1990 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 9323 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising of budget. Mr.

Williams –– 9323

Highway signs contract. Mr. Williams –– 9324

Financial reporting on land dealing. Mr.

Williams –– 9324

Cost estimates for highway projects. Mr.

Lovick –– 9324

Gaming-related fraud charges. Mr. Sihota

–– 9325

Glucose testing for diabetics. Mr. Serwa

–– 9325

Ministerial Statement

Public administration award. Hon. Mrs.

Johnston –– 9325

Mr. Lovick

Budget Debate

Ms. Cull –– 9326

Mr. Serwa –– 9329

Mrs. Boone –– 9333

Mr. Crandall –– 9335

Mr. Guno –– 9337

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 9341

Ms. Pullinger –– 9343

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 9347

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH : In the members' gallery

today we have a very distinguished visitor. Would the House join me in

welcoming His Excellency Samuel M. Kajese, who is the High Commissioner

for Zimbabwe.

MR. D'ARCY : I'd like to welcome to the

gallery members of the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia. They

are over here in Victoria, hopefully, to expand our knowledge of their

particular industry. I hope they don't expand their knowledge of us too

much; we could all be in a lot of trouble. I would like the House to

give them a warm welcome.

MR. CHALMERS : On behalf of the government

members in the Legislature today, I would also like to welcome the

members of the B.C. Real Estate Association here today. They represent

over 16,000 licensed realtors throughout British Columbia. Among their

group today are the president, Mr. Ken Johnson, and the chairman of the

political action committee and president of the Real Estate Board of

Greater Vancouver, Mr. John Eastwood. On behalf of the government side,

I would like to ask the members to make them welcome.

MS. CULL : I'd like to ask the House to help

me welcome to the gallery today my father, Mr. Jim Cull. I don't see

him up there yet, but I know he's about the building and will be

joining us soon.

HON. MR. DUECK : This afternoon, on behalf

of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and

myself, it is my pleasure to welcome some very important people from

the Central Fraser Valley who help us whenever help is needed. Whether

it's volunteer work or anything that we might desire, they're always

there to help. They are: Kathleen Agnew, Tilly Carey, Erica Doucette,

Abe and Sue Dyck, Irma McFarland, Sarah Martens, Eleanor Ott, Paul and

Rose Redecop, Agatha and Henry Ratzlaff, Jean Rempel, Ben and Gay Vos,

Aron and Sarah Warkentin, Evelyn Warrington, Rose Toews and, last but

not least, my wife Helen. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, in the precincts

today are two students from Belmont Secondary in my riding who are

recipients of a Pacific Rim scholarship for a year's study in Korea and

Japan respectively. One of the students is Danielle Scott and the other

is Christopher Eaton. Although Mr. Eaton is attending Belmont,

he actually comes from Fort Nelson in the Minister of Education's (Hon.

Mr. Brummet'

s) riding. On behalf of both of us, could all members of

the House please join us in giving them a warm welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN : It is my distinct pleasure

today to welcome to the buildings two of our fine educators from the

Comox Valley: Mr. Glen Parsons from Highland Secondary School and Mr.

Geoff Horn from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School, together with 32

students from those two schools in the great community of the Comox

Valley. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

MR. SERWA : Today I'd like to introduce a

very special person from Okanagan South: a person who counts. among her

friends members on both sides of this House; a person who was recently

recognized for 30 years of public service by being recognized as the

city of Kelowna's woman of the year. May I ask the House to please

welcome my best friend and my wife, Lois.

HON. MR. FRASER : Last Sunday was a very

special day for me. It was the first anniversary of my wife's and my

marriage. I would like you to welcome my wife Jone to the chamber

today. There's no question I'm a lucky man.

Accompanying Jone is her mother, Mrs. Ernest Dittrich, and her

sister, Marion Parkes. Would the House please make them welcome as well.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF BUDGET

MR. WILLIAMS : To the hon. the Premier. Your

balanced-budget claim has received three serious blows this week: the

auditor-general said your bottom line doesn't mean a thing; Peat

Marwick said your budget is in deficit; and yesterday the auditor

general’s report stripped the BS fund to precisely that. Will the

Premier admit that the government's balanced-budget claim is a lie and

withdraw the TV ads that you are forcing the taxpayers to support?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : First of all, most

thinking people and those who review all the material would soon

realize that the accumulated deficit this year will be considerably

less than it was a year or two years ago. Most people would realize

that not only did the accumulated deficit come down considerably but

also taxes didn't go up. No, they came down considerably. So I'm sure

that while accountants and those who would be accountants could use the

material to whatever advantage they wish by selecting or doing what may

be politically good today, average British Columbians, when looking at

where the accumulated deficit is today as opposed to where it was, and

when considering where their taxes are today as opposed to where they

were, realize that this government obviously has managed extremely well

fiscally, as has been said by experts across the land. We're told this

not only by accounting firms but by investment firms which represent

investors across the whole country. We realize too that when we compare

the....

[ Page 9324 ]

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I think the

answer is getting beyond the scope of the question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'll wind up my

comments this way. We had a balanced budget last year, we have a

balanced budget this year, and we will have a balanced budget next year

— and as long as we have Social Credit.

MR. WILLIAMS : Have you read the

auditor-general's report? He tells us you're not minding the till. He

tells us you're not telling the truth about the books, and we know you

won't admit when you're wrong. If W.A.C. Bennett were alive today and

read this report, he'd vote New Democrat.

The auditor-general expressed concern about the accounts of

the government and the reporting system of government. On page 19 of

the auditor-general's report, he said he would be pleased to assist the

government in this process. Will you accept his offer of assistance to

correct the books?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Unfortunately, I must

confess I haven't had the opportunity yet to go through all of this

very thick document. Therefore, because I haven't been able to go

through all of it, I can't just reach in and pick selectively from the

auditor-general's report. But I can tell you that there are many, many

favourable statements. I will certainly take the comment — or

the question, if that's what it was — by the member on notice,

which will give me an opportunity to pick from this report, as he's

done, and to read all those wonderful things that he says. For example,

in dealing with land acquisition, he says:

"We concluded that the processes for

buying and selling real estate properties established by the ministries

and Crown corporations that we reviewed are appropriate for achieving

value for money. Additionally, we found that the established policies

and procedures were followed during the period under review."

On it goes, and I will gladly take the question — if

that's what it was — on notice and provide selectively many of

those good quotes in the auditor-general's report.

HIGHWAY SIGNS CONTRACT

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Minister of Highways.

The auditor-general advises us that the ministry paid $240,000 for

signs that were not received from Trans Sign, the privatized sign

company. Can the minister advise us why no one was monitoring the

contract, in order to avoid that kind of penalty?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid

I was unable to hear the first part of the question, but did catch most

of it. I'll take the question on notice and get the information for the

member.

[2:15]

FINANCIAL REPORTING ON LAND DEALING

MR. WILLIAMS : A question to the Premier

again. The auditor-general advises us that there is a need for

financial reporting from this government on a project based on issues

such as the Expo lands. Will you do so in the future?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I will certainly take

the question on notice.

MR. SPEAKER : The question was sort of,

"have you decided?" I think. So it would be in order....

MR. WILLIAMS : A new question. The auditor

general advises us that in fact on the Expo lands, there was $60

million in carrying costs not noted in terms of your books, $42 million

for B.C. Pavilion and probably $40 million on cleanup. That would

suggest a $150 million error in terms of reporting on the Expo lands.

Wouldn't that justify changing your system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I read the quote

earlier in the auditor-general's report on page 178, which says: "We

concluded that the processes for buying and selling real estate

properties established by the ministries and Crown corporations that

we, reviewed are appropriate for achieving value for money.

Additionally, we found that the established policies and procedures

were followed "

As I said, you can pick selectively, and certainly I can pick

selectively if you begin to pick selectively. But I should mention as

well — and perhaps this is overlooked by the member

opposite — that in many of these dealings, whether in land or

otherwise, certainly there are benefits that possibly are not always

identified by the auditor-general, and understandably too. I think we

need to look at the city of Vancouver and what we see for the city by

the year 2000, and the tremendous opportunities that will exist for us

and for future generations in proper and good development of those

beautiful lands.

COST ESTIMATES FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS

MR. LOVICK : Over two years ago the Minister

of Finance assured this House that the government — and I

quote — "has accepted almost...every...recommendation made by"

the MacKay commission on the Coquihalla. Yesterday, however, the

auditor-general revealed that a key recommendation of the commission,

namely better project-estimating procedures, has not yet been put in

place and will not be until next year. Can the Minister of

Transportation and Highways tell us how, with no accurate means of

estimating costs, she can ensure that the taxpayers won't be stuck with

another half-billion-dollar overrun?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I am delighted to stand

up defend the activities within the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways. We have had an opportunity to go over very briefly the

statements made in the

[ Page 9325 ]

auditor-general's annual report, and I

can tell you that to a great degree we have no argument with some of

the comments made. But I can also tell you, Mr. Speaker, and members of

the House that a good number of the areas that have been identified as

possible weak areas were already effectively identified within the

ministry prior to the auditor-general's looking at the....Steps have

already been taken to correct those areas that it is felt within the

ministry require correction.

I believe it's important to advise all members of this House

of the very positive activities taking place within the ministry. I'm

wondering how many members in the House are aware of the Institute of

Public Administration of Canada and the award....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Hon. member,

when your microphone fails, it's because the Chair has called you to

order. When others call you to order, regular business could proceed.

All members, when being asked questions...if the scope of the

answer is to expand beyond the scope of the question, then the Chair

has no course but to narrow it down. Otherwise, we will spend the whole

of the 15 minutes on one question. The Chair would be greatly assisted

by brief questions put forward.

MR. LOVICK : It's passing strange if the

minister is happy to defend this, because nobody else is — the

story in there.

A new question to the minister. The auditor-general also talks

about gravel management, and he points out that you don't know how much

gravel you've got. You don't know how much is being taken away. You

don't have a cash register there. Will the minister agree that it is

time you put somebody in charge of that $100-$150-million-per-year

operation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : There is absolutely no

question that the ministry is in charge. I would put the staff of the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways up against the staff of the

auditor-general any day of the week.

GAMING-RELATED FRAUD CHARGES

MR. SIHOTA : We've heard a little bit about

W.A.C. Bennett today. There was a time when Social Credit was opposed

to gaming, but under this Premier and this government, Social Credit

has of course brought gaming to British Columbia. We have, according to

the auditor-general's report, all types of skimming and gouging going

on in British Columbia right now.

In his report he indicates that there were 19 occurrences of

fraud and $312,000 of misappropriated funds. Could the

Solicitor-General advise this House how many charges have been laid

against those people who perpetrated that fraud and misappropriated

those funds?

HON. MR. FRASER : I've been sending

telepathic messages to the NDP socialists all morning, praying they

would ask me this question, and they have.

There's another message I want to give them, Mr. Speaker. This

minister wants to make sure that gaming in B.C. is done correctly.

