministry.

We have made

commitments when we think of, for instance, the conservation officer

service. The propaganda and public relations that we had to deal with

last year when a facade was presented to indicate that there was going

to be a substantial increase in conservation officers throughout the

province.... We all know it did not materialize, especially in the area

of wildlife protection, the people who are trying to monitor wildlife

and who deal with such things as the illicit taking of bears and the

trade in bear parts. Wildlife concerns are simply not being monitored

adequately in this province, and this is a reflection of the way in

which in the early eighties Social Credit governments decimated the

ability of that ministry to fulfil its mandate.

We have to

do better than that. Funds have to be made available to the Ministry of

Environment that enable that type of protection to take place. We think

of people like Joe Saysell of Cowichan, who is constantly writing to

the government and sending me the copies of the letters. He points out

graphically how woefully inadequate the conservation officer services

and the wildlife protection services are in this province. Again,

that's no reflection on civil servants. Indeed, it's the opposite; it's

a reflection of the yeoman's work they are doing, given very inadequate

resources.

When we look at this budget and the way it is

treating the environment, we have to ask: where is the consistency?

Where is the continuity? We can only mourn the fact that it's not

really addressing the very significant issues.

Among

the

items that would be funded by this so-called sustainable development

fund are two think-tanks. There's the Round Table on Environment and

Economy. I would just comment that that round table was 18 months late

in being appointed. The plan that had been put in place by the Canadian

Council of Resource and Environment Ministers had it that the round

table was going to be appointed in sufficient time so that when the

federal round table was appointed there would be an interconnectedness

between those two bodies. The fact was that the federal round table was

appointed before the provincial one, because the federal government

couldn't wait for British Columbia to stop dragging its feet on this

issue. At the present time there's no one from the provincial round

table on that federal round table to deal with environmental issues.

what do we see those dollars going to? I'm afraid they appear to be

going to a method that the Environment minister has of having issues

studied over and over again instead of acting on those urgent and

pressing matters that require clear and definite attention.

Then,

too, we have this embarrassment for the government where the right hand

does not know what the left hand is doing. Apparently the Forest

Resources Commission funding is to be governed under that fund, but

nobody seemed to notice, and it caught the Minister of Forests and the

Minister of Environment by complete surprise. So it's a question. Where

is that commission? Doesn't anybody want it? Is it only there as a

public relations exercise? Or is it something that really has some

significance in the future of the province?

I would think

we would have to say that the process is being used not to help develop

appropriate public policy in this province but as window-dressing.

It's being used as a shell game and is not accomplishing any of the

tasks being mentioned.

[3:15]

Let's look at the revenue side of this fund for a moment. I

mentioned the money that was rolled over from the GO B.C. grants that

were unspent from last year. But there is another very interesting

item: the amount of half a million dollars that this government Is

projecting to receive from environmental prosecutions. The good news is

that if they achieve that half a million dollars from environmental

prosecutions, it will probably be an incredible increase over what they

have ever received in the past. But what kind of message is going to

polluters when this government only expects to collect half a million

dollars from this entire province throughout an entire year? How is

that going to be a message to any of the polluters out there who are

causing such problems to people who work in the fishing industry,

people who have lost their livelihood, people who look upon the Indian

food fishery as part of the staff of life?

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks me what I would do. Obviously the

hon. member has not read the package of 23 private members bills that

we tabled in this House last year. That tells you what we would do, Mr.

Member. I'd be glad to make another copy available to you. I'd point

out to you that in developing legislation on your side of the House,

some of our procedures have been incorporated, but it's been done in

a willy-nilly inconsistent way and it simply isn't adequate. If you

want to know what we would do, read that legislation, Mr. Member. Then

you and I will sit down and we'll see.

MR. LOENEN : How much would you tax?

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, in terms of how much we would charge the major polluters,

I can tell you it would be a heck of a lot more than half a million

dollars. For starters, we should be causing these major polluters to

put up environmental protection bonds so that money is up front and

when this damage occurs, there isn't that fooling around. It's a

time-honoured process in the business community, and this member knows

it full well, that business

[ Page 9305 ]

uses

bonding as a means of dealing with this type of situation, but not this

government. Why? Because this government doesn't believe the

environment is worth it. This government has more interest in

protecting its friends who happen to make campaign contributions than

it has in dealing with these urgent and pressing matters with regard to

environmental protection.

Who are the losers? The losers

are the native people, the sports fishing people, the people who

operate lodges, the people who want to be assured that we have safe and

appropriate food in our streams for the wildlife that happen to get the

dioxin pollution into their systems from that stream.

All

we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at the report that came out earlier

this week or at the end of last week. It shows what is happening to

ducks in the area of Port Alberni and what the situation is in Powell

River.

In terms of what this government does, Mr. Speaker,

it's absolutely pathetic to think that on average for this entire

province for three years, the total amount from fines in any given year

on average was less than $35,000, and this government is talking about

increasing penalties to $1 million and $3 million. It's so much

bafflegab. It doesn't mean anything. They haven't even collected in one

year the sum total of any one of those fines — not the fines they're

talking about now, but the fines they had in place previously.

It's

just an attempt to manage the environmental concerns of this province

through public relations Some kind of sickness exists among the people

on the government side of the House, and the illness manifests itself

in the belief that you can accomplish things with words and words only.

They think that as often as they put out slick brochures and paid

television advertising saying what a good job they're doing, somehow

that will accomplish the things they say they're accomplishing. That is

not the case; they are not accomplishing those things.

Let's

look at some specifics in the budget, Mr. Speaker. Under the

environmental protection fund for the budget, on page 94 of the

estimates for 1989-1990, the figure is $10,134,158, and for this

fiscal year it is down $2.5 million to $7,619,871. Under

environmental resource management: last year, $37,756,000; this year,

$35,834,000, down $2 million.

Let's just take a look at

one of the smaller funds: the habitat conservation fund — and earlier I

mentioned the real crisis in this province over the shortage of

conservation officers dealing with wildlife issues — last year, $703,058; this year, $693,058 Again, it's way down.

Mr.

Speaker, I turn now to PEP, the emergency preparedness program. When we

look at the emergency preparedness program, I would like to point out

to the House that there's a federal-provincial program called the joint

cost-sharing program. I have in my hand the funding that has been done

by this program from October 2 to December 18, 1989.

