1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 21

[ Page 525 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Also in the gallery, I'm pleased to recognize Mr. Tony Joy, consul general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver, and Mrs. Lena Joy. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery somewhere today -- I can't see him -- is Mr. Ken Harding, for many years the manager of the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative and currently the chairman of the Prince Rupert Regional Hospital Board. I would ask the members to make him welcome today.

F. Garden: On Saturday evening I had the pleasure of accompanying the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, on behalf of the Premier, to the Sons of Scotland fiftieth anniversary at the Queen Elizabeth Ball. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson was also there. The guest of honour at that great occasion was His Grace the Duke of Atholl. As a great coincidence on this Tartan Day, he has joined us today in the gallery. Accompanying him is Dennis Emberley from Vancouver. I'd like the House to join me in making a warm Canadian welcome to His Grace the Duke of Atholl.

G. Janssen: In the gallery today is a longtime member from Alberni and a good friend, Blazeen Oreskovich, and her friend from Kelowna, Reneal Grace. Also, from the women's centre in Port Alberni is Sue Egers, a hard worker in the cause of women's rights. Please make them welcome.

R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my wife and my CA, who are in the gallery today. If you would please make them welcome.

C. Serwa: Hon Speaker, it is with great regret that I rise to pay tribute to Dan Campbell, the long-time member, a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Comox, who passed away yesterday. First elected in 1956, Dan served the province for 16 years under W.A.C. Bennett, principally as Minister of Municipal Affairs, and subsequently worked to rebuild the Social Credit Party and served as Premier Bill Bennett's executive assistant. Dan will be long remembered for the creation of regional districts as well as for his quick humour and tireless years of service to his constituents.

Dan had suffered two strokes last year. I am sure that all members will join me in offering our deepest regrets to Dan's wife Jeanie and their four children, and extending our warmest appreciation for the contribution that Dan made to the betterment of British Columbia.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am saddened to hear of Dan's passing. As members know, Dan has been a constituent of mine for many years now. He retired from politics at the active level but was very involved in his community as well as doing the work for the previous government on municipal legislation and infrastructure. Dan was an activist in the life of Cortes Island and of my constituency. On behalf of all members on this side of the House, I too would like to extend our condolences to his family.

D. Mitchell: On behalf of the official opposition, I too would like to add a voice of condolence to the family of the late Dan Campbell, an amazing politician who served as a member of this House for many years. He was a tough-talking politician who really exemplified the rough-and-tumble nature of politics in our province, probably better than any other former member of this House.

He achieved much during his many years in public life, not the least of which took place during the years subsequent to when he was a member of this House, when he, along with a few others, actually did what many thought was impossible. He helped rebuild a Social Credit Party that had gone down to defeat, surely a task that will never be repeated. I think on behalf of all members of the opposition, we would pay condolences to the squire of the Cortes Island White House, Dan Campbell. We wish his family our sincere condolences.

The Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that we send a letter to Mr. Campbell's family?

Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: That will be done.

Oral Questions

POLICE BOARD APPOINTMENTS

C. Serwa: You've got to be quick on your feet in this House.

My question is to the Attorney General. According to OIC 426 dated March 25, 1992, Mrs. Ann Frost has been appointed to the West Vancouver Police Board. Could the minister confirm that this is the same Ann Frost who sits on the NDP provincial council as vice-president, and that this is the same Ann Frost who is a director of the Commonwealth Holding Society, which has signing authority for the NDP finances?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.

C. Serwa: On May 17, 1989, the Times-Colonist quoted the member for Victoria-Hillside with respect to the appointment to the Victoria Police Board of a former Social Credit constituency vice-president. The current Minister of Municipal Affairs said it was political featherbedding of the worst kind, and he wrote a letter to the Solicitor General to express his objections. Can the Attorney General inform the House whether the member expressed similar objections to the appointment of Ann Frost; and if not, what particular qualifications she possesses that distinguish her appointment from the previous example cited?

[ Page 526 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I won't take up the suggestion made by my colleagues in respect of qualifications of this appointee as compared to the one referred to by my colleague. Let me just say that the member will know that a number of appointments have been made to police boards around British Columbia in the 12 communities that have municipal forces. I think a canvass of the list of appointees will clearly indicate that these people are well respected in their community and have the support of mayors, councils and police forces in their respective communities.

In the case of Ann Frost, I think the member would be well advised to discover that she is eminently qualified for that particular position.

[2:15]

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

C. Serwa: Just a brief follow-up on the second supplementary. The member for Victoria-Hillside charged that the appointment process to police boards was unfair and intended to ensure partisan control of local government "through a backdoor process." Does the Attorney General agree with his colleague's assessment? And could he tell us what formal steps he has taken to fundamentally change the way people are appointed to local police boards?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't comment on an event some time ago that I don't have any knowledge about. What I can talk about is the process used for the appointment of police boards. First of all, there's consultation with the local council and mayor. Secondly, the B.C. Police Commission, as required by the B.C. Police Act, is also involved in the approval of the various nominees and suggestions. The process, in my view, is very fair and appropriate, and as a result we get some very fine people sitting on our police boards.

HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Wilson: In deference to the member's comments about being quick on his feet, perhaps if the official opposition was given more than five minutes' notice of ministerial statements and was provided with an accurate list of ministers present in question period, we wouldn't have to be reacting as we are to this matter.

Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Will the Premier assure this House that adequate levels of patient care are being maintained in British Columbia hospitals despite the action currently being taken by HEU?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is an important question, and the people of British Columbia need to be assured that the essential-service provisions are in place and, just as important, that the parties who are responsible for providing those essential services -- particularly the members of the Hospital Employees' Union, who make most of the hospitals in this province run properly -- are prepared to live up to the obligations under those essential-service provisions.

We have to make sure that the people of British Columbia come first and that the parties involved in collective bargaining carry on that collective bargaining in a way that does not affect British Columbians who require hospital and other care.

G. Wilson: Just one of the many stories that have come to my attention over the weekend involves a man requiring emergency surgery at Vancouver General Hospital on Friday and Saturday, who was forced to lie on a stretcher in a hallway and was not provided food services for two full days. Is this what the Premier considers to be adequate patient care?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If the Leader of the Opposition could provide us with those details, I'd like to see them. He says -- if I heard him properly -- that a patient waited for two days without food in the Vancouver General Hospital. I find it difficult to believe that that could occur, but if it has we'd certainly like to check into it, and if he could supply us with the details we will.

The Speaker: A final supplementary.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and we will provide you the details of that particular incident.

Given that the Premier's government has promised that there would be improved health care, smoother labour relations and a just settlement for women in the public sector -- I would argue that his government has accomplished none of the above to date -- will the Premier agree today to recommend the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the current impasse and remove the chaos that we are finding in B.C. hospitals?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition should tread carefully in intervening in the collective bargaining process. He's probably aware that there have already been mediators involved in this. If he is suggesting binding arbitration, I think he is suggesting what usually turns out to be very expensive for the taxpayers. I can tell you, as somebody who has had to deal with binding arbitrations in other circumstances, that that is a fact. I think what we should do is let the collective bargaining process take its place with the employers -- in this instance, the hospital labour relations association -- and the Hospital Employees' Union.

DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL

A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General and is concerned with a case settled secretly out of court in December 1991, involving Victoria lawyer Peter Firestone in his defamation suit against former Attorney General Bud Smith and the department's assistant deputy minister, William Stewart. Would the Attorney General confirm, as reported in the press today, that the total amount settled was $93,000, of which more than $80,000 went to legal expenses alone? Also, since public money was involved, why did the government delay in releasing this information to the public?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the exact figures are that $80,500 went to defray the legal costs,

[ Page 527 ]

and $12,500 of public money went toward the settlement. The question was first asked of me by the Times-Colonist about two months ago, and at that time the amount we had expended was in the $70,000 range, if my memory serves me correctly. I gave that answer to the reporter, and the Times-Colonist actually printed it back in January sometime. The current numbers are as I've given them. That's the full extent of the public's contribution.

A. Warnke: Supplementary, hon. Speaker. Could the Attorney General also confirm whether, in settling this case, the decision on behalf of the government was a sole, unilateral decision taken by the Attorney General?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: All of the decisions in this case were made by the Deputy Attorney General.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN

LABOUR LEGISLATION CHANGES

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. On April 9, 1987, the now Minister of Labour spoke to this House in favour of a motion delaying for a full six months the introduction of Bill 19, a controversial piece of legislation. I quote: "...the appropriate thing to do...is to take the legislation that the government has introduced...and put it in front of the public and invite response...." Can the Premier publicly restate for this House today his personal commitment and the commitment of his government to a full review of all changes to labour legislation and/or regulation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, that is a matter for future action. I can say, though, that the panel to review new labour legislation for British Columbia is at work and is out gathering the opinions of the people of British Columbia about what would establish a new labour management climate.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think the Premier knows what the question was, and I'll make it a little clearer for him this time, if I may. I've received over 80 letters from contractors throughout the province protesting the fair wage policy of this government. Can the Premier explain why this policy was rammed through the House without any opportunity for public hearings, despite the former minister's strong statements in this House?

The Speaker: Hon. member, if you have a short question for a supplemental, would you like to continue?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I will, and I'll give the other one in written form for the Premier so he may read it.

It is interesting to note that this Premier believes that any change to the labour code which may help low-paid individuals such as domestics and farmworkers requires review by full public policy, and it goes on and on. How is it, then, that those policies that fix wages for the already well-to-do and well-paid construction workers are rammed through this House? An interesting set of priorities, but I guess the domestics and farmworkers just didn't contribute enough to the government.

My question to the premier is: can he explain why his government has established a two-tiered process for changes to labour legislation in this province: one for the friends and insiders and election friends of this government, and one for the rest of us?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Obviously the new member and his research staff are not aware that the first action of this government was to raise the minimum wage for the lowest-paid workers in this province. The second announcement from this government was to bring in the most active pay equity program of any jurisdiction in North America, and along with that to establish a freestanding Women's Equality ministry and to appoint seven women members to our cabinet to make sure the issues that are important to all British Columbians, in terms of bringing about equality between men and women, are before the cabinet.

Lastly, hon. Speaker, I think this trend that I see from the Liberal opposition -- who are trying to divide workers from one another, who are trying to pick favourites among workers -- is very unfortunate. I'll tell you: this government is here to represent....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government is here to make sure we don't divide workers; that we're not divisive. We're here to make sure all workers have a fair way of life in British Columbia.