Another message is that the government wants it to be done correctly. I

can assure the members opposite that since 1987 — you're

talking history, of course — we have more than three and a

half times the staff in the gaming branch. We have sent 1,400

volunteers through a training program for casinos. Bingo, which has

been operating for years, has new training procedures coming in this

year, and additional inspections are taking place constantly. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER : All of that was very

interesting, but the minister did not answer the question. If you would

just state the question briefly, then I'll try and elicit the answer.

MR. SIHOTA : I guess his telepathetic....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : I won't say it. The answer,

quite frankly, is that there were none.

Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER : If you have a new question, I

ask the member to take his seat.

GLUCOSE TESTING FOR DIABETICS

MR. SERWA : My question is for the Minister

of Health. It's prompted by a recent column in the Times-Colonist

entitled "Diabetics, Pharmacists Puzzled by Test Strip Edict." With

respect to your recent announcement that the province will now fund

glucose test strips for all certified diabetics, could you please

clarify the type of certification and the procedure required for

individuals who wish to make use of this very worthwhile program?

HON. J. JANSEN : As the member indicated, on

April 24 we announced that effective May 1 we would cover all

glucose-monitoring strips. As part of that initiative, we also asked

that patients would avail themselves of training programs available at

39 hospitals throughout the province. Recognizing that there is some

problem in terms of access to this training program, we will honour all

claims for the next three months to enable people to take advantage of

the program. We have communicated this to all hospitals in the

province, and we are communicating it to all pharmacies and

participating wholesalers.

Ministerial Statement

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AWARD

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, I rise to

make a ministerial statement.

[ Page 9326 ]

Annually there is a very distinguished

panel that deals with recognition for a number of public administration

bodies in Canada. The Institute of Public Administration of

Canada has this year included among its recipients the province of

British Columbia and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They

have been honoured for innovative management in road and bridge

privatization.

IPAC is a pre-eminent Canadian body which promotes sound

public administration. They developed these awards that recognize

Canadian government organizations for outstanding innovative

achievement. The purpose of the award is to identify success stories in

the public service that are worthy of emulation and to foster

innovation in the public sector by recognizing organizations for

creative and effective ways of doing their job as government

organizations. British Columbia was presented with this award for the

privatization of road and bridge maintenance. What is very important,

in my view, is that the chairman of this panel is the Hon. Allan

Blakeney.

It seems significant, because of the comments made by the

members opposite, that this recognition was given to our ministry staff

at this time.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It is regrettable that

members opposite have little respect for the civil servants we have

working for us. I ask the House to join me in recognizing this award.

MR. LOVICK : Speaking of awards, it seems to

me the minister ought to get one for best actress.

A number of us who have been watching and listening to

ministerial statements for a while have never recognized that there is

a new meaning and a new reason for them — damage control.

Pretty obviously, that's what's happening today. Yesterday I had

occasion to refer to Humpty-Dumpty. I'd almost like to repeat it. The

words mean whatever they want.

The minister has the temerity to say to this House that we on

this side should show greater respect for civil servants. Five minutes

ago she effectively trashed the auditor-general of this province.

[2:30]

We are not going to take advantage of this opportunity to

quote the roughly 37 pages of text that will contradict everything the

minister said. Instead I'll merely make a couple of points in the

auditor-general's report, which I would recommend to the minister.

If you wish to take credit for jobs well done by your

ministry, then you ought also — as an honourable member — to

take blame for castigations of your ministry. Two brief citations will

make the point. Page 96 of the auditor-general's report. Here we go.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Point of order.

Remembering your admonishment about question period, Mr. Speaker, a

ministerial statement's reply should have some basis in the statement

that was made.

MR. SPEAKER : That's an interesting point,

but the scope of the statement was fairly broad.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : With all due respect,

the statement was plainly and simply about an award received by the

staff of the Ministry of Highways.

MR. SPEAKER : There was some additional

editorial comment allowed. Perhaps the member could keep his remarks in

the temper that we wish to have ministerial statements addressed in and

bring other issues forward in committee when the Chairman will be in

attendance.

MR. LOVICK : Precisely, Mr. Speaker. I will

certainly aspire to dignity even though others opposite can't.

I was making two points about the auditor-general's report,

which are in direct contradiction to the notion of that ministry being

worthy of awards. The first point — and I think the statements

say it all; they require no elaboration from me — is on page

96: "The ministry does not have an organized way of making use of the

experience gained on previous highway projects." Another brief example:

"We are concerned, " says the auditor-general, "that, because of a

shortage of specialist staff, the ministry will not be able to conduct

quality reviews early enough in the design process to ensure that

effective changes can be made." I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : The House would be delighted

if all members would review the very simple statement that is in

MacMinn's book on how to make ministerial statements and what the scope

of them may be. It would assist us all.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Just before we get to

the orders of the day, I would ask leave of the House for the Special

Committee of Selection to meet today at 4 p.m. in the Douglas Fir Room.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, adjourned

debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

MS. CULL : I am pleased to rise to take my

place in the budget debate. There has been a lot of talk over the last

couple of days about whether this is a balanced budget or not and

whether the BS fund exists or not. The Minister of Finance tells us it

exists one day; another day he tells us it doesn't.

We know the answer. Peat Marwick Thorne has told us that it's

not a fund at all and that this isn't a balanced budget; it's a budget

that's in deficit. That's the largest accounting firm in Canada telling

us this is not a balanced budget and there is no such fund.

[ Page 9327 ]

The auditor-general has made it most clear. He says it doesn't

exist and that the government doesn't tell the truth about the books.

The members from the other side have contributed their

opinions on this subject, and one of the members yesterday said that

the NDP was nitpicking. Nitpicking about a $2.6 billion

deficit — I

don't think the people in this province would think that was nitpicking.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) said yesterday

that it didn't really matter whether the budget was balanced or not.

Mr. Speaker, it does matter. What's more, it matters what is said about

this budget because if the budget isn't balanced, if the BS fund

doesn't really exist, then to say so and to keep saying so publicly in

advertising every night on TV, in the newspapers and in this House, is

to mislead the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the point I'm trying to make is that this

so-called balanced budget and the illusionary BS fund are indicative of

the entire budget. It's simply a shell game; it's fiction.

As the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) said

yesterday about the Minister of Environment's budget, a so-called 24

percent increase, when you have a close look at it, it's a shell game

Money has simply been moved from another program in another Ministry.

The real increase is only 1 percent.

Let's have a look at the housing programs. They're announced

as some new, wonderful housing programs, new money — $1

billion for

housing. But look closely, Mr. Speaker. It's fiction. These are the

same tired old programs that didn't work last year. It's simply more

evidence of this government's idea of recycling.

Yesterday we were advised to consult our dictionaries, and I

did so last night. I'd like to tell the House that the words "balanced"

and "budget" fall between "bafflegab" and another word that I probably

can't use in this House: it's the word that most people think the

initials "BS" stand for in the BS fund.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't resist. I also looked up the word

"zalm." You'll find the word "zalm" in the dictionary between "yo-yo"

and "zealot" and right next to "zany."

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, that

part I must

ask you to withdraw because that is unparliamentary.

MS. CULL : Mr. Speaker, I was simply

commenting on some research I did in the dictionary last night, but I

will withdraw. A little learning is certainly a dangerous thing, and

hopefully the Premier has learned this. If he doesn't, come the next

election, he's going to learn the meaning of "eating a lot of crow."

Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest budget. There's no question

about it. It's also a budget that is totally lacking in vision about

how we're going to tackle the problems facing us in the urban

environment, how we're going to address the housing crisis, and how

we're going to come to grips with growth in the urban areas so that we

can ensure the quality of life people in this province have come to

expect and so that it can be protected and enhanced. I want to talk

about these issues for the time I have remaining.

Let's talk first about the urban environment. One of the

things people in my community were looking for in the budget was some

protection for the urban environment, particularly support and

commitment for sewage treatment. We want to know: what assistance is

the government going to give us in greater Victoria in the area of

sewage treatment? Well, Mr. Speaker, the budget is silent.

Members on the other side of the House blame municipalities

for this. They blame municipalities for not getting on with the job and

now, after having blamed them, they're going to penalize them. Instead

of assisting them, they're going to tax them by increasing the permit

fees for sewage. Instead of helping, they tax.

The public will is there. The property tax payers are simply

fed up. They're fed up with having costs from provincial

responsibilities shifted onto them in a systematic way —

things such as

schools, toxic wastes and biomedical wastes. I could go on.

I'd just like to read from a statement made by Mr. Brian

Calder, past president of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver:

"In the next two decades, it's the cities

that must address air and water quality, public transportation,

infrastructure, sewer, water, social services, policing, fire

protection, seniors' care, land use and densities, traffic routing, and

health services. But the biggest failing in our system is that the

provinces make all the important decisions affecting our lives and

receive all the taxation and revenue moneys. But it is the major cities

that have to deal with all the human problems and services, and they

have to rely on handouts and funding from the provinces.

"We must change our attitudes and

priorities, and we must change our provincial and federal political

will or replace the politicians with ones committed to the adequate

funding and recognition that our major urban areas demand in the 1990s."

What does the government do in this matter? Historically, it

has ignored our urban communities, and now it simply blames them and

taxes them. What's needed is some leadership, some vision, some setting

of standards, a fair funding framework and meaningful consultation with

our municipal governments and the local people. People in this

community are looking for that kind of vision.

We are also looking for vision in dealing with toxic

pollution. This is a subject that brings up ridicule from the other

side of the House every time I mention it. While Mike Harcourt and I

are out in our community, recognizing....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Once again, the

member must not use personal names, either in a positive or a negative

way.

MS. CULL : Sorry, Mr. Speaker. While the

Leader of the Opposition and I are out in our community, recognizing

and coming up with ideas for how we can deal with toxic pollution in my

community, the

[ Page 9328 ]

Premier,

simply ridicules us. This is

the same Premier who

could not find time in the 28 days of the Oak Bay-Gordon Head

by-election to pay us a visit; but he just laughs at toxic pollution in

our community.

Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the Premier would like to come

to Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I could take him on a tour of the beaches and

show him some of the pollution problems that we face. If he is busy....

I know he was very busy last fall. I still have that list of dentists;

you could do some business on the side, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR VANDER ZALM : I don't think you'll

be around for very long.

MS. CULL : This is a serious problem, Mr.

Speaker, and once again the public will to deal with this is great. But

there is no leadership coming from the other side of the House. There

is a shortage of ideas coming from the other side of the House. There

is a shortage of leadership and of vision.

Let me give you some ideas, Mr. Speaker. Let me give the

government some ideas about how we could deal with this problem. How

about using greater Victoria as a pilot project to clean up toxic

waste? Let's address the problem. Let's map a public awareness

campaign. Let's work with local businesses — polluters and retailers —

to find safe alternatives to toxic chemicals that we use every day in

our community. Let's open the toxic waste depot on Saturdays once a

month, so that people can do the right thing and at least get rid of

these products in a safe manner

There are lots of ideas that use the grass-roots local support

that exists in my community. They would be effective; they're

inexpensive, and we could create jobs with them. That's the kind of

vision that people are looking for in this budget, and that they don't

find when they look.