The

way this program works is that the province and the federal government

work together in developing projects. We all know, Mr. Speaker, what an

abysmal failure this province was in dealing with the Grays Harbor oil

spill, and we also know how they like to put forward the thought that

they're starting to get on board with this. As a matter of fact, we saw

a picture of the Solicitor-General with a bunch of people from the

Environment Youth Corps. If you look carefully at that picture, you'll

notice they have tar all over their clothes and are all quite dirty,

and he's there spiffy-clean. But it makes a nice photo opportunity.

Mr.

Speaker, the fact is that the joint emergency planning program

allocates $6.5 million annually to help provinces and regions of this

country be prepared to do a good job in dealing with emergency

preparedness issues — the very types of issues that we're talking about:

oil spills, gas leaks, earthquakes, the things that are vitally

important to our people. Now what has the situation been? Well, it's

been this: in that period of time there was not one grant made to

British Columbia. It is my understanding, and I'm still researching

this, that British Columbia has not made use of this program for an

entire year. I would be delighted to stand corrected on that.

It's

incredible. Here's a financial resource that can be used to help us get

up and running on matters of emergency preparedness and we're not even

taking advantage of the opportunity that exists. When we think about

that, we have to realize that we're talking about the protection and

safety of our young people. I was at a meeting recently in my

constituency where the focus was on emergency preparedness. Members of

the fire department, police department, social services and many other

agencies came and spoke to me and said: "You know, if we have an

emergency, the province is not providing the coordination that is so

needed in our area in order to make sure that everything functions

effectively when a disaster occurs." That is another very deep concern.

want to raise one further environmental concern before I go on to some

other constituency-related items. I wanted to raise the issue of the

reporting of toxic spills, primarily at pulp mills. I would point out

that in this House and in the media, the question has been put to the

Minister of Environment of the day on many occasions: when will the

spills that are taking place around this province at various locations

be reported?

I would like to refer to a Vancouver Sun

article by Glenn Bohn, dated April 13, 1989. In the headline it names

the minister and says that he has promised to name polluting firms.

That was July 1989. It goes on to say: "'It's appropriate that this

information be made public, so industries and municipalities — which are

the major offenders — know that the public has that knowledge,' the

Environment minister said." This was the Environment minister saying

that this information was going to be given to the public. It was being

requested by a conscientious newspaper journalist who specializes in

environmental issues, and it was reflecting the concerns of the West

Coast

[ Page 9306 ]

Environmental

Law Association and of many others who want to get on with being part

of the solution. Glenn Bohn points out that the pledge that the

Minister gave came 14 weeks after the Vancouver Sun requested the

release of the government records that revealed which firms are failing

to comply with pollution limits set by the B.C. waste management

permits. At that time the minister said — and I want to put this on the

record at this late date: "I'm prepared to release the information, but

not at this time."

We go a bit further, and on July 6,

1989, in response to a question that I put to the minister, the then

Minister of Environment said in the House:

"Actually, I discussed that a couple of days ago, Mr. Chairman....

We have prepared a package with the information that Mr. Bohn and Mr. Andrews

are seeking. We are discussing its contents now with the Ministry of Attorney-General.

I have told MT. Andrews and I told Mr. Bohn — I guess I haven't told Glenn,

because I haven’t talked to him lately... — that the information will be

released soon, and when I say 'soon,' I mean before the summer is over."

Mr. Speaker, that was a commitment. It was a definite promise and it stated

a definite time, and these environmental organizations and others that are working

on these issues have a right to have that information.

What

happened next? Well, that minister never did what he said what he would

do. I have a hard time talking about this without using unparliamentary

language, because the minister did not do what he promised in this

House he would do. We are still waiting for that information. In

question period last week I asked the present minister when we would

have this information; when he would follow through on the commitment

of his predecessor and a commitment that he made. What the present

Minister of Environment said was: "Very soon." Well, I say to the

present Minister of Environment that that's not good enough for the

people or for the environment of British Columbia.

People

learn not to trust a government that indulges in that kind of

behaviour. How long can this Minister of Environment go along playing

that kind of game with a responsible member of the journalistic staff

of a major Vancouver newspaper, with committed environmentalists that

make up the organizations that are part of the West Coast Environmental

Law Association, and with those of us who seek genuinely to have that

information so that we can address these issues in an appropriate way?

It is simply inappropriate and will not do.

I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker.

HON. J. JANSEN : It's good to hear that the member opposite's time has expired, because he wasn't making much sense during his debate.

I would like also to have an opportunity to speak on the budget and in support

of it. It's a budget that, contrary to the misleading statements made by

the opposition, gives a vision, fiscal leadership and the continued stability

that is the cornerstone of our government's policy framework — that is,

the responsibility to our electorate, all of the people of British Columbia.

This

budget provides the catalyst and support to encourage expansion of what

is internationally perceived as an already strong, buoyant and stable

economy; one that has shown leadership in fiscal management for the

rest of the nation. All of that is in spite of a crippling interest

rate that is predicated on a central Canada focus, and a high dollar

which punishes our largely export-oriented economy. In spite of that,

we are still the province of choice for our labour force, families,

seniors, investors and those who seek to trade with us. We take

exception to the central Canada focus that has resulted in such a high

dollar and in these crippling interest rates.

[3:30]

However, in spite of the irresponsible fiscal policies of our

federal government, and in spite of the federal government's continuing

tax grabs — such as the totally unwarranted, unsubstantiated, poorly

thought out, extremely onerous and unsupported goods and services tax — British Columbia continues to grow. The concern from charitable

organizations, service organizations, labour, small business — which is

the backbone of our economy — and the public is overwhelming.

Already

I have received countless questions from various interest groups about

how to account for this burden, how to collect the tax, how to apply

for credits, how to treat opening inventories, who is exempt, and how

farmers and professional groups are treated. We cannot and do not

support this bureaucratic nightmare; we are opposed to the GST.

spite of this, we have shown fiscal responsibility and continue to meet

British Columbia's growing demands for education, environmental

awareness, health care and social programs — and this without tax increases. With this budget we will continue to show leadership for the

rest of Canada. This budget deserves to be the yardstick for budgets

everywhere. It is a budget that is based on sound financial and

economic management, a commitment to care about all British Columbians

and an ability to put the people's priorities first. Above all, it is

balanced. Taxes have not been raised, as has been advocated continually

by the socialists; yet we have provided property tax relief for

homeowners and renters.