FAIR WAGE POLICY

L. Fox: I'm sure the Speaker will recall that on March 19 I asked a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to whether or not his staff had done any studies to determine the impact of the fair wage policy on municipalities. He answered in the affirmative: "A number of information and impact studies have been done." I would ask the minister at this time if he's prepared to table those studies.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Indeed, I did indicate.... The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for this policy, had discussions and communications with UBCM on this issue. I'm glad to report that the policy we've brought down has limited or no impact on local government.

L. Fox: I'm a little concerned. My question was whether he, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, had done any studies. He answered in the affirmative. He's now suggesting that he answered incorrectly. If that is the case, I would suggest that if his ministry has not done any studies, he should stand up in this House and apologize that he misled this House.

The Speaker: There is no question to that, but if the member wishes....

[ Page 528 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will just quickly answer what obviously was not a question. The member may wish to consult with the UBCM. The UBCM did give us all sorts of indications of their concerns. If they wish to release the information, they may do so. I can assure this member that, if he wishes to consult with the Minister of Labour, I'm sure he will share the various things we were prepared to look at and what the implications are. We have done our homework, and the policy is in place.

[2:30]

Ministerial Statement

NORTH AMERICAN

FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish to make a ministerial statement on the North American free trade agreement. If the allusion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition was that we didn't provide him adequate notice, I apologize. The instruction was that you should receive it half an hour before the House sat. If that didn't happen, we'll see that it happens in future.

British Columbia is a trading province. Twenty-five percent of our gross domestic product and one in four jobs are dependent on exports. In short, we need trade. British Columbia supports a multilateral trade strategy. We are interested in selling our goods to as many markets as possible. We are especially interested in securing and expanding our special trade relationship with the Pacific Rim.

While our economy is substantially trade-oriented, we will not be bullied by the United States or any other trading partner into undercutting the viability of our industries. Defects in the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States must be addressed before Canada enters into another agreement with the United States. For example, the free trade agreement has not prevented the U.S. from initiating an unfair countervail duty action against British Columbia lumber producers. This U.S. countervail action casts a sinister shadow over the proposed North American free trade agreement. The U.S. countervailing duty laws need to be reformed.

If the North American free trade agreement cannot provide an opportunity for Canada to deal with the problem of U.S. trade protectionism, then British Columbia does not want to be part of it. The public should be clear about one thing: British Columbia will not sacrifice the livelihood of its workers on the altar of the North American free trade agreement or any other international trade agreement.

After reviewing the proposals of Mexico and the United States, I am troubled by the impact a North American free trade agreement might have on processed fruit and vegetable producers, garment manufacturers, computer manufacturers, electronics producers, the telecommunications industry and energy. I am also concerned about the economic dislocations and unfair trade and investment implications that could stem from the different labour and environmental standards, and about the different wage and productivity components at work in the three NAFTA countries.

It is essential that environmental and labour issues be addressed in the North American free trade agreement itself, so that problems arising from different standards can be dealt with.

The federal government must provide ongoing information to the Canadian public on the NAFTA negotiations. The North American free trade agreement should not become a closet issue. Throwing light on the negotiations would surely be a healthy addition to the Canadian negotiating position. The British Columbia government is pressing the federal government to keep British Columbians informed about the content of the negotiations towards a North American free trade agreement. I am meeting the Hon. Michael Wilson, the federal trade minister, next week in Ottawa and will be advising him of B.C.'s concerns about the North American free trade agreement.

I would just like to say parenthetically that I was quoted on the weekend as saying that I felt uncomfortable in not providing a copy to Dave Barrett, the federal trade critic. I wish the record to be clear that he at no time ever asked me to provide him with a copy of that. We wouldn't, because we are very concerned about protecting confidentiality. If we don't have confidentiality, we don't have the documents. However, we are instructing our staff to disclose and provide ways to disclose and brief the opposition on the full details of any draft agreement that we've seen.

G. Wilson: Those in the official opposition also have serious concerns about the potential impact that NAFTA may have on the economy of British Columbia. We share with the minister our concern that these negotiations have in large measure taken place in secrecy without the involvement of Canadians from coast to coast.

It is our concern also that while we wish to have a much greater degree of opportunity to examine these documents, it will not be enough for us to simply be consulted at the end of the process. We have to be consulted during the process, and as those items which affect British Columbia are negotiated with Mexico and the United States, we as British Columbians must be an active participant in those kinds of negotiations. Otherwise we will be left in a position much as we were with the FTA with the United States, where we were simply reacting from outside.

We recognize that we are indeed a trading nation. We recognize that the wealth of British Columbia's economy very much lies with our trading partners in Washington, Oregon, California and Mexico. That is precisely why we have taken such issue with the budget that was recently tabled by the government of British

[ Page 529 ]

Columbia: because it does not recognize that importance of trade.

However, I have had an opportunity to review the text and document of FTA as it was made available to me from Ottawa. I can say that there is one other lingering concern that we in this caucus have with respect to this agreement. It is one in which there is no clear delineation of matter but to which very much reference is made, and that is with respect to bulk export of water from Canada to provide for continental North America and Mexico the needed primary resource in order to expand their economies. Hon.

Speaker, I hope that as we start to look at this agreement, this government will join this official opposition in saying the bulk export of water, particularly through major diversion, is unacceptable to British Columbians, and I hope that we will make sure that all of us stand tight on that issue.

R. Neufeld: Our party supports free trade. We know how important free trade and competitive trade is to our economy. As stated in the ministerial statement, one out of every four jobs depends on free trade. I, representing a constituency that depends very heavily on trade, can agree how important this issue is to British Columbians and Canadians. Global trade, and for us in North America free trade, is the future for our country, our province and our economy.

Today I had the privilege of having lunch with Mr. Tony Joy, the British consul general, and he explained some of the difficulties faced by Europe with the free trade and common currency. Certainly if Europe can at some time agree to a common currency, we as Canadians can negotiate a fair and equitable free trade agreement in North America. We must be mindful also of the impacts of provincial budgets, fair wage policies, and anything that could hinder a fair deal for British Columbia. I thank the minister for saying he will brief us.

Ministerial Statement

WINDY CRAGGY COPPER-COBALT PROJECT

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a ministerial statement on behalf of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, on an important public matter. I'm referring to the proposed Windy Craggy copper-mine project and the related issues of land use in the Alsek-Tatshenshini area. The minister responsible cannot be here today, and she has asked me as the acting minister to make a statement to this House and to the public of British Columbia with respect to Windy Craggy. I am pleased to do so, and pleased to advise the House that the government is moving carefully to deal with this complex issue.

The Windy Craggy deposit is a large and rich copper deposit. The surrounding region is believed to have high potential for other similar deposits. The Alsek-Tatshenshini region has high wilderness values. It is surrounded in Alaska and in the Yukon by protected areas. The conjunction of competing resource opportunities has presented this government with decisions that must be made. We shall make those decisions. We will make them responsibly and only after full evaluation of the facts and of the options available, and we will make them publicly.

Even before we were elected, we were aware of the strong feelings around this issue. Since becoming government, we have carefully examined existing knowledge, and we have continued to hear from many people about this project and this area. We have heard that we should participate with the Yukon and Alaska in the creation of an international protected area, forgoing the undoubted mineral wealth of the region. We have heard of the value of the mineral resources and of the jobs and spinoff economic benefits that would flow from development.

We have heard about the biological values of the area, such as grizzly bear denning sites. We have heard that the Windy Craggy project cannot be developed in an environmentally safe manner, and that if developed, it would remain a constant threat to the environment of British Columbia and might violate our international treaty obligations. We have heard that Windy Craggy has not been adequately reviewed and that it could be approved and under construction without proper consideration of wilderness values.

We have heard these things. We have listened carefully, and we are sensitive to the concerns being expressed. We are now able to advise you, hon. Speaker, of the course we are about to take.

First, before any decisions are made on the Windy Craggy project itself, this government will ensure that a full range of land and water use options for the Alsek-Tatshenshini are considered and evaluated. These will no doubt include an option for complete preservation of the area, options for carefully controlled mineral and resource development, and options for protection and preservation of key areas required for wildlife protection and tourism.

The process for evaluating the land use options will be public. It will be fair. It will consider economic, socioeconomic and environmental benefits, and implications of each option. Special attention will be given to aboriginal interests.

We will consider the benefits of international cooperation to create an international protected area, but we will also consider the role of the region's mineral resources in sustaining our mineral industry and the living standards of our people. We will not foreclose possible future opportunities for mineral and resource development solely because there may be specific concerns about the current proposals for Windy Craggy. Neither will we encourage such developments because their benefits are more tangible than other options. That is the first stage.

If, as a result of this evaluation, the government determines that mineral development is among the preferred land uses for the region, we will then be in a position to consider specific mining proposals such as Windy Craggy. In that event, rigorous review of the Windy Craggy project will resume. That review will include a formal public hearing by an independent panel. From our perspective, it should be carried out jointly with Canada and possibly with United States authorities. Before such a hearing can be held, the

[ Page 530 ]

project proponent has much more work to do. We will shortly be releasing a detailed document containing our study requirements. Before they are finalized, they will be reviewed by independent technical experts. These requirements will ensure that the project will proceed only if it is non-polluting and does not otherwise threaten the environment.

We will be announcing the details of this initiative shortly, and I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that this initiative will be conducted openly and fairly. There is no question that our government will be called upon to make difficult decisions as stewards of our globally significant mineral and wilderness resources. We know that the eyes of the world are on us now, seeking our leadership. We will make the necessary decisions responsibly, cognizant of our international obligations and the need to balance pressing economic and environmental imperatives.

D. Jarvis: There really aren't too many options, my friends. If there are any options, it is very clear. We should not foreclose our economic development in this province or our opportunities to do so. We have to consider the future of this province economically and the future of the workers in this province. There are thousands of workers now going out of work, and there are no mines to go to. We have the returns that come into this province by the way of our taxes and our royalties, and we must consider them.

However, everyone in this Legislature agrees that we must protect the Tatshenshini. Who among us cannot be considered environmentalists? We have to show the world how we can do this. We have to work together hand in hand. We cannot continue to ask the mines to put up millions of dollars with no insurance that they're going to have access to working mines.

This mine, Windy Craggy, has been under review with the mine development assessment program for well over a year now, and we are interested to find out at this stage where they have been all this time.

[2:45]

As I said before, our economic future does not or will not live on 100 percent environmental situations, so we must work together with industry. I agree with the proposed review panel. However, in view of the money that has been spent by the company that is developing Windy Craggy, I do not think it's fair for us to continually go on for months and months while they economically go down the drain and while we make another decision. The development assessment program has been going for a year. I think we should make a decision as to how long it's going to be and not just have an open-ended review panel. That is all I have to say at this point.