Let me turn to housing. The Premier and the members from the

other side boast about housing starts. Well, of course, we have housing

starts. We had 60,000 people move to this province last year. What we

don't have is affordable housing starts. Vancouver is the most expensive

city in Canada to live in right now. Vacancy rates are virtually zero.

After years of rising housing prices and falling vacancy rates, we're

looking for a little vision. What do we get? Programs that have been

recycled from one year to the next.

When I read the backgrounder on housing, it's almost

identical — word for word — to the same program we saw last

year. There was lots

of fanfare about last year's program, but, little consultation, I might

add, with local government or the ministries responsible for delivering

those programs. Eight thousand units were announced so many times that

I've lost count. We must be up to about 80,000 units by now, I'm sure,

if they would all be delivered.

The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that these are old,

tired programs that have simply been recycled from one year to the

next. What happens when there's no action? They certainly haven't

worked; nothing has improved in the last year.

The members, from the other side once again blame the

municipalities. They say the municipalities are not taking up the

grants that are offered for development, and that they're not giving

the zoning. Well, why is this? Maybe we should look at why

municipalities aren't leaping to take up these programs.

Perhaps it's because there was so little consultation before

these programs were announced last year that the ministry responsible

for delivering it has finally — 13 months later — figured out

what in

the world the budget meant last year, what those programs meant and

how they could deliver them. Maybe it's because the government doesn't

bother to read the

studies that it funds, which show that, some of the growth they're

promoting in these communities actually costs municipalities money.

This isn't growth that helps the communities; they don't understand

that it costs money. Maybe it's because they've ignored the fact that

the planning portions of the Municipal Act were gutted in 1985, taking

out all the

flexibility that municipalities had to deal with these kinds of

development and making it easier for municipalities to say no rather

than trying to work it out. Or maybe it's because, having eliminated

regional planning, ignoring the metropolitan regions of this province

and continuing to

provide no leadership to urban growth.... Maybe it's because they don't

realize there's no support or incentive for communities to solve these

problems on a regional basis.

[2:45]

I think there are many reasons why municipalities are having

difficulty handling growth right now, but one of the main ones is that

the province is failing to provide any leadership, any support or any

commitment to these communities to help them address these problems.

Again, first the government ignores the problem, and then they

blame the communities. Never do we get a comprehensive program such as

my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) outlined

yesterday to deal with housing problems. Never do we get any vision.

Finally, I want to talk a bit about urban growth. Arthur

Erickson was right when he said that ten million people would be living

in the Vancouver area within 30 years. He just got his geography wrong.

They're not going to be living in the city of Vancouver; they'll be

living in the whole Georgia basin. If we have a look at the populations

of Victoria, Vancouver, Seattle, Nanaimo and the communities in

between, right now there are five million people living in that area.

Within 30 years, we could easily have ten million people.

We're going to have to come to grips with urban problems such

as those now being faced by the people in Los Angeles and the Los

Angeles basin. Air pollution, Mr. Speaker. A conference last week in

Vancouver noted that air pollution is just as bad in Vancouver as in

Los Angeles. Right now they just don't have so many days when it's that

bad. It's simply a question of time and population.

[ Page 9329 ]

In the Fraser Valley we're losing farmland to housing

developments, golf courses and all kinds of urban uses, without any

consideration of the longterm effects. We still have millions of

gallons of toxic sewage being dumped into our oceans and the Georgia

basin, this sensitive basin being shared by five million people now and

ten million in the near future.

I'd like to refer to something that Mr. Brian Calder had to

say on this subject. He first quotes Alan Artibise, director of the

School of Community and Regional Planning: "'My concern today is with

the challenges and difficulties, opportunities and constraints that

face our cities in the coming decades as we struggle to maintain

livability."' That's what we're talking about here: livability. "We're

the second-largest land mass in the country, and in my opinion, we have

developed as a strip mall along the 49th parallel with two anchor

tenants in the middle — Toronto and Montreal. Bad planning." We are

just continuing that bad planning here in this province. Worse yet, we

have woefully inadequate systems of government in place to address the

next two decades of urban trauma. "I'm calling on the provincial

government of B.C. to immediately implement an elected regional

government with its own revenue-sourcing, not dependent upon the

provincial government."

He goes on and gives some examples. I'm not proposing any of

the examples he suggests, but I am trying to say that we need to give

some attention to the fact that we have urban areas, that we have rapid

urban growth and that it is not being managed in any coordinated way.

We've left it up to the municipalities. We've turned our backs on them

and have not helped them. This government is responsible for the

failure to manage growth in our urban areas.

Mr. Calder is calling for some vision, some recognition that

we can't deal with these problems in isolation and that they can't be

handled in an ad hoc and piecemeal way — 11 municipalities in greater

Victoria and 28 in the lower mainland. He is calling for and I am

calling for a thoughtful, coordinated approach. But nowhere in the

budget or throne speech was there any recognition of these problems

Nowhere was there any recognition that our urban areas face unique

problems which need unique solutions.

When we have a New Democrat government things are going to be

different, because we will recognize those urban problems. We're not

simply going to ignore the municipalities in this province; we're not

going to ignore the metropolitan areas. We will not blame the

communities for the problems they are facing. We will sit down with

them and work out solutions.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that we not only

have a budget deficit, we have a deficit of ideas and a deficit of

vision. I'll say it once again, as it has been said before: if W.A.C.

Bennett were alive today and saw this budget, and if he saw the

auditor-general's report, he'd be voting NDP.

MR. SERWA : It is a real pleasure and honour

to stand here as a member of the government side of the Legislative

Assembly and to speak in support of another great budget. Mr. Speaker,

before I begin, I would like to congratulate you, not only on being

selected as Mr. Speaker but on the accord and the strong support you

received for your role from both sides of the House. It has been a

testy session so far, and you've certainly met the challenge with your

patience, your sense of humour and your knowledge of the rules. I

congratulate you and wish you the best in a very interesting term as

Speaker of this Legislative Assembly.

I would also like to congratulate the first member for Dewdney

(Mr. Pelton) for his reappointment as Deputy Speaker; and special

congratulations to the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De

Jong), who was selected as Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole.

The major theme of the 1990 throne speech was to ensure the

security of British Columbia's economic prosperity and quality of life.

It is a fragile future and a fragile economy that we face. High

interest rates, federal tax increases, reductions in fiscal transfers

returned to the province, and uncertain future commodity prices are all

external factors currently threatening the province's hard-won and

fragile prosperity. Social Credit has always met such challenges by

showing the firm and fair ability to make the tough choices necessary

to balance needed programs with the taxpayers' ability to pay.

This budget contains the course of solid financial management

that has been exhibited by this government since it was elected in

October 1986. It is a budget that addresses our present needs as well

as our future needs. It plants the seeds which will ensure that our

province is well prepared to deal with future challenges. It is

fiscally responsible, economically sound and socially progressive.

It is a balanced budget. Yes, we had a balanced budget for

1989-90; yes, we have a balanced budget for 1990-91. The balanced

budget was accomplished with a transfer from the budget stabilization

fund, which is basically a reserve account which allowed this to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : It doesn't exist.

MR. SERWA : Some of the hon. members

opposite are talking about the fact that it doesn't exist. It reminds

me of an old gentleman I heard about once in the Okanagan, who didn't

really have faith and confidence in banks. But finally he was

encouraged by his family to deposit about $1,500 of his savings in one

of the local banks. About every six months this gentleman would go to

that bank and ask to see his money. The bank tellers knew this man, so

they took a bundle of bills — $1,500 — wrapped an elastic band around

it and gave it to him. He didn't realize that his account was simply

that, an account in the bank, and that the money didn't stay in a

selected place in that bank.

[ Page 9330 ]

The budget stabilization fund is no different from that. It is

a reserve account that was accomplished through fortuitous economic

activity encouraged by the sound fiscal and economic measures of the

current government elected in 1986. It was called a rainy-day fund. In

actual fact it is a reservoir that will take out the peaks and the

valleys of economic activity beyond our control and the scope of the

borders of the province. I am very pleased that the vision and

foresight of our Minister of Finance has set aside this fund to act as

a reservoir.

A substantial amount of demand has been placed on the current

budget because of the restraint period and the tough economic years of

the mid-1980s. What we have had to do is work to meet the challenge

confronted by this current government to address the shortage of

capital investment in a number of services required to meet the needs

of the people of British Columbia.

I believe this budget plants the seeds that will ensure our

province is well-prepared to deal with all of the future challenges.

The direct government debt has been reduced by over $800

million since 1987-88. There are no tax increases in the current

budget. The finance critic, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Clark), supported by a nominee, Mr. Leonard Krog, has said clearly that

the NDP government would raise taxes. Where would they raise those

taxes? Of course, they wouldn't raise them from the ordinary people;

no, they would tax business.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let me tell you about something I read this morning in the

Vancouver Province . The business report in the Province this morning

says: "More Signs Point to Recession This Year." What would higher

taxes to business do? It would accelerate the recession.

"Canadian corporate profits are getting

clobbered this year as other business indicators point more and more to

a recession in the months ahead. High interest rates are putting

pressure on business and consumer demand for goods as well as on

capital spending plans by industry. At least two B.C.-based companies

have already said they will pull back on their capital outlays.

Statistics Canada figures released this week show that the gross

domestic product slipped 0.1 percent in February, following a drop of

0.3 percent the month before."

It is a fragile economy, and the Minister of Finance has had

the wisdom and vision to recognize that. The solutions that the

opposition provides would reduce the opportunities for jobs and the

cash flow required to look after all the needs and concerns of the

people of British Columbia: health, education, social services and

housing. They would encourage that by knocking the props out of a very

fragile environment in the world today.

[3:00]

The homeowner's grant will benefit 500,000 homeowners. It is

being extended from last year and continued this year. The provincial

government will be paying interest on accounts that are in the

revenue-sharing stabilization account. This is to honour a longstanding

request of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

When I sought nomination, it was because of my specific

concerns with the fact that unemployment was devastating in my

constituency of Okanagan South. As a founding member and director of an

organization called KEREDA, for perhaps the first time in my life I

recognized the devastating economic and social costs associated with

unemployment. Perhaps the saddest thing in my life was to interview men

and women who were 50 to 55 years of age who, through no fault of their

own, had lost their jobs and had lived on employment insurance for

awhile. They found temporary short-term jobs, were a little while

longer on unemployment insurance, then on welfare. By the time I had

the opportunity to interview some of these people for jobs that they

were well qualified to fill with KEREDA, they had lost all sense of

self-esteem and value for themselves.

I'm very proud to be associated with a government that has had

such a strong commitment to creation of jobs In British Columbia —

exceedingly proud. Compared to 1988, 77,000 more jobs exist in British

Columbia in 1989.

What have we done? We have encouraged capital investment

through prudent management of government affairs, through extensive

promotion in all the countries in the world. We have expanded our

markets in the European Economic Community, this amounting to some 16

percent of our exports. For the first time in the history of British

Columbia, we have reduced our dependency on the United States market.

For the first time this year, 41 percent of our exports have gone to

the Asian Pacific market and 40 percent to our good neighbours and

friends south of the border.

