1991 Legislative Session: 5th 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 22, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12121 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12121

Supply Act (No. 1), 1991 (Bill 8). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 12121

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 12122

Range Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 12122

Oral Questions

Silviculture funding. Mr. Miller –– 12122

Agriculture budget. Mr. Barlee –– 12123

Earth First organization. Mr. Crandall –– 12123

Criminal injury compensation for sexual abuse victims. Ms. Marzari –– 12123

Long-term hydro exports. Ms. Edwards –– 12124

Omni-Script Services Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 12124

Lottery grant to Eco-Clean. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12124

Restraining orders against abusive husbands. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12124

Member's Statement

Fantasy Garden World Inc. sales tax. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 12125

Budget Debate

Mr. Clark –– 12125

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 12132

Mrs. Boone –– 12135

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 12138

Mr. G. Janssen –– 12142

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12145

Ministerial Statement

Report on investigation into former Minister of Health.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 12149

Mr. Clark

Mr. Dueck

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to introductions the Chair

would like to advise members that we have a neighbour visiting us today

with his wife. He is the Hon. Tom Boyd, Speaker of the House of

Assembly of the Legislature of the state of Idaho. They are with us

here on the floor today. Would the members please make them welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd also like to bring my greetings to Speaker Boyd, whom I have known for some time.

Mr. Speaker, it's very important to introduce several distinguished

visitors in the gallery today. It's my pleasure to make an introduction

of the High Commissioner from the United Kingdom, Mr. Brian Fall, and

his wife Delmar. The High Commissioner is accompanied by Mr. Tony Joy,

consul-general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver.

As well, in the gallery — or he will be very shortly — is His

Excellency Richard Ovinnikov, who is the Ambassador of the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics to Canada. I would ask the House to bid him

welcome.

I would ask the House to welcome the chairman of the Advisory

Council on Multiculturalism for the province of British Columbia. I am

meeting with the advisory council on Saturday along with

representatives from immigrant-serving agencies throughout the

province. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Kewal Khosla.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, we're honoured to have with us

in the gallery Dr. Klaus Schwab, founder and president of the World

Economic Forum from Switzerland. The forum, as you may know, is an

independent and impartial not-for-profit foundation, which is tied to

no political, partisan or regional interests and is under the legal

supervision of the Swiss federal government. The purpose is to

contribute to the growth of worldwide prosperity through effective

economic cooperation and the strengthening of entrepreneurial dynamism.

Members of this House may well recall the very vivid and glowing

reports that have come back to this House from the annual general

meetings held in Davos, Switzerland.

Would the House please join me in welcoming to these chambers Dr.

Klaus Schwab, his wife Mrs. Hilde Schwab, and an associate member of

the executive board, Mr. Gregory Blatt.

MR. JONES: We all serve in an "ombuds" capacity from time

to time in serving our constituents. Therefore we've come to appreciate

the ombudsman's office and its important service to this province in fighting

for fairness and combating injustice. I'm pleased to welcome B.C.'s

first ombudsman, who served this province and this Legislature well between

1979 and 1985. He is here today with 20 students from his legislative process

class at Simon Fraser University. Would members please join me in welcoming

Dr. Karl Friedmann and his students.

MR. HUBERTS: In the gallery we have with us Prof. Qin Huilang

and Mr. Ma Xinle, as well as Mr. Jay Rangel, president of the South

Saanich constituency association. Professor Qin and Mr. Ma are

distinguished contemporary artists from the ancient capital of Xi'an.

They are visiting the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, where an

exhibition of their work is now in progress. Would the House please

help me in welcoming them.

MR. PERRY: Somewhere in the precincts — I hope in the

gallery, though I couldn't spot him — is a young man, Arlo Erickson,

who suffered from a significant handicap but had the pleasure today to

meet the former former Minister of Health, who was helpful to him in

establishing the at-home program, from which he has benefited. With him

are his mother Joyce Lee and Anne Livingstone of Victoria. I'd like the

House to make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to acknowledge someone in the gallery who

is obviously a member of Amnesty International, an organization helping

me deal with a very difficult human rights problem in another country.

I'd like to acknowledge Amnesty International as well.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery behind me on this side of the

House are a group of students from North Island Secondary School in

Port McNeill, serving Woss, Port Alice, Alert Bay, Sointula and other

communities in that area including Port McNeill. They are accompanied

today by a group of adults: Pat Parker, Nancy Bain, Faye Brown, and

John and Joan Morgan. This group is a beneficiary of an annual tour

that Fletcher Challenge provides to students from that area, and I want

to pay particular thanks to Fletcher Challenge for their generosity in

making it possible for these students to come down to Victoria to watch

us in action.

HON. J. JANSEN: I have the honour to present a set of

statements regarding borrowings and loans to government bodies for the

1990-91 fiscal year, in accordance with sections 41(5) and 43(2) of the

Financial Administration Act.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1991

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1991.

HON. J. JANSEN: This supply bill is introduced to provide

supply for the government's continuation of government programs until

the government's estimates for '91-92 have been debated and voted upon

in this assembly. This bill will provide interim supply for the initial

four months of the '91-92 fiscal year. This

[ Page 12122 ]

includes the two months' spending initially

authorized by special warrant, plus two months to allow time to debate

and pass the estimates.

As the period covered by special warrant will expire shortly,

interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of

essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts,

universities and social agencies, as well as the government's payroll,

may continue uninterrupted.

Bill 8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[2:15]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. FRASER: This bill contains amendments to 11

statutes: British Columbia Railway Act, Family Maintenance Enforcement

Act, Forest Amendment Act, 1989, Hydro and Power Authority Act, Income

Tax Act, Industrial Relations Act, Job Protection Act, Municipal Act,

Personal Property Security Act, Provincial Court Act and the School

Act. I will elaborate more in second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 7 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Range Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Bill 5 amends the Range Act

to enable the government to better manage and protect the Crown range

resource. Specifically, the bill enables the Ministry of Forests to

maintain economically viable and stable ranching operations by ensuring

a tenure remains with a base ranch property in the event of a lease or

sale of the property expiring or not completing, or where the property

is foreclosed on.

The bill vests the power to change a tenure boundary in the regional

manager and clarifies the procedure by which a notice of boundary

change is given. It provides for an appeal of the regional manager's

decision to change a boundary to the minister or a person designated in

writing by the minister.

It increases the compensation payable to a tenureholder for a range

improvement lost because of a boundary change, and it compensates a

tenure-holder for range improvements the holder must construct because

of a boundary change.

Bill 5 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SILVICULTURE FUNDING

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Forests. Page 25 of the budget basically reannounces the forest renewal

plan. When this was announced originally, the minister said there was

$500 million in new money. The budget appears to reveal a $32 million

cut to silviculture programs over last year. How does the minister

reconcile his previous statements about new money with the budget?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Our commitment to the forests is as

definite and as strong as it was when the program was announced about

two months ago, and that commitment is $1.4 billion over the next five

years. Because we are a little late getting started with some of the

programs, we find that we are unable to spend the entire amount

allocated in this fiscal year. But I can assure members of this House

and the people of this province that over the five years, the amount

committed will be spent and the forests will be maintained. The NSR

land, as promised, will all be restocked by the year 2000. It's a

commitment that we have made, and we intend to invest the entire $1.4

billion over the next five years.

MR. MILLER: This forest renewal plan is starting to sound

like the BS fund; nobody on the government side seems to be able to

explain it. Plainly put, $500 million is $100 million a year in new

money. We seem to have a $32 million cut this year — never mind the

flimflam about being late getting started. Where is the new money that

the minister promised?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps the member for Prince Rupert

doesn't have the same commitment to the forests as we do. We don't

think it would be very wise to try to spend money that's impossible to

spend in this year, because we might not have the required seedlings to

put in the ground or perhaps the site preparation hasn't been done. But

the commitment is there to spend — rather than the word "spend," it

should be "invest" — that money in the forests over the next five years.

MR. MILLER: The minister has now said that his ministry is

not ready. Why did you announce a $1.4 billion forest renewal plan,

when you are now standing in this House saying that you are not

prepared to spend that money? Was it a political announcement or is

there a real commitment? The money is not in this budget.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We will be investing the money in the

forests when we have the seedlings and when we have the incremental

plans in place to do it. We don't believe, like the member opposite,

that whether we have the trees to put in the ground or the people yet

trained.... We are hiring, in round numbers, 200 FTEs for our ministry.

We don't have them up and ready and trained yet. We think it would be

dishonest to say that we can spend the full amount of

[ Page

12123 ]

money allocated this year when we cannot. By the

sound of the member for Prince Rupert, they would press on and spend

the money whether they were ready to or not.

AGRICULTURE BUDGET

MR. BARLEE: This is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Food. Agriculture underpins about 20 percent of the provincial

economy, and it's our third largest resource industry. Last year the

Peace River grain producers, the Okanagan orchardists and the Fraser

Valley raspberry growers all experienced horrendous years. In

recognition of this, has the minister determined why the ministry

underspent its budget last year by $14 million? Fully 15 percent of the

ministry budget was not spent.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: As the member well knows, I've occupied this chair a very short period of time. I am very concerned....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Do you want to use up the 15 minutes? Go ahead. Be my guest.

I can assure the member that I am very much concerned not only about

the money that was not fully utilized last year, but about how the

money is going to be spent this year, because now I'm in a position to

direct that to a certain extent, and I intend to do that in the best

interests of all of those involved in the agricultural sectors in this

great province. I fully recognize the fact that not only is it the

third- or fourth-largest industry, but few people realize that it

accounts for some $10 billion worth of activity in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not the time for an estimates speech. The next question.

MR. BARLEE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister.

Agriculture again failed to get a mention in the budget speech — not

unusual. Agricultural spending this year is still about $19

million...recommended in 1986 by this government. It holds the position

of about 0.6 percent of the entire budget. In an increasingly uncertain

world, does the minister consider that amount adequate to promote food

self-sufficiency in a province that already imports about half of its

food?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: This minister, and certainly this

government, are very much concerned about the needs in agriculture, and

not relating it to a percentage of the overall budget. Much talk

yesterday was about the amount of money that we are spending and

investing in the social aspects — programs that are needed in this

province. But you on that side are always interested in trying to draw

attention to the fact that it's a small percentage of the budget.

What is important to the people in agriculture in this province, Mr. Member,

is the fact that their needs are best met. That is not measured by percentage

of the overall budget. In fact, every time you talk about the percentage of

the overall budget, you neglect to add back the various ad hoc programs that

this government provided to assist many of the grape growers in your constituency,

Mr. Member, and as well the Red Delicious....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The scope of the answer is exceeding the scope of the question.