L. Fox: Our party in this caucus certainly supports this initiative. We are pleased that the process to evaluate this very important economic initiative for northwestern B.C. is moving forward. It is our hope that this independent panel will be made up of a cross-section of individuals representing all interests, to ensure that all values are given full consideration. It's also our hope that it will be done as quickly and as expediently as possible, so that we can allow this economic initiative to move forward.

Point of Privilege

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On Friday the opposition House Leader raised a question of privilege....

Hon. G. Clark: Opposition Whip.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry. I wasn't in the House at the time.

The Speaker: Please proceed. I didn't know what point you were raising.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: My apologies to the House Leader and to the Whip. It was my understanding it was the House Leader.

The Whip raised a question of privilege relating to comments I made in the House on Thursday of last week concerning the report of the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters. I don't believe this is a matter of privilege, hon. Speaker, but I leave that to you. May I just simply and quickly say what the facts are.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On Wednesday, the day before the release of the report -- it was released in the House at approximately 2:30 on Thursday -- I was shown a draft of the committee report, because of my role in the previous parliament as the Deputy Chair of the parliamentary committee on the constitution and because the report we produced last year indicated that our process was partway through and that it would continue if the new parliament took our recommendation to establish a new committee, which this parliament did in advance of its sitting.

The two reports, the one last year that I was party to and the one this year, were very integrally linked. The draft I was shown may or may not have been the version introduced the next day. I don't know whether or not they were exactly the same, but I was shown a draft, and I did read it. I made no comment to anyone until two hours following the public tabling of the document in the House at about 4:15 on Thursday afternoon.

In my view, hon. Speaker, it's not a question of privilege; it simply was a question of a courtesy to the previous committee. I honoured the confidence of this House in that there was no public discussion or discussion outside this chamber about the report. It was, as I say, a draft report at that stage. I don't think it was a matter of privilege, but I'll leave that to you.

The Speaker: Thank you for your submission, hon. member.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to table a

summary of loan and loan guarantee portfolios, as I said I would.

Leave granted.

[ Page 531 ]

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

D. Jarvis: As we all know, this province entered into Confederation in 1871. Approximately a dozen or 13 years prior to that, when Queen Victoria gave the name to this province, the Fraser River gold rush started and thousands of people entered this province, went up through my riding past the original Coach House hotel that still stands, and started up the long trek of the old Lillooet Trail.

Since that time the resource industry has been the backbone of this province, and today energy, mines and petroleum resources are this province's second-largest resource industry behind forestry and employs over 15,000 people. It represents 27 percent of our exports. This is what energy, mines and petroleum means to this province. It is also the second-largest revenue source for this province, and it pays over $170 million in direct federal and provincial taxes. They also pay into this province over $200 million in indirect taxes made up of mineral royalties, water taxes, management fees, etc.

These resource industries are some of the most crucial economic drivers of this province and of our provincial economy. They provide the capital through direct taxation to fund our many social services as they struggle to meet the requirements of a growing population. As I have said before, they employ people throughout this province who pay provincial and federal taxes and whose everyday spending habits stimulate the economic growth and well-being of this province.

Let no one misunderstand the critical importance of the industry or misunderstand the critical situation that this industry now finds itself in. In 1972 the NDP government of that time made a very big mistake. It misunderstood the nature and importance of the mining industry in British Columbia. It saw what it perceived to be a huge supply of private capital, which was there for the taking. The NDP government -- do you hear me? -- kept taking. They took and took until finally this industry could not withstand it any longer, so the industry just began to dry up. With it went the money which had been deemed so plentiful. I implore this current government not to allow itself the same delusion.

I also add that this program was continued after the brief flirtation of the NDP government in this province by the Socreds, who continued to tax and tax this industry. I note that after our amendment last Friday, the Socreds stood up and voted with this NDP government again.

The mining industry is a huge economic force in this province. There can be no doubt that it is also one which is having a very difficult time, and in many ways it is just fighting to remain in B.C. This government must do what it can to help the industry remain here, because the people of this province will have to depend on it.

There are fewer than 20 mineral mines that are working now in this province. Out of this pathetically small number, there are also a few mines that are ready to come onstream. But these mines are being held up -- as mentioned earlier in the minister's statement -- by the development review boards. These companies have sunk millions and millions of dollars in terms of investment and environmental impact studies. The fact that the least-disputed of these mines is not being permitted to proceed does not send a positive message to an already leery industry.

Last year the profit end of this industry overall lost in excess of $200 million, yet the province's tax base from this industry increased up to close to $400 million. This excluded the sales tax and other spinoffs from the 15,000 people who are employed in B.C. Then there are the 29,000 people across this country who are also indirectly employed by the B.C. mines, and they are all paying taxes.

This government -- this ministry -- actually had the audacity to cut this industry's budget by 41 percent. This government spends 10 cents of every dollar they take in on this industry.

The point is: when is this government going to learn that to make money, you have to spend money? But before you can spend the money, you have to earn it. It's incredible. Here is a government that wants to distribute its wealth as its agenda, and it doesn't understand that you can't keep cutting up the pie without getting a larger pie.

We live in a province whose population is projected to increase by 50 percent over the next 25 years, and if we are to maintain our standard of living, we must continually strive toward new sources of revenue and employment for the people of this province. We need to find continuous, reliable sources of energy to sustain them. We must be constantly broadening our horizons and adding to our options. This requires leadership and vision on the part of a government. What is so sorely lacking in this budget is any commitment to the exploration of new and viable energy resources.

Where is the initiative from government -- a government which claims to work with industry? Rather than leading new industry into British Columbia, they are chasing the existing industries out. Over $60 million was spent in Chile alone last year by publicly owned B.C. companies, yet this is going to be the tip of the iceberg. In fact, $1 billion dollars of Canadian money was spent in other countries to the south of us by companies based in Canada. Some of this money should have come to us.

This mining industry is of such crucial importance to this province that its imminent collapse will significantly degrade this province's standard of living. You can't exist if you take $400 million out of your budget.

Increasing the corporate tax burden does not lead to a healthy economy. This corporate capital tax is perhaps the most frightening of all the government's budget initiatives. That's not an accomplishment. It demonstrates so clearly this government's total and absolute lack of understanding of the way business and industry operate.

If taxes had to go up -- as we know they did -- at least this government could have shown the common sense to have increased their take from a range of profit taxes, as industry was crying out for. In other words, this government could have said to them: "The more

[ Page 532 ]

you make, the more we'll take." This would not have been greeted with great joy and exuberance, but at least it would have been seen as even-handed, so they could play on a level field.

Instead, this government introduced an across-the-board tax, a regressive tax, which hits industries regardless of their profit margin -- if there was one. But like the accountant who is colour blind and can't see the difference between red and black ink, this government keeps demanding its taxes from everyone, whether the money is there or not. If they keep up this sort of tactic, I can promise you this: in the very near future the money, the companies and the workers won't be there. Hon. Speaker, the Tories have fractured this country, and now the Socialists are trying to cut the backbone out of this province.

This is such a high-risk industry that, unlike other industries, it never knows where its next mine will be; therefore it must continuously explore. Exploration in this high-risk industry puts it directly into the forefront of the pro-wilderness and environmental debate, as the exploration companies require access to this province as a whole. This includes the very contentious areas, such as those we were talking about earlier today. Therefore the resource industries know that we must live together and that we must work hand in hand if we are to survive in this province. They are quite aware that one hand washes the other.

The now infamous Peat Marwick review compared the taxation of this province with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario to the east of us. We of the opposition believe that this was wrong, because 86 percent of our trade is with Washington, Oregon and California and the rest of the Pacific Rim countries.

What I'm trying to communicate to you is that our resource industry is already overtaxed. It is overtaxed compared to every other jurisdiction in this world, yet this government continues to ignore the fact that the resource industry in this province is a global one. It exports. How will they compete if we continue to tax and tax? Capital is fickle, and it goes where it can get the best return for its dollar. If this agenda continues, it will not be "buy B.C."; it will be "bye, bye B.C."

[3:00]

The lack of new mines in this province is a direct result of a lack of exploration and the cost of exploration. The long process of federal and provincial regulations is being held up by the long and complicated mine development assessment board. As I mentioned earlier, this cannot continue. It costs the companies money, but they're prepared to go through it. Exploration is down over $100 million this last year in this province, plus the fact that there has been more than a 40 percent drop in mine permits issued. We just can't continue going on this basis.

We must realize that the abuses by the resource industries that occurred in the past cannot be considered valid anymore. The environmental philosophy has taken precedence with our foresters and our miners. They are very acutely aware that the environment must be considered, to keep our resources for a sustainable future. B.C. miners are known to be among the most environmentally friendly miners in the world. That is a fact. Go to other countries and you will find out -- don't be so provincial.

So let me sum up what the government has done. They take away $400 million in taxes. They restrict new mines from entering this province, and for every mine that closes, there is no place for the workers to go, so we have ever mounting numbers of unemployed -- thousands of semi-skilled and skilled labourers with nowhere to go and no jobs to work at. But this government -- this tax-and-spend government -- just adds more regressive taxes, taxes that drive investors who want to come to B.C. to the south and to the east and to the west. The resource industries that are here now are already losing millions of dollars.

Even when they're losing money, this government says pay your taxes, pay your taxes.

We have this regressive 1 percent corporation capital tax that will cost the existing mines in this province over $12 million extra this year, money that many of them don't even have. We have the new school taxes in this budget. It will cost the miners of this province another million dollars. We have additional water taxes that will cost the mines an additional $3 million this year. I might add that this additional $3 million water tax that's presented to them was put through by an order-in-council by this government, very quietly, two days before Christmas -- December 23. Never a notice or anything; they snuck it through -- shroud of secrecy again, shroud of secrecy.

Hon. Speaker, there is an old and wise saying that those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. A repeat of the 1972 B.C. mining massacre is imminent, and will be an absolute disaster to this province. I submit that if we fail to learn from our mistakes this time, it may be the last opportunity we get.

Now I see I still have a couple of minutes left. I'd like to say that probably the greatest concern about this budget with respect to my own riding of North Vancouver-Seymour is the underfunding aspect of it, especially the underfunding aspect of our education system. Your government has stated that they are going to do away with the portable schools throughout this province, and I commend them for it. I just hope that our District 44 in North Vancouver will be included in this initiative.

But I'm amazed and concerned that this government would continue with the Socred policy on the equalization formula for education funding. It is hard to realize that the government would penalize our district because they have been innovative over the years. In North Vancouver-Seymour, our taxes are higher per capita than any other place in the province, and the amount we receive per capita is less than the provincial average; in fact, approximately $150 less per student. That is not what I would call equalization. Madam Speaker, we believe that because we are innovative, your government's equalization formula is unfair. We pay more and we receive less and therefore we are penalized.

