1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3755 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 3755

Oral Questions

B.C. Enterprise Corporation assets. Mr. Williams –– 3756

Mr. Harcourt

Budget Debate

Mr. Gabelmann, –– 3758

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3760

Mr. Barnes –– 3763

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 3766

Ms. Smallwood –– 3769

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 3770

Ms. Edwards –– 3772

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 3774

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 3775

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates (Hon.

Mr. Richmond)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 3778

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House two

very distinguished Canadians from the province of Quebec: the Hon.

Robert Bourassa, Premier of Quebec, accompanied by his Minister for

Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Hon. Gil Remillard.

When

I visited Quebec City in February, it was clear from my discussions

with the Premier and members of his cabinet that there were many issues

and opportunities where the interests of B.C. and Quebec were

complementary. I am therefore most pleased that Premier Bourassa and

Mr. Remillard are able to be in Victoria today so that we can continue

to discuss items of common interest. We've certainly had great

agreement on Meech Lake at our many meetings, and we're hoping to

conclude this very quickly in this Legislature. We've had much

agreement on free trade and the benefits as they affect all regions of

Canada. We see opportunities of industries here working with industries

in the province of Quebec so that both economies can benefit

considerably.

I'm very pleased that we've had such a great

rapport with the province of Quebec. This is not only for myself; I

know I speak for all ministers when I say it's always a great pleasure

to work with members of the Quebec government. This cooperative

relationship that we enjoy between our two governments and our two

provinces will, I know, continue, and the people of Quebec and B.C.

will mutually benefit. So it gives me great pleasure to ask all members

of this House to extend a very warm welcome to Premier Bourassa and his

minister Mr. Remillard.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I

too would like to pass on our very warm and friendly greetings to

Premier Bourassa and Mr. Minister, and to let you know that, although

we do have occasional political differences with the government, we are

very proud of the role we hope to play in this Legislature in

completing some of the unfinished nation building that was not

accomplished in 1981, which is to bring Quebec into our constitution

and into Canada fully. That debate will take place shortly. We will

play our role in seeing that occur.

In our brief

discussion, I let you know that there are some matters still to be done

in this province and in this country in terms of our northern friends

and their destiny over the next few decades — the first citizens who feel left out of the constitution.

is in a bipartisan way that we welcome you to British Columbia, and I

look forward to visiting with you in Quebec in the near future. Thank

you for coming.

HON. MR. DAVIS : In the gallery this

afternoon we have several prominent North Shore and Vancouver citizens:

Mr. Don MacKay of Albright and Wilson Americas; Mr. Robert Hamilton,

business consultant; Mr. Bob Wiens, Facs Records Centre; Mr. Peter

Armstrong, Gray Line of Vancouver; Mr. Charlie Anderson, Canadian

Overseas Log and Lumber Ltd. Would the House please welcome these

people.

HON. MR. DUECK : It is with pleasure that I introduce a constituent from

the Central Fraser Valley. It is Pastor Alf Lennox. He is the director of public

affairs and religious liberty of the British Columbia Conference of Seventh-Day

Adventists. Would the House please make him welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I'm very pleased today to ask the House to join me in welcoming a

Vancouver-Little Mountain constituent, Mr. Marc Roy, who is with la

Federation des Franco-Colombiens. Also I would like the House to

welcome Mr. Yves Merzisen, president of la Federation des

Franco-Colombiens,

MR. REE : This morning I had the

pleasure of meeting two very friendly people, and I'm assured they're

all friendly from the Lone Star State of the United States. They're

visiting Victoria and our great British Columbia today, and I'd ask the

House to welcome Mr. E. Buck Lyon III and his lovely wife Laura Lee

from the J.R. city of Dallas.

MR. DIRKS : In your

gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, visiting us from the great

constituency of Nelson-Creston, is a good friend and a longtime

supporter of this party, MR. Wally Penner. He is the chairman of the

Kootenay Lake District Hospital board and regional district director

for electoral area E in the Regional District of Central Kootenay.

Would this House please make him welcome.

MR. SERWA :

In the west gallery today we have a group of 28 students representing

eight schools in Okanagan South, eight of the best schools in the

province of British Columbia: Springvalley Secondary, Rutland

Secondary, Kelowna Secondary, George Elliot Secondary, KLO Secondary,

Mount Boucherie. George Pringle, and Okanagan Mission Secondary School.

The tour of this group is sponsored by Crown Forests, a subsidiary of

Fletcher Challenge, and they are accompanied, by Mr. Rudi Metzger,

representing Crown Forests, and also by teachers Mrs. Reid from

Springvalley and Mr. J. McIntyre from Rutland. On behalf of my

colleague the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and

myself, please make this group welcome.