What is the socialists' response to

this budget? I looked with interest to the comments of the finance

critic for the opposition, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Clark). I thought perhaps somehow I would be pleased that they had

finally outlined their fiscal platform, shown some leadership and told

the people of the province where they stood on fiscal management.

said to myself that while they have not taken positions on other policy

issues, surely they would welcome this opportunity to come clean with

those whom they're seeking their support from in the next election.

Surely they would welcome this opportunity to say more than "read my

lips," as stated to the public, with contempt, by the Leader of the

Opposition. Surely we could have the benefit of their minds

[ Page 9307 ]

well. Surely we could hear what they think and what they stand for.

Surely the Leader of the Opposition could use those lips to tell us

what he has on his mind.

Yet again we and the public are

disappointed. It is still like nailing jelly on the wall — no

leadership, no policy, no direction, no substance, no vision, and no

focus.

Interjection,

HON. J. JANSEN :

You're right, member; just a no-no party. The only definite policy

statement I could find in the NDP response to our budget — and it was

mentioned no less than eight times — was: "We will provide relief for

middle- and lower-income British Columbians." There was not any

equivocation here. They said "we will" eight times. Good stuff.

You

may ask: "What programs would they cut? How will they do this? What

expenditures would they slash? What assistance would be curtailed?"

Well, in fact, no fewer than 26 programs have been criticized by that

same member, the opposition finance critic, as requiring more money. I

believe that in the eyes of the NDP, every program requires more money.

How would they accomplish this? As the NDP say: "Read my lips." They

certainly haven't provided the public with any details, and we

certainly can't read their minds.

The second member for

Vancouver East questions our bookkeeping. Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker:

where is the revenue side of their books? Isn't that an essential part

of bookkeeping? How do they intend to raise funds for this

multibillion-dollar spending spree? On this question, they remain

silent. They just don't want to talk about those messy little details.

That would just infuriate the public.

Leonard Krog has some

thoughts on this matter, but he was given a gag order. But what they

did say is interesting. The finance critic on the socialist side....

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN :

What he did say was interesting: they would set mortgage rates in

British Columbia — a profound statement, no beating about the bush,

right to the point — and they would presumably set all other rates as

well. I look forward to having this policy statement explained by the

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who has a prominent

role with credit unions. They would set mortgage rates. We will wait.

What

do others say, who have some understanding of government expenditures

and some knowledge of the real world and who are more credible to the

public? What did the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British

Columbia say about our recent provincial budget? Let me quote: "There

is lots to laud and little to fault in this year's provincial budget.

According to Rick Acton, chartered accountant and president of the Institute

of Chartered Accountants of B.C.: "Overall we have to say our provincial

government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management

to the federal government."

Acton

also said: "The long-term planning aspect of this year's budget is

praiseworthy. Multi-year funding is an intelligent strategy.... The

concept of averaging over a period of years is sound financial

management." Those are difficult words to hear from the opposition side.

What

did the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia

say? Again let me quote: "B.C. president Ron Pickerill also welcomed

the announcement of a major review of British Columbia taxes. British

Columbia certified general accountants look forward to active

participation in the review process. We also applaud the decision to

apply a user-pay strategy to initiatives affecting such environmentally

unfriendly items as batteries, tires and disposable diapers."

What

did the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada say? "B.C. sets the

example for fiscal management in Canada." That's a one-liner you hear

very seldom on the other side of the House, because they know nothing

about fiscal management. They know nothing about bookkeeping. They know

nothing about mortgage rates.

What did Peat Marwick say?

The member opposite has asked me that. It's an interesting question.

They said: "A review of the balance sheet...." Do you know what a

balance sheet is? I guess the member doesn't know what it is. He has

difficulty understanding what revenues and expenditures are, let alone

a balance sheet. "A review of the balance sheet, the general fund, the

budget stabilization fund and the privatization benefits fund discloses

that liabilities are projected to exceed assets by $2.667 billion as at

March 31."

They said "a balance sheet." Members on the

other side of the House have interpreted that to mean revenue and

expenditures and that the balance sheet was somehow tied into a

balanced budget. What Peat Marwick did not say is that our budget is

not balanced. What did not get reported was that the deficit was a

reduction from the '89-90 estimates of some $830 million and that our

budget stabilization fund remains at a healthy $1 billion.

What

is the public saying about all this? They are pleased with our

continuing good leadership shown by this government in managing its

fiscal house. They know that in the face of federal cutbacks — and

they've been substantial — we have continued to increase our expenditures

to meet the needs of the people, such as a clean environment, housing,

education, health, day care, assistance for the disabled and job

opportunities.

They are pleased with the long-term planning

for a multi-year account, such as the $1.7 billion sustainable

environment fund, the $420 million science and technology fund, and the

$3.5 billion Freedom to Move account.

They support our

initiatives for pay equity in the public sector to enable fairness

between individuals, fairness between men and women, and fairness for

all British Columbians. They favour, too, our positive

[ Page 9308 ]

and

unique British Columbia pension plan. I hear very little comment from

the members opposite about the pension plan. They're strangely silent

now.

This initiative would enable British Columbians a

unique opportunity of having the benefit of being covered by a

made-in-B.C. pension plan. Homemakers, small business employees and

others who are not covered by a retirement pension package would have a

plan to provide for their golden years.

This year our

government will spend $4 billion on education and training. A 15

percent increase in the Ministry of Education budget of $3 billion will

provide $140 million to implement recommendations of the Royal

Commission on Education and an additional $10 million for computers and

Pacific Rim language instruction.

Education — primary,

secondary and advanced — is an important issue, for my constituency.

With an ever-growing population and the need for community-level access

to all aspects of education, our government's response is welcome news

indeed. A solid funding enhancement, complemented by a

capital-intensive program is news well received by my constituency and

indeed by the entire Fraser Valley.

Our college system

continues to expand, and I look forward to working with my colleague

the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to see the

opportunities develop also for Fraser Valley College.