EARTH FIRST ORGANIZATION

MR. CRANDALL: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

In view of the fact that training is being given by American members of

the Earth First movement, which advocates tree-spiking and other

guerrilla measures to some Canadian environmental activists, I'd like

to know what action the minister has decided to take to protect B.C.

forest workers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question; it's a very important one. I think it's shameful that people

from any area of British Columbia would bring in people who advocate

civil disobedience and prevent decent people from earning a living in

the forest industry. I happen to believe that no matter how just people

think their cause is, it doesn't warrant tactics like we see happening

— like bringing in members of the Earth First organization, who

practise and preach civil disobedience.

Unlike the former member for Alberni, Mr. Skelly, I don't happen to

believe that people who want to protect their jobs belong to some

phantom religious organization or Guatemalan death squads or something

like that. I think that if there is civil disobedience anywhere in this

province, it's a matter for our law enforcement agencies to deal with.

That part of the question should be referred to the Solicitor-General.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION

FOR SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Minister of Women's

Programs and Government Services. Last week the Supreme Court of Canada

decided that the passage of time does not permit a defendant to escape

charges of sexual abuse. The minister must be aware that as a result of

that decision, we can anticipate that more victims of past abuse — that

is, abuse committed before July 1, 1972; most of them are women — will

now be able to take their abusers to court. My question is: has the

minister started procedures to amend

section 25 of our Criminal Injury

Compensation Act to ensure that these women will be eligible for

compensation?

MR. SPEAKER: The question might better be put on the order paper; and perhaps is out of order, in that it requires legislation.

MS. MARZARI: A supplementary, then. Is the minister aware that at this point in time....? Yesterday

[ Page 12124 ]

the budget froze the provincial allocation for

criminal injury compensation at $7.6 million. Is the minister aware of

the increased demand of women in this province to seek redress, and is

she prepared to ensure that it will be properly met in the budget?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I think that I'm not the

appropriate minister to answer, but I'd be happy to take the question

on notice and bring back an answer.

LONG-TERM HYDRO EXPORTS

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Last Friday Bob Wyman, the new

chairman of B.C. Hydro, told a Vancouver audience that B.C. should

increase its long-term electricity exports. He said his first task will

be to educate British Columbians on the benefits of increased power

exports. Does the minister agree with Mr. Wyman that long-term, firm

hydro export sales should be increased?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: There has certainly been no decision by

this government to approve long-term exports of any kind — never mind

to increase long-term exports. We only export electricity on a spot

basis or from independent private producers, which is a very small

amount of power.

MS. EDWARDS: That being the case then, my question to the

minister is: does he plan to give some direction to the president of

Hydro, who seems to think it's his job to educate the public on the

benefits of electricity exports?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I think that everyone in British

Columbia understands that B.C. Hydro has an independent board of

directors, in which there is no direct interference from government in

the operation of the corporation. I'm not going to instruct Mr. Wyman

or the head of any other corporation on what he should or should not

say.

MS. EDWARDS: Another supplementary. The minister recently

announced an internal review of the Site C hydroelectric project. Can

the minister tell the House whether B.C. Hydro's decision to promote

long-term, firm power export is connected to a revival of Site C, which

relates to hydroelectricity and is exactly what Mr. Wyman was talking

about?

[2:30]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, I think any action that we take with

regard to Site C would obviously have to be taken in consideration of the recent

decision regarding the Kemano project. There is real concern, I think, in British

Columbia, and should be, with continued interference by the federal government

and by other agencies in matters relating to British Columbia. There will continue

to be more and more difficulty getting projects approved and underway and in

fact into operation, and I think all British Columbians should be genuinely

concerned with what is happening in the area of federal interference in provincial

jurisdiction.

OMNI-SCRIPT SERVICES LTD.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister responsible for the

superannuation branch. The most recent information booklet indicates

that Omni-Script Services Ltd. was added as a rollover pension firm.

Could the minister responsible explain why?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear part of the question.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll repeat it to the minister. It is with

respect to her responsibility for the superannuation branch. Your most

recent information booklet indicates that Omni-Script Services Ltd. was

added as a rollover pension firm. Could you explain why?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, I can't, but I would be happy to take the question as notice.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General. Most recently

the ministry chose to ask court clerks to record judgments and orders

and the like in chambers. Omni-Script Services received the contract to

do that work for Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. Could the Minister

advise the House whether that contract was secured through the normal

tendering process?

HON. MR. FRASER: Id be happy to secure that information and bring it back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period.

LOTTERY GRANT TO ECO-CLEAN

HON. MR. FRASER ; I have two questions taken as notice on May 14, Mr.

Speaker.

I have one from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew asking me

about the status of the Eco-Clean funds. I can report that we're in the

process of recovering those funds, but since it is before the courts I

cannot talk about it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Obviously not the burning question of the

day, right? I guess the burning question of the day from you probably

is who's wearing the most makeup, the lady who's the Premier or the

Leader of the Opposition.

RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST

ABUSIVE HUSBANDS

HON. MR. FRASER: I have a second question, from the first

member for Vancouver–Point Grey, to do with legal services to families

throughout the province. The service she asked about is now provided by

the Legal Services Society.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

[ Page

12125 ]

Leave granted.

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC. SALES TAX

MR. VANDER ZALM: Last Thursday the member for Vancouver East

and opposition Finance critic suggested that without doubt Fantasy

Garden World Inc. had not paid sales taxes in 1990. The suggestion by

way of a question led to media reports using all their resources to

publicize the allegation, complete with a picture of the first member

for Richmond and former Premier.

This House is representative of all the people in the province and,

as an institution that should command respect, must draw the line

somewhere. Fairness and accuracy need to be considerations more

important than a quest for power at any cost. I read you a letter from

the accounting firm of Peat Marwick Thorne:

"Dear Mr. Vander Zalm:

"Please be advised that all social service taxes

payable with respect to the sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. assets

and the social service taxes payable with respect to all other taxable

sales of Fantasy Garden World Inc...to date have been fully paid. The

social service taxes due on the sale of equipment to Asiaworld (Canada)

Development Corp. in the amount of $12,120 were paid by the solicitors

of the purchaser on October 19, 1990. Social service taxes due on other

taxable sales have been paid on a monthly basis on the due date

following the month of these product sales."

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member for Vancouver East abused question

period and the privilege of this House, but rather than proceed further

and incur public cost, I simply seek an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is not a ministerial

statement. There is no reply to a statement made by a member. However,

the member on the floor is the next member to speak in the normal

course of events. If he has some remarks to make, it would be

appropriate to do so during his reply to the budget speech.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth and final budget of this government.

It is the budget that they didn't plan on delivering. The budget contains

the largest deficit in British Columbia history — over $1.2 billion. It marks

the second large deficit in a row, and it projects continued high deficits into

the future. The budget reveals that the province's direct debt has more

than doubled since this government came to power in 1986. It is now $9 billion.

The budget does not have one new idea on how to protect jobs and paycheques

of British Columbians, at the very time that the Conference Board is predicting

that B.C. will have the worst economic performance of any province in Canada.

Instead, the budget contains a $208 million tax increase at a time when most

British Columbians need tax relief. The budget is a big-lie budget, Mr. Speaker.

It contains misleading bookkeeping, contrary to the recommendations of the auditor-general

and every reputable financial analyst in Canada. A $746 million deficit last

year is portrayed as a $15 million surplus. This year's record deficit....

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order,

because I believe it to be parliamentary tradition that when another

member seeks the withdrawal of an incorrect or improper statement, such

be given. I have not heard the member for Vancouver East provide either

an apology for or a withdrawal of the statement made. He talks about

lies and big lies. I think this is a most appropriate time to seek a

withdrawal or apology from this member.

MR. SPEAKER: If you wish to speak to the matter of order, I

would just like to clarify that the Chair has no power to enforce a

withdrawal or an apology by any member. It's up to individual members

to do that.

The member who has the floor now — or had the floor before you

interrupted him with your point of order — has the opportunity to

speak. Since he is the member who was brought into question, he had the

opportunity to do so. But the Chair has absolutely no power to enforce

that. That's entirely a matter for the member.

MR. GABELMANN: On the point of order raised by the member for

Richmond, it seems to me common courtesy to at least allow the member

for Vancouver East to review Hansard from last Thursday and to review the issue before making any comment on that subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the same rules apply.

MR. REYNOLDS: Following up on the member for North Island, I

would agree that the member may want to review the documents he is

being accused of making a mistake on and lying about. But I think also

that as common parliamentary courtesy, he might stand up and say: "I

will withdraw those comments and I will review the material."

But in the meantime, one member has asked another member, Mr.

Speaker — and I know you have no authority.... But in this House we are

honourable people. If that member over there doesn't want to....

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, that's part of the problem with

these socialists: they don't understand honour. Parliamentary tradition

demands that when one member asks for a withdrawal or an apology from

another member, he gets it. If he wants to take other recourse

tomorrow, he should. But under parliamentary tradition, be the man that

you should be and stand up and offer a withdrawal — from a person who

has given you some facts that are true.

MR. VANDER ZALM: In order to assist the member for Vancouver

East, I would ask leave to table my statement and a copy of the letter

from Peat Marwick Thorne.

[ Page 12126 ]

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the early part of the point of

order raised by the first member for Richmond, he said that the member

speaking had used the word "lie." It's not appropriate and not even

parliamentary to use that type of language in this chamber. It's

acceptable if members choose to use it in describing an action such as

a budget, but it is not appropriate to use it when you are describing

the actions of an individual member.

The first member for Richmond raised the point. I must advise the

hon. member that the remarks made by the member for Vancouver East are

appropriate in terms of the particular language that was used. That

clarifies all the outstanding points of order.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in clarification then, what I

said was that the member had referred to "lie" and "big lie" in

response to the budget speech. I said this might be an appropriate

time....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. That clarifies the matter. The member for Vancouver East can continue.

MR. CLARK: I would reinforce the comments made by the member

for North Island. I am certainly quite prepared to review the record

and will comment on it at some later date.

This year's record deficit of $1.2 billion is stated as only $395

million. As the president of the Certified General Accountants'

Association of British Columbia concludes: "It's more smoke and

mirrors. The Finance minister states that the deficit for the current

fiscal year is $395 million, but in reality it's $1.2 billion." As the

Victoria Times-Colonist complains: "The budget speech is

downright misleading." Mr. Speaker, why can't this government be honest

and simply tell the truth?

This government has had five years to improve the lives of British

Columbians, and it has been five years of neglect. It has shown a lack

of commitment to tax fairness. It has shown a lack of commitment to

social concerns, particularly those of women and natives. It has shown

a lack of commitment to the environment and to sound management of our

natural resources. It has shown a lack of commitment to financial

accountability. Above all, it has shown a lack of commitment to honesty.

In my remarks this afternoon I will show why this government has

lost the respect of British Columbians, why this government has lost

its credibility, and why this government no longer deserves to govern.

Let me begin with the issue of honesty. The Social Credit government

has been a dishonest and closed one right from its first day in office.

The former Premier, the first member for Richmond, promised before the

last election to "resolve differences and solve problems through a

spirit of cooperation." This government then proceeded right after the

election to bring in confrontational labour legislation drafted by a

select group of insiders, with no consultation.