HON. MR. REID :

I'd like the House to make a special welcome today to two people in the

members' gallery. Mr. Charles Giordano, who represents the fine

constituency of Delta, is one of the hardest-working Social Credit

members in the province of British Columbia. Take note: he doesn't wear

a red button. I'd like the House to make especially welcome Mr. Charles

Giordano and also Mr. Bill Kay, who happens to be accompanying him

today.

[2:15]

Presenting Petitions

MR. LOENEN : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present a petition.

"To the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the province of British

Columbia in the Legislature assembled. The petition of the undersigned

residents of the province of British Columbia states that on January

28, 1988, Henry Morgentaler and his supporters succeeded in removing

all legal protection for the lives of Canada's pre-born children.

Having achieved abortion on demand, they now want taxpayers to pay for

every abortion, even though the federal law does not require" — this.

"We, the undersigned residents of British Columbia, believe it is morally indefensible for you, for the

[ Page 3756 ]

government of British Columbia and for any government to force

us, through taxation, to participate in abortions on demand. We therefore commend

you, the Premier, and the British Columbia government for ending provincial

funding of abortions. We urge you most strongly to resist the pressure to reinstate

any such funding in any form whatsoever.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House do not use

our tax money to pay for procedures used to search out handicapped

pre-born children in order to abort them. We further request that no

more tax dollars be given to agencies which promote abortion."

This has some 18,204 signatures.

Oral Questions

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION ASSETS

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the minister who is Minister of Economic Development today, the

following: she writes to the Vancouver Sun in today's press indicating

that the Enterprise Corporation assets may indeed exceed book value.

Could the minister advise what the Coquitlam lands are on the books of

the Enterprise Corporation?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to an

article of which I have no

knowledge. I will take his question as notice — that's all I can

do; I can't understand his questioning at all.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's in today's Sun in Vancouver —"B.C. Enterprise Assets May Differ From Book Value" — and

it is signed by Grace McCarthy, Minister of Economic Development,

Victoria. If some nut is sending letters and signing your name, we

should find out about it, Madam Minister.

Could the

minister confirm that, indeed, the 1,600 acres at Westwood are on the

books of the Enterprise Corporation for one dollar — transferred from the Crown to the corporation for one dollar?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. WILLIAMS : She could not confirm. Could the minister advise the House what the number is?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I'd be pleased to take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Could the minister confirm that there are 2,715 single family lots,

1,215 small lots, 700 townhouse sites and 400 apartment unit sites all

on these lands? Probably not.

Could the minister advise the

House what the equally valuable Riverview lands are on the books of the

Enterprise Corporation for?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I'd be glad to take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister says in the letter that there may be a difference. There

is a giant difference — as big as the overrun on the Coquihalla

and probably more. The minister knows those facts.

the case of the Pleasantside Developments sale from the Westwood lands,

the Fuchsia Place parcel sold November 28, 1986, for $474,000 from the

Enterprise Corporation and flipped one month later for $1,326,000 after

being sold by the Enterprise Corporation. Could the minister advise the

House if the province of British Columbia, which owned these assets,

was well served by the 300 percent flip in one month?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I'd be pleased the get the information for the House; in fact, I'll be

looking forward to getting it. When the member is suggesting the

turning over of lands at an enormous profit — of which he would perhaps like to leave the impression with this House —

it would very much depend on what investment the buyer would have in

the servicing of those lands. I will take the question as notice, and

I'll be glad to get back.

MR. WILLIAMS : A million

dollars amounts to a fair profit even minus the servicing costs, which

were not very high. But the minister can certainly carry out those

studies, and I have some that might be helpful to her.

view of the fact that you can make a million dollars in a month by

selling acreage, then subdividing them quickly and then selling

lots — buying at $18,000 a lot and selling at $51,000 a lot —

would the minister not agree that it would be more prudent to sell lots

rather than acreage?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

1 usually take my assessment on those things from professionals, and

the board takes that advice from professionals, so I would not want to

give a quick answer to that. The member seems to have in his mind that

he would prefer to sell it that way, but we'll come back with all the

facts on the particular acreage and the particular lots he's talking

about. I'll be pleased to share them with this House.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister states in today's letter that the process - i.e., the sale

of public lands - requires healthy competition in order to generate

reasonable value for the assets. That has not occurred with the

Westwood lands to date. Did the minister approve the process with

respect to the disposal of the Westwood lands - to date?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

The member seems to want to leave some sort of an inference in this

question period regarding the sale of the Westwood lands and the

Coquitlam properties. I have undertaken to bring everything back to him

and the House, and I would be very pleased to do so. If at any time

he'd put any other questions on the order paper, or if he wishes to

give me more now, I would be very pleased to find the answers for him

and bring them back.