As I've said before, the equity that we have in this province is in our children. So we don't need a fair-wage policy; we don't need a capital corporation

[ Page 533 ]

tax. We need a fair, full equality education system. We need a strategy to encourage investment and create jobs. Health problems and job problems and our youth problems can be cured through education. As we stand now, it is hard to qualify what impact this underfunding will have on our children in the proposed cancellation of their programs.

I ask this government to consider a strategy to revise the education agenda. This opposition party realizes it will be tough, but we are prepared to help for the benefit of the citizens of this province. I thank you very much.

Hon. P. Priddy: I am both pleased and honoured to be speaking here today on behalf of the people from Surrey-Newton, and also to be speaking in support of this government's budget. When the voters elect a member of the Legislative Assembly to represent them, it's a demonstration of trust and a demonstration which asks for responsibility. I accept that responsibility, and I respect and honour that trust.

Most recently the constituency of Surrey-Newton was represented by Rita Johnston, the former Premier of British Columbia. It was indeed a significant milestone in the political history of women in Canada when Mrs. Johnston became the first woman premier in this country. Regardless of party affiliation, I believe that when people choose to become involved in the political process, they do so because they care deeply about their community. Mrs. Johnston cared about the needs, the interests and the future of Surrey-Newton, and she brought that caring to this assembly.

Surrey-Newton is a very special community. I know that each one of us stands in this House and says that our community is special, that our community is the best place to live -- and of course we're all correct. Indeed it is our passion and belief in the uniqueness of our individual ridings that makes each of us strong advocates for our communities.

When I describe Surrey-Newton to someone, I describe it as a community of diversities, a community of choices and a community of great potential. The citizens of Surrey-Newton honour its history while building its future. Our roads and many of our schools bear the names of early residents: Kennedy Trail Elementary School, M. J. Norris School, Bose Road, Johnston Road. While we honour our pioneers -- those who cleared the land and farmed and fished before there were such things as suburbs -- we must never forget that it was aboriginal people who were the first citizens of Surrey-Newton and who first knew the land that I now have the privilege to represent.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

As Surrey-Newton moves forward to shape its future, we recognize the special gifts that people from other countries bring to our community. Many new Canadians are bringing their talents and skills -- people from India, the Philippines, Korea and the countries of Central and South America. Indeed, one of the most unique and rewarding aspects of our community is the rich Indo-Canadian culture accruing to the residents of Newton. Almost 20 percent of people who live in my riding are Indo-Canadian residents. In this I believe we are blessed. And to these residents, let me say: Sat Sri Akal, Namaaste and Salaam Ekam

We're fortunate to see in our neighbourhood a blending of ages. Many young people are choosing Surrey-Newton as a place to settle and raise their families, and at the same time, our elders are choosing to retire to Surrey-Newton, providing us with their wealth of experience and special energies, and our children with precious links to their history.

During the recent election, and repeated many times by hon. members in this assembly, we've heard about the problems created in our communities by "rapid growth." Indeed the very terms "rapid growth" or "fastest growing" have almost become clichés in today's "political speak." I think it's time that we pause for a few moments to consider just exactly what growth means to a community. In one sense it's easy to define growth. We can see it; we can measure it; we can count it; it's three dimensional. In Newton, growth can be measured by counting the number of portable classrooms on school yards, or by calculating the number of hospital beds, or acute-care hospital beds, to population.

Another way to measure growth in my riding is to observe the numbers of shorebirds crowded onto our still unprotected salt marshes and tidal flats as these remarkable creatures migrate along the Pacific flyway. Ever-increasing school enrolments, rapidly expanding demands on community services and risks to the environment are difficult issues -- ones, I'm sure, that all members of this House are prepared to deal with. However, hon. Speaker, in reality the increments of growth in a community are multi-dimensional and cannot be measured easily; yet they are critical to people and to their environment.

The intangible stresses of growth affect the community values that maintain our citizens. The strains of growth affect the sense of safety and security in our homes and in our communities.

We must be careful in our communities of the need to create an environment, an opportunity that encourages aboriginal, Asian and Latin-American residents to maintain their unique rich cultural heritage. While these problems of growth are difficult to quantify, their solution is essential if our communities are to attain their full potential and contribute to the future of this wonderful province.

Hon. Speaker, my commitment to address these issues in Surrey-Newton is total, and my resolve to find the solutions is firm. And I invite all members of the House to join me in that task.

I am pleased that the Education budget provided additional grants for growing districts. This will help, but it's not enough to eliminate all the problems. It is a step in the right direction, but more work is needed. I will continue my advocacy for the best education for the students of Newton. We don't want better than the rest of the province, but we do want our fair share.

In many ways communities are an extension of families, and such is the case with Surrey-Newton. As in all families there are sometimes competing interests,

[ Page 534 ]

competing needs or a difference of opinion about approach. But in the end, like a family, we work together toward common solutions. We care about each other, and we care about the future of Newton. The challenges and excitement of Surrey-Newton and the people who live there are why I am pleased to represent this community in the Legislature.

I also stand in this Legislature today as the first Minister of Women's Equality. The honour bestowed on me allows me to be a part of the next step in the history of women in BC. But I stand beside 18 other women who have been elected as Members of the Legislative Assembly, including the second woman to be elected as the Speaker of this House. But there are many more women, hon. Speaker, who stand here in spirit with us today. These are the women who have shaped the political reality for us.

Some of these women are named, but many of these women go unnamed, and their names are unknown because the contributions made by women were not seen as important enough by our historians to write about in our history books. What this means is that we, our children and our grand-children learn, for the most part, of a history shaped only by men.

There were important contributions by men, but that's only a part of the building of this province. We've had to learn of women's contributions in different ways -- from farm journals, household diaries, stories and song. As women we can look to the history of this land and the history of aboriginal women for our earliest influences on decision-making. The roles of women in the aboriginal community as leaders, decision-makers and partners were valued and respected. Many of these aboriginal models have been lost; many are now being regained. We have much to learn from that experience, from the historical and current contributions of women in the aboriginal communities of British Columbia.

[3:15]

Yesterday, April 5, 1992, we celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of the date that women won the right to vote in British Columbia. Cecilia Spofford, Maria Grant, Helen MacGill: these women and thousands of others were part of the 46-year struggle for women's suffrage.

The struggle began in 1871, and for almost half a century women became public and political figures as they pursued their quest for public, political and legal status. Finally, as the result of a referendum on April 5, 1917, one year before the country of Canada, women won the right to vote. So, hon. Speaker, as I stand in this House today, if I stop and listen carefully, I can hear the sound of women marching together to protest their exclusion from their government. I can hear women's voices demanding to be heard. The voices were strong 75 years ago, and they are just as urgent today.

I can also hear the footsteps of other women legislators who have walked before us in the corridors of this Legislature. Women from my party, such as Grace MacInnis and Rosemary Brown, led the way by speaking out against injustice and for the participation of women and of people of colour. The number of women in this chamber shows us how far women have come since those days. But is it far enough? Are we troubled at all by the fact that women, who make up 52 percent of the population of this province, hold only 25 percent of the seats in this assembly? It has taken 75 years to elect women to 25 percent of the seats in this province.

Hon. Speaker, it cannot take another 75 years to elect 27 percent more. But even then, will we really be representative of the people of British Columbia? We are, for the most part, white and middle-class. There are many people in this province who do not see themselves represented in this Legislature. But what can we do about it? Isn't this assembly elected by the democratic will of the people of British Columbia? How can we enrich the representation of all of the people of the province in this assembly? We can create opportunities for people to participate. We can value the contributions of all the people of the province.

Let us open the circle and ensure that the decisions made for the people of this province are made by the people of this province. These people include women, people of colour, aboriginal people, people with disabilities, gay and lesbian people, people who live in poverty and rural residents. We are diminished by excluding the contributions of our richly diverse populations in this province.

I would like to read the following into the record. This was a resolution published in 1912 in the Champion, a journal of women's suffrage. I believe it applies to all women and to all equity groups as much today as it did then.

"That the woman's point of view should be directly represented in the control of legislation and all affairs of the nation, and deplored the injustice to women and the loss of the state involved in her present political position; and preferring that British Columbia should lead the other provinces of Canada in all matters of progressive reform, rather than follow, it calls upon the provincial government to introduce and carry, during the coming session, a bill giving the vote to women on the same terms it is or may be given to men."

One year before the country of Canada took this action, the province of British Columbia gave the right to women who had won the right to vote.

Hon. Speaker, leading Canada in progressive reform is just part of what the Ministry of Women's Equality is about -- the first stand-alone Ministry of Women's Equality in the history of this country and the first ministry responsible for employment equity.

The creation of a Ministry of Women's Equality is not an end in itself. The barriers to women in this province have been ignored for too long, and this government cannot eliminate all those barriers in its first year of office. What we do intend to do is ensure that issues of women's equality are part of every aspect of policy-making for this government. We can and will set about creating an environment for change.

Our work has begun to break down the barriers to women, has begun to address the issues which affect women's lives in their homes, in their workplaces and in their communities. Poverty is a part of many women's lives. Single mothers, elderly women and women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. Women have traditionally worked in areas which have been undervalued by employers. We earn, on average,

[ Page 535 ]

60 cents as against men's dollars. Compared to men, we are less likely to be part of a union and more likely to work part-time without benefits. Throughout the world, women do 80 percent of the world's work and own 1 percent of the world's property. We are beginning to address the economic opportunities for women, and that's why this government has committed $32 million in its first year for pay equity and $29 million for wage parity for employees in government-funded agencies, most of whom are women.

Child care is also an important issue and need affecting women's economic independence. This government is responding in this budget to those needs with support for affordable, accessible child care.

Wherever women work -- in their homes, in their communities, in all the work that women do, whatever and wherever women choose to offer their skills -- that work is valuable and that work contributes to our society. But nothing is more limiting to women's choices, nothing is more oppressive to women in their homes and in their workplaces, than the issue of violence. And nothing is more reprehensible in our communities than the threat and reality of violence against women. In this budget the government has committed ten million new dollars to the intervention and prevention of violence against women.

It is part of our effort to eliminate violence -- not reduce violence; that is not an acceptable goal -- to eliminate violence once and for all. Violence against women is absolutely unacceptable, and the goal of elimination is the goal of this government. We can do no less for women in British Columbia.

These dollars will be spent well. They will be dollars spent in communities, by communities, by front-line workers and by people who are survivors of violence. These are the people who know best what the problems are; these are the people with the ideas. These are the people we must work with and unite with in order to find solutions.