There were close to 39,000 housing starts in the province of

British Columbia. What did it mean to my constituency of Okanagan

South, and specifically Kelowna? I'll tell you that in Kelowna last

year we had more residential housing starts — as a matter of fact, 150

percent more residential housing starts — than occurred in the whole of

the province of Saskatchewan. I'm proud of that, Mr. Speaker. That's

jobs for our young people, jobs for our trades, jobs for our retail

sector and increased jobs in tourism. It strengthens and diversifies

our economy in the Okanagan. Again, I give great credit to this

government, which has a strong commitment to equal opportunity for all

in British Columbia, and special privileges for none.

Last year we had $17.7 billion in exports. The budget

allocates $80 million to ensure regionally balanced prosperity. This

government has a strong commitment to people all over British Columbia

and for economic opportunities to be made available there. This is seen

with the commitment to our highways and transportation sector. It is

seen with our commitment to airports and air transportation and to our

railways, as well as the excellent ferry fleet that we have in British

Columbia. We're not a government that dictates policies specifically de-

[ Page 9331 ]

signed to facilitate people in the lower mainland; we're a

government that recognizes the economic strength of British Columbia is

integral to equal opportunity for all British Columbians in all areas

of the province.

I hear a great deal from members of the opposition about the

Coquihalla Highway system. I'd like to talk a little about the overrun

that our friends in the opposition continue to bring up. The matter was

looked into and studied intensely, and there is absolutely no

difficulty with the understanding that the only thing that happened was

that the estimates did not follow the expansion in the nature of the

project.

The opposition members — who are comfortable with the lower

mainland position and who divorce the economic opportunity for their

brothers and sisters in the interior of the province, who have every

right to an equal opportunity — continue to play that up in the House

day after day. Well, if I have my druthers, Mr. Speaker, we will have

highways the standard of the Okanagan connector and the Coquihalla

Highway system throughout British Columbia, again enhancing the

opportunity for trade and commerce throughout all areas of the province.

Interjection.

MR. SERWA : The member for Prince George

North (Mrs. Boone) is saying: "We would like the same thing for Prince

George North." The whole future of that north country is dependent on

the excellent rail and highway transportation system, so it's nice to

hear a dissenting voice among the members of the opposition

acknowledging the importance of that.

Another awareness of the value of the future of this

government is the recognition that we have to gravitate away from being

drawers of water and hewers of wood. The commitment by this government

in this fiscal year to fund $420 million in initiating, for the next

five-year period, research and development will move British Columbia

forward and give our young people the opportunity to participate fully,

actively, equally and competitively in the highly advanced

technological world of tomorrow. I am exceedingly proud of that, Mr.

Speaker.

The budget will allow the government to maintain and enhance

its commitment to sustainable development. Our Premier has spoken a

number of times; our government has made a remarkable commitment to the

concept of sustainable development and to the concept of the Brundtland

commission on our common future. The commitment was evidenced by the

high profile that the government of British Columbia played out by

participating actively in and supporting Globe '90 in Vancouver.

We had delegates to Globe '90 coming to beautiful British

Columbia from over 60 nations all around the globe. Over 2,500

full-time registered delegates and another 1,500 registered for part

of the functions attended. We had a large display section.

Manufacturers, from all over the world took

part in displaying their

particular products: technological advancement relating to smokestack

emissions, solid-waste management plans, methods of removing oil from

fresh water and ocean water; exhibitors from Holland, from the

Scandinavian countries.

I talked to a number of delegates who came from behind the

Iron Curtain — Russia, Hungary and other countries of eastern

Europe — as well as western Europe. I was amazed that the

implication was that

because of the economies they have and because of the socialist

governments, they were supposed to be environmentally sensitive. On the

contrary, I was horrified to learn, because of the socialist nature of

those countries and the types of governments that those counties had,

in fact, information on what was actually happening in those countries

was not made available to the residents. The rivers, lakes, ground and

air are being polluted in such a gigantic way that it's questionable

whether they will be able to be recovered, so that people can reside

safely and healthfully in those areas.

Recently coming to light, from under the umbrella they cover

these important issues with, is the devastation caused by the Chernobyl

nuclear accident. Each day we read in the paper of the number of people

afflicted by the escaped radiation and of the results of what happened.

Now it's clear what happened in the Ukraine, with the radioactivity

that precipitated out of the clouds because of the air movement

throughout that portion of eastern Europe.

Mr. Speaker, that type of problem is not dissimilar to the

problem of the commitment the socialists had in British Columbia from

1972 to 1975. Of the problems that I'm confronted with in Okanagan

South as far as pollution goes, a number are directly related to

subdivision approvals made by the New Democratic government in their

brief tenure.

Over $5 million was committed by this government to rectify

the problems in one such area — the Black Mountain subdivision, just

east of Kelowna — to help the residents clear sewage and effluent that

was running in open ditches and down roads, into basements and in open

waterways, creating an environmental and health concern. That

subdivision was approved by the New Democratic government without

consideration of soil types or the number of residents who would live

there.

I'm confronted with a similar problem in north Glenmore; it's

the same thing. We have heavy clay soils, which have a glacial origin,

mixed with a fair bit of silt.

When they talk about their environmental concerns, I can see

that it's a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm disappointed that they

were not concerned then. They should have been concerned then, because

a former Premier of the province, W.A.C. Bennett — a remarkable man

with a remarkable vision — created in 1971 the Okanagan Basin Water

Board in the Okanagan Valley. At that time he incorporated a funding

assistance program to withdraw sewage effluent and to be utilized for

sewage collection systems and for the design and construction of

pollution control systems in the Okanagan. That

[ Page 9332 ]

happened in 1971. It's part of the continued commitment of

this government and of the Social Credit Party to ensure that the

people of British Columbia live in a healthy and sustainable

environment.

Mr. Speaker, this budget provides for $1 billion in housing —

not enough, say the nay sayers. It's a remarkable commitment from this

government.

British Columbia has introduced a pension plan in this budget,

which, again, is leadership in matters that are very important to

people.

The budget commitment of $4.8 billion for health care is very

strong and important. What is even more important, perhaps, is the

recognition by the Minister of Health, who is to be complimented for

introducing a royal commission to look into all aspects of health care.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a report from the Nova Scotia

Royal Commission on Health Care. I sent away for this

summary, as well

as for the full report, from the government of the province of Nova

Scotia on their challenges in health care.

All jurisdictions are confronted with the problem we face here

in British Columbia. We have a number of situations in common. It is

interesting to know that in Canada the rate of provision of doctors is

increasing at more than four times the rate of growth of the

population. Clearly the federal government and all jurisdictions in

Canada are going to have to look very closely at what we're confronted

with here.

In Nova Scotia — and it's not dissimilar here — two major

contributions to rising medical services insurance expenditures have

been the increase in physician supply and the increase in the number of

services provided by each physician. They state that the number of

physicians in Nova Scotia has almost doubled since 1979, and is

forecast to continue to rise by 2.2 to 2.5 percent annually.

It's indicated there that the expected rate of population

growth is four-tenths of 1 percent. What we hope to do in British

Columbia is what they've done in Nova Scotia. They are developing a new

strategy for the revitalization of health service delivery. Past

reliance upon medical and institutional care has seriously constricted

resources available for other equally important aspects of health care,

such as health promotion, disease prevention and community-based

programs. It has also hindered development of other forms of care that

should be available to Nova Scotians, such as rehabilitative services,

home care, palliative care and pastoral care.

The evolution and orientation of the health care system has

not kept pace with the changing patterns of demand of Nova Scotians.

More attention needs to be paid to health outcomes. We in British

Columbia recognize that while we have an outstanding sickness care

system, we do not in fact have an outstanding health care, system. A

great deal more emphasis needs to be placed on the concept of wellness

among the people of British Columbia.

It is recognized that in British Columbia some 45 to 50

percent of medical health expenditures can be attributed to the abuse

of two substances: tobacco and alcohol. It's within the ability —

through self-discipline — of all British Columbians to recognize that

they can reduce health care costs dramatically, making health care

available to those who really need health care and allowing many other

programs to develop. For individuals themselves, they will live a far

better, more productive and fulfilling life.

As a representative for Okanagan South, I am particularly

pleased with this budget that will help ensure that Okanagan South

continues its rapid emergence as one of the province's major centres.

There has been tremendous growth in the central Okanagan. That growth

has been fueled again by the commitment of this government to highways

and transportation systems. We are looking forward to the opening this

fall of the Okanagan connector, which is a milestone for the entire

family of Okanagan communities.

The commitment of this government to advanced education has

enabled — for the first time in the history of the Okanagan — the

following scenario to have evolved. For the first time, the young

people of the Okanagan can get their public school education there;

they can get their university education there; and they will be able to

get a university degree there. They will be able to reside in the

community they grew up in, to use their abilities and resources to make

the Okanagan greater, better and more beautiful in every way than it

ever was before. That commitment is no small measure of the continued

monetary commitment that this government has made to advanced education.

I would like to point out that the constituency that I'm

privileged to represent — as the first member — has

had the honour of

providing premiers of, the province for some 30 years. The concept of a

university-degree-granting facility was first brought forward by W.A.C.

Bennett in 1965, but it wasn't until now that this government took that

initiative and made it possible. This government is making it possible

in Kelowna, and it's making it possible in Prince George. It's making

it possible in Kamloops, and it's making it possible on the northern

portion of Vancouver Island in the Campbell River area. Access for All

is a tremendous commitment to the future of British Columbia.

In agriculture, the tree-fruit industry — which is incredibly

important to the economy of the Okanagan — is under heavy pressure. As

a matter of fact, it is in dire straits. We are facing subsidy

competition from the European Economic Community amounting to some 70

or 75 percent of the cost of production. We are facing the competition

of subsidies from the United States of some 50 percent. I am very

pleased that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) has

initiated a commission of inquiry and is looking into the entire aspect

of the tree-fruit industry of the Okanagan. It's important that we all

recognize the two major challenges. The first challenge is

international competition and subsidies, and the second challenge is to

look at every aspect from the grower to the retail sector.

[ Page 9333 ]

MRS. BOONE : I am pleased to address the

issue of this so-called balanced budget. Before I get into the meat of

the budget, I'd like to respond to some of the comments by the member

for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan). In his speech last week,

he talked about the university in northern B.C. The member made some

statements that cannot go unchallenged.

He had the audacity to claim that the authors and founding

forces behind the great initiative for Canada's newest university came

in 1987 from the Cariboo development region, of which he was a part.

The university society was founded by individuals in Prince George who

wanted a university, people such as Charles McCaffray, Dale McMann,

Murray Sadler, Elsie Gerdes, Tom Stedman, Susan Park, educators,

business people, labour. All these people united to formulate, the

university society. They pressed for the university. The founding force

did not come from the Cariboo development region; it came from the

university society.

Socreds and New Democrats joined forces to convince the

government of the need for a university in the north. I was one of the

founding members, and I would assume that the member for Prince George

South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was also one. To suggest that your regional

development group was the founder is neglecting the contribution of all

those who donated time and effort to the university society It is as

dishonest as this budget is.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You can't stand it,

can you?