[2:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Before the last election this government promised open government to

the people of British Columbia. They then steadfastly refused to bring

in freedom-of-information legislation, and have governed with a degree

of secrecy unprecedented in Canada. They promised, in the words of the

ex-Premier, "to leave no doubts whatsoever in the minds of the public

as to the ethics and integrity of those who serve in public office,"

and then proceeded to behave with a lack of ethics and integrity

unparalleled in British Columbia history. This basic lack of honesty

and openness has permeated everything this government has done. It has

been front and centre in their financial dealings.

The centrepiece of their approach to financial management was the

budget stabilization or BS fund — aptly named by a discerning

government bureaucrat. They told British Columbians that this BS fund

was a rainy-day fund and that it would accumulate money in good times

to cushion us during the economic bad times. But it really had only one

function: to manipulate the financial bottom line to create artificial

surpluses or deficits to suit this government's electoral agenda. The

BS fund allowed this government to engage in a pre-election spending

spree, increasing expenditures by over 12 percent in each of the last

two years — well in excess of economic growth. It allowed them to run a

$746 million deficit last year and proclaim that it was a surplus

budget. Now it is being used in a futile attempt to hide the largest

deficit in British Columbia history, to artificially reduce $1.2

billion to $395 million. But as the auditor-general stated, the BS fund

is "strictly an accounting technique to alter the bottom line."

The national accounting firm Peat Marwick Thorne stated: "In reality

this is not a fund at all." The president of the Certified General

Accountants' Association of B.C. stated: "I can't think of a public

accountant doing that sort of thing in a private business, and I can't

see any auditor allowing it in a private business. It's all smoke and

mirrors."

The Finance minister was finally forced to admit that there wasn't

any money in the BS fund. Last month, in a last-ditch effort to salvage

some credibility, the government abolished the BS fund. British

Columbians had seen through it, and it had lost its political

usefulness. But this Social Credit government wasn't content just to

admit they were wrong and leave it at that. They were determined to use

the BS fund in one last-ditch effort to hide their financial

incompetence from British Columbians.

As the Victoria Times-Colonist noted today: "No matter what"

the Finance minister "(the budget fall guy for the government) or any

other Socred says, the actual deficit — the anticipated shortfall

between money collected and money to be spent — is $1.23 billion. To

argue otherwise is simply dishonest."

This government claims continually that their fiscal management has

lowered the provincial debt. But when the hidden debt identified by

this year's auditor-general's report is included, the direct government

debt has risen to $9 billion — a doubling of the direct debt in just

five years. Only Social Credit would have the audacity to call this a

debt reduction plan — a debt

[ Page

12127 ]

reduction plan that increases the debt. When will

this government come clean? When will this government tell people the

true state of the province's finances without manipulations?

British Columbians are looking for a government whose economic

policies and financial management create confidence and stability. Both

businesses and consumers need stability in order to invest and plan

their economic future. For businesses, a stable environment means

increased effectiveness in planning and diminished risks. For working

British Columbians, stability means fewer ups and downs in unemployment

and a lower level of anxiety. Stability is a key requirement for

ensuring the new investment we need for economic growth and regional

development.

A government which seeks to create this climate of confidence and

stability must do three things. First, it must demonstrate competence

in its management decisions. That means getting the greatest possible

value for each dollar of taxpayers' money. Second, it must pursue

policies which counteract rather than reinforce the disruptive cyclical

changes that periodically affect our economy. And third, it must avoid

erratic changes or reversals of its own policies and programs.

Let me turn first, Mr. Speaker, to this government's record in the

area of fiscal competence. Let us pass over the blunders of previous

Social Credit administrations: the $500 million cost overrun on the

Coquihalla Highway, the $1.5 billion down the tube on northeast coal

and the multimillion-dollar loss on BCRIC shares. Let us focus on this

current Social Credit government's five-year term of office, starting

with its most spectacular blunder: the sale of the Expo lands.

Last year's auditor-general's report finally provided an independent

accounting. The total cost of the site was over $240 million when all

project costs are taken into account. Sales proceeds on the basis of

accepted accounting principles were $85 million. The result is a loss

of $150 million on a site whose market value is now conservatively

estimated at $600 million to $700 million. Only a Social Credit

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

in North America during a property market boom.

The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the Social Credit minister

who was then responsible, said: "If we had to do it all over again, we

would do it again." The Expo land sale is only one of a long list of

financial blunders and administrative incompetence.

The province's Environmental Lab, with an assessed market value of

$2.8 million, was sold for only $850,000 — less than one-third of its

real value. The B.C. Steamship Company, worth $17 million, was sold to

a Swedish cruise line company for $6 million. A year later the company

ceased operations and stripped the company of valuable assets, leaving

Victoria without a car ferry service linking it to the valuable Seattle

tourist market.

The auditor-general's reports have revealed that the government has

proven itself incapable of managing our multibillion-dollar forest

industry. His 1989 report revealed that this government did not have

the ability to ensure the collection of millions of dollars of stumpage

payments for timber cut on Crown lands.

His report for this year reveals that, in the auditor-general's own

words: "...monitoring practices do not give adequate assurance that

forest companies meet...requirements to manage, protect and

conserve...forest resources." Harvesting is not properly supervised.

Roadbuilding is not adequately monitored, and there is no assurance

that companies are meeting their obligations to reforest the land they

cut. In every single aspect of forest management, this government has

been found wanting. It is simply incredible that a government which

cannot manage even our most important natural resource and our most

valuable economic asset can claim to be a party of sound financial

management.

When all of this was going on, the former Minister of Forests, the

member for Skeena, assured us: "The state of our forests is excellent."

Just last year the current Minister of Forests asserted: "My record

speaks for itself." It certainly does, Mr. Speaker.

Forests are not the only valuable public resource this government

has mismanaged. In 1990 the auditor-general concluded that this

government did not have the ability to ensure that millions of dollars

of royalties were collected from Crown gravel pits.

This government has also been shown as incapable of building and

maintaining our highways in a cost-effective manner. Last year, when

the current Premier was responsible for highways, the auditor-general's

report showed that this government had learned nothing from the

half-billion-dollar Coquihalla highway overrun. He found that this

government simply did not have the ability to plan and build highways

in a cost-efficient manner. He found that privatization and associated

staff reductions had destroyed the ministry's ability to function

effectively. This year the auditor-general found that this government

expended over $1 billion on highway construction over the last four

years without any assurance that the taxpayers are getting value for

their money. He found that millions of taxpayers' dollars continue to

be wasted by poor planning.

This year's auditor-general's report also found that this government

is not monitoring $40 million worth of outstanding economic development

loans, which is putting millions of taxpayers' dollars at risk.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the auditor-general felt obliged to chastise

the government once again for its failure to release the public

accounts on time.

How has this government responded to this litany of mismanagement?

Have they apologized to the taxpayers and promised to do better? No.

Last year, in fact, the ex-Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich

and the Islands, thanked the auditor-general for his efforts by calling

him a bean-counter who should have kept his nose out of the public

trough.

This year the member for Kamloops, the ex-Attorney-General and

ex-Minister of Economic Development, reacted to the auditor-general's

report by denying that the auditor-general even had a role in ensuring

that British Columbians get value for their tax dollars. He said:

"Value-for-money auditing is a growing boondoggle invented by various

self-serving and self-administered professional organizations across

the country."

[ Page 12128 ]

In this budget, the government asks British Columbians to believe

that it will audit itself behind closed doors. In the meantime, this

Social Credit government has declined into such chaos that it can't

even fulfil its most basic financial obligation to bring in a budget on

time.

I could continue, but I will now turn to the second requirement for

economic stability: the pursuit of fiscal policies which counteract

rather than reinforce the ups and downs of the private sector. This

requirement is a simple one. Government should make provision during

the good times to allow it to weather the bad times without unnecessary

job losses, tax increases or cutbacks in essential services.

Again, this Social Credit government has boasted about its fiscal

foresight. At the beginning of this economic downturn it claimed that

its BS fund was a rainy-day fund — one which would allow British

Columbians to avoid a recession's impacts. But once the BS fund was

revealed as nothing more than a device to manipulate the bottom line,

to cook the books, the real consequences of this government's policies

were revealed.

They introduced record spending increases and deficit financing

during good years, while making no provision at all for the bad years.

In fiscal '89-90, in the middle of an economic boom, spending rose by

almost 13 percent, well in excess of British Columbia's 10 percent rate

of economic growth. Last year's budget provided for spending to grow by

a further 12 percent in fiscal '90-91, despite the fact that economic

growth was projected to be only 8 percent. This expenditure growth was

financed by a $746 million deficit.

Why did this government engage in high spending and deficit

financing at the peak of the economic cycle, leaving nothing for a

rainy day? It's quite simple. It's because this government operates on

an electoral cycle, and the last two budgets were supposed to be

pre-election budgets, because this is a government which will say

anything and do anything to hold onto power. Unfortunately, it is the

people of British Columbia who are paying for the Social Credit

government's irresponsibility and lack of foresight in this current

budget British Columbians are now facing a record deficit of over $1.2

billion. They are facing deficits continuing into the foreseeable

future. They are facing a mushrooming public debt which will, at the

end of this fiscal year, total some $9 billion. They are facing tax

increases totalling $208 million this year and another $246 million

next year.

Let us now turn to the third dimension of stability: the avoidance

of erratic and sudden policy changes When the history books are

written, I believe that this government will be remembered primarily

for two things. The first is its complete lack of ethical standards;

the other is its complete lack of any consistent policy direction.

Virtually every one of its policy decisions has been reversed or

abandoned. There have been so many changes of direction it is difficult

to count them all.

Let's look at some examples. At the beginning of this administration's

term of office, it announced with great fanfare its privatization initiative.

There was to be phase 1 and then phase 2, but only two years later the government

had abandoned the program. There was no phase 2, and the word "privatization"

has rarely been heard since.

[3:00]

In September 1987 the former Premier announced a major new

regionalization initiative: eight development regions were set up. In

1988 the then Premier assured this House that "the decentralization

process is working wonderfully throughout this province." A year later

this grand initiative had been dismantled, never to be spoken of again.

As the election loomed on the horizon, this government appointed the

second member for Kamloops — the government's most political minister —

to head up its economic development activities. He then proceeded last

March to launch a pre-election spending spree in Social Credit ridings

using taxpayers' dollars in a futile attempt to buy votes.

In April the current Premier suddenly reversed course again,

freezing economic development assistance. After a playing a

front-and-centre role in a government that channelled community lottery

grants to its friends and used economic development dollars to buy

votes, she then announced that she doesn't believe government has any

role in providing economic development assistance.