I believe that as a government we have a responsibility and an opportunity to shape the future of this province, but in order to ensure that everyone's needs are considered, everyone needs to be involved. To quote John McKnight: "Voting is the way that we give away power; working together in communities is the way we create power."

The Ministry of Women's Equality and this government take their role in this process very seriously. We value consensus in community-building. We value the special contributions of women to public policy debate and to the needs within our communities. This government recognizes the importance of working together to make all our communities safe, secure and welcoming. We value the contributions of our diverse citizens and their unique perspectives. But where are we going from here? What does it mean for women and for others excluded from power in the past?

What does our commitment and our resolve mean for Surrey-Newton? Indeed, what does it mean for British Columbia? What it means is that we as a government must get the priorities of this province right. We must have healthy and caring communities. We must spend wisely. We must create and share power, and by doing so empower all the province, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, ethnic and cultural background, or weekly or monthly income.

This government, in its first budget, brings us one step closer to that vision of our community and our province. As the MLA for Surrey-Newton, and as the Minister of Women's Equality, I am honoured to be part of this journey. And I look forward to working with all of the members of this assembly as we address these difficult but rewarding tasks.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my pleasure to stand and speak in favour of this budget. This is the first time that I have risen to speak in other than question period, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the people in my riding for electing me to represent them. I'd also like to congratulate you, as Deputy Speaker, for your appointment and the hon. Speaker for her appointment.

I begin my comments today by saying that this budget is straightforward and, under the conditions, realistic. It's a budget that provides a general framework for prosperity. As members of the House know, our government inherited what we are calling a fiscal mess of monumental proportions. Left unchecked, the impact on the economy would have been devastating. Fortunately for British Columbians, the budget provides the fiscal stability that was lacking under the previous government. This government has kept to its commitment and ensured that the province's deficit is well under $2 billion.

This required difficult budget decisions. Some ministries, including my own, were cut back. Though I will talk about this during my ministry's estimates, I want to clarify that the reduction in my ministry's budget is not as large as it would appear on the surface. In absolute terms, my ministry's budget for the fiscal year is not 51 percent lower than the previous year. It's important to note that included in that figure from the 1991-92 budget is an $86.8 million provision for potential defaulted loans. Those loans were made by the previous government.

Taking this into consideration, my ministry's budget for 1992-93 is actually only 2 percent lower than the previous year's. I would have preferred no cuts, of course. However, I realize that in order to stem the tide of red ink brought about by the policies of the previous administration, prudent fiscal management was and is necessary.

I would like to speak a little about what the budget means for the economy. As the Minister of Economic Development, I can say without hesitation that this budget will encourage economic growth and maintain our competitive position. Recently, in speaking to the Japanese Businessmen's Association of Canada, the Premier laid out the overall picture of the budget and the strategy of the government to cap and reduce the deficit in the years to come. He was applauded for that. Publicly a number of businessmen are saying that they don't like the budget. What else can they say? We know that privately they are saying thank God it didn't hit them hard.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You should talk to the real businessmen of the province. You're talking to the

[ Page 536 ]

whiners and snivelers. If you listened to the members opposite, you'd think that there was a convoy of B.C. businesses pulling up stakes and heading south. Well, that's not exactly true. While it's true some businesses are moving south of the line, these are businesses who, for the most part, are growing and expanding into new markets. So it's a measure of their success, rather than their failure in British Columbia. While it's also true that provinces are facing economic challenges, the fact remains that B.C. continues to be among one of the top performing economies in Canada.

Canada as a whole is forecast to grow 2 percent, according to the Ministry of Finance, while we in British Columbia will enjoy economic growth at 3 percent. Investment will increase by 12 percent, and there will be a net gain of 30,000 jobs.

Hon. Speaker, this budget will make this growth possible, because in spite of what the naysayers are saying, this budget maintains British Columbia's competitive position -- not only in Canada, but with our neighbours south of the border. I've listened to members across the floor state otherwise. On March 27 the member from Langley claimed that this budget is driving business south of the line. Those remarks were echoed by her colleagues.

[3:30]

Hon. Speaker, they are off base. What the members opposite must realize is that in absolute terms, this budget does not negatively impact on the province's competitive position. The reason for this is simple. As members know, the federal budget reduced taxes for business. While the provincial government would have preferred not to raise taxes for business, we were forced to because the federal government lowered taxes to businesses -- the very same federal government that has cut transfer payments to British Columbia. So it's to make up for the off loading of federal programming.

On the business side, we have had to increase the general corporate income tax rate by one percentage point. We've also increased the small business rate by one percentage point. However, members need to realize that these two tax measures serve to return the rate to the pre-1987 levels. We have also reintroduced the corporation capital tax for all corporations with paid-up capital in excess of $1 million. But as an incentive, a new investment deduction is introduced as part of the corporation capital tax. This is the first of its kind in Canada. Moreover, our province's corporate taxes are still among the lowest in Canada.

In turn, hon. Speaker, I repeat what the Minister of Finance has repeated many times -- that our tax increases on business do not substantially impact on the competitive position of our province. If the members opposite would do some serious research, instead of getting their information from BCTV News, they would find that B.C. is indeed a competitive place in which to invest -- competitive with other provinces and competitive with our neighbours south of the line.

Based on the 1992 budget, my ministry, working with the Ministry of Finance, is just completing an analysis comparing the taxes on small businesses in Washington State and British Columbia. Looking at all taxes, the study concludes that a small business owner in British Columbia can pay much lower taxes than in Washington State. These results have been independently verified by Price Waterhouse. I might add that we are currently in the process of comparing the province's tax rates with those of Oregon and California. I expect the report to be printed within the next week, and I'll be pleased to share the results with the members opposite.

Small business is a key to the province's future, and this budget recognizes that fact. That's why we make a commitment to small business in the budget. For example, we strengthened our commitment to the fastest-growing sector of our small business community -- women business owners -- by the appointment of a full-time businesswomen's advocate. I look forward to providing members with details of our other initiatives for women in business during my ministry estimates.

With the establishment of the Working Opportunity Fund, there is a new source of capital available to finance the growth of the small business sector. The fund will strengthen our province's economy by providing opportunities for all British Columbians to invest in the province's future. The fund will promote diversification of the province's economy by investing in small businesses which are involved in manufacturing and processing, research and development, environmental and cultural industries, tourism and film.

It will aim to increase local ownership of British Columbia businesses and provide opportunities for greater employee participation. It is anticipated that over the next five to seven years the fund will raise in the area of $100 million of equity capital for investment in B.C. businesses. The fund is expected to create and preserve between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs. To date, the fund has raised over $7.4 million -- $7.4 million that will benefit people right here in British Columbia.

In addition, we've also established the British Columbia Endowment Fund. This fund will provide $100 million in additional capital investment funding for new and expanding enterprises. Diverse and prudent investment are two of the key mandates of this new fund, and it will be managed with private sector investors. There will be no handouts; instead a market rate of return will be ensured. This government is creating a level playing field where businesses will compete for customers, as opposed to the previous government under which businesses were far too often competing against one another for government grants and subsidies -- in other words, handouts.

There are a number of other initiatives in this budget which will help our small business community and in turn maintain British Columbia's competitive position, initiatives which will also help encourage economic development in all regions of the province and thereby create new jobs, and just as importantly, preserve existing ones. For example, to ensure the economic stability of resource-dependent communities we are establishing a new natural resource community fund. This fund will provide a stable source of funding to help single-industry communities deal with severe economic problems.

Because it is being funded through existing sources of revenue, it will not result in a new tax or taxes.

[ Page 537 ]

Funding for the Job Protection Commission is being increased by 20 percent. The commission is playing a key role in protecting jobs and paycheques. The commission is helping to avoid unnecessary closures of key industries due to economic downturn. For instance, thanks to the work of the job protection commissioner we were recently able to secure the jobs of 125 workers at the Fibreco pulp mill in Taylor.

As a further example of this government's commitment to job preservation, we have also put emergency funding in place to revitalize our Okanagan tree-fruit industry. The tree-fruit industry is an essential part of the economy in communities throughout the Okanagan. The provincial government is committed to seeing that this industry prospers over the short and long term.

At the same time, through this budget, our government is undertaking direct job-creation measures. Employment opportunities and job-action programs will receive a 43 percent increase of $57 million. This will help communities suffering from high unemployment and will help young people on social assistance to enter and hopefully stay in the work force. This investment in human-resource capital is critical if we are to enjoy long-term economic prosperity. We must ensure that our young people get the work experience they need so they can become gainfully employed. We are doing this by doubling the earnings exemption for those on social assistance.

While government can create a climate for economic growth, it's up to the private sector to create new opportunities. Despite the economic downturn, I'm pleased to note that there are important new private sector investments taking place throughout the province. For example, there's a $44 million harbour development in Campbell River; there's also the $33 million expansion of Orchard Park Shopping Centre in Kelowna; and there's the $135 million wood-waste thermal plant in Williams Lake in my riding of Cariboo South.

As the Minister of Finance said, creating wealth also requires public sector investment in schools, hospitals, universities and other facilities. Thanks to this budget, close to $1 billion in new social capital investment will take place in the communities around the province. When combined with infrastructure investment undertaken by Crown corporations, public sector capital projects will sustain 16,000 jobs.

While the budget provides for important infrastructure investment, it also provides funding for health, education and social services. In today's challenging times, the government must ensure that tax dollars are spent in the most effective way possible. We've done this by making tough but balanced choices by cutting operating costs, reducing waste and spending tax dollars carefully and wisely.

We have the opposition leader and many of his colleagues claiming that this budget is a tax grab, and yet the other day the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara said the budget did not do enough to meet the basic needs of people in British Columbia. Does that mean the member for Vancouver-Langara is suggesting larger tax increases to meet these needs? British Columbians do not and will not buy this yin and yang fiscal approach that the Liberals seem to have adopted.

This budget strikes a fine balance based on a prudent use of tax dollars, while at the same time providing the quality programs and services that British Columbians expect and deserve.

Hon. Speaker, some of the most significant aspects of the budget relate to initiatives that we've introduced for resolving land use and forestry resource conflicts. The $15 million being provided to the Ministries of Forests and Environment, to undertake planning and inventory work, will ensure that we have a solid framework from which we can base future decisions. The $4 million being provided for the commission on resources and the environment -- the Owen commission -- will pave the way for dealing with land-use conflicts. Resolving land-use conflicts and creating harmony between our social, economic and environmental needs are some of the biggest challenges facing our province.