MRS. BOONE : True! A hundred thousand

dollars was provided for a study done after the society was formed, but

not as the founding force. The minister — typical of this government —

seems to think that the money is his to give away. I quote him:

"Without my contribution of $70,000" — my contribution — "we would not

see this university." It is not your money, Mr. Member; it is the

taxpayers' money, and everybody in this province paid for that. I want

to see your cheque if you are going to claim that $70,000.

Mr. Speaker, when Murray Sadler came to see me in 1987

regarding the university society, we agreed that this was an issue that

could and should be supported by both New Democrats and Socreds. We

needed to work together on this. We were going to keep this

non-political, as Mr. Sadler stated. All my speeches were directed at

making the then minister aware of our need; however, that wasn't to be.

The member for Prince George South ended that with his first

speech as a minister, when he tried to promote the idea that New

Democrats would not support a university, as they were closely

connected to the faculty association. What hogwash that was! Absolute

and utter hogwash. The faculty association has since called you on that

and stated their position regarding the university.

The misinformation being passed on by the member for Prince

George South will be put to rest today. A university was first mentioned

by New Democrats, by Andrew Schuck and by Tom Bulmer — our House

Leader's former son-in-law — in the 1983 election. The Socreds? No

mention; nothing at all.

An education conference in 1986 in Prince George endorsed a

degree-granting institution in the north. In the 1986 election, the

university was supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bob

Skelly, as part of the NDP platform. In 1986 both Liberal and New

Democrat candidates supported the university. The member for Prince

George South was silent on that. We were on the same stage as the

member for Prince George South, and Mrs. Christiansen from the Citizen

can attest to this.

In 1986, in my first speech as an elected member to the

construction association, I talked about a university. At that time I

got some skepticism and cynicism from them; they felt it wasn't going

to come about. However, I said: "We've got to keep trying. I think it's

a possibility. We can keep pushing for it, because we need this here."

That was reported in the Citizen .

In my maiden speech in 1987, as also reported in the Citizen ,

I talked about a university — not a degree-granting institution; a

university. During every estimates in this session I have pounded the

Minister of Advanced Education for a university and have tried to get

him to acknowledge our need.

In 1987 the Leader of the Opposition came to Prince George and

spoke to the chamber of commerce, as well as in an interview with the

newspaper about our university, and he made his commitment at that

time. What were the Socreds doing at that time? Absolutely nothing. In

1986 the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, now Solicitor-General

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) — I wish he were here; he usually is here when I am

speaking — absolutely denied that we would ever have a university. In

fact, what he said was: we should be seeking education through the Open

Learning Institute. That was the answer in 1986 from the Social Credit

government, from the Minister of Post-Secondary Education at that time.

In 1987 when our wonderful Premier — who has left the

precincts; he can't stand the heat, I see — was talking about

privatization and making his announcements about privatization, when he

was divvying up the province to sell to his friends and insiders, he

was asked: "What about hospitals and universities?" Any responsible

premier would have said: "Absolutely not. They should remain in the

public hands." However, what did our Premier say? Our Premier said:

"Make me an offer." Is that what's going to happen to our university,

Mr. Minister? Are we going to build a university only to have our

Premier sell it out from under us later on? Make me an offer — have you

ever heard such incompetence from the Premier?

In 1987, the Minister of Continuing Education, now the

Minister of Regional Development (Hon. S. Hagen), was doing absolutely

everything he could to avoid a decision on the university. Everyone

knew that he did not want to put a university in Prince George.

In his budget speech the member for Prince George South says

he's been interested in establishing a university since 1987.

[ Page 9334 ]

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE : It's in Hansard — you stated

since 1987. It was about that time that you got on board, because that

train was going to leave without you if you didn't get on board. So I

don't blame you for coming on board about that time, Mr. Minister. The

entire population was pushing you so hard you had no choice.

Even then, Mr. Speaker, he couldn't convince his own

colleagues. We didn't get a commitment from the minister. In 1988 the

minister said he had been supportive since 1987. In 1988 the member for

Comox (Hon. S. Hagen), the then minister, showed his commitment,

outraging all residents, by stating, and I quote from the paper: "In

the interior people don't think of education beyond grade 12. The

questions they ask at the end of the day are: 'How many trees did you

cut today?' or 'How were things down in the mine?"'

[3:30]

That was the response from the Minister of Advanced Education

when we in the interior were trying our hardest to get him to

acknowledge that we needed a university, and trying to get him to make

a statement in support of that university. That remark prompted letters

and cries of outrage from throughout the community — from labour, from

the business community, from the university society. Everybody in that

community felt absolutely appalled that a minister could be so out of

touch with the people that he felt we were only interested in cutting

trees and finding out what was going on in the mine.

As a result of that I took a full-page ad out for my MLAs

report and called on members from the entire community, which we were

still trying to keep united in support of the university. It included

such people as the president of the chamber of commerce, the school

board, the regional district chairman, tribal councils, the mayor, the

teachers' association, the mayor of Mackenzie, the regional district

person from Mackenzie. All of these people wrote small comments which

I put in my ad in support of the university because we felt that we had

to make a statement, we had to make this government listen, we had to

show our commitment to the university. That was a commitment that came

not just from New Democrats but from the entire community of Prince

George and the region. Everyone is in favour of the university.

Where was the member for Prince George South?

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE : I don't know; I forgot. You

gave $70,000 for a study, didn't you? That's right.

In 1988 the member still couldn't convince the minister to

act, so while other regions were having actual access to post-secondary

education for third and fourth year, we didn't even have the commitment

for a university that was expected at that press conference. An

implementation planning committee was going to function for ten months.

It should have put them past the time of an election, I would have

thought. They were probably thinking they might have an election in the

fall and they might not have had to act upon it.

However, as the fall came around and no election was held, I

think the member for Comox suddenly got a shaky feeling that he was

going to have to do something on this report. And he didn't want to do

anything on the report because he thought we were only interested in

cutting trees and going out into the mines. So what does the government

have to do, because the member can't even convince his own colleague to

support the university? They move him into the job and we have our

first press conference. Everybody is expecting to get support for the

university, but we didn't. We got a maybe. Then, when the Leader of the

Opposition came to Prince George and made our commitment known and made

our support known, we finally we got a solid commitment from the

minister.

That decision held for ages, and we still didn't have the

implementation planning committee's report being structured, even

though the minister said he accepted it. Even though he said he was

going to implement it, we had delays. We had delays on the appointments

to the board, to the extent that yesterday the chairman he appointed

stated that we can't have a university in 1991, as expected. We're

going to have it in 1992.

We have not seen any legislation to date. We've had a series

of delays. We had $100,000 put into the Dahllof report, which sat

around and then was practically ignored. We had the implementation

planning committee's report, which took ten months. I could have

produced a baby in nine months, but it took ten months to get a report

out of this committee.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE : It was a good report. Yet now

they say they aren't necessarily going to be bound by it. They are

going to study it some more: "We're going to study it some more because

we don't know whether we really need to have a school of aboriginal

studies. We don't really know whether we need to have a school of

forestry." Such hogwash! We need those schools right now. We need to

have decisions made. We need to have a place picked out, and we could

do that. But this minister is dragging his heels.

It is not my wish to make this university a political

football. However, if the member for Prince George South wants to play

that game, I warn him that I'll stack my record on the university up

against his any day, and mine will win.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE : I'll make the same commitment

today that the Leader of the Opposition and I made in December. I've

introduced my private member's bill. The minister says it's no good.

Interjection.

[ Page 9335 ]

MRS. BOONE : There is. That's another piece

of misinformation. Read the bill. There are specifics mentioned in it:

a school of aboriginal studies and a school of forestry. If the

minister does not accept my bill, I want him to introduce his bill

immediately. I want it put on the order paper here immediately. The

Leader of the Opposition has already given his assurance that it would

pass without delay. That is my commitment to the people of Prince

George and the northern region. What commitment has this minister given

us? None whatsoever.

I think the government has suddenly seen the light on a number

of different issues. They have suddenly developed consciences I never

knew they had. They suddenly care about women, through pay equity. We

never knew that before; I don't think we do right now, because there is

no commitment.

They suddenly care about the environment. Again, where is the

commitment? We've not seen any commitment from this government on the

environment in the past.

Suddenly they are opposed to the GST. That's incredible! I

wish the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) were here. We spent a

long time during one of the Forests and Lands Committee hearings

arguing about the merits or non-merits of the GST. The member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Miller) and I were unable to convince him that the GST was

a false way to go about things. We were unable to convince him that it

was an unfair tax and that there are alternatives. But that was when he

was a maverick — an independent Socred, whatever that might mean — and

thinking on his own. I suppose now that he has slithered back into the

fold he may have taken up their whole idea. Or does he still keep his

own ideas? I would assume that he probably still supports the GST, as

he did when we had our discussion in January.

Last year we weren't able to get the Socreds to speak against

the GST at all. In numerous question periods we asked the Minister of

Finance to speak in opposition to that tax. Suddenly they are the only

opposition. When Brian Gardiner, John Ricketts and I passed out

anti-GST literature outside the Plaza 400 at 7:30 in the morning in

January, where was the member for Prince George South? When I passed

out literature outside the college at 8 a.m., at minus 5 degrees, where

was he? When I plant-gated Northwood at 6 a.m. in opposition to the

GST, where were they? How many Social Credit members have plantgated?

How many Social Credit members have gone out onto the streets in

opposition to the GST? I would verify that probably none of you have. I

would say that probably none have actually taken to the streets in

opposition to the GST.

AN HON. MEMBER : Where's your leader?

MRS. BOONE : He wasn't there. The member for

Prince George South wasn't there, and he hasn't been anywhere else

protesting the GST. The reality is that this government is "kissing

cousins" to the Tories, and they support this tax.

Mr. Speaker, the Socreds crow about this budget being

balanced, but it's not. They claim there are no tax increases, yet

there are. There are taxes. What do you call a tax on tires and a tax

on batteries? That's a tax. What do you call that?

Hidden on page 49 is a

section that taxpayers will be very

interested in, because they don't even call this a tax. They say "under

other revenues." Under other revenues, a number of fees and licences

will be increased during the fiscal year. I could bet on it; you bet on

it. You can bet your bottom dollar there are going to be a number of

fees and licences increased, The people of this province are going to

be seeing those increases, and they'll know just how dishonest this

budget is, and how dishonest this government is when it comes to what

they say in the budget.

There are going to be increases in motor vehicle licences and

permit fees. No increase in taxes? I think not. Tell those who go to

the liquor store today to buy a bottle of wine or a case of beer, and

they pay that 6 percent increase. Tell them there are no increases in

taxes. Tell those working people who were promised by the Premier that

he would lower the price of beer. Tell them, when they see the

increases in taxes. Tell them that there has been no increase in taxes,

when they have to pay 6 percent more on their beer. I think not, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest budget, and this government

has increased taxes and fees over the past three years so incredibly

that the public is crying out now in opposition to those things.

Five hundred million dollars have been shifted from

corporations onto the backs of the average taxpayer in this province.

It costs you more to do everything now than it did when these Socreds

first came in in 1986.