Throughout this government's term of office, its spending policies

have been equally erratic. In their first budget in 1987, provincial

spending increased by a modest 4 percent. In their next budget spending

was increased by 7 percent. But in their third budget — delivered when

a provincial election was looming on the horizon — they threw caution

to the winds with a 12 percent spending increase. Last year — when a

provincial election seemed a virtual certainty — their fourth effort

contained another 12 percent spending increase. Then, when the emerging

economic downturn could no longer be ignored, the government sharply

reversed direction once again. Across-the-board spending freezes were

suddenly put in place and retroactive public sector wage rollbacks were

legislated.

We have seen the same erratic shifts on the taxation side. Huge tax

and fee increases during the earlier years of this government's

mandate, totalling some $3,000 for each B.C. family over the past four

years, were suddenly replaced this year by expressions of concern for

the taxpayer's ability to pay. The former Premier promised on

provincewide television to freeze taxes. He stated, and I quote: "We

will impose a freeze on taxes. To increase taxes, as others would do,

would hinder exports, new business, business expansion and especially

job security and job creation."

Just two short months ago his government enacted a so-called

Taxpayer Protection Act, which supposedly guaranteed a tax rate freeze.

In introducing this legislation, the former Minister of Finance stated:

"The people want legislated tax limitation, and this bill is going to

specifically provide that for British Columbia." Now, however, this

budget contains major tax increases, and the so-called Taxpayer

Protection Act is effectively legislated away. This government is so

[ Page

12129 ]

erratic that it cannot even wait until after an election to break its election promises.

This government's environmental policies have been equally erratic.

In 1989 this Social Credit government finally responded to growing

evidence of damage from toxic pulp mill pollution by promising tougher

regulations and enforcement. In the words of the member from Prince

George, who was then Environment minister: "These controls will

virtually eliminate dioxins from the effluent discharges."

The next Environment minister, the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound, took a watered-down version of the regulations to cabinet late

last year and promised tougher enforcement. These regulations were

immediately reversed by the then Premier, the first member for

Richmond. After a single phone call from the pulp and paper industry,

the Premier relied on his considerable expertise as a scientist to

conclude that there was no basis for tougher regulations.

The next Minister of Environment, the first member for Okanagan

South, confirmed this sudden change in direction and then proceeded to

loosen up the existing pulp pollution regulations to prevent pulp mills

from being charged with pollution offences. In the minister's own

words: "This is only legalizing it so we don't fine them repetitively."

In 1988 the government embarked on education reform by committing

itself to major changes recommended by the Sullivan commission. Yet

this year the Year 2000 project has not even earned a mention in the

education estimates. By this, and the Premier's rhetoric, and the

minister's rhetoric, the government has shown once again that it is

incapable of following through on reform.

Let me touch on just one more of numerous possible examples: the

resolution of long-standing aboriginal land claims. Throughout most of

this government's term of office they went out of their way to deny the

validity of aboriginal claims. These claims had all been extinguished

before B.C. Joined Confederation, they asserted, and in any event, a

settlement was exclusively a federal issue. In order to reinforce this

position, they spent millions of taxpayers' dollars in litigation

against native people. Then suddenly last summer they repudiated this

position and decided to sit down and negotiate land claims, but

continued to insist that the federal government had sole financial

responsibility.

Then just two weeks ago this government reversed itself yet again

and stated that it will pay a fair share of land claims settlement

costs. At least in this instance the changes were in the right

direction. But taken together these sudden shifts are disturbing,

because they show once again that this is a capricious government that

changes direction without thought or concern for those affected. Even

when policy shifts appear enlightened, British Columbians have no

reason to believe that they will last any longer than the next day, let

alone the next election. This government has simply lost credibility,

and that creates a fundamental source of instability in this province —

one that can only be removed by a general election.

British Columbians are looking for a government which is prepared to

spend their hard-earned tax dollars on public priorities, not the

partisan political priorities of Social Credit. But this government is

more interested in taking care of themselves and their friends than in

addressing the urgent priorities of British Columbians. They have shown

no hesitation in spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to reward

their friends and pursue their own political agenda.

They have had no trouble finding money to provide large wage

increases and pension awards for their political appointees. David

Poole, the former principal secretary to the former Premier, got over

$170,000 for less than two years of service. Socred ministerial

assistants have received pay hikes of between 12 and 20 percent in the

last six months alone, while public sector workers are forced to accept

lower incomes.

Social Credit cabinet ministers had no qualms about using the

government's air ambulance jets as a political taxi service. Last year

alone it cost the Medical Services Commission an extra $1.2 million to

charter additional air ambulances when government jets were flying

around this province empty to pick up cabinet ministers.

This government has not hesitated to use millions of dollars' worth

of economic development and lottery funds for purely political

purposes. In 1989 British Columbians witnessed the spectacle of a

minister channelling more than $250,000 worth of lottery grants to his

friend and former campaign manager. In the same year they saw this

government spend millions of dollars in a futile attempt to buy votes

in the Cariboo by-election. This year they saw more pre-election

spending targeted to Social Credit ridings by the former Minister of

Economic Development, the second member for Kamloops.

This government boosted government advertising by 50 percent during

its term in office in a futile effort to convince British Columbians

that Social Credit deserves to be re-elected. This government had no

trouble finding an extra $25 million to provide 100 percent

taxpayer-funded pensions to doctors, and now it's going to send the

bill to British Columbians in the form of Medical Services Plan

increases. Other workers are expected to contribute to their plans, and

two out of three British Columbians have no workplace pension plan at

all.

In their preoccupation with taking care of themselves and in dealing

with the numerous crises that their behaviour has created, they have

neglected the real priorities of British Columbians. They have

neglected the environment, health care and education. They have failed

to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians. They have

failed to ensure equality for women, have neglected British Columbia's

families and have failed to ensure fairness for the taxpayer who

ultimately pays the bills.

Through successive budgets this government has gutted both the

Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests. There have been six

Environment ministers during this government's term of office — a clear

illustration of its lack of commitment to the environment. Despite all

their high-profile public relations

[ Page 12130 ]

efforts, the list of unaddressed environmental

problems has scarcely changed during this government's term of office.

Environmental standards remain unenforced. In the latest Ministry of

Environment compliance report, nine pulp and paper mills are still

seriously out of compliance with their permits. Imperial Oil, Chevron

Canada, Neptune Bulk Terminals and Vancouver Wharves significantly

exceed their allowable pollution levels despite the serious impact on

Burrard Inlet documented by the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Last year this government repeated its promise to develop a

comprehensive hazardous waste management system. It set up a new

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Eleven months and $3 million

later the corporation is in organizational disarray and a waste

management plan is not even on the horizon. Vancouver still has one of

the most serious air pollution problems in North America. British

Columbia still has one of the worst records on solid waste recycling.

Victoria and other municipalities are still forced to dump raw sewage

into the ocean.

This year's auditor-general's report confirms that this government

lacks the basic ability to manage our most important natural resource:

British Columbia's forests. This year's controversy over bulk water

exports to California illustrated that this government had no ability

to manage our critical water resources. This year's budget simply

repeats the same old announcements and broken promises, with no new

initiatives at all. Clearly, when it comes to protecting our

environment this is a government without vision, imagination or

competence.

Our health system continues to deteriorate, Mr Speaker. Our

hospitals remain plagued by shortages of key professional staff.

Hospitals throughout the province lack the key medical specialists they

need. Staff shortages have been further aggravated by budget cuts and

layoffs. During the last six months alone Vancouver General Hospital

has been forced to lay off 79 nurses. Mount St. Joseph Hospital has

laid off ten staff, temporarily closed 24 acute-care beds and shortened

emergency service hours. Richmond General Hospital has laid off 36

nurses and support staff. Royal Inland Hospital has laid off 20 health

care workers and closed 32 beds. The result is long waiting-lists for

hospital surgery. A recent survey of hospitals around the province

showed that patients in Cranbrook, Williams Lake, Quesnel and Prince

Rupert have to wait two to six weeks for hospital admission; patients

in Nanaimo, Kamloops and Prince George wait seven to 12 weeks; and

patients in Kelowna and Vancouver wait 16 weeks

[3:15]

In last year's budget response I pointed out that British Columbians were

dying waiting for urgent surgery This year Mary Sallis died because there were

780 people on a waiting-list for heart surgery and she had to wait one month

for an emergency operation. Stan Roberts died because he couldn't get an

emergency biopsy — the facilities were there, but Vancouver General didn't

have sufficient staff. Last year the waiting-list for heart surgery got so bad

that the Health ministry started sending heart patients to the U.S. for surgery.

This year the waiting-list for radiation treatment has grown so long that the

Health ministry is sending cancer patients to the United States for treatment.

This budget contains no action plan to end health staff shortages and hospital

waiting-lists.

During my last budget response I noted that our per-pupil spending

on public education has been among the lowest in Canada during this

government's term in office. I noted that the underfunding of the

public education system had put increasing pressure on the property

taxpayer to maintain the quality of our system. I noted that this

government's seizure of total control over the finances of school

districts had created confrontation, conflict and instability. I noted

that tuition fee increases well beyond the rate of inflation were

shutting out low- and middle-income families from the post-secondary

system.

This year the situation is even worse. The arbitrary and retroactive

wage controls introduced by this government have thrown school

districts into confusion from one end of the province to the other.

Provincial interference in overturning collective agreements makes it

next to impossible for school boards to make sound budgetary and

staffing decisions. This year's budget makes it clear that this

government has no commitment to the Year 2000 initiative, announced

with such fanfare last year. This year has also seen another round of

steep tuition fee increases: 10 percent at UBC, 9 percent at the

University of Victoria, 7 to 12 percent at East Kootenay Community

College, 12 percent at Northern Lights College, 10 percent at Northwest

Community College, 10 percent at Selkirk College, 9 percent at

Vancouver Community College.

This government's confused and erratic regional development policies

have failed to prevent the emergence of two British Columbias: an

urbanized, more diversified economy in the lower mainland and a less

urbanized regional economy which still depends on a narrow natural

resource base. As a result of these disparities, the current economic

slowdown has impacted the non-urban regions of our province much more

severely, British Columbians in the lower mainland have experienced a

relatively mild slowdown; those in other regions have suffered a

wrenching economic downturn. In forestry alone, over 8,000 workers have

been laid off, with thousands more affected in dependent industries. In

the central Kootenays 9,000 jobs have been lost in the last year, and

unemployment has doubled from 8 percent to over 16 percent. In the

forest communities of Vancouver Island 8,000 jobs have been lost, and

the unemployment rate has risen from 8 percent to almost 12 percent. In

the Cariboo-Prince George region 3,000 jobs have been lost, and the

unemployment rate has climbed from 12 percent to 16 percent. In the

Okanagan unemployment has risen from 11 percent to 15 percent. The

Conference Board of Canada just forecast that British Columbia will

have the worst economic performance of any province in Canada this year

— the worst, Mr. Speaker; under Social Credit.