Some of the budget issues which will affect people in the interior and in the north, for example, would be: the $64 million being provided for the development of innovative community-based health alternatives. The 9 percent increase in education -- that spending is up $300 million -- will help maintain a vigorous education system. The operating grants to colleges and universities have been increased, and we've made a commitment to equality for women that the hon. Minister of Women's Equality just spoke about. We're providing an additional $32 million to improve pay equity in the public sector.

Another $6 million is allotted to programs aimed at preventing crimes of violence against women and children, and providing assistance to victims. These are positive initiatives, and they are important to the people of the interior, to the people of my riding and to the people of the northern part of the province.

I'm pleased to note that there is $4 million being provided to negotiate just and honourable land claims that are fair to all British Columbians. We know that the settlement of land claims -- even a serious beginning of negotiation -- will remove economic uncertainty and encourage investment and create the jobs and capital investment so badly needed in many of the regions of the province.

In conclusion, hon. Speaker, in speaking to the budget, I took careful note of what the members from the two opposition parties had to say. And as is common in our parliamentary system, they've been critical of the budget. But their criticisms, though sometimes bordering on the vitriolic, have been long on rhetoric and short on specifics. Why? Because I think deep down they know that it is a necessary budget, the best budget that could have been made under the circumstances, and one which will pay dividends in the future. We look forward to adding up those dividends and reporting to you next year. That is why I'm so pleased to support this budget.

W. Hurd: It's indeed a privilege for me today to follow the lead of the Economic Development, Small Business and Trade minister, who I hadn't realized had put on his rose-coloured glasses prior to reading his budget address.

[ Page 538 ]

Hon. Speaker, we've waited a long time for this budget -- five and a half months to be exact. I can say, after canvassing my own riding and after the people of the province had a chance to view it, that they probably wish they could have waited another five and a half months. Unfortunately they were forced to confront the enormity of their mistake line by line and clause by clause.

I'd like to compare this budget to the hangover after a good party. In the heady days of the budget address, our good friends in the media raised their glasses, and the unions in the province toasted the budget as well. But as the days unfolded, and the more sober-minded began to review the staggering array of tax increases and fees, they realized that we can all expect a hangover for many years to come. They realized that the Minister of Finance, who purported to be Robin Hood, has instead transformed himself at the midnight hour into the Sheriff of Nottingham. He even raised taxes on the fax machine in Skippy's office.

I could go on at length about these tax increases. The corporation capital tax, which basically taxes the assets of a corporation rather than the profits, is a real negative tax that doesn't reward entrepreneurship and is a disincentive for companies to locate their assets in the province of British Columbia. I could talk about the hikes in school taxes and legal fees for small business and the ICBC increases that were announced prior to the budget. Taken in unison, they represent an epic assault on the beleaguered taxpayers of this province.

But above all, on this side of the House we try to be positive. So I've been asked by the Leader of the Opposition to try to find something positive to say about this budget. Like the beleaguered taxpayer that I also am, I went back to the budget and reviewed it line by line to find something that I could advise you today was positive about it.

As I looked at it, I found the economic outlook for the province to be one of the most revealing pieces, or factual outlook, of the budget. I would like to read it to the House today, because I think it indicates that at least they got one thing right when they brought down this budget. It says that British Columbia's economy and export base have diversified since the last major recession. The province is less exposed to adverse developments in any single country or product market. British Columbia did well compared to the rest of North America in 1991.

British Columbia's economy experienced a small decline of 0.05 percent, compared to a decline of 1.5 percent for Canada as a whole. Capital investment in British Columbia was down by 4 percent, but construction investment held firm. While 252,000 jobs disappeared last year in the rest of Canada, the British Columbia economy managed to add 20,000 jobs. That's all sounding pretty reasonable to me.

[3:45]

Given that kind of economic outlook, why couldn't the government realize that there was a legitimate reason this province had fared better than others in this country? We have to give the third party credit for something. They may have given us a legacy of some rather funny leaders and some creative bookkeeping, but they did understand how the economy works. Investment capital drives the economy, and the earnings from industry provide the investment to produce further jobs.

Despite having been in opposition for so long, this government still needs a lesson in what happens to corporate profits. They don't go into a sock somewhere. They get reinvested in the business and create new economic opportunities and jobs. The government really would end up collecting more taxes in the long term if they were prepared to offer some inducements to the private sector, instead of bringing forth something like the corporation capital tax, which, as I say, is a negative tax that penalizes entrepreneurship and investment.

What troubles me is that this wasn't the message we received in this province leading up to the introduction of the budget. The Premier went forth on a worldwide junket, like a latter-day Marco Polo, selling the investment community on the idea that B.C. was open for business. Did the Premier tell them anything about the corporation capital tax? Did he tell them that the first thing he intended to introduce in this budget was a tax on their assets? "Come to B.C. and invest, and we'll tax your assets when you get here" -- I don't believe that was the message he sold. It's altogether surprising that it came in the first budget handed down.

With a hot water bottle and an aspirin, I sat down to find some further positive things to say about this budget. I note that there are some rather ironic comments in the economic outlook. It says that some industries and regions in British Columbia are having a hard time -- no argument there in Port Alberni and Cassiar. "Our forest and mining industries have lost 18,000 jobs over the last two years." British Columbia exports to the U.S. were down by 6 percent, while exports to Japan and Europe fell by 14 percent. The unemployment rate in Vancouver and Victoria averaged around 8 percent last year, while in the rest of the province it averaged over 12 percent.

Given those statistics in the government's own economic outlook, it's almost impossible to understand why we've seen the array of tax hikes and fee increases which have rained down upon the backs of British Columbian small business. It isn't just corporations who've suffered: the average increase to homeowners in this province totals in the area of 10 percent. British Columbians will pay an increase of about 10 percent when all the taxes are figured into consideration.

We have a record-breaking deficit in this budget of $1.7 billion, based, I might add, not on the estimates of the Finance ministry, but on an outside review by Peat Marwick Thorne, the first budget in the history of this province to be written by outside consultants. It's appalling, hon. Speaker.

Yet with all this hype we had a reason to expect better in this budget. We had a reason to expect that they would come forth with some funds for an industrial strategy for this province, that they would take into consideration our competitive taxation position, and how we compare to our major trading partners -- not to the province of Ontario, not to Manitoba and Alberta, where they've indicated in their budget addresses that 252,000 jobs were lost in those

[ Page 539 ]

areas in the past year. Is that the kind of comparison we want to make in this province? I suggest not.

We need a stronger commitment to training and development and advanced education and long-term planning. Much has been made about the suggestion by the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we need a 60-year plan, but that's the amount of time it takes to grow a harvestable tree in British Columbia. We don't see a commitment in this budget to a proper inventory and forest enhancement, either.

It's important for this government to realize that companies don't pay taxes to governments -- it's their customers that pay taxes. Those companies have got to be able to compete to be able to afford the taxation that's being ladled on them. The customers are the ones that provide the earnings, and those are customers that are not in British Columbia. They're in the Pacific Rim, they're in California, they're in Washington, they're in other parts of the United States, and that's the reason British Columbia has fared better than any other province. This government, hon. Speaker, has not learned the lesson. Despite the 15 years in opposition, they have not learned the lesson.

Let's talk about the Forests budget, which is an area of critic responsibility for me. Where have we seen reductions in the Forests budget? We've seen reductions in harvesting funds, reductions in research, reductions in inventory -- a broken promise by this government that they were going to do proper inventories of the forest resources of this province, and it's not in this budget.

An Hon. Member: What about education?

W. Hurd: You've got to pay for education with earnings and taxation, and if you're going to hamper the private sector, the money's not going to be there.

Let's review again the economic analysis in the budget. Where do they think we're going to head in the future? Let's talk about some of these pie-in-the-sky proposals.

The situation should improve in 1992. I have no idea how, given the kind of tax increases we're looking at. Has the hon. member been down to the border last weekend and seen the hour-and-a-half lineups? Is he aware that 25 percent of the gas purchases of Surrey are in Whatcom County?

They're predicting moderate economic growth, with a 3 percent net gain and a net gain of 30,000 jobs. I don't know how, because since this government took office on October 17 we've seen a loss of thousands of jobs in the resource sectors. So we've been in a negative position in the last five months.

They're suggesting that lower interest rates and personal income tax both should boost consumer spending. As I have indicated, the only thing that I've seen boosted in the last five months is cross-border shopping, and there's nothing in this budget to prevent that from happening even more in the future.

And what about ICBC rates? They're not even factored into this budget, and are a huge additional burden on the average taxpayer in British Columbia.

They suggest that investment is expected to increase 5.2 percent due to large increases in residential investment. Where? In Port Alberni, or Cassiar, or other resource-dependent communities in British Columbia? We have another economy besides the one on the lower mainland.

They suggest the Canadian dollar has fallen recently. Well, lumber and pulp prices have risen, which delayed recovery of British Columbia's export sector. Why would they not include the effect of higher taxes in that type of rosy assessment?

Looking ahead to 1993, they expect stronger growth in the U.S., Japan and Europe, which should improve British Columbia's export markets. Well, nobody's told them that the President of the United States, George Bush, is hanging onto his political life because of a major and stubborn economic recession in the United States, and that Japan is currently undergoing its worst and steepest downturn since the Second World War. Where are these markets going to come from?

It indicates -- and this is about the only thing that I can support -- that British Columbia is well positioned inside Canada for solid growth in the immediate term. It is, and the reason is that we had competitive tax rates for small businesses and corporations which encouraged investment to this province. I can tell you that that investment is not going to be here when the full effects of this budget are felt by the private sector in this province. B.C. may be well positioned now, but my question is: for how long?

I'm greatly concerned about the effect of this budget on the purchasing power of ordinary British Columbians, about the effect that it's going to have on cross-border shopping, which is a crucial consideration and of concern to small business in my riding. I'm concerned about the effect of the corporation capital tax on major industries in this province, including the mining and forestry sectors, which -- in the case of one large company, after recording losses of $70 million to $80 million -- are going to be asked in the next fiscal year to pay an additional $5 million in corporation capital tax.

We have a Minister of Finance standing here in this House telling us that's fair. It may be fair, but it's jobs and investment down the road.

So I'm concerned about the budget. I hope that the rosy projections of the government turn out to be partially true in the next year. But I think we've got off to a troubling start, and I just hope that the born-again venture capitalists on the government side of the House really consider the ramifications of some of their budget policies in the long term. As it's been so eloquently stated by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour, capital knows no boundaries, it knows no loyalties and it goes where it can get the best deal; in the past three years in this province, it's come to B.C., but there's a very real danger that in the next three years it could go elsewhere.