It costs you more to be born — birth certificates, marriage

certificates, death certificates, fishing and hunting licences,

property purchase tax, MSP premiums, ICBC premiums and yes, even the

small business tax. Isn't that incredible! This government that claims

to support small business increased the tax on small business. For the

government to expect the public to be grateful for no new taxes is a

little like asking somebody to be grateful when someone stops beating

on them.

This budget is a budget without a vision. It is a budget that

carries on with the shell game of previous budgets. You are moving

funds around and shifting moneys from accounts that don't exist to

balance budgets that don't balance.

Mr. Speaker, the auditor-general's report clearly shows that

this is a government that cannot manage. No one is in charge of the

till; the taxpayers are losing. The taxpayers of this province are

tired of paying for Socred mismanagement. They won't forget the

Coquihalla. They won't forget the Expo land deals. They won't forget GO

B.C. Mr. Speaker, it's time for a change.

MR. CRANDALL : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

opportunity to participate in the 1990 budget debate

[ Page 9336 ]

and to comment on a budget that brings this province into the

1990s with a very solid foundation.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on one of

the best budgets that British Columbia has ever had, and one of the

best budgets that provincial governments in Canada have brought in in

the last four years.

I thought it was interesting that before the budget was

announced on April 19, in the media and elsewhere, there was quite a

bit of discussion as to whether or not this would be what we call

sometimes "an election budget." I think we found that it is an

election budget, and not only that; it's the fourth election budget

in four years.

When we introduced our first budget in 1987, we did something

that probably no other provincial government had done in the first year

of its mandate, and that was to reduce taxes. We reduced the social

services tax from 7 percent to 6 percent, and not only did we do that

in year one, but it has stayed that way through year two, year three

and year four.

[3:45]

Then in 1989, we delivered to this province a balanced budget,

and we followed that with another balanced budget in 1990. We certainly

have a record unequalled by any government — provincial or federal — in

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to notice the discussion

regarding the balanced budget. I'm especially interested to look at the

debt. The proof of the pudding as to whether or not we've administered

this province well is what has happened to the total government debt

over the four years that we've been in office. When you recognize that

we've reduced government debt by $800 million.... That is indeed a

record of which we can be proud.

Not only did we do that, but we've reduced the sales tax for

those years. Now in 1990 we have delivered a budget that has no tax

increases. Not only that, but we have reduced property taxes. I want

to say that in my constituency of Columbia River that is a very, very

important part of this 1990 budget.

I want to congratulate and thank the Minister of Finance and

the Minister of Transportation and Highways for leading the review of

property taxation last fall. They went around this province to the

large and small Communities to hear what people had to say about

property taxation. As a result, the supplementary homeowner's grant has

been introduced in the budget. It will assist many property owners in

the province, especially in my constituency, with reduced property

taxes this year.

We've just listened to the previous speaker talk at great

length about who got credit for a particular project — a university for

the north. I’d like to spend some time not dealing with specifics, but

talking a little bit more about the general overall items that this

government has provided for the people of our province over these last

few years. It is important to recognize that in addition to the

financial management that we've provided, we've also reduced

unemployment from, 12.5 percent to 7.8 percent. That is important to

the people of our province who want to work. In doing that, we've

provided 170,000 jobs — more jobs than any other provincial government

in this country.

While we might talk only about those increases, there is a

decrease that's also extremely important: as the number of jobs has

increased, the number of people on social assistance in our province is

down significantly. That is a decrease of which this government and the

people of our province can be very proud. This is a number that takes

the human factor into account. Our people don't want to be on social

assistance; they want to be working. This government has provided those

extra jobs and has been able to reduce unemployment from 12.5 percent

to 7.8 percent. I think that’s extremely good for the people of this

province.

The jobs don't come out of thin air, however. They come

because business people are willing to invest — business people who have

been in this province for a long time and who have come to British

Columbia from other parts of the world because they were attracted by a

free enterprise government.

We've seen the annual investment grow from $9.6 billion to

$15.7 billion — an extremely attractive number, one that has provided

jobs already and that will continue to provide jobs in the future. So

I'm not surprised when the investment dealers of Canada say that B.C.

sets the example for fiscal management in Canada.

In addition to these things, I'd like to point out that this

budget provides a great number of extra dollars for the people of the

province in some of the important areas like education, health and

social assistance. Speaking of the Ministry of Education's funding for

this year, I think it's great that we've increased that by $398

million to $3 billion. And I want it known that the constituency of

Columbia River is going to benefit from that. Right at this very

moment, we have a $9 million high school in Golden under construction —

where nails are being driven right now to provide for the students of

our constituency to go to school in grades 8 to 12 now and in the

future. In addition to providing that future, it's a very significant

construction project and is providing many jobs in our community. We

are also at the present time considering — and it will be done at some

point in the future — a replacement building, for the David Thompson

Secondary School in Invermere. The school board has made a request,

and the Minister of Education is considering. We look forward to a new

building there.

I want to talk about health. As I mentioned before, my

constituency has benefited from capital spending on education. We are

also benefiting from capital expenditures in the health ministry. We

have a Windermere district hospital under construction, for which, I'm

proud to tell you, the sod was turned on March 7 for that hospital by

the widow of the previous MLA for Columbia River, Mrs. Grace Chabot.

That particular project is one that both the previous member and I were

involved with in providing funding. Mr. Chabot, who represented our

constituency so well for 23 years, was instrumental in

[ Page 9337 ]

providing the first $5 million; however, when additional

funding was required, the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) provided

the extra $1 million dollars at my request. That project is therefore

one that both the previous member, Jim Chabot, and I have worked on

together. I'm glad to see it under construction in our constituency.

I'd like to talk about highways for a moment. As we all know,

highways are so important to us in the Interior. I am glad to see the

initiatives that our government is taking following the previous fine

initiatives that so many Social Credit governments have taken in regard

to highways in the interior.

The present Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston) is considering many major projects which were given to us by

the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. They are such projects as

the Okanagan connector, Vancouver Island Highway, the Cassiar connector

in Vancouver, SkyTrain extensions and a new generation of ferries.

I'd like to add another project to that list, and it's the

completion of the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway from Kamloops

to the eastern border of our province. That is a very important project

and one which I would hope, fully expect and know that this government

will work on over the next few years.

I might also add that, in particular, there is an area of the

Trans-Canada Highway near my home community of Golden which I know is

going to need some substantial upgrading in the next few years, and

that's the Kicking Horse Canyon just east of Golden. That is, along with

probably the Squamish highway, among the toughest roads that have been

built in the past, and it needs to be rebuilt. We just had some very

dangerous rock falls there.

In addition to that, the overall construction of the

four-laning from Kamloops to the eastern border is an important piece

of road construction for the future, and one which I know this

government will continue to take over the years. I'm happy that a $3

million project and part of that four-laning will hopefully be

undertaken in the community of Golden starting right after Labour Day.

I also want to say — and I want this House and this province to

know — that, in opposition to what the previous speaker just said about

it, the Coquihalla Highway is a project that the interior of this

province appreciates every single time we travel to the coast. That

project was a great project, and I very much appreciate it. I know that

my constituents do as well.

I want to talk about municipal revenue-sharing. I'm glad to see

that we're increasing the municipal revenue-sharing grants by 18

percent to our municipalities. I might add that the small

municipalities — examples of which I have in my constituency, in

Kimberley, Invermere and Golden — appreciate these increases to the

municipal revenue-sharing grants.

I want to mention that the $10 million local government

emergency account which is being set up has almost probably been set up

because of the difficulties we have had in the community of Kimberley

with the closure of the Sullivan mine. I appreciate especially the

commitment that the Premier and the cabinet have made to the continued

support of the city of Kimberley in providing guarantees that the

infrastructure of that community will not suffer substantially during

this closure.

I want it known that we are working to diversify the economy

of that city. We have just announced a substantial GO B.C. grant for an

industrial golf course which will greatly enhance the tourism industry

in that community. I want it known that I appreciate very much the

extremely beneficial assistance that our constituency, the city of

Kimberley and I received from the previous Minister of Tourism. Without

his help, we probably wouldn't have obtained the $1 million dollars of

federal funding. I appreciate that kind of help, and that is going to

be an asset to the city of Kimberley and to the young people who will

work at that golf course over the next many decades.

I wish to comment briefly on some of the increases that we see

in the individual ministries. I'm extremely happy to see the extra

emphasis that we've been giving to the Ministry of Environment this

year. Without these kinds of additions, we wouldn't be able to offer

the environmental improvements that we will see this year. We wouldn't

be able to have the good management that the present Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) is able to give us. I want to thank the

Minister of Environment for coming to the East Kootenays last night,

sitting down and listening to the residents of the city of Kimberley

and the neighbouring areas. We did what government should do. We went

to the people and listened to the current concerns they have about

wildlife. We will take those concerns and do the very best we can to

respond.

This is a positive budget for the people of British Columbia.

I should say, too, that after the budget was delivered, we wasted a few

days discussing the interim supply bill. Was I surprised that we wasted

three, four or five days at the opposition's insistence, discussing

this interim supply bill? I wasn't, because this is a good budget, and

I knew they were going to struggle to find some issues they could

criticize it for. But they weren't able to do it, so we wasted several

days discussing the interim supply bill, which was passed routinely in

previous years.

[4:00]

This is a very impressive budget. I am pleased that our

government and our Minister of Finance have been so successful — not

for the first year, but for the fourth year in a row — in providing

good financial management in this province. I know this kind of free

enterprise government will continue to lead the province in the future.

MR. GUNO : First of all, I am glad to have

this opportunity to take

part in the budget debate. I want to thank the

second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) for graciously allowing me to

take her place on the speakers' list. I was on a trip to Atlin, up in

the Nass Valley. I returned late last night, so I thought it

appropriate to speak, knowing full well

[ Page 9338 ]

that the opportunity for me to do so is diminishing as each

day goes by. It's always a pleasure to take part.

I want to speak, as have the rest of my colleagues, against

the adoption of this so-called budget. I agree with my colleagues'

assessment of it: it is unbalanced. This government has tried hard to

create the myth that we have a balanced budget. That has clearly been

discredited.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I want to speak from the perspective of a northerner. I

believe we really have a two-tiered economy: one for the lower mainland

and one for the rest of the province. Certainly this budget indicates

that. I want to comment on a number of concerns that we northerners

have about the myopia of this government when it comes to recognizing

the unique needs of our northern communities. One of the more

fundamental concerns of most northerners is the state of our highways.

I have got up in this House time after time, almost ad nauseam, to talk

about the horrendous state of the highways throughout the Nass Valley.

Yesterday we had a number of visitors from the government

side. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston),

the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) and the member for

Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) travelled to the Nass to cut a ribbon. I will

speak later on that, because I really have some concerns. I want to

know just how committed this government is. Certainly the budget does

not indicate that there is any commitment.

Highway 37, which is now a major access between Alaska and

Highway 16, is still a rough gravel road; it's unsafe. One of the

joys — or the hazards — of representing Atlin is to witness firsthand the

incompetence of this government when it comes to maintaining, and

recognizing the need to maintain, our northern highways. On at least

three occasions I have been involved in a very serious highway

near-miss. In terms of the maintenance and the winter conditions of

these highways.... In the summertime the dust is forever prevalent.