It is

important, too, that we recognize the need of individual students, and

a 16 percent increase in our student financial assistance program will

be money wisely invested in our future.

With the

unprecedented growth in the Fraser Valley and the appeal of the area to

the retirement population from the rest of Canada, housing has become a

serious issue. It is an issue of concern particularly for seniors,

low-income families and single-parent families. Our government's

commitment to this serious problem and our new programs will be welcome

news indeed.

[3:45]

This year's budget of some $1 billion for housing to enable

assistance to low-income renters, creation of rental housing and

promotion of home ownership will go a long way to providing for the

housing needs of my community. But housing programs are partnerships — a partnership with developers; a partnership with our federal

government; and perhaps most importantly, a partnership with our local

governments.

It is the local government — our cities, our

municipalities, our regional districts — who can make the biggest

impact on this issue. They provide zoning, they provide the municipal

infrastructures, and they can take the initiative to take full

advantage of the many programs this government has to offer in housing.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Environmental

concerns in the Fraser Valley continue to grow stronger each year with

the growing awareness of the causes of increased pollution levels. Last

year my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

sponsored a town hall meeting in my constituency in order to hear the

concerns and the suggestions put forward by our local citizens. The

meeting was supported by staff from both the Ministry of Environment

and the Ministry of Health.

The message from the public was

unmistakable: we must all of us take responsibility if we are to make

an impact on the preservation of our invaluable environment.

a result of this town hall meeting I organized a local environmental

committee which meets on a regular basis to promote environmental

awareness in the community. The committee is comprised of community

leaders, interested members of the public and — probably the most

important element — our youth. It is fortunate, too, that one of the

members of this committee is also a member of the Round Table on

Environment and Economy — Mr. Allan Toop, who as a local farmer

represents the interests of agriculture and who is also the president

of the East Chilliwack Co-op. This very active committee will I am sure

have a significant impact on dealing with what has become a very

serious issue. Our initiatives to increase funding for our

environmental programs by some 24 percent will be of significant

interest to my committee and to our community. What is most noteworthy

is the new sustainable development fund. This fund will enable revenues

to be earmarked for and restricted to expenditures on the environment.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN : This accounting treatment is fundamental to a commitment to environmental initiatives, Mr. Member. Remember that.

Residents

of the Fraser Valley, and particularly of the Chilliwack area, are

concerned about the unacceptable levels of ozone that have been

recorded in the area, particularly in recent years. Vehicle emissions

from the lower mainland represent the biggest factor in ozone

pollution. It is great news indeed that we will see vehicle emission

testing in 1991.

Recognizing the importance of both

long-term and short-term planning for the needs of transportation, the

Freedom to Move account, with its multi-year funding, will provide the

continuity and stability that is necessary.

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN : The member opposite says: "Sure." That's a very good, positive comment.

The

transportation needs of the community — particularly the need to remove

level crossings on the No. 1 freeway — are crucial to safe development.

The safety considerations addressed by this project will have a

significant impact on my constituents. It is therefore with

appreciation that we note that these projects, as well as projects in

other parts of the

[ Page 9309 ]

constituency, will receive the priority status they deserve.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN : The member asks: "What level crossings?"

The

creation of jobs is also fundamental to the development of my

community, Mr. Speaker. While it is noted that the unemployment rate in

British Columbia has dropped from 12.5 percent to 7.8 percent, and that

last year in the province we created half of the new jobs in Canada,

the distribution of these jobs outside of the lower mainland is

obviously of great importance to the constituents of the Fraser Valley

and of the rest of the province.

We explicitly reject the

attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who says: "I have a

yardstick. If it's good for Vancouver, I'm for it. If it's not, I'm

opposed." Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? However the finance critic on

the other side, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark),

says.... Listen to these words of wisdom: "We will support regional

development strategies which will ensure prosperity and diversity

throughout British Columbia." Did you read that somewhere before?

MR. REID : Yes, the Premier said that.

HON. J. JANSEN : Absolutely.

Aren't

those statements in contrast? Isn't it strange that when things work

out, when programs work, suddenly the NDP is totally onside on issues?

It's totally onside whenever programs work. Isn't it surprising to hear

those comments, when they've had so much criticism of the

regionalization program, and still do? What are you people — for or

against, hot or cold? I guess it's not surprising, if you consider

their track record: criticize first; but if it works, then you have to

agree. Funnily enough, in all of their speeches, they're agreeing with

every program this government has put in place.

We on this

side of the House have always supported regionalization. Our community

has supported it, and it's good to see that the socialists now support

it as well. They always take a little longer than the rest of us to see

the positive aspect of things

Turning to health care, Mr.

Speaker, it remains the fundamental responsibility of our government.

Our universal health care system remains the best in the world. We have

shown leadership in such initiatives as mental health, the needs of our

seniors, our community health, Pharmacare, preventive health and

hospital programs.

This year our government has increased

the health care budget by 11.2 percent — some half a billion dollars

for this year alone. Spending on health care now accounts for $4, 000

for every family in the province, or $1,600 for every man, woman and

child living in the province. The increase alone is almost $1.5 million

per day.

But we on this side of the House are sensitive to

criticism. We like to hear which programs should be enhanced, which

ones are being misdirected and how we should be changing some of our

policies. I wanted to listen this morning with interest to the health

critic talk about the health care budget. It was unfortunate indeed

that it was such a failure, because we received very little

information. That means either one of two things: that the health

critic has no interest and does little research on this, or that he

can't find anything wrong with the health care ministry of the province.

The

health critic listed some letters he had. He had a letter from a home

support worker, a letter in regard to Vancouver General Hospital's use

of disposables, a letter from a Victoria couple concerning a

schizophrenic young man and a letter from a parent of a child in

Langley Memorial Hospital talking about the pediatric ward. All these

issues have been addressed.

He had a letter from a licensed

practical nurse complaining that hospitals failed to hire LPNs. He

didn't understand the issue, so he couldn't comment on it with

intelligence. He read a brief from the Registered Nurses' Association

that the nursing program was not included in any announcements of the

UNBC, and he called for an end to disputes with health professionals.

That was the extent of the hon. second member for Vancouver-Point

Grey's (Mr. Perry'

s) criticism of the health care budget — a pretty sad

commentary.