C. Evans: I decided to speak on the subject of this budget after sitting in this House last week and listening to the quality of the criticism of this budget. I heard folks on the opposite side of the room make all sorts of criticism, and I took notes because some of it, I knew, would slip out of my mind if I didn't write it down.

[ Page 540 ]

I want to give you a list of some of the things I heard folks attacking. Inadequate social services. There was a very brilliant speech from the opposite bench on the fact that one member felt there should be a whole lot more money for social services. There was another excellent speech on support for resource towns -- towns, I guess, like the one where I live. They must be talking about Slocan City and New Denver. There was a good speech saying there should be more money for wage equity.

There was a good speech -- well, actually, there was a speech -- arguing that there should be lots more money for the Island Highway. An hon. member who lives here felt that people here deserved an Island Highway right now. There were people -- we just heard them, although they appear to have walked out -- objecting to the taxation of corporations. We've heard them make speeches about the objection to withdrawing the supplemental homeowner grant. We've heard them make speeches on behalf of the various charitable groups objecting to the changes in lottery funds.

I think those are all really good ideas, hon. members opposite. But then you make speeches objecting to a bit of a deficit: $1.8 billion. They say it's too much money to owe. You can't have it all ways at once. For days in here, people were standing up objecting to the Peat Marwick study, saying -- in one of the most bizarre flights of fancy I've ever heard -- that this conservative organization, which probably hasn't got two members in it who ever voted NDP in their life, somehow wrote their criticism with this government in mind instead of the truth.

Then, when we bring in a budget attempting to rectify the horrendous wastes that the Peat Marwick study identified, six, seven, eight, maybe ten of them stand up saying they want more stuff -- social services, highways, support for resource towns -- and still the budget is too high.

I wish -- since I spent my life in the woods -- there was a lot more money for silviculture.

[4:00]

Interjections.

C. Evans: Actually, to folks on the other side, I know, given where you folks were elected, where the only woods is Stanley Park, that spending your time in the woods is considered to be sort of odd. Where I come from, it's fine work. They are the people who paid your wages all of your life.

I wish there was a lot more money in the budget for artists. I think if we in anglo-Canada were to express our culture, maybe we wouldn't be in such a battle with the people of Quebec. Maybe we'd know who we are. Maybe we'd feel better about ourselves. I look forward to budgets in future that support farmers and artists, in part because these are the people who work with their heart and who cost less money to put to work than almost any of the industrial sectors in our economy.

I look forward to a budget with more money for housing. I'm sure that the folks on the other side.... I haven't heard any of them mention it yet, but in some places in B.C. housing is in dire need -- certainly where I live.

It's true that this budget hasn't got the billion dollars in it that we need to bring the wages of women in this province up to a parity with the wages of men. But everything in this budget is heading in those directions. Everything in this budget is going in the direction of a society that we all want to live in.

Folks on the other side, you know, when you're trying to govern a society, it's kind of like trying to steer an ocean liner. Suppose we have an ocean liner out here in the gulf, and it takes three miles to turn it around. And suppose that we take office. We become government at a moment when it's really clear that the ocean liner is headed for the shoals.

Do you think it would be correct for us to take over the wheel of that ocean liner and tilt it as hard as we could and run into the ferries and the other boats or the other islands, or do you think it would be correct to begin the three miles of turning that boat around, which is required to do it without damage to the society? If we did all the things that folks on that side, and even some of us on this side, would like to see done in order to turn this society into the kind of society that we'd like to see, it would be as irresponsible as steering in the dark.

I want to point out that there's a difference between an election and a coup, and in this democracy we just had an election, not a coup. It behooves the government to take control of the boat, to take the five months to figure out where the charts are and where the islands are and then to come in here and begin to steer it. It behooves the opposition to criticize with an understanding of the dangers out there in society and what we can expect. True enough, women and men opposite, it's not all in there, but it's headed in the right direction.

For an example, let's take land use. How did it used to be? Just a few months ago I went on a tour for the Minister of Forests to discuss the future of TFL 23 in the Arrow Lakes, and we heard from people who had experienced the tenure system as it existed for the 40 years prior to the election of this government. They told us that resources were allocated without inventory, analysis or public participation, in back rooms and often in illegal fashions -- at the very best quasi-legal. When we became government, we inherited blockades where citizens took it upon themselves to attempt to decide land use.

We inherited ministries of this government without the inventory data to make decisions. We inherited a situation where the all-powerful Forest Service essentially ran the land base in B.C. And we inherited a situation where the good people who work for the Ministries of Environment, Highways and Agriculture, and in water protection and the Forest Service out there on the land, couldn't talk to one another, because the system had been organized such that the line ministries could only talk straight up to their own minister, and all decisions were made in the secrecy of cabinet.

[ Page 541 ]

Why is that, hon. Speaker? Because for decades it behooved the interest of the rich to get to decide inside this building or in the office buildings or the banks in Vancouver who was going to cut what or mine what or build what. We inherited a system that was dysfunctional on the land and for the working people. In this budget, which the hon. folks on the other side have criticized, some very serious differences have been built in.

Hon. Speaker, is "hon. folks" not an okay thing to say?

Deputy Speaker: Not really, hon. member. Refer to them by their constituencies.

C. Evans: I guess if you live where Stanley Park has the only trees you've ever seen, "folks" is considered not a very nice word. It's neighbourly where I'm from.

In this budget, hon. Speaker, we changed the system a little bit so the all-powerful Forest Service lost a couple of dollars and the always underfunded, underpersoned Ministry of Environment gained a couple of dollars where I live. I'm please to say we're going to build a building so that the Ministry of Environment workers can get out of an old grocery store and actually have a place to work.

A previous speaker said that we broke a promise. He said that the Ministry of Forests wasn't getting the money for inventory that had been promised. I know that the previous speaker didn't mislead the House or the people watching on TV. I know that he's only confused, hon. Speaker. I know that he'll probably come back here tomorrow and say: "Oh, I got a chance to read the budget. I now see that the budget calls for $10 million of new inventory." The reason that the critic for Forests didn't understand this is that this government has changed the structural way that we do inventory.

It will not all be done by the corporations or the Forest Service, as he might have preferred. It will now be done by various ministries, including the Ministry of Environment, and it will be independent of the previous system. Hon. Speaker, $10 million is enough to do the province in a decade. That is a radical departure from how we have ever done things before.

There is another change brought in through this budget to the business of land use. It used to be that cut-blocks were designed by foresters and engineers in the citadel of the Forest Service, and in isolation. We have broken that system. This budget gives the Minister of Environment wages for 40 biologists to go thither in British Columbia and work inside the regional offices, assisting the Forest Service to lay out cut-blocks and do inventory, to essentially design work on the land. For the very first time we are telling the ministries to work together as if the land base had many values and not one.

If hon. members over there don't see that as a difference, it can only be because in the steel and concrete environment from which they come, they don't understand dirt and soil and seeds and grass and trees and water -- the things those ministries are responsible for.

In order for the hon. members over there to criticize the budget, it would help if they gave a little bit of analysis on where we are in history. We're not simply in this room in Victoria; we are at a moment in time here in British Columbia and in the world. Here in British Columbia, we're at a moment in history where we've figured out that we don't have infinite mountains to log anymore. We, the woods workers, cannot support your urban environment any more. We don't have infinite ore to mine, and we don't have infinite rivers to dam.

We're at a moment in time when the fisherpeople have figured out that the loggerpeople working up stream have something to do with their income, and we have to begin to make one care about the other. We're at a moment in time when a free trade agreement has broken the industrial heartland of Canada. As a result of the decrease in income, we've got $1.5 billion that the federal government is no longer going to send to British Columbia. It's a number so big that I'll admit to not understanding it. How far would that line of dollars stretch? Would it go from here to Ottawa?

At this moment we require a vision. Even the hon. members on the other side, I'm sure, can recognize that the way we did things in the past is not going to work anymore. We've come to the end of the land base, and we have to do things carefully. We can't cash in the hinterland to pay for urban expansion.

If Canada is going to be poorer as a result of theft to the United States, and even maybe to Mexico, then the moment in history matters in terms of the budget. This government has brought in a budget that states an agenda to deal with this moment in history. It says that, given the time, it is inappropriate to look backwards, as they have done year after year -- the Fraser Institute, the think-tanks, the right wing and the college thinkers who have designed politics in this province for so long -- to look to the failed policies of privatization and deregulation and the abandonment, essentially, of the people by government.

Given the difference in the future -- the information age, the age when the environment matters -- and given the moment in history, I'd say that the cusp, the moment, is as different now as it was at the time of the Industrial Revolution. We are looking at a different world.

Speaking about the Industrial Revolution brings to mind that when it happened in Europe and changed an agrarian society into an urban society, there were reactionaries at the time. There were people who responded to the upheaval and the change by wanting to look backwards. We called those people Luddites. Maybe the hon. members on the other side might find those people romantic. Maybe you even think they were right, but they couldn't change the pace of time.

As I stand here I feel that that's what I keep hearing from members opposite -- and "members opposite" is itself a fairly bizarre term. I can't really figure out how they're different. I can't figure out where the members opposite stop geographically. I just found out last week which party the member for Langley was in. I can't figure out what difference they have philosophically. I can't figure out what difference historically there is between them. We all saw pictures of Bill Vander Zalm when he was the Liberal mayor kissing Pierre Trudeau -- pictures where they were so close it was almost pornographic. We had Liberals -- and I made a wee list

[ Page 542 ]

here: Mel Couvelier, Garde Gardom, Bob McClelland, Hugh Curtis, Pat McGeer, Jim Chabot. Those were all Liberals who turned into Social Crediters. I don't think we mention names in this House, but if we did I think I could probably think up names of some hon. members opposite who used to be Social Crediters and are now Liberals -- and it matters.

It matters because the same reactionary, inarticulate lack of analysis that generated the Luddites when history was changing before has generated this amorphous group we today call "members opposite." We have the Liberals coming in and the Social Crediters going out. I think "members opposite" is a pretentious sort of phrase. I really don't want people in the Kootenays to read Corky -- or I should say, the member for Nelson-Creston -- saying "members opposite," so I think we need an all-encompassing term that sets this parliament, this Legislature and this budget in history, and sets the members opposite in history so that folks can relate to them and see them as they are.

I'm thinking, looking backwards into history and looking forward and across the room, that "Lidites" would be a good term. It's got....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, would you just take your seat for a moment please. I am absolutely enthralled with your comments -- most interesting -- but I am having some difficulty relating your remarks, interesting as they are, to the budget. So I would ask the member to at least mention the budget every now and then in his remarks. Please continue.

[4:15]

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I really appreciate your assistance, and I would ask you, over the course of the next weeks and months, to treat those of us who are new here as apprentices, because surely this is a trade which requires the assistance of hon. members who have been here before.