They are not really built for public traffic, but for industrial

traffic.

Just yesterday, in travelling from Terrace to Aiyansh, I had a

near-miss because of the tremendous dust and the incredible amount of

survey activity going on on that road. You can always tell that there's

an election imminent by the tremendous amount of surveying that goes on

in the north. But that's all that ever happens.

MR. MILLER : Ribbon-cutting.

MR. GUNO : Just ribbon-cutting, as the

member for Prince Rupert stated.

As I said, I don't think any major tourist economic initiative

can happen in Atlin, especially north of Meziadin towards the Yukon

border, without major and substantial improvements on Highway 37. I

think we're missing the boat by not addressing that. It would certainly

vastly improve the economic opportunities for people who live in that

area.

The Nass Highway was built in 1967 or '68 — I'm not sure — when

the forestry activities began in the Nass Valley. There has been very

little improvement done on that particular road since then. It has been

largely administered by the Ministry of Forests. I was quite interested

to see that the three cabinet ministers flew to Greenville in

helicopters — I guess they didn't want to drive the road; it's just too

damn dangerous for them — to take

part in that ribbon-cutting ceremony

and to recognize the fact that the road will be taken over by the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

I would like to know if this government is really committed to

responding to the real problems we have with the Nass Road. As I said,

I have at every opportunity brought to this government's attention the

horrendous state of that road system. There have been others before me.

Mr. Frank Calder, when he was with us, the right people, continually

pressed and called for major improvements and the eventual paving of

that highway. The Nisga'a Tribal Council and other residents of the

Nass Valley have, through various ways, called upon this government to

respond.

I hope that the visit by the three cabinet ministers is not

just a PR gambit and that they are serious about responding to this,

because to raise people's expectations like that is a cynical move that

I hope is not occurring.

There is another pressing issue in the Nass Valley, and that

is the Kincolith road. I think about 10 years ago — and my colleague

from Prince Rupert might correct me — the then Minister of Highways,

Alex Fraser, committed the province's involvement, up to 50 percent of

the cost of constructing that vital link between Greenville and

Kincolith. Certainly the budget does not indicate any future design or

even initial planning on that issue. I would suggest that if this

government has any vision with regard to the tremendous economic

opportunity that these improvements will unleash for that area, it

would be more serious in the resources they allocate to begin this very

important project.

One last aspect of the highway is the Gitwinksihlkw Bridge.

That's a Nisga'a term for crossing the canyon. It's actually Canyon

City, a small community right at the junction in the Nass Valley. This

is a suspension footbridge with a life span of something like only ten

years. I think it's three years over its life span now. It's the only

access to and from Canyon City to the parking lot across the way, and

it's also used by the schoolchildren twice a day. People there are

naturally concerned that this bridge has outlived its life span and

that every day that these kids cross that bridge, it presents some real

danger. Parents have actually told me that if nothing happens soon,

they're going to reconsider sending their kids to school if they have

to walk across this bridge every day. I know that a certain commitment

has been made by the Minister of Native Affairs and various others, but

I would hope that they are serious and show that commitment by

responding as quickly as they can to

[ Page 9339 ]

provide an alternative access for the people of Canyon City.

I want to talk just briefly about regional fairness, or

unfairness, that I think is inherent in this budget. To have a healthy

and sustainable economy requires that all regions of B.C. share in our

prosperity. Yet the budget and the throne speech talk about a

post-resource economy. I don't know if they have deemed forestry a

sunset industry; that's something I want to canvass with them in the

future. We're entering what is commonly called the "information era." I

read a report recently — I didn't have time this morning to

research it — that analyzed the current and future employment

trends in Canada,

especially with respect to the coming of the information age. Peter

Drucker recently said in an interview that we have been in the

information age for the last 20 years. You don't just get into the

information age when the year 2000 comes. Generally speaking, these

significant eras do not come with such predictability.

This assessment is about the current employment trend.

There was the anticipation, largely advanced by Alvin Toffler, the

futurist who wrote Future Shock and other books like that.... At one

point he said that the whole computer, industry and information age

would mean that we would have something like a cottage industry where

people could buy their computer and bring their work home, and

everything would be hunky-dory. This particular study states that

instead of having huge employment opportunities available to people of

all sectors and all areas of any community, it would mean greater

disparity between regions in Canada. Much of this information industry

will be centered in huge urban areas like Montreal, Toronto and

Vancouver, and the rest of Canada will simply have to trail behind in

terms of taking advantage of the opportunity that this information age

would offer.

The report also said that there would be greater disparity in

the incomes of people who are involved in the service industry —

professions like lawyers, doctors, consultants, politicians, and those

McDonald types of employment. So we can look at greater regional

disparities in Canada and certainly within B.C. We will see greater

disparities in the incomes of people who are professionally trained and

those that do not have the adequate training because of lack of

opportunity. We'll certainly have disparities between urban and rural

areas, and this will happen in B.C. It's happening today.

[4:15]

This budget does not address the fact that we do have that

disparity today in British Columbia. The budget does not address the

need to close that gap between employment opportunities in the lower

mainland and the northwest. In certain communities in my riding — and

most of these are aboriginal communities — the unemployment is so great

that we have two generations in a family who have never experienced a

good, decent job.

I don't think this budget holds any hope for these people. It

does not provide for any major initiatives in training and retraining

in terms of alleviating the conditions of life for these people. I

would submit that a government with vision would recognize that B.C.

would have a healthier economy if we had a more balanced growth. I'm

proud to say that I belong to a party, the New Democrats, who are

committed to such regional fairness.

I just want to move on briefly to another question of

fairness, and that's fairness between individuals. My colleagues have

canvassed quite adequately and with certain eloquence the whole issue

of fairness between men and women. I would certainly agree with them: I

don't think this budget has addressed that particular problem. What I

want to speak about is the fairness towards aboriginal people. As an

aboriginal person, it's an issue that I find of great importance. We

hear statistics about the conditions of life of most aboriginal people.

I'm probably the only one in this House who has actually lived it and

witnessed it firsthand. I grew up in a reserve before running water and

indoor toilets were available. Every summer we'd move down to a

cannery, and they provided these so-called "cannery row" houses for

native people. If we were to look back and really assess the standards

these dwellings had, you would find that they were not really far above

the type of dwelling that exists today in the Third World.

Sometimes we become inured to some of the statistics that are

there. But it bears repeating; people just have to be reminded

constantly about the life situations of most aboriginal people: the

intolerable conditions that they have, and the fact that they are

systematically discriminated against. One of the benchmarks, of course,

is the high rate of unemployment on most Indian reserves, often

reaching 50 to 80 percent. Widespread poverty is a condition of life on

a reserve.

Inadequate housing. The fact that several generations live in

one small, inadequate dwelling on most reserves is stark evidence of

the neglect that these people are facing.

Malnutrition. We express concern about the number of kids from

urban areas who go to school hungry. If you multiply that by ten, then

you will find that it is the situation for many of our kids, many of

them having to live on junk food as a poor substitute.

The mortality rate among native Indians is twice as high as

that for non-natives. The suicide rate among our young people is

something like 2.5 times higher than that of non-native people.

I can recite these, and people will say: "So what? This is the

way it is." But I don't think that's the way it should be. We have an

opportunity — this government has an opportunity — to respond. Instead,

in their budget, they have something like.... Correct me if I'm wrong,

but even if I was on the high side, I would say you have something like

$5 million as a sign of your commitment to meeting this incredible

state of affairs that exists in our aboriginal communities.

This government has been paternalistic in terms of their

response. They set up the so-called Premier's council that goes around

the province consulting

[ Page 9340 ]

with native groups; and yet it continues to fight in court the

whole issue of aboriginal right, to deny the existence of aboriginal

title and to deny the opportunities that negotiations would provide.

Every year, or every time an election comes along, this

government.... Certainly the Premier did it after the last election was

called; he travelled to a particular reserve, donned the ceremonial

robes and declared he was interested and wanted to become

knowledgeable. Some weeks later he attended the constitutional

conference in Ottawa, where he had the opportunity to demonstrate his

newfound commitment to the aboriginal people. Instead he led the fight

against the constitutional recognition of self-government of aboriginal

people. I would challenge the Minister of Native Affairs to tell me if

that position has changed. I would challenge him to show me where in

this budget there is any financial commitment that you are going to

change your position in terms of meeting the aspirations of the native

people.

Instead, I think we will see a campaign that will be launched

by this government — a campaign to scare off people by saying that there

will be huge land transfers, the fact that we're claiming 125 percent,

the fact that third-party interests will be jeopardized. All these

bugaboos will be trotted out by this government in the coming election

to incite racial hatred against the aspirations of the aboriginal

people.

There are other issues that I wanted to cover. The so-called

commitment to the environment is largely a shell game to create an

illusion that suddenly this government has decided environment is a

serious: matter. Yet if you look at the allocation of resources they

have identified in the budget, that simply does not stand up.

In terms of affordable housing, the budget does not provide

for any creative initiative that would respond to this very urgent need

that we have not only in the urban areas but in the rural areas as well.

Sometimes we think the housing crisis is only in Victoria and Vancouver

and some of the outlying communities, but there are serious housing

shortages in places like Terrace, which the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr.

Parker) represents. I have run into many people who have simply given

up looking for affordable dwellings in Terrace. Certainly it's true in

Prince Rupert. It's true in Smithers. It's not a phenomenon just in the

lower mainland.

The whole issue around the BS fund is evidence of the lack of

honesty and openness of this government I agree with my colleagues that

it's a tired government that is morally bankrupt and is reaching out

desperately to find an issue on which to call an election. They have

not yet been able to do that.

This is a government that prides itself or somehow builds the

mythology that it's a competent economic manager, yet just about

week after week we see evidence to the contrary. It's unfortunate,

because we have the opportunity to draw people together, and people are

our resources. Our young people are our resources.

In the north there are generations of people going to waste

because there is a lack of access to quality education and a lack of

opportunities for retraining for the people of the north in order to

realize their potential as human beings.

There is also tremendous neglect in the area of health.

Certainly the federal government provides basic health care for native

people, but there are a number of other health issues that this

government can respond to. For instance, in the Nass, which is cut off

quite often in the spring and in the fall by flooding, there is no

alternative medical evacuation capability. So the people there have

been calling for helipads to be set up in the Nass, New Aiyansh, Canyon

City and Greenville that would provide for night medical evacuation.

Again, their plea falls on deaf ears from both levels of government.

In Dease Lake there is a small diagnostic medical centre. In

fact, I don't think it really lives up to the standard of that kind of

facility. It's poorly constructed. It was designed by someone who did

not understand the appropriate design for that kind of medical

facility. For instance, in order to get someone from emergency to

x-ray, you have to wheel that person through the waiting room. When

someone has a severe traumatic injury, can you imagine being wheeled by

anxious relatives who are waiting in the waiting room? That has been in

existence for some years now. They've been calling for a change or a

new facility to be established in Dease Lake, and if we're serious

about encouraging economic development in the northwest, then we ought

to show that commitment by providing those basic infrastructures

required for that kind of economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to repeat much of what has been said

by my colleagues, but it's becoming clear that this government has a

major credibility problem. It has insisted against a mountain of

evidence that this is a balanced budget. We now have the expert opinion

of reputable financial institutions and the auditor-general that this

budget is indeed unbalanced. It's unbalanced because it perpetuates the

myth that the BS fund is somehow real. Instead, it's an empty fund.