What are the two reasons for this lack of

response in dealing with health care from the opposition health critic?

Is it lack of knowledge or interest, or is he just too lazy? In any

event, I found comfort in the Province newspaper dated May 1, 1990.

That's today's date, and today's headline was: "A Prescription for a

Health Care System." It was written by the NDP MLA for Vancouver-Point

Grey, who is also the health critic.

He says that he would

like to prescribe some of the things that the province should be doing

for a change and a fresh look. "For a change and a fresh look" — those

are important key words. He lists seven items, and every single one of

them has been addressed by this government. Where is that man? When I

first read this, I thought this comment was from a person from another

planet or province. All of these items have been addressed by this

government.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is up. I would have

liked to have spoken more about the good budget for the province. I

support this budget.

MR. VANT : As I have some very

important visitors here this afternoon, I am just wondering if the

House would grant me leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VANT :

It's not too often I have visitors from the great Cariboo constituency,

but today we're honoured to have all the way from Hanceville, which is

about 65 miles west of Williams Lake in the Chilcotin, 22 adult

students from the native adult education school, along with their

teacher Mr. C. Smith. They belong to the Stone reserve, of which my

very good

[ Page 9310 ]

friend Tony Myers is the chief. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome this afternoon.

[4:00]

MR. JONES :

It's a pleasure to rise and participate in what I think is a very

important debate — probably our last budget debate before the next

provincial election. It's been a good debate that clearly points out

fundamental differences between the government side and this side of

the House.

If my colleagues have been unkind in this debate

to the Minister of Finance, I would like to do a little bit to rectify

that. We have to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Speaker, I think

we have to compliment the Minister of Finance for what I consider to be

a stellar performance, an Academy Award performance, a masterful tour

de force that he gave a week and a half ago in this House as part of

his budget presentation. Some would say that it was a performance as

part of the theatre of the absurd; nevertheless I have to give full

marks to the Minister of Finance, who huffed and puffed with enthusiasm

in fact, with such energy and dynamism that he became hoarse by the end

of his speech. Although he had a very thin script, he did everything in

his human powers to make it a forceful presentation.

think British Columbia will long be remembered for the phrase uttered

by the former member from Point Grey, Kim Campbell, who said: "Charisma

without substance is a dangerous thing." Clearly that's what we had

during the budget speech. We had lots of charisma, but the budget

itself lacked the kind of substance that would engender any enthusiasm

on the part of the public.

Despite this great performance,

when we look at the reviews the performance drew, we see that it was a

very disappointing budget to the people of British Columbia — and I am

sure to the government too, who must have gone out madly polling after

that enthusiastic budget speech. I am convinced that the results of the

poll will indicate that it did not play in Peoria; that the people in

small-town British Columbia and in the urban centres thought it was a

wash and were not inspired in any way.

MR. CASHORE : They were underwhelmed.

MR. JONES :

Let's just have a look at some of the headlines that underscored the

response of the people of British Columbia, who were — as my friend

from Coquitlam-Maillardville points out — underwhelmed by the impact of

this budget. .

What did the Times-Colonist say in response?

It had a headline that said: "Budget Flimflam Insults Voters." That was

one response from Victoria. The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) doesn't believe that this is how the response was, but we

see time and time again, in response to that enthusiastic performance

of the Minister of Finance, less than laudatory comments from leading

British Columbians.

We have the headline from the Vancouver Sun : 'Labour Criticizes Flimflam Budget." Also from the

Sun

we have: "No Big Deal, Tenants Say of Housing Measures." Another

headline from the Vancouver Province : "Budget Blasted as Mere

Juggling." The Sun also pointed out in a headline: "Pay Equity

Specialists Suspicious of Promise." Another headline from the Province :

"Old Dollars Recycled with Slick New Name." And from the Sun again, a

headline reading: "$500 Million Deficit Incurred in Record Spending

Budget." From the Province : "BS Fund Is Confusing, " and another

headline: "Reflection on Mel's House of Mirrors." A headline from the

Sun : 'Women's Groups Skeptical."

So you can see that,

despite the stellar performance of the Minister of Finance, who

impressed me with his energy and enthusiasm, it did not wash out there

in the British Columbia that we know, because this government is a

tired government. The people have finally seen through the shell game

and the smoke and mirrors, and they did not buy any of the chicanery

that normally would pass.

I don't know whether it was the

faux pas of the Minister of Finance, who got very confused about what

represents one month of a budget, or one-tenth of a budget, or

one-twelfth of a budget. The Minister of Finance got confused to the

order of some $200 million there. I would forgive the minister a faux

pas like that, but I guess the people in British Columbia have

recognized that this Minister of Finance is not serious; that he is a

master of deception. The substance of the budget was not there to

impress the people. The property tax relief — the supplementary

homeowner grant, which would give considerable tax relief to the tune

of some $150 to many people in my riding — one might think would have

been a popular measure. But again, the people in my riding and, in the

other constituencies throughout British Columbia have recognized that

it's about time there was some property tax relief. They remember who

it was that year after year shifted the property tax burden from the

commercial and industrial property onto the residential homeowner. The

people in this province have recognized that they have been carrying a

tremendous burden — an overburden. We would like to go back....

Interjection.

MR. JONES :

The member for Okanagan South mentions the homeowner grant. We would be

happy to go back not even that long ago, to the days of Bill Bennett,

when there was much fairer taxation in British Columbia. A much fairer

share was paid by business and industry in those days. Those were the

days before the current administration got in and turned British

Columbia into a tax haven. We have — save for Quebec — the lowest

corporate taxes in Canada. We have become a corporate tax haven.

would be happy to go back to the levels of the days of your predecessor

Bill Bennett. At least he understood that we didn't have to be more

than competitive in terms of corporate income tax; we could do quite

well, thank you, by taxing corporations at the same level as other

provinces in Canada.

[ Page 9311 ]

But

no, this administration had to shift the burden of property tax from

the corporations, from the business and industry onto the poor,

defenceless homeowner. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

Interjection.

MR. JONES : Sit down, you've got no point of order.

MR. SERWA :

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is engaging in debate directly

across the floor. Would you please request that the member address and

speak to the Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The point is well made, hon. member. Please proceed.