What has this Social Credit government done to counter the immediate

impact of the recession? Absolutely nothing. This budget does not have

a single

[ Page

12131 ]

statement or plan for economic recovery, despite

the government's own forecast of a 0.5 percent decline in economic

output for this year. Instead, it brings in tax increases that will

only make the recession worse. It cuts job training at the very time

that it is most needed to counteract the recession.

The record of this government on equality for women is well known.

This is a government that put their own personal religious views ahead

of the law; they restricted a woman's freedom to choose by denying

funds to hospitals providing abortions. This is also the government

that refused, throughout its mandate, to introduce pay equity, despite

repeated urgings on this side of the House and among many women in the

province.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the then Minister of Government

Management Services, told the House two years ago: "Well, it is a

priority, and it isn't a priority." This year, on the eve of an

election, this government is now promising a limited pay equity program

for 13,000 women in the public service. But the comprehensive

legislation promised by the ex-Premier, the first member for Richmond,

has not materialized, and hundreds of thousands of women working in

schools, hospitals and municipalities have been ignored. This budget

doesn't even mention equality for women; instead, even worse, it tries

to hide its lack of commitment by a shell-game transfer of $12 million

in child care to the women's ministry budget.

Mr. Speaker, the nature of family life is changing rapidly in

British Columbia. The traditional family of one wage-earner and one

caregiver represents only 30 percent of today's families. In over half

of all families with children, both parents work outside the home. One

family in six is headed by a single parent; almost half of these

single-parent families rely on income assistance and social assistance;

and over two-thirds are below the poverty line.

During my last two budget responses, I raised the issue of family

and child poverty in British Columbia. I noted the National Council of

Welfare's findings that family poverty grew faster in British Columbia

than anywhere else in Canada in the 1980s. I pointed to the two federal

government studies showing that death rates for poor children are 56

percent higher than those for higher-income children. I noted that poor

children are twice as likely to drop out of school as other children.

A year has passed and little has changed. A survey by the national

nutrition council late last year found, and I quote: "People living on

income assistance and low-income wage-earners cannot afford to eat

nutritious food." The lines at food banks in British Columbia are

longer, not shorter, while food supplies are shrinking. There are now

over 127,000 children living below the poverty line in British

Columbia, and more kids are going to be hungry. Poverty is on the

increase in British Columbia.

This budget projects a 24 percent increase in the social assistance caseload.

After presiding over five years of inaction, the interim Premier and member

for Surrey is trying to convince British Columbians that hers is a kinder and

gentler government. Now, on the eve of a general election, she says she is willing

to participate in providing lunches for hungry school kids. But this budget

tells the story; it provides no money for such a program.

The housing crisis created by this government's inaction and neglect

has adversely affected both low- and middle-income families. Throughout

its mandate, the government has steadfastly refused to address this

crisis, preferring instead to introduce a series of ad hoc measures and

subsidies to developers. They claimed that market forces would

eventually ease the housing shortage and moderate prices.

We are well into an economic slowdown and, the problem of affordable

housing remains. Our major urban areas remain among the least

affordable in Canada for home buyers, and the dream of home ownership

remains remote for most British Columbians. Vacancy rates in most major

centres are still below 1 percent and rents have not moderated

significantly.

This budget claims that new, unspecified programs will be funded out

of the earnings of the privatization benefits fund. They seem to have

forgotten that they already allocated this money to support their

theoretically new pension plan.

The lives of British Columbia's lower- and middle-income families

have also been made more difficult by the government's refusal to

address the child care issue during their term of office. Finally,

during the fifth year of their mandate, they got around to establishing

a task force. This task force simply confirmed what British Columbians

have known for five years and before that. It stated: "There is a

critical shortage of quality, affordable, accessible child care spaces

in British Columbia." It found, for example, that only one child in ten

has access to the licensed care it needs. For children under three

years of age, only one in 20 is receiving the care it needs. This

budget does not provide direct funding for a single new day care space.

Funds for seniors have been frozen. Despite inflation and increasing

demand, SAFER benefits are frozen in this budget. Funding for bus

passes for seniors is frozen. Funding for counselling for seniors is

frozen. Funding for senior supplements has actually been cut. British

Columbians deserve better.

Finally, this government has failed to ensure fairness for the

individual taxpayers who pay the bills. The record shows that over the

last four years, this Social Credit government has unleashed an

unprecedented $3.5 billion tax attack on middle-income and working

British Columbians, while extending over $2 billion in tax breaks to

corporations. This government's tax and fee increases have cost the

average B.C. household an extra $3,000 over the last four years. These

increases include, in this government's term of office: a personal

income tax increase from 44 to 51.5 percent of basic federal tax

payable; a new property purchase tax which now generates over $200

million per year; a $200 million per year increase in medical service

plan premiums in the last four budgets and an additional $58 million in

this budget — that's a total of 784 fee increases and 229 new fees

since this government took office; a fuel tax increase from 20 to 22.5

[ Page 12132 ]

percent, at a cost to B.C. motorists of over $45

million per year; a new hidden tax on electricity consumers, costing

British Columbians an extra $124 million in 1990-91 alone.

On the other hand, this government has boasted openly about its

generosity to large corporations. In the words of a 1989 government

publication: "Provincial tax cuts worth more than $500 million annually

to businesses in British Columbia have been made since 1985. British

Columbia now offers one of Canada's lowest rates of corporate

taxation." As a result of this unfair shift in the tax burden,

corporations pay only 19 cents for each dollar in taxes paid by

individuals.

This budget simply hikes taxes by $208 million at a time when

British Columbians can least afford them, rather than making any

progress towards tax fairness. More than one-quarter of this

government's revenue grab comes from Medical Services Plan premiums, an

unfair and regressive tax which is borne mainly by lower- and

middle-income British Columbians.

British Columbians are already looking beyond this discredited

caretaker government. We live in a rich province with a tremendous

amount of potential; our future can be tremendously bright. But British

Columbians are looking for a government which can help them realize

this potential rather than squander it away in confusion, neglect and

incompetence. They are looking for a government that is prepared to

address their priorities and to meet the challenges of the 1990s.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is an alternative on this side of the

House, and British Columbians will soon have an opportunity to consider

that alternative at the ballot box.

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats know that government cannot perform

miracles. We know there are no easy answers to many of the problems

that face us, and we know that government must live within the means of

the taxpayers. But we also know that there are things that a provincial

government can do, and that is why New Democrats have been putting

forward positive alternatives. We have put forward a comprehensive

package of draft legislation to ensure fair and open government. We

will be honest with British Columbians about the finances of this

province, and we will be consistent in our policy directions, rather

than reversing course with every shift of the political winds. We have

one standard for all citizens, rather than one for friends and insiders

and another for everybody else.

New Democrats have put forward a comprehensive package of draft legislation

and other initiatives to protect and enhance our environment. We have introduced

bills to clean up pollution from pulp mills and other industries, tighten up

environmental enforcement and achieve provincewide recycling. We have worked

with British Columbians to develop new approaches to managing our natural resources

and resolving tough land-use conflicts. We have introduced draft legislation

to require better forest practices, to protect parkland and to double park and

wilderness protection. As government, New Democrats will achieve a better balance

between the economy and our environment. We will not be deterred by corporate

phone calls.

[3:30]

As government, Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will take immediate action

to address the health care crisis. We will end the climate of conflict

and hostility created by this government and begin to work

cooperatively with our health care professionals.

We will work to bring British Columbia's education system up to the

national standards and achieve greater access to post-secondary

institutions.

Earlier this year we put forward an action plan to protect the jobs

and paycheques of British Columbians in the face of a deepening

economic slowdown. As government, we will implement this plan and take

new actions to diversify our regional economies, to increase research

and development and to boost value-added manufacturing over the longer

term. We will restore the link between manufacturing jobs and access to

our public forests.

We will increase the access of regional businesses in communities to

economic development funding administered at the local level and give

communities more direct control over the development of their natural

resources.

New Democrats have put forward a comprehensive package of draft

legislation to protect families and to achieve real equality for women.

As government, we will give the highest priority to achieving pay

equity, improving the availability of high-quality child day care and

alleviating poverty.

Finally, New Democrats have put forward a program to achieve greater

tax fairness for middle- and lower-income British Columbians. As

government, we will provide tax relief for B.C. families, while

ensuring that large, profitable companies pay their fair share.

Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this budget perpetuates the legacy of a

government that has lost its ability to govern, that continues to be

dishonest, that has a taxpayer protection plan that increases taxes,

that has a debt reduction plan that increases debt and that has a

surplus which is really a deficit. No government in the history of

British Columbia is more deserving of defeat or is more in need of a

period in opposition.

British Columbians are looking for a change. They are looking for a

government that is committed to fairness and to social priorities. They

are looking for a government that will develop a stable and balanced

economy to ensure prosperity for all British Columbians. Above all,

they are looking for a government that will be honest and forthright.

New Democrats are committed to these principles. We look forward, in

the very near future, to providing the fresh and imaginative leadership

that British Columbians are demanding and deserve.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure to stand and

speak in favour of the provincial budget. I am very delighted to be the first

member of this House to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the 1991

budget.

[ Page

12133 ]

This budget is a major step in ensuring the long-term well-being of

our province. It's a document that deals with today's economic

realities, This budget is fiscally responsible and economically sound.

During the past hour this House has listened to the opposition, like

a broken record, repeating their grab-bag of misinformation and

misinterpretation. The opposition talks a big game. We've heard the

member for Vancouver East talk about all the great things they would

do, but let's check it all out. The NDP talks about moderation. They

say they're not socialists. But let's look at the reality of it. Let's

see what they have really done in the past little while that would

reveal what they would do. I am very concerned, and I think the people

of British Columbia should be concerned, because the opposition was

deeply involved in the Ontario NDP budget — a $9.7 billion deficit.

Let's look at the actions of our opposition brothers and sisters in

the socialist paradise of Ontario. Why the emphasis on Ontario? Well,

the Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver Centre,

likes to point to the Ontario NDP as a model socialist government, a

government that can manage the business of government. As far as I'm

concerned, this is a model that the B.C. voters will certainly keep in

mind when they go to the polls later this year.

The Leader of the Opposition even loaned some of his staff, some of

his experts, to go to the Ontario NDP and tell them how to act during

the transition period. In other words, the Ontario budget has really

been drafted by the opposition NDP sitting in British Columbia today.

That budget not only mortgaged the future of the children of Ontario;

it sold it off completely.

I've had a chance to compare our government's budget to that of the

NDP in Ontario. I noticed when I was listening to the second member for

Vancouver East that he really didn't talk about the budget. He talked

about all the things in the past. He ran this old litany past us again,

but he really didn't want to come to grips with this budget.

I think that if people compare our budget with Ontario's, they will see a great difference. An

article in the April 30 Globe and Mail

pointed out that over the next four years Ontario's first socialist

government will have run up a deficit of $34.8 billion,

whereas our

Social Credit government in British Columbia will have a $300 million

surplus by that time. In four years the Ontario NDP will have

accumulated a higher deficit than Ontario amassed in the previous 125

years.