It's becoming clear each day that this government has

misrepresented the true state of fairness in this province. In terms of

my critic area — the Solicitor-General — I did not see in the budget,

nor in the throne speech, any mention about a new commitment to

providing a more coordinated and appropriately financed emergency

response capability. Right now, in spite of the fact that many experts

have said that we live on a major fault line, and that a major

earthquake can occur at any time, we simply do not have that kind of

capacity. It was demonstrated last year when the oil spill occurred out

on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I don't think anything has

really improved since then. We still have a hodgepodge of different

emergency programs, but nothing that is coordinated or provides for

major public education on how the public should act to protect

themselves in the event of a major earthquake.

[4:30]

[ Page 9341 ]

I want to conclude by saying that I really enjoyed the first

member for Vancouver East's (Mr. Williams'

s) assessment of this

government's performance, the fact that you have not minded the till....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I am sorry, hon. member. I

must inform you that under standing orders your time has expired.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, I haven't had

the opportunity to congratulate you on your ascension to your job. It's

an important job and you are well experienced. I work with you very

closely, and I want to tell this province and this assembly that you do

a first-class job.

I appreciated the words of the member for Atlin. He doesn't

speak in the shrill tones that some of his colleagues do. There has

been a long history of members from Atlin seeing the light and crossing

over to this side of the floor. I know that you said you are not going

to run again, but you might be able to make it three out of three if

you followed the lead of your distinguished predecessors.

I remember someone telling me about Ron Worley coming to talk

to W.A.C. Bennett just after they had finished a session here in this

chamber, when they came in as a minority government in 1952. Mr.

Worley, who was the executive assistant to W.A.C. Bennett, said: "What

are we going to do, Mr. Bennett? We don't have a majority; we'll surely

be defeated on the floor of the House." And he said: "You go out into

British Columbia and you draw that circle wider." They went out and

brought in CCFers, Conservatives, Socreds and Liberals. They brought in

British Columbians who were interested in British Columbia. For 34

out of 38 years in this province the people have trusted the Social

Credit government, and they'll do it time after time again.

The people of British Columbia know about the kind of changes

that can threaten even a seemingly secure prosperity. Even in those

times, and especially in those times, they count on Social Credit

governments to help them through.

I remember back in 1983 when the then Leader of the

Opposition, Dave Barrett, turned to the people of British Columbia and

said, "Throw out the compensation stabilization plan, throw out all

your austerity, throw out all restraint; we're going to open up the

treasury, " and the people opened up on Mr. Barrett and gave him one of

the biggest rejections he's ever had. I'll tell you, the next time that

we go to the people of British Columbia, this will happen again.

So I want to talk to the members over there who are rather

new here. If you think you're going to become government, don't hold

your breath. You'll turn rather blue in the process. It's been a long

time.

Rapid changes make for interesting and challenging times in

British Columbia and throughout the world. Our budget has been

skillfully crafted to suit these times by the best Finance minister — and I've seen a lot of finance ministers — that this province has ever

seen at any other point in time up until now; no question about it.

The primary aim is to protect British Columbia's fragile

prosperity — a prosperity that is always fragile — against outside

forces over which we have little or no control; forces such as

unpredictable offshore markets and the recent federal budget which

punishes the west. Somebody asked me yesterday on a television show

what I thought Mr. Crow should do. I said I thought he should go out

and find some useful employment somewhere, but not doing what he's

doing.

What they're trying to do in central Canada, because of the

situation that has occurred in eastern Canada by dumping it on the

backs of western Canada. I say it's about time that they woke up in

central Canada and realized that British Columbians are Canadians, that

British Columbians probably send about $2 billion more per year to

Ottawa than they get back in any way, shape or form. I think it's wrong

to take another $120 million off that. We realize there is a price in

Confederation; we pay it gladly, but enough is enough.

Remember that we have in this province a population of about

three million people, and we've balanced our budget again despite those

onerous and unexpected federal cuts. At the same time, the Minister of

Finance has provided tax relief to homeowners, a $1 billion housing

plan and a 24 percent increase in environmental protection and

protection for reforestation.

Since introducing our first budget in 1987, this

administration has worked steadfastly to get rid of the deficit, reduce

the debt and diversify the provincial economy. Remembering that we have

three million people in this province, during this administration

unemployment has dropped in British Columbia to 7.8 percent from 12.5

percent; 170,000 jobs have been created here in this province — annual

investment, Mr. Speaker.

That's confidence in this government, that's confidence in

this province by people from both outside and within Canada. Annual

investment has grown from $9.6 billion to $15.7 billion. Not only do

the people of British Columbia trust this government; this government

is trusted internationally and nationally, and it will continue to be.

Conscientious fiscal management has put us in a position to

spend $550 million this year on environmental initiatives — an increase,

as I have said, of over 24 percent — in a population of three million

people; to grant tax relief to more than half a million homeowners; and

to increase spending on primary and secondary education by $398

million, and on advanced education and technology by a further $132

million. We have done that with a population of only three million

people. We have been able to bring spending on affordable housing up to

$1 billion, while expanding the renter's tax reduction program to

benefit an additional 40,000 families.

This budget provides $13 million a day for health care. That's

an annual budget of $4.8 billion, or $4,000 per household.

[ Page 9342 ]

This budget also features a number of other important

initiatives, including transportation, public sector pay equity and an

increase of 18 percent in the province's municipal revenue-sharing

program. I want you to contrast that for a moment, if you will, with

Ottawa, where they have chopped $120 million from the money — our money — we sent to them that they did not send back to us.

In this province we have increased our share of municipal

funding by 18 percent. In addition to that, there's a $10 million local

government emergency account to help communities cope with difficulties

like the Sullivan mine shutdown in Kimberley — all that in a population

of three million people.

British Columbia must remain efficient, productive and

competitive in a very rapidly changing world. That's the challenge to

which this budget responds; that's the challenge of the nineties; and

that's the challenge of Social Credit. In rising to the challenge, we

have presented the people of British Columbia with an absolutely clear

choice. That's what I would like to talk to you about for a few moments

right now.

As I mentioned, British Columbians and people all over the

world have witnessed dramatic changes taking place in eastern Europe.

Political and economic systems based on the subjugation of the

individual and the supremacy of the state — on the denial of individual

enterprise and private ownership — are collapsing with astonishing

speed all over the globe. Watching this phenomenon has rekindled

interest here at home in the fundamental principles of democracy:

namely, the freedom of individual opportunity for all.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Social Credit — always.

Social Credit has been there over the years, but one thing has never

slackened: the value we place upon these principles. We will never

change our mind on these principles. The NDP and their glorious leader

may come down on all sides of all issues — until he meets Mr. Krog; I

don't know where that's at now — but we are constant. Special

opportunities for none; equal opportunities for all. That's Social

Credit, that's our principle, that's what we live by and that's what we

have striven to keep as a government. That's why we have tried to keep

government as small as possible over the years, and out of the way of

the individual. That's why we have privatized services where possible

to give individual enterprise a chance to do what individual enterprise

can do best.

That's why we have worked steadily to reduce the deficit, to

reduce the debt and to make government less of a burden on the

individuals in this province. That's the Social Credit way; that's the

private enterprise way. There is a clear choice in this province

between Social Credit, represented on this side, and socialism,

represented on the other side.

The other party in this province, the NDP — the one that

considers itself a pretender to the office of government — does not

believe in a balanced budget or in maintaining a lean public service.

It doesn't see the value in it. A Vancouver Sun

article on March 27

proclaimed this government's privatization program to be an outstanding

success. This is a direct quote from that

article by Joe Wurz: "The

quality of highway maintenance is at least as good as before

privatization; the government is saving substantial amounts of money;

the maintenance contractors are earning a fair profit; and the

ex-government employees now working for the contractors are finding

their jobs more rewarding." That's private enterprise.

The Leader of the Opposition and his party do not believe in

privatization. They fought it. They badmouthed it every step of the

way. But one of these days, when the Leader of the Opposition sees it

catching on, he will be the first to say: "It was my idea all along."

There's no question about it — it will be his idea. But why do they not

go along with it? Because the government employees' union, for obvious

reasons, is opposed to privatization, and the NDP cannot set policy

independently of that union. They can't lift a finger before checking

with some special interest group. They are the special interest party

in British Columbia; there's no question about it. Their health care

policy is dictated by the health care unions and their education policy

is dictated by the teachers' union.

I'm not in any way attacking unions. They play a vital role in

our society. But they have no mandate at all to develop policy on

behalf of the taxpayers of this province. That is done by the elected

government of the province, not by unions.

Make no mistake about it: the NDP, as government, would spend

substantially more than it could bring in, every year of their

administration. The balanced budgets we worked so hard to achieve would

disappear, and the taxes of every British Columbian would go up and up.

There is no doubt whatsoever. Indeed, a candidate for that party, a

gentleman by the name of.... What is his name?

[4:45]

AN HON. MEMBER : Krog.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Leonard Krog stated flatly

that taxes would go up if his party is elected. He has since had a

talk, I believe, with his leader, and he has been squirming away from

that remark. But the alarm has gone out; you can't un-ring a bell. He's

already sounded the alarm, and you can't un-ring that bell. I believe

the name Krog may well become synonymous with political foot-in-mouth

disease in the province of British Columbia. They're going to erect a

statue to Mr. Krog — but it's going to be feet first — somewhere outside

of Nanaimo after he loses the next election.

That party's finance critic stood in this House last week and

said his party would immediately increase corporate taxes. Nothing

makes a socialist's blood run faster than the opportunity to attack

profit. Nothing makes their blood and adrenaline go more than the

opportunity to get at a businessman. Oh boy, you shouldn't have profit!

But as Jim Matkin said in a

[ Page 9343 ]

weekend

article in the Vancouver Province , nothing would drive

investment away from British Columbia quicker, than threats of higher

corporate taxes; they would proverbially kill the goose that is capable

of laying the golden egg. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker: that goose

is not dead in Canada right now, but that goose could be terminally ill

if the federal government in Ottawa doesn't change some of its wanton

ways and take a leaf from this Finance minister's book, I can tell you

that right now.

Matkin calls the NDP "naive, " which I think is a very kind

assessment of that party. That other party owes too much to so many

special interest groups to worry about fiscal restraint. They wouldn't

care about that. British Columbians have always chosen sound fiscal

management, and they will take that choice again when they are given

the chance. I am looking forward with eager anticipation to that

opportunity.

I remember another Speaker in this House, the Rev. Harvey

Schroeder. He used to say that elections were where it was at; in

between it was an endurance test. I'm looking forward to getting back

on the hustings again to tell the story of this good Social Credit

government. We've got a tremendous story to tell.

Our government tries to help people get off income assistance

into gainful employment. The other party h