MR. JONES :

As I was saying, why didn't the property tax relief, in terms of the

supplementary homeowner grant, play in Peoria? Why didn't it wash with

the electorate in British Columbia? Because they have seen this

government year after year transfer the burden' of property tax onto

the homeowner and away from business and industry. That's why that $150

tax relief to the homeowner — in the budget they even quoted an

unrealistic figure of $250 — did not garner any enthusiasm and did not

gain any points in public popularity for this administration. In fact,

it was a wash; it was a very negative response to this budget.

The

previous speaker also mentioned the importance of multi-year budgeting

as perhaps appealing to the public. The public may have been impressed

with the concept of multi-year budgeting had the government introduced

it in the first year of their mandate, but they are definitely not

impressed with the multi-year budgeting process when it occurs in the

last year of a mandate. In fact, it is incredibly presumptuous of this

government to assume that they will even be in government a year from

now to implement the second year of that budget. They are in the dying

days of their mandate. They are certainly in no position to

legitimately talk in any way about multi-year budgeting, which they get

very confused about anyway, as I'll point out momentarily, when we talk

about the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

The

other thing that speaker after speaker from the other side in this

debate has pointed out is that we have a balanced budget. If that isn't

deceptive and dishonest, I don't know what is. The headlines today ring

out clearly: "Accounting Firm Rejects Balanced Budget Claim." This is

from Peat Marwick, Canada's largest public accounting firm.

wonder what Peat Marwick says about whether this budget is balanced. I

don't suppose that they have any particular political axe to grind. I

don't suppose it's in their interest to come down on one side or the

other in this debate about whether the budget is balanced. I think that

as responsible chartered accountants, they must look at the fairness,

honesty and integrity of this government in terms of what they are

presenting to the people and make a decision on whether the statement

that the budget is balanced is a fair comment.

What do they

say? I quote from the report of Peat Marwick: "If the proliferation of

funds to be created by this budget is any indication, the B.C.

government must be pleased with the general confusion created by its

budget stabilization fund — the so-called BS fund." Very clearly, Peat

Marwick.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) understands

accounting. He knows they have no political axe to grind. He knows they

are just making a comment on the honesty and integrity of government.

Peat Marwick is pointing out that the object of the government with

this budget is to create general confusion and not to inform the public

about the finances of this province.

Let me quote further

from Peat Marwick: "In reality, this is not a fund at all, at least not

a fund in the sense that there is any money in an account identifiable

with this fund. In fact, a review of the balance sheet...discloses

that liabilities are projected to exceed assets by $2.667 billion at

March 31, 1990. In other words, the accounts are in deficit by $2.667

billion." When our finance critic accurately pointed out that

expenditures in this budget are going to exceed the revenues by some

$500 million, he was bang on. He was accurate; he knew what he was

talking about. He was being honest with this House and honest with the

people of British Columbia, but those who continually say this budget

is balanced are not.

[4:15]

What does the auditor-general have to say? The auditor-general

brought down his report today. Although I have not yet had time to read

the report....

Interjections.

MR. JONES :

There has been a report from the auditor-general. In a speech he made

recently, Mr. Morfitt, who — as I think is well understood — is the

independent, non-partisan watchdog of government finances, indicates

that the government is using the so-called BS fund to distort the true

picture of the provincial finances. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker.

The independent watchdog of this province is saying publicly the same

as Peat Marwick, that the budget stabilization fund is clearly a

measure being used to distort the true picture of provincial finances.

Mr. Morfitt said in his speech to the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce:

"The bottom line...is completely flexible. It is a meaningless

figure. It doesn't mean anything. It's strictly an accounting technique

to alter the bottom line." So Mr. Morfitt is not so concerned about the

BS fund itself, but about the way it is being used by this government

in terms of being deceptive, of misleading the people of British

Columbia and of presenting a dishonest picture of the books of this

province.

Mr. Morfitt indicates that the main government

accounts do not reconcile all the BS fund transactions. As a result,

the public is given a less-than-com-

[ Page 9312 ]

plete

picture of the bottom line. The purported balance would be a deficit

without the BS fund transaction. So clearly we have a deficit budget;

we do not have a balanced budget. The revenues and expenditures do not

match. Clearly the revenue taken in is less than the expenditures, so

we do have a deficit budget. In addition to not having a balanced

budget, we do not have an election budget. It's not here, and the polls

will show that, as the government side polls madly in the hopes of

hanging on to the meagre public support they have at this point. So we

don't have a balanced budget or an election budget, but we do have a

budget with tax increases — they are numerous. We have a budget with

some tax concessions that are not washing out there in British Columbia.

I'd

like to speak about a couple of parts of the budget that my

constituents are concerned about in the area of the environment, in the

area of transportation and highways, and in the area of post-secondary

education. We have heard a lot of hot air from the government side of

this House. They are holding up their wet fingers and recognizing that

the public of British Columbia are serious about environmental

protection. In response, this government, rather than adding any

substance to the budget that would ensure improved environmental

standards and protection in this province, has come up — just like the

budget — with a deceptive and dishonest approach. Again, the leadership

of the Premier is being emulated in the Ministry of Environment in

terms of charisma without substance.

What my constituents

want is very simple: a clean environment, improved standards, improved

monitoring and improved enforcement of that monitoring. It's not a

tremendous demand. They're looking for simple leadership in

environmental protection. But what do we see in the budget when we look

at the estimates for the Ministry of Environment? We see a lack of

commitment, a lack of belief that the environment is something we have

to take seriously, a lack of environmental protection, a lack of water

management, a lack of enforcement of even the modest standards that we

have right now in terms of protecting our environment.

When

I read the budget, what I see, as far as the Ministry of Environment

goes, is a decline from some $10 million last year to $7.6 million this

year — in terms of the part of the budget called "Environmental

Protection." In terms of water management, we have virtually a status

quo budget over last year, and a status quo budget in times of

inflation again means a serious decline in terms of our ability even to

maintain the status quo standards that we had last year.

the area of the budget called "Regional Operations and Enforcement" we

have a modest increase. Again, a modest increase means a decrease in

the ability to carry out those regional operations and enforcement. So

what we have, as I read the budget as far as the Ministry of

Environment goes, is a total lack of commitment. This government is

playing games with the people of British Columbia when it talks about

any sort of commitment to improving standards, improving monitoring and

improving enforcement.