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased that you're enthralled, because I was just discussing this "Lidite" title here. If we look at the budget and the moment in history, I want all the hon. members here to try to figure out what difference, in terms of the reaction from members opposite.... Do they appear to believe that we should raise taxes to the point where we can eliminate the deficit? No. We have just heard a lecture about the fact that we've raised taxes to the point where we may experience capital flight.

Do they think that we should lower taxes -- Keynesian economics; prime the pump; give the money to society and let them all go to work, doubling the budget? No. Lidites opposite are forever telling us that we need less of a deficit.

Hon. Speaker, I just want you to know that when I go home to Nelson-Creston, I meet people interested in health care, education and the environment. I meet health workers. I meet people who care about all of the issues raised in the election, raised in the House, raised by the various critics and raised by our ministers.

They all think that ten years hence we should have a society where men and women make the same amount of money, where land use is no longer devastation or preservation, where people live and work in the rural areas and in the cities and have the same chance at an education or university, and where dams pay their own way and pay taxes. All the people think that ten years hence we have to have a society where the gulf between rich and poor is narrowed -- narrowed in my heart, hon. Speaker, to zero, if we can get there.

But only an absolutely reactionary opposition would say to us, on the one hand you have to do it all in the first five months, and on the other hand you have to do it with no deficit at all. I am proud of our government and of our budget, and I challenge the Lidites to come up with constructive opposition.

G. Farrell-Collins: A point of order, hon. Speaker, with regard to some of the terms by which we were being referred to in the member's speech. Certainly "folks" is a term I'm familiar with, having grown up in the Prairies where there aren't many woods, but there's a lot of prairie and a lot of dirt. I don't feel insulted by that, but I do have some concern about being referred to as a Luddite or any other term the member chooses to use. I would prefer he uses a term that is generally understood in this chamber, and that is "members opposite" or "hon. members" or something of that sort.

Deputy Speaker: Are you asking that the member withdraw?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston, you heard the objection to the expression "Luddite," and if that in any way offends the member, would you please withdraw.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I don't think people on the other side are Luddites. I don't believe I said it. I withdraw it if I ever said they were Luddites. They are not Luddites. That was another era.

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the budget, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nelson-Creston for his political lesson. But I point out a geography lesson to him, if I may. Stanley Park is not represented by any opposition MLA. In fact, hon. Speaker, it is your riding that Stanley Park is located in. But I will confine my remarks to the budget, consistently.

This budget is about choices and priorities. What is clear from the budget is that the government has made the wrong choices and has misplaced its priorities. No more so is this the case than with the funding of education.

During the campaign last October, the NDP indicated a commitment to education, which, of course, everybody applauded. I would point out that the Liberals made the same commitment to education in the campaign, and I'm sure the Social Credit Party did likewise. However, let's look at the reality. In the budget various statements pertain to education. I quote, for example, from page 7 of the budget, under the subheading, "Safeguarding Basic Services": "This government believes that the highest priority must be given to safeguarding essential services to people." Page 9,

[ Page 543 ]

under the subheading "Education": "Education is also a high priority. We will ensure our children continue to receive a quality education" -- and a further indication that the budgetary lift for education is 9.1 percent, which is stated to be "enough to fund projected cost increases and population pressures."

Well, those are all very nice statements, hon. Speaker. I would describe them as fine statements, comfortable, nice, convenient. But I would suggest that these statements lack substance and commitment. I imagine that many such statements were made during the election campaign, as I have already indicated, just as each party, I am sure, made a general commitment to education. However, the election is over. The government must now either meet these promises or break them. I would suggest that we have a series of broken promises.

With the treatment of education in this budget, the government has failed to live up to its promise. The flowery statements do not reflect reality. They have been made but not realized. So what is the truth about the funding of education in this province? What is the reality? Where does this budget fall short? On January 31 the Minister of Education announced a lift for the 1992-93 block funding of 2.4 percent. Note that the budget states a 9.1 increase for education, but the reality is 2.4 percent. The immediate reaction to this increase from various school officials is that it would be inadequate -- and they were correct, as many districts have now indicated in their budget preparations.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Let me cite some examples of what the underfunding has done to one of the essential services designated by this government. Victoria district, on March 30, announced 263 layoff notices being given to teachers. This is to take care of a necessitated $7.5 million shortfall in the Victoria district. You can just imagine, hon. Speaker, the unsettling effect not only on the teachers who received those layoff notices but on their colleagues and, of course, on the students and the parents in the Victoria district. That's one example.

Another example is from one of the school districts within my own riding. North Vancouver School District announced recently that the elementary band and string program, of long standing in North Vancouver, will be eliminated unless some extra funding can be found. I'm not talking about some cutbacks to this program; I'm talking about total elimination. If I may be permitted to make a more personal remark on that particular example, I have three children who are currently in that elementary program, all enjoying their music lessons and the opportunity to advance those.

I am obviously very unsettled by the prospect of that program being eliminated, and I can assure you, many parents in North Vancouver are also unsettled. Tomorrow evening I am going back to my riding for a meeting whereby this particular issue will be addressed, and I would imagine from the response that I'm getting, there will be hundreds of people at that meeting. They are not going to be pleased; they will be anything but pleased.

Another example I may also cite from North Vancouver, which pertains to other districts as well, is that the districts are finding that funding for community schools is going to have to be curtailed or cut out altogether. I think the community school concept is an excellent one, and I would certainly hate to see it go by the board because of a lack of funding.

May I also comment on budget shortfalls, which are well-documented in the newspapers and elsewhere. I'll give two examples. The Vancouver district, the largest in the province, is facing a shortfall of $17.8 million for the 1992-93 year. That is obviously going to result in many layoffs, program cuts, lack of proper maintenance to the facilities, etc. I needn't go on to document those, because an almost $18 million budget shortfall will certainly cause a lot of disruption to Vancouver.

The Langley School District, if I may quote from an example out in the Fraser Valley, "is facing a shortfall of almost $3.4 million, and they are having to look at the allocations in schools as to how they're going to fund each of the schools within the district." They're going to have to cut back materials and supplies. Program cuts will certainly be suffered and staffing levels will also be affected in the Langley district.

In case these examples I've noted -- and numerous others that I do not have time to address today -- have fallen on deaf ears or are otherwise being ignored by this government, tomorrow numerous delegations of teachers and parents are coming to Victoria to meet with various MLAs. I am personally meeting with two such delegations, and I know that there are many other meetings taking place. The message that I and other MLAs will be receiving tomorrow is quite clear: the budget is inadequate, to put it mildly.

Let me also address another funding problem in education, and that involves capital projects. The minister stated that for the '92-93 budget year there are $720 million in projects which have met the criteria for high priority. That is, they are ranked as being in the high-priority position. However, the minister has also gone on to state that not all such projects will be approved. The situation that is developing is that high expectations are indicated by the ministry, but obviously high disappointments will be realized for many of these projects. The rejection of many of these high-priority projects will mean more harsh realities in the underfunded school system.

Even though the government has indicated that school portables will be eliminated, and I presume over the lifetime -- if that's the way to put it -- of this government, the fact is that many portables will remain on school sites. There is no questioning that. I am not speaking of the so-called temporarily placed portables. I'm referring to portables that I'm fully aware have been in place for at least seven years -- some ten or 15 years -- on school sites. This indicates my long-held belief that very often a temporary solution such as portables has a tendency to become a permanent feature.

I would certainly hate to see portables remain that have been on school sites for seven years and more. I've talked to parents and school administrators in many districts, and they are looking forward to the day when those portables will be removed. In the meantime, the

[ Page 544 ]

learning conditions in these unsuitable facilities are anything but adequate.

[4:30]

Other capital projects that will no doubt go by the board because of this budget include necessary major repairs and renovations to school buildings and to other facilities such as playing-fields. I would add that even where it can be demonstrated that there's an increased population base, new schools will have to be put by the board for the meantime, because there will not be the funding to take care of those demonstrated needs.

I have given many examples of where this budget falls short on proper education funding. So that it will be made clear that this opposition does not just criticize because of our opposition status, I would like to suggest to this House some constructive ideas that we have and that have been passed on to us by many people in the school system. The people I'm referring to are trustees, administrators, parents, teachers, students, and just citizens in general. All of them are very concerned about the underfunding and are more than prepared to share their ideas with us.

Some of the suggested solutions that have been passed on to me include ensuring that all fixed and mandated costs of school districts -- workers' compensation payments, UIC, hydro, fuel, ICBC -- be paid in full by the ministry.

Another example of a suggestion passed on to us is to improve the block funding formula. The block funding formula is very often described to me by school officials as both confusing and inadequate. There is no question there are inequities in the funding system, when you look around the province and see some districts with huge shortfalls and others not facing those same unpleasant prospects.

I would pass on another suggestion. Very often locally elected and locally appointed officials in the school districts feel that they're not listened to properly. They go through a lot of planning, preparation, budget discussions, etc. Quite frankly, they do get frustrated. I would ask the government and the Minister of Education that locally elected and appointed people be listened to more closely, because their ideas and input are valuable. They should be respected more.

I also would like to comment on another wrong choice and misplaced priority. That deals with the supplemental homeowner grant, which, as all members are aware, was eliminated by this budget. I would add, however, that the government was very generous in increasing the basic homeowner grant by the huge sum of $20. That $20 applies both to the general homeowner and the senior.

In the budget on page 58, we read: "Supplements were generally received by homeowners who are not seniors and who own homes having relatively high assessed values." The fact is that seniors are affected by the elimination of the supplemental homeowner grant. They may not have been an intended target of this government, but the fact is that they are a target. I think it's most unfortunate that the people who have long worked and paid their dues to our society are now being penalized in such a manner.

Typically an NDP government moves to pick the pockets of the rich and famous, but in this case they have hit those who cannot afford to pay, and who deserve far better treatment than they are being afforded. If I may refer to page 13 of the budget: "...the revenue measures...are directed to those who can most afford to pay...." Well, seniors do not fit this description, generally speaking. Many citizens of every municipality in this province do not fit that description, but they will all have to pay. All the seniors on fixed incomes, single-parent families, they are all facing the same prospect.

Let me quote two particular examples of the impact of the loss of the supplementary grant on taxpayers. The examples are from my riding. I don't wish to seem self-serving here, but I think they're good examples, and they apply right across the province. North Vancouver, which is one of the two municipalities within my riding, faces a tax increase on average of 18.2 percent due to the loss of the supplementary budget. West Vancouver faces a similar increase, and in case some members might be tempted to remark that West Vancouver can afford it, I would like to poin