This will cause a problem for the rest of Canada; it's not only a

problem for the good citizens of Ontario. It will create some money

shortage. It will create upward pressures on the interest rate and

create inflation for all Canadians. The effects of this Ontario deficit

are already being reflected even in Ontario today because of the

downgrading of their credit rating. Ontario's deficit equals over 18

percent of its spending, a shocking and catastrophic amount.

On the other hand, let's look at British Columbia's budget. Because

of our responsible financial and fiscal strategy, British Columbians can be

assured that government spending and revenues will be balanced over five years.

Our government's budget builds for the future. Unlike other provinces, we

do not penalize future generations with a massive legacy of debt, yet this budget

invests in education, social services and health. It invests in seniors, natives,

children and families. It invests in our greatest resource: the people of British

Columbia.

This budget provides an additional $1.2 billion for health,

education and social services. Seventy cents of every tax dollar is

being spent in these three areas. In terms of health care alone, we're

spending more than $1,680 for each person in the province. Our

commitment to health care is exemplified by the fact that one out of

every three dollars is for health services. With our emphasis on

community-based care, we have made health care accessible to

communities in all regions of our province. By expanding the Medical

Services Plan to include travel allowances, we will assist patients who

have to obtain specialized treatment away from home. This is of

particular interest to me as an MLA from the interior where people must

travel to larger centres to receive specialized treatment. This is a

very positive initiative for those British Columbians who live in small

rural communities like my riding. It will truly make higher levels of

health care available to all British Columbians.

The budget increases funding for education by $232 million to $3.3

billion. By making this commitment to education, we're making sure that

the next generation of British Columbians will have the skills

necessary to successfully compete in the economy of the nineties and

beyond. We are ensuring that our workforce will be highly skilled.

Presently, 37 percent of our gross domestic product is dependent on

exports. We are in a global economy, and if our economic well-being and

our standard of living are to continue at their present level and we

are to compete in this global market, it is imperative that we have a

highly skilled workforce all over British Columbia — and that means

quality education.

I've seen this commitment in education and post-secondary education

in my riding. Under the Access for All initiative, we are upgrading and

expanding post-secondary education, ensuring that more and more young

British Columbians outside the lower mainland and Victoria will have

the opportunity to pursue a post-secondary education.

I've seen the expansion of university classes....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me

inappropriate that the member across is continuing to interject when

he's not sitting in his own seat.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert does know the

rules. He is only required to.... Actually, members aren't allowed to

interject from any seat, but the Chair is particularly forceful about

members interjecting from other seats. So I'd appreciate it if the

member for Prince Rupert would restrain himself during this

scintillating debate.

[ Page 12134 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS: I was talking about education expansion in my

own constituency. I have seen the expansion of university classes

offered at Selkirk College in my riding. Through the Access for All

initiative, community colleges now have the ability to offer second-

and third-year classes. This indeed will assist areas like mine. We

want to make sure that all British Columbians have the ability to fully

participate in the opportunities of tomorrow. Through our continuing

commitment to excellence in education, we are fulfilling our duty as a

government.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that a caring government

helps people. In today's challenging times, we know that strong social

programs are of vital importance. We have recognized this in increased

expenditures for Social Services and Housing by 16 percent. Our

commitment to assisting those who require help remains stronger than

ever.

In my riding over $2 million has gone towards low-income housing for

seniors and the handicapped. In fact, tomorrow I'll be opening 12 units

at the Creston Handi Capable housing complex. Five new units have

opened in Riondel and 12 in Erickson — just to name a few.

Our social programs are of a high quality, and the budget confirms

that the level of service continues to improve. I'm especially pleased

that this budget reaffirms our commitment to seniors. Seniors have made

a very vital contribution to British Columbia, and they deserve to

enjoy their retired years.

In addition to meeting the needs of British Columbians in terms of

health care, education and social services — particularly for seniors —

this budget plants the seeds for future economic growth. Through the

forest renewal program, $1.4 billion will be provided to improve the

management of the province's forests.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DIRKS: The member for Prince Rupert says: "He

doesn't know where to spend it." Let me tell the good member that since

1986, this government has spent close to $10 million on reforestation

in Nelson-Creston alone. This translates into 30,000 person-years of

employment. Forestry is a very important employer in the West Kootenays.

The sawmill industry today faces two major challenges. First, in

keeping with this government's commitment to a cleaner environment, we

must seek solutions to the wood-waste problem. The abolishment of

beehive burners by 1995 creates a serious problem for the smaller mills

in my riding. I will continue to express my concerns and the concerns

of my constituents on this matter with the ministries of Environment,

Energy and Forests. Hopefully over the next year we will find a

solution that will create a new energy resource out of waste wood.

[3:45]

The second problem is the matter of the oversupply of wood chips. I was very

impressed last spring and fall as I watched the integrity of the major project

review process unfold over the last year at the Celgar mill. I think it will

have the highest standards of any mill in the province, perhaps even in Canada.

This mill expansion will go a long way to solving the wood chip problem.

This is a budget that supports investment in capital infrastructure

all over British Columbia. In my own riding, investments in

infrastructure have provided a real boost to the entire region's

economy. For example, the completion of Slocan Bluffs. You remember my

maiden speech in the House, Mr. Speaker; I believe you were the

Minister of Transportation and Highways at the time. I referred to the

Slocan Bluffs, that rocky one-lane path on Highway 6. I'm pleased to

say that that is completed, a beautiful two-lane highway. It will

certainly enhance tourism throughout the Slocan Valley.

Through our continued commitment to sustainable development, we will

ensure that tourists and British Columbians alike continue enjoying our

splendid natural heritage. Tourism is a growing industry throughout

this province, even in my riding of Nelson-Creston. What we need to do

over the next year is develop the infrastructure that is needed to

handle those people. We need to finish development of the parks that

have already been put in place.

Because of our commitment to free enterprise, though, and because of

our solid fiscal and economic management, we have created a climate for

economic growth and diversification in all regions of the province, a

competitive climate where businesses can flourish.

Like businesses, government also has to be competitive. I know this

is alien to my hon. colleagues across the aisle, but it is a fact that

cannot be ignored. Our government has ensured that British Columbia is

competitive by providing an educated workforce, by cutting red tape and

by providing a fair tax structure. We've made ourselves attractive to

investors.

While provinces like Ontario are trying to spend themselves out of

one recession and right into another one, we are preparing British

Columbia for the economy of tomorrow. For example, the $700 million

Celgar pulp mill project in Castlegar that I mentioned earlier will

preserve more than 400 jobs for the region. This project will also

create over 1,100 construction jobs and provide important spinoffs for

businesses throughout the Kootenay region and the entire province.

At the same time, this budget realizes that some industries and

towns face special challenges. Through the job protection commission,

we are helping communities deal with these challenges to preserve

existing jobs.

As is the custom, I know that over the next several days the

naysayers in the opposition will criticize this budget. They'll say we

didn't spend enough money on this or that program. This is all too

typical of the socialists. We know from days gone by how compassionate

they are, especially when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars — and

spending and spending and spending. I've often heard that socialist

governments spend money like there's no tomorrow. Well, after socialism

there is no tomorrow; it's already been spent. First they will mortgage

the future, and then they will sell it off.

[ Page

12135 ]

Given the experience of Ontario, the NDP political left has yet to

learn that government has no money of its own. Socialists will complain

that you can't compare B.C. to Ontario. Well, they're right; as a

province, British Columbia stands above the crowd. However, where we

can draw the comparison is by looking at that NDP government and the

opposition NDP here in British Columbia. They are parties of special

interest, and they both believe in socialist policies — policies that

now occupy the dustbins of history.

We've seen the results of the socialist experiment in Ontario: a

$9.7 billion deficit, a drop in the credit rating, a decline in

investor confidence and an economy in shambles. I know that British

Columbians don't want to see a repeat performance in this province. And

they won't, because they have better sense than to elect an NDP

government.

I know that Ontario has adopted a new approach to small business

development. These days it turns out that the best way to start a small

business in Ontario is to start with a big one.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to close my comments by saying that this

budget deals with realities facing British Columbia. It is a real

budget for real British Columbians. It is a clear, straightforward,

responsible and realistic document. The fiscal and economic record of

this government is one of which all British Columbians can be proud. We

have created an economic climate that will ensure stability and will

ensure that our province is well prepared to meet future economic

challenges. The 1991 budget reaffirms that our government is continuing

to act in a fiscally responsible manner in the interests of all British

Columbians. I am proud to have had the opportunity to stand in this

House today and to speak in favour of this very responsible budget.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to give my speech in three

parts. First of all, I'm going to expose this government for what it

is: void of policy and direction and incapable of being honest about

the finances of this province. Secondly, I'm going to show that this

government has never lived up to its promises. Thirdly, I'm going to

talk about what is missing from this speech.

In looking at what this budget promises and at some of the things in this budget, I couldn't help but look back into the Hansards

of previous years. I went back to December 14, 1987, and at that time

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam introduced into this Legislature

An Act To Feed Hungry School Children. Four years ago the New Democrats

were talking about feeding hungry schoolchildren. It has taken this

government that long for it to sink through their heads that this is a

problem and that they should be acting on it.

I think the government tries to put all the promises and all the problems they

had onto the former Premier "We wouldn't have done that except for

the former Premier. We're a different government, Mr. Speaker. We would

never do these things." However, there was generally support from all ministers

and all people on that side for the fact that we were not going to feed those

hungry children.

On May 9, 1988, the then Minister of Education, the member for North

Peace River, said: "I'd like to touch on the issue that the Leader of

the Opposition has made so much of: the disgusting display of whatever

with regard to the hungry schoolchildren in the Vancouver system." On

May 12, 1988, he went on to say: "By trying to force the provincial

government into doing a lunch or breakfast program in the Vancouver

school system, you generate a whole Pandora's box, because you can't do

it for one district without putting in a formula, without doing all of

the things that put in lunch programs."

On April 12, 1988, the Minister of Social Services and Housing

stated: "We've said from the start we're not going to stand in the way

of their doing that; that's fine, if they want. We're just saying we're

not getting involved in a program of that nature." Now, in 1991, the

Socreds suddenly find heart or their stomachs or something. They

suddenly realize that hungry children do exist, and in the budget

speech they say: "Children can't learn if they are hungry. We are

working with school boards around the province to put in place a school

lunch program." So what took so long? Why didn't you do this four years

ago when we first called for this?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

In the budget speech there are comments with regard to a program to

pay for transportation for health costs. I looked back, and I thought

that sounded very familiar. On March 11, 1987, the member for Prince

Rupert stated: "Finally, dealing with health care, the time is long

overdue for our basic medical coverage to include the cost of

transportation and lodging when individuals are required to seek the

care of medical specialists not available in their communities." In

1987, Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert called on this

government to provide services to people in the regions and to provide

money to pay for those costs.