This budget reveals that the

substance is not there in terms of the resources required to carry out

the mandate that the people of this province want to see, and the

leadership that this province wants to see in terms of improving

environmental standards. All we have from the government is rhetoric,

rhetoric, rhetoric — not only in the Ministry of Environment but also in

the Ministry of Transportation and highways.

I'd like to

tell you about the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Last year,

when the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) was the minister, we had a

report called "Freedom to Move." At the time of that report, that

former minister defined some $11 billion worth of projects. Talk about

multi-year budgeting! That minister said they were going to finance

those projects over a ten-year period. So we'd be talking about over $1

billion a year. What does it say in this budget? Well, it's a little

more modest now. Ironically, it seems that as we get closer to the

election, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways becomes more

modest in its promises.

Which is right: $3.5 billion as now

promised over five years, or $11.7 billion over ten years as you

promised last summer? Which is it, members opposite? Which is the real

Freedom to Move program? You don't know what the Freedom to Move

program is.

I'd like you to go out on the freeway just

south of my riding in the afternoon and tell them you are responsible

for the freedom that they have to move on Highway 1 in Burnaby. I don't

know if you'd make it back, any members opposite. They don't have the

freedom to move, and the reason they don't have the freedom to move

is....

Interjections.

MR. JONES : We're

talking about the Trans-Canada Highway; we're talking about the

freeway. It's very clear which highway we're talking about. We have no

problem determining which highway.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. members, could we please have order in the House.

MR. JONES :

We have little freedom to move out on the freeways in this province,

but we have freedom to move our mouth with a rapid abandon here in the

House. I want to know from the peanut gallery opposite: which is it,

$11.7 billion over ten years or $3.5 billion over five years? You don't

know. You've got your marching orders out there in the back bench. You

rubber-stamp whatever number they put in front of you.

we don't have freedom to move. We look at the budget and what do we

see? We don't see any numbers like this; we see a 1.5 percent increase

in the

[ Page 9313 ]

budget for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, which is a decrease.

see three areas that are being served by this budget. We see the

Okanagan being served. We see Vancouver Island being served in a major

way — and I think the Vancouver Island highway is one that should be

supported. For the half of the residents of this province that live in

the lower mainland we see a very modest budget in terms of the projects

that are being supported here. No new projects. No projects to meet the

real needs of British Columbians. No budget to meet the needs of my

constituents, who are tired, as

the people of British

Columbia are tired of this government, of commuters from other areas of

the lower mainland going through their area, through their

neighbourhood streets. They want to see some commitment to moving

commuters rather than moving cars. They don't want to see what is on

the drawing-board for the Freedom to Move proposals. They want to see

some meaningful rapid transit. They want to see some meaningful

park-and-ride. They want to see some commitment to a decent transit

system, a transit system that makes it convenient for people to leave

their automobiles; to move from their homes to their place of work

without adding to the pollution, without adding to the safety problem,

without damaging the environment; to travel in a convenient and

comfortable way that saves our environment, and that reduces traffic

accidents and brings peace and harmony to our neighbourhood streets.

This

government can't deliver. This government does not have the substance

to do so. They're not showing leadership, and they're not even catching

up with the 15 years of neglect we've seen in transportation.

The

other area I'm concerned about, having Simon Fraser University in my

riding, is post-secondary education. Very clearly what we see in this

budget is just like what we see in the transportation and highways

budget. We see another situation of a decade of neglect of our

students, our institutions and their faculties. Again, British

Columbians are tired of a neglectful, tired, worn-out Social Credit

government.

We see a story that is the same year after year

in the fall. The student experience is that students are turned away.

For every three students who are accepted, something like one is turned

away — one qualified student whose horizons are being limited, whose

opportunities are being diminished. We see the waste of a young person

whose skills are needed in this province — a tremendous loss of

opportunity to the future prosperity of that individual as well as to

that of this province. Sadly, those who get in are forced, because of

the underfunding of this government, to take courses that they don't

want or need.

Again, we could make this situation a lot

better. What we need is to increase the institutional capacity so that

courses are available for those young people. We would prefer to see

those students not waste the time of their professors and their

institution, and public money and their money. The fees that students

pay at Simon Fraser, the university in my riding.... Of the 23 top

universities in this country, students at Simon Fraser pay among the

highest. Only three universities in the Maritimes have fees that are

higher than those paid in this province in 1989 or 1990.

What

we saw this year on the campus of Simon Fraser University was a very

serious situation, where students were protesting a fee increase on top

of year after year of previous fee increases. They occupied the

administration building on that campus until the Minister of Advanced

Education agreed to meet with them and to study the effects of tuition

fee increases. Also, the minister promised at that time to arrange a

meeting with the Premier, which, to my understanding, never came about.

The minister indicated that he felt that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I'm sorry, hon. member. Under the standing orders, your time has expired.

[4:30]

MR. PETERSON : It's with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of this great budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year.

Before

I do, I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate and thank some

people who work for and commit themselves to this Legislative Assembly.

In particular, my congratulations go to our newly named Speaker, to our

reaffirmed Deputy Speaker and, of course, to the member who now

occupies the chair, who was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Committee

of the Whole.

In addition, there are some other people I

would like to mention: first, our Clerks. I think that quite often we

take them for granted. They do such a wonderful job in trying to keep

this House in order. I certainly appreciate it from my end, in the job

that I've been assigned.

Also, our Sergeant-at-Arms and his

staff — they are absolutely wonderful people, who are there at our beck

and call. Again, I would like to thank them very much for making this a

very joyful and interesting assembly.

I find very

interesting some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the

member for Burnaby North. I was very interested to see that he supports

the construction of the Island Highway; at least one of their members

has got his act together. They have this nominated candidate up at

Parksville Qualicum, Mr. Krog. In addition to wanting to raise taxes,

he also said that he does not believe that the Island Highway should be

constructed.

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON :

I know that the member for Burnaby North is leaving the House; it

caused him a bit of embarrassment. You should travel up to that area,

make some reference to that man and bring him onside.

[ Page 9314 ]

MR. JONES : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would appreciate it if you would advise the member that he should speak through the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. Your point is well taken. I would ask the second member for Langley to proceed.