That member never gave up. He continued to question the minister,

and in 1989 he questioned the Minister of Health regarding assistance

for travel. The response at that time was: "I don't think that at

present we can cover that under MSP, because the costs would be quite

horrendous." That was in 1989. Today they've suddenly decided that they

can and should cover those costs. What took you so long? We've had

people calling for these things. We've had people suffering because you

have not implemented those services before.

I want to move on to the area of land claims. The Minister of Native

Affairs, on June 28, 1989, said: "It is my opinion and the belief of my

government that native land claims are a federal issue." Then he went

on to quote the Leader of the Opposition: "The provincial government

has to come to the table." The minister of the day said: "I don't know

what we'd be at the table for." That's what the minister said in 1989.

Now they state: "By being an active participant, we will ensure that

land claim settlements benefit all British Columbians." That was what

we needed you at

[ Page 12136 ]

the table for in 1989, and you've taken this long to get there.

Had this government acknowledged its commitment to negotiating land

claims, we would not be in the state that we are today. You ignored

these issues until you couldn't do it anymore. You stuck your head in

the sand and now we have to deal with it.

[4:00]

The government now hopes to convince the public that it cares. It

just won't wash. Just saying that you are a gentler and kinder

government won't make it so, because the memories of your past actions

will not be forgotten. We will remember. We will remember the AIDS

victims who suffered because you failed to provide funding for AZT. We

will remember the heart patients and the cancer patients who were

forced to go to Seattle for services that should have been provided

here in British Columbia. We will remember the bed closures in the

hospitals and the number of people who have not received services

there. We will remember all of those things. Just saying that you are

kinder, gentler and that you care is not going to wash with the people

of this province. It's not going to wash at all.

Last year's budget promised a White Paper on a B.C. pension plan.

Where is it? We haven't seen a White Paper on a B.C. pension plan. A

whole year has gone past. We've not seen it at all.

They also promised last year in the budget to institute vehicle

emission inspections in the lower mainland. Guess what, Mr. Speaker?

It's in this year's budget too. Do you think maybe this year they can

actually get this going? Do you think that maybe this year they can act

on a promise — something they've put in there?

Last year's budget mentions a model recycling program for beverage

and other containers. We still do not have recycling in many

communities throughout this province — recycling which is urgently

required and wanted by people. In my community alone — last week, on

Mother's Day or the weekend before Mother's Day — we had a recycling

program for newspapers put in place by a volunteer group of people. In

one day they managed to accumulate two truckloads of newspapers to take

to Vancouver. We have no recycling of newspapers in that area. We have

no recycling whatsoever in those areas. This year the province is

talking about implementing a tire and battery recycling program. We'll

just wait and see if that actually comes off the ground too.

Last year they said that they were going to review MSP premiums.

They said the question was whether the current MSP premiums are the

best way of raising revenue fairly. That's what they said last year.

They said the same thing this year and now they're going to review it

again. In the meantime, while they look at whether it's a fair way to

implement these things, they're going to charge you more. Even if they

don't know if it's a fair way to deal with it, they're going to charge

more.

I'm quoting from the budget: "Society cannot tolerate the human and

economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse. People are killed, families are ruined

and workplaces disrupted." That's true. Every single solitary thing

there is true. However, do you know what they did? They said they were going

to be spending almost $50 million on alcohol and drug programs. That's a

reduction, Mr. Speaker. Last year they spent $50,137,000; this year they're

spending $49,456,000. In a time when they're saying it's a real problem,

they're reducing the amount in this budget.

One has to look at the

section of the budget that deals with the

mentally ill. They state that they are going to put in force a legacy

fund, to which the proceeds from the sale of the Riverview and

Woodlands sites.... That revenue fund is going to be for developing

community-based housing for the mentally ill. By the time they've sold

off the Riverview and Woodlands sites and emptied those places, it's

going to be a little late to provide accommodation for those people.

Those people are in our communities today. There will be more of them

tomorrow. It's not good enough to wait till you sell off Riverview to

provide those services for the people. We were promised regional

centres with the downsizing of Riverview. We've watched the downsizing

of Riverview take place and the regional centres not come into place,

and we've watched the mentally ill in our communities not being able to

find adequate housing. It has not happened at all.

The previous speaker mentioned a commitment to seniors: "These and

other programs reflect society's appreciation for the contribution of

our seniors." However, what does that appreciation actually come to?

Frozen budgets for seniors' counselling and for bus passes, and an

actual reduction in the seniors' supplement. If that's the way they

show support for seniors and the contribution that seniors have made, I

really don't think that society as a whole is very appreciative.

Not only have they broken promises in the past, they broke a promise

of one month ago. One month ago in this Legislature the members over

there brought in a taxpayer protection bill. They promised no tax

increases. Today we see a bill to override that bill and to allow them

to increase taxes. The Minister of Finance says that the tough economic

situation of today forced them into doing this. He had to raise taxes

or come into a large deficit.

What has happened to the economic climate in one month? We had the

same economic climate a month ago, when we brought in this bill, as we

have today. Nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the

political climate. These guys were never expecting to have to bring in

a budget. Now they are stuck, a month later, with breaking their own

law and bringing in another bill to override their previous bill.

How can the public believe this? How can the public trust a

government that doesn't have a bill in place for one month before they

have to override it with another bill? How can we trust you? I

certainly know I can't.

In addition, over the past four years we've seen increases of over

$3,000 per family in fees and permits. They have brought in 784 new

fees for everything from the Medical Services Plan to drivers' licences

— marriage licences, birth certificates, hunting and fishing licences,

park fees, you name it. Every kind of fee and

[ Page

12137 ]

permit has been increased by this government to pay for their rapid spending.

We've seen tax increases now — a tax increase now? — on corporations

at a time when companies and people can least afford it. When times

were good, this government increased their spending 12 percent. They

spent the money that they should have been saving for today. Had they

put that money aside, had they actually created that rainy-day fund

that the previous Minister of Finance talked about, had there actually

been money in that fund, we wouldn't be in this situation. That's what

a responsible government does: they save when times are good, and then

they spend that money in a recession.

I want to talk about what's not in this budget. There is no talk

about decentralization and regionalization now. Several years ago,

those were the key words. Everything around here was regionalization

and decentralization. If you'll remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, we had

$8 million that suddenly came in through special warrants to create the

eight ministers of state. Then within a very short period they were

reduced to six, and then we had a superminister. Now we see no mention

of regions, we see no offices or jobs that have moved to the regions,

and we have seen an economic development budget being reduced by $1

million and a regional development budget that has been rolled into the

government agents' office. So we don't even know how much there is for

regional development and how much there is for the government agents'

office. Once again, it's smoke and mirrors. What is there? Where are

the dollars? It's been impossible to track the funding of any of those

regional development or economic development programs over the past

four years, because there has never been a stable ministry to track

that money.

We've seen more actions to deceive from this government. I was

looking in there, and I thought: how much money do we have for public

relations nowadays? Last year they spent $40 million to let the people

know what they were doing — a propaganda machine, I think one could

call it. Where is that money now? It took me a while, but I found that

they've rolled all of those things into operating costs. Not only are

they operating costs; it's information, publications and all of those

things that the government didn't like having picked out and thrown at

them. Also, it's in professional services. We don't know how much

they're spending on contracting-out; we don't know how much money

they're spending on public relations; we don't know any of those

things. It's all rolled into operating costs. When they talk about

increases in operating spending, that could easily be spending

increases for more propaganda for the propaganda machine.

We see two economies in British Columbia once again. This government says in

its speech: "Thanks to the province's strong economic performance in

recent years and this government's excellent fiscal management, we are in

good shape." Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. It's the lower mainland

mentality to think that we are in good shape. If you go to any of the forestry-oriented

communities in this province, you'll find that things ain't goin' so

well there. We have failed to diversify into other economies. If you go to some

of the mill towns, you'll find out just how much they are suffering.

We may not have as many laid off as we had in previous recessions.

However, what you will find is job-sharing and shift cuts. You'll find

that independent mills are being eaten up rapidly — and I do mean

rapidly — by majors, because they're unable to compete due to stumpage.

Anyone who says that's not true is... — I will not say that in this

House, Mr. Speaker, because that's unparliamentary language — not being

forthright.

The Times-Colonist said today: "A major economic think-tank

predicts British Columbia's economy will sink the lowest of all

recession-ravaged provinces...." That doesn't sound to me like a

province that is doing really well; that doesn't sound to me like a

province that has missed the recession, as the previous Premier seemed

to think we were going to do.

The Times-Colonist also today — it was a good day for the Times-Colonist

— talked about the job outlook shifting. It stated: "Structural change

in the past decade signals a desperate need for worker training, a

study by Employment and Immigration Canada shows." We need to have more

training for our workers. That

article went on to talk about core jobs

— a core job is a full-time, full-year job — which now make up 54

percent of the employment in this province.

What answer does this government have for those problems? What

answer does the government have for those men and women out there who

find themselves unemployable, unable to get into the job market because

their skills no longer are required? What have they done, this

people-oriented government — this caring government — that we have?

This caring government has cut $10 million in science and technology

programs, which provide for the promotion of science and technology

initiatives in the province, with a focus on enhancing resource

industry technologies and other advanced technologies. They also cut

the job training and apprenticeship labour market policy program by $1

million.

Does this make sense at a time when we are facing a crisis of

employment, when we have no jobs for our workers, when our workers are

being sifted out slowly but surely because of new technologies? Does it

make sense to say to the people of this province that we're going to

cut the job training processes? I don't think it does, Mr. Speaker. I

think that is one of the key areas where this government has failed the

people of this province tremendously. We constantly neglect our

training processes; we constantly neglect the education of our people.

We as a society have found it cheaper to import people from other

countries — or even from other provinces, for that matter — rather than

train our own. You don't have to look too far to find areas where we

just do not do any training whatsoever.

[4:15]

This government has been distancing themselves from the federal

Conservatives, and they did so in this budget. They say: "We have no

political ties with other jurisdictions. We are a British Columbia

government." Do you really expect us to believe that you don't have

[ Page 12138 ]

in your back pocket or your purse somewhere a blue Conservative

membership card? Don't you remember 1988? The federal election in this

province was a battle between the Conservatives and the New Democrats,

and the New Democrats were running against the GST and against free

trade. Who did you support, Mr. Speaker? Who did you support, over

there? Did you vote New Democrat? I don't think so. So don't tell me

you don't support this federal government, and don't tell me you don't

have a blue Conservative membership card in your pocket.

No mention in this budget of free trade. It has devastated many of

our industries. Promises of revisions to the MOU once the free trade

deal was implemented — that was promises. The industry was saying we

should do this. You sold out our forest sector; you sold out our

fishing industry. Now we're looking at free trade with Mexico. Will you

stand by once again while your friends in Ottawa — they aren't my

friends — sell us out to the Mexicans? Will you do that? Just saying

that you have no ties will not change the fact that under that Socred

coat you have a blue Tory three-piece suit.