MR. PETERSON :

Certainly. I'd like to talk about some of the major initiatives of this

great budget. How about the half a million households in British

Columbia that are going to receive larger homeowner grants because of

it? That is Social Credit's commitment to home-ownership in this

province, and it comes through loud and clear.

Over $550

million will be spent for environmental programs this year. That's a 24

percent increase over last year. Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby

North, who spoke before and who has chosen to leave the House, can

stand up and make erroneous statements.... He was talking about there

being no commitment to the environment. There's a 24 percent increase

over last year. That's highly commendable, and I applaud our Minister

of Finance for that. I know our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Reynolds) is going to spend those dollars wisely, not only to maintain

the quality of life that we enjoy in this great province but also to

improve it in my constituency of Langley and in every constituency in

this wonderful province.

What about the multi-year

sustainable environment fund that has been created in this budget?

There is a commitment for the future, not just for tomorrow. We know

that we may be in the last year or year and a half of our mandate, but

that doesn't concern us. We know we're responsible; we know the

citizens of the province count on us for long-term planning and for

responsible government.

Our horizon isn't just at the end

of our mandate; our horizon is in the years 2005, 2010 and 2020. Mr.

Speaker, I guarantee you that the Social Credit government will be

there, not those clowns on the other side of the House. We have a

long-term commitment to the people of British Columbia, and we will

follow through on that commitment. We're not interested in short-term

rhetoric, like what comes from the opposition, who play to any issue

for short-term political gain. This is a responsible government. The

people of British Columbia appreciate that and will show it when they

re-elect us with an overwhelming majority when the next general

election is called.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Call it.

MR. PETERSON :

Remember that, Mr. Member for Alberni. You're a really nice person — and

he is, Mr. Speaker — but I'm sure your stay here is going to be short.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Drop the writ.

MR. PETERSON : Well, I'm ready for it.

want to talk a bit about the $1.7 billion ten-year commitment to our

forest renewal program. It is critically important to the future

economic well-being of this province.

MR. G. JANSSEN : How many trees is that?

MR. PETERSON : I'd have to divide, and I haven't got my calculator.

This

government is committed to that. In my own constituency there is a very

large set of greenhouses in Aldergrove that specializes in producing

seedlings to be planted in the forests of British Columbia. One of the

owners is Gary Kenwood, a good friend of mine. I visit his facility

often. That nursery shows you that even in an agricultural area like

Aldergrove, part of the economic lifeline depends on the forest

industry. At that nursery, depending on what's going on, he employs

anywhere from 50 to 150 people.

That's a strong economic

base for Aldergrove, and we appreciate it. He's adding to a stronger

economic base for the future of British Columbians. This government

recognizes that; that is why there's a ten-year commitment for $1.7

billion. This member certainly applauds that and applauds the Minister

of Finance for it.

How about the science and technology

fund to promote cooperation among industry, government and the science

community? Again, there is a commitment by this government: number one,

to diversify our economy, which is extremely important; and number two,

to recognize that British Columbia can be on the leading edge of

technological research in the world.

Indeed, I must applaud

the efforts of our Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon.

S. Hagen) and his work with the proposed kaon factory. I understand

that maybe even the opposition is starting to see the light. They may

even be starting to consider supporting this great project for British

Columbia.

I remember that two years ago — or two and a half

years ago — in this House the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) stood up and said: "There is no way the opposition will

support that project." Do you remember that? I have asked the question

a few times of the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones): "Have you guys

come in?" And he says: "Well, I think maybe we will support it. Well,

there are a few qualifiers."

But like everything else, they

can't make up their own minds. You know what their problem is? They

have to sniff the political winds. Then they'll decide what they're

going to do.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON : That's right, sort of like this, Mr. Speaker. Then they'll decide what they're going to do.

Well,

the Social Credit government does not work like that. We have a

long-term vision; we always will have a long-term vision. I could go

back in history and prove that. I can talk about W.A.C. Bennett and

[ Page 9315 ]

what

he did for health care in this province. Does anybody remember what it

was like? Our health care system was in absolute shambles — a disaster.

But thanks to that man, we now have a system that is the envy of the

rest of the free world, and I am extremely proud of it.

would also like to take some time to address the $3.5 billion for the

five-year Freedom to Move transportation initiative. The opposition has

made a lot of comments about it during this budget debate. Well, Mr.

Speaker, let me tell you how this all happened, because they're missing

the boat, as usual.

Do you know where the information for

all that came from? It came through the regional initiative program.

Regions throughout the province.... Committees that were set up

provided the information to our Regional and Economic Development

minister, who turned it over to the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways. But the input came from the local people. These people don't

like it. See, it's coming from the bottom up; not the way they like it.

They like to impose things from the top down. Again, we don't work that

way as a government.

I applaud that program. I am sure we

will be hearing in the next few days of some very exciting things

happening in our transportation system in British Columbia, and it will

result because we got input from the local level — from local municipal

governments and local people who knew the concerns in their

areas — through our MLAs, but of course, not through the opposition MLAs.

They wouldn't take

part in the process. 'You know what? They have let

their constituents down, because they have not taken the opportunity to

represent them. I think they should be absolutely ashamed of

themselves. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Point of order. The member who is speaking made reference to the fact

that we didn't participate in that process. I would just like to point

out that I did participate in that process, and that the comments.... I

take....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, that is not a point of order, and I ask you to sit down.

MR. PETERSON :

It appears the member for Alberni is a bit touchy. Perhaps I'm touching

a raw nerve there; I don't know. Are you having a problem? It's all

right. After the member is defeated in the next election, his wounds

will have time to heal.

[4:45]

Let's look at two of the fiscal highlights of the budget. The 1991

budget is balanced. Let me give you a qualifier. The Institute of

Chartered Accountants came out and said it was balanced. I don't care

how you cut it, that budget is balanced, and I applaud the Minister of

Finance for that.

In addition to that, we have over $1

billion in the budget stabilization fund at the end of the 1990-91

fiscal year. I know the opposition don't understand numbers and don't

understand logic, but what it really means is that it's a reserve like

any other good government would have. In fact, there are some 16 states

among our good friends south of the border who are setting up programs

such as this, because they recognize what