Mr. Speaker, this budget shows that the government has no policies

that they are committed to. The NDP called on the government to pay for

the drug AZT for AIDS; the government refused. The NDP called for a

school lunch program; the government refused. The NDP called for

payments for travel for health care; the government refused. The NDP

called for increased corporate tax when times were good; the government

refused, and instead implements them when times are tough.

We've seen programs implemented and then abandoned. There are so

many programs that have come out: the TRY program, the this program,

the that program. People don't even know which are around anymore.

Ministries formed and then altered. Ministers formed and then deformed;

perhaps they were deformed to begin with. Clearly this government has

no vision. It's so worn out of new ideas that they are looking to the

New Democrats for ideas.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest budget that has been labelled as

such by everyone. I'll quote here: "'The provincial government

continues to use the mythical BS fund to disguise the real nature of

the deficit,' said Al Kerfoot, president of the Certified General

Accountants' Association of B.C. 'It's more smoke and mirrors.'" Al

Kerfoot, Mr. Speaker, is not a New Democrat.

This is continuing the dishonest economic policies of all past Socred governments.

We go back to the Coquihalla: a $500 million overrun they were talking about

ended up a $1 billion overrun — a 100 percent cost overrun there. The Annacis

Island system: a $355 million overrun, or 273 percent. The northeast coal access

road: a $47.2 million overrun, and that was 94.4 percent. Why can't this

government get it through its head that they have to budget correctly? Why can't

they put in processes to do these things? This government has shown us over

and over again that they are incapable of running this province, and it's

time for a change

They are incapable of being honest with the people of this province.

The Finance minister states that the deficit is $395 million; it's

really $1.2 billion. Nowhere do you talk about the fact.that you have

racked up a $9 billion debt in this province. Nowhere do you talk about

that. The people of this province deserve to know the state of their

economy They deserve to know that the people serving on their behalf

are going to be honest with them, and that is something that this

government has not found the power to do. Quite frankly, they don't

understand how to do these things.

This budget does not deserve the support of the people. As Graham

Leslie, the former Deputy Minister of Labour, states, this government

doesn't deserve the support of the people of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate continues with the Minister of Lands and Parks.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: My friend from Rupert babbling in his place.

Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed today to see the refusal on

the part of the first member for Vancouver East to do the honourable

thing and apologize to the first member for Richmond for purposely

misleading this House. That kind of behaviour is reprehensible.

The first member for Richmond, when he was Premier, did a great deal

to help the northwest portion of British Columbia, where I live. As a

matter of fact, he did so much on behalf of northwestern British

Columbia that I found I had to deal with most of the constituents from

Prince Rupert and Atlin as well as my own constituents. And Mr.

Speaker, you only gave me enough funding for one constituency office.

But thankfully I have good staff to look after everybody that comes

through the door. We've been serving the entire northwest for the last

five years; it's been a pleasure.

This budget helps us to continue to deliver services in the

northwest. The services that really count up where we are, are things

like health care.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, the member for Prince Rupert is trying

to climb on the bandwagon now. But those of us representing this

government in the north have been working long and hard to get that

travel subsidy allowance in the MSP so that people living in the north

can enjoy the same benefits as those down here in Victoria or the lower

mainland.

It is not unusual for people from the north or the interior to be

requested to go to Vancouver or Victoria for certain medical tests,

only to find after they got there that they had to be postponed — maybe

somebody in the lab was ill that day and couldn't be there. If you live

in Victoria, it's probably a $3 or $5 taxi drive to the lab, but when

you're coming from the north, it's $1,000.

MR. MILLER: Where were you before?

[ Page

12139 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: Where was I? I was working in government.

And what happened? We got it. I want to thank my colleagues the

Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, my Premier of today and my

Premier of yesterday for working for the people of the north.

I guess the most important thing that's happened in the last five

years in the northwest is the recognition by the provincial government

of the concerns of the aboriginal peoples of this province. I live up

there, and my family lives up there. I haven't moved off to the big

smoke like some of the folks across the way. I believe in living in the

constituency I represent. And I do that on a full-time basis.

MR. REID: Good for you. Every member should do that. They're leaving

now.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, they're leaving now. They have to slip home for a quick supper. They live just down the street.

Mr. Speaker, in 1987 the Nisga'a Tribal Council didn't go to their

MLA, the member for Atlin; they didn't go to the member for Prince

Rupert, who's leaving. No, they came down to the constituency office in

Skeena and asked if I could arrange a meeting with the Premier of the

province. The first member for Richmond said, "Yes, absolutely, as soon

as possible" — the first Premier in the history of this province to

meet with the Nisga'a Tribal Council.

Over a hundred years ago the Nisga'a Tribal Council came to the

birdcages here, the parliament buildings, requesting to meet with the

government of the day. They were driven off with night sticks by

sheriff's officers. This government met the responsibilities that the

people of British Columbia should have been meeting over the last

hundred years.

The Minister of Native Affairs, the first one appointed in this

province, worked hard to make it possible for aboriginal issues to come

to government, to be heard and dealt with in this House. This budget is

a means of making sure that they're dealt with responsibly, so that we

get a fair settlement for all British Columbians. It's really important

in the northwest. It's important in the rest of this province, but in

the northwest the aboriginal peoples constitute a third of the

population.

The first member for Richmond, as Premier, worked hard at

decentralization of government — not centralization, "grasping," as we

heard from the last member of the opposition from Prince George North

about bringing everything close in, taxing more, bringing control into

Victoria and leaving the people of the province out of the

decision-making process. The first member for Richmond initiated a

regionalization process that created eight development regions in the

province and the opportunity for people in each of those regions to

have direct input to the decisions of this government. This budget

ensures that we can continue that pipeline, that opportunity for people

all over the province.

In the northwest we made sure that everybody was represented, all the senior

elected officials in the region: the chief councillors of the native bands,

the presidents of the tribal councils, the mayors, the chairmen of the regional

districts, the chairmen of the hospital boards, the chairmen of the school boards.

We made sure that people who were responsible to an electorate were in there

participating. And they have made real participation a fact. They continue to

direct the policies of development, social services, health, education and transportation

— which is very important where I live. From the town of Terrace, if you decide

to drive north to Atlin or south to Vancouver, it takes the same amount of time.

That's an immense area in the northwestern part of British Columbia, and

this budget is going to make that area more accessible. Transportation infrastructure

is very important. This budget makes it possible for it to continue to be developed

and maintained.

[4:30]

The highway north to the Yukon — Highway 37, or the Stewart-Cassiar

— is in a state of rehabilitation. It has been a gravel road. It

started, as a matter of fact, as a mainline logging road, and it has

evolved into a very good highway. There are portions of it being

rebuilt and blacktopped. It passes through the Atlin constituency,

which is an opposition-held constituency, not a Socred constituency.

All of that work was put out to tender, tendered and secured by British

Columbia companies, employing local British Columbians, in a lot of

cases; their own equipment and labour process.... One of the big

players in that is the Tahltan Tribal Council. With their own equipment

and their own trained personnel, they are very much a part of making

sure that the transportation infrastructure in the northwest is

available.

That transportation infrastructure includes such things as helipads

that are instrument-flight-rule-rated; that means that helicopter

Medivacs can take place in all kinds of weather conditions. This

government made money available to communities like Hartley Bay in my

constituency, in the Douglas Channel. It made it possible for those

communities to get that kind of service. This government made it

possible for an IFR helicopter to be located in Prince Rupert, to serve

the coastal communities that so often are fog-bound or otherwise

weather-bound.

Part of the infrastructure for transportation includes things like

port development in Kitimat, which was very much sought after by the

people of Kitimat. The municipality of Kitimat funded studies for port

development in Kitimat — the people of Kitimat. They started in 1975,

but there had been a sweetheart deal signed by the Premier of the day,

Mr. Barrett, and the federal government of the day — a Liberal

government — that there would be no port development, other than in

Prince Rupert, for 15 years. So by 1988 Kitimat certainly had its

homework done and worked with a number of agencies to determine that it

was very practical to have a seaport development, a public facility in

Kitimat. At this time the three facilities that exist there are

private: Alcan, Eurocan and Ocelot. It's most important to have a

public facility. there, because it means that secondary industry can

develop in Kitimat, and they will have a means of reaching the Pacific

Rim and European markets. This government

[ Page 12140 ]

and this budget are going to make it possible for the people of Kitimat to realize what they have been working for for 16 years.

If we don't have the infrastructure.... One of the things we really

have to provide.... I know that the people opposite will tell you that

it's only people services. Well, we have to have an economic engine so

that we can afford the people services. We must, as government, provide

infrastructure — particularly transportation infrastructure — if

anything is to happen. We present opportunities to private enterprise,

and they'll carry the ball. This budget supports that kind of

development.

We have worked very hard in the northwest in the last five years to

diversify the economy of the area. More and more, there are tourism

opportunities coming in, and more and more private enterprise is

developing — tourist opportunities in the northwest. This government

has supported those opportunities. There is an excellent example of

private initiative at Lakelse Lake, a place known as Mount Layton

Hotsprings. It's been totally developed by a family from Kitimat — Bert

and Marlene Orleans — entirely from their own cash flow from their

business as towboat operators, and entirely from their savings; no

government money. They provide almost a hundred jobs in the area. They

fit right in with the ski development on Shames Mountain, and they'll

fit right in with the ski development on Claque Mountain that the

community of Kitimat put together. Together with the communities of

Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers and Prince Rupert, it all helps draw a

substantial amount of tourism, not only from the Alaska panhandle but

from parts of western Canada.

The way the people from the other parts of western Canada get there,

Mr. Speaker, is through a good road transportation system. Highway 16

is constantly being upgraded. Responsible budgets that this government

has brought forth year after year have made it possible for bridges,

overpasses, grade separations and other safety matters to be dealt

with, for the road surface to be improved, for the shoulders to be

widened and for communities like Hazelton to see a new major crossing

of the Bulkley River. That bridge is under planning and will be

constructed in the next couple of years.

But to be able to do all of these things, we have to be able to have

that most important resource of all: we have to have the people to make

it all happen — and we have that in the northwest. We have up there —

I've lived in the northeast too, in the Peace River country; it seems

to be a hallmark across the north — self-reliant people, people who....

When their hand is out, it's only there to help somebody else; it's not

there for a handout. The people in my community have done such things

as attract nuclear medicine facilities to the Mills Memorial regional

hospital in Terrace. They have helped, and are helping, to get a CAT

scanner into Terrace to serve the communities that surround Terrace —

indeed, as far away as the southern Yukon.

Those people have put forth a proposal to this government which has been recognized

by the Premier of the day and by the Minister of Social Services and Housing

as a very unique initiative in support of housing for seniors and physically

disabled people in Terrace. They've got the support of the municipal government

and the support of this government through the acquisition of the lands necessary

In the not too distant future we will see that support of housing in place.

But that's only possible through responsible fiscal management, and this

government has provided that.

It is evident in the world fina