MR. WILLIAMS : Could the

minister advise the House whether there was any interference...? She

suggested there were many matters where the Premier interfered with

respect to the activities of the Enterprise Corporation. Could the

minister advise the House if there was interference with respect to the

previous disposal of Westwood or Riverview lands?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Most of those transactions were done by the staff of the Enterprise

Centre, and that's why my answers today are not as up to date as they

could be. I'd dearly love to answer this member today on the floor of

the House as he asks these questions, but I will bring back the answers

to all of them. However, the answer to your question is no.

MR. WILLIAMS : Maybe it would be more interesting if the minister elaborated on all of the interference to date and

[ Page

3757 ]

the specifics of it, other than what we're aware of with respect to Mr.

Toigo and Mr. Poole — which is interesting enough and which we will pursue further.

today's paper the minister again says that in-house and outside

advisers looked at the value of the various Enterprise Corporation

assets — Whistler, Roberts Bank and the other lands. Will the minister make these estimates public?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Any that the public should know will be made public.

MR. WILLIAMS : Isn't it reasonable to make the estimates public, so they become the base for bidding above a base value?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Well, that would really depend on whether or not you're trying to get

the best return .for the taxpayer on the dollar investment of that

taxpayer. If you have the kind of suggestion that this member makes,

then you would indeed have a base line, and it would be the lower base

to the taxpayer of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Further, it's pretty clear that Mr. Toigo had a clever end-run around

the limited bidding process with respect to the Expo lands. He

envisioned $500 million for everything — and we know the Expo

lands were $300 million; Westwood, $160 million; Whistler, $40 million.

It meant he got Songhees for free and Roberts Bank for free, etc. Is it

that immense end-run, with the incredible gains for Mr. Toigo, that

caused the minister to finally go public over what was really happening

between her and the Premier?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I

know the member would just be delighted if he could put a wedge between

the Premier and me. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the

transaction regarding the sale of B.C. Place lands, and all of the

transactions regarding B.C. Enterprise Corporation, have been under my

responsibility, given to me by the Premier; and I'm extremely pleased

to tell you that those transactions have been totally honourable and

totally well carried out by the board of directors and me and the B.C.

Enterprise Corporation. I'm very pleased with the way they're doing

their work, and I will continue to support them in their work.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'm pleased. The minister, then, is entirely happy with the December

meetings between the Premier's assistant and the people at the

Enterprise board. When was she aware of the meeting between Mr. Poole,

Mr. Toigo and the Enterprise board staff, the CEO?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, that's a matter of record. I was aware of that meeting after it took place.

MR. WILLIAMS : Was it December 5, January, February, or maybe April 1? Could the minister advise the House?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I'll be pleased to bring the date back for the hon. member.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister of Economic Development: there

is not a wedge or a Mack truck between her and the Premier; there is an

iceberg — it's huge.

In that vein, I would like to ask the Premier a couple of questions: will the

Premier now agree to freeze the sale of all BCEC lands before your government's

mismanagement and your giveaway schemes surrender billions in potential public

revenue?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The Leader of the Opposition not so long ago occupied another position

in another place. I can recall when Expo was first proposed; I can

recall when B.C. Place stadium was first proposed; I can recall when

SkyTrain was first proposed; and each and every time that same leader.

in another position in another place, wanted a further study. He was

opposed; he was against; it was going to be a failure. He knew better

than all of those people — municipally, provincially — who were involved.

But

fortunately for British Columbia his message went unheard. Obviously no

one heeded his advice, to our advantage, because today we've had

Expo — an enormous success. We have B.C. Place stadium — a

great facility. We have SkyTrain serving the lower mainland. None of

these things would have been if that member had had his way. And if he

were to get his way again, nothing would happen in the great city of

Vancouver; nothing would happen in this province. We would stagnate. We

would have studies, a field day for the consultants, no doubt, but the

province would go nowhere. We're enjoying prosperity; we're enjoying

progress; and we're going to continue to enjoy prosperity and progress

under this government.

MR. HARCOURT :

I'm sure

Premier Bourassa will remember a mayor in Montreal who had a $1.2

billion deficit. We avoided that. I heard these arguments in 1984 from

the same member — who lost two to one, for the information of the

Premier — and the people of Vancouver paid as much attention to

those arguments as they do today.

The

Premier has his Minister of Economic Development now admitting that

these public lands have a far higher value than your government has

said. You've heard evidence today which suggests that the value of

these public lands is in the billions — nowhere near the offer of

Mr. Toigo, who I'm sure you're familiar with. In the interests of

getting the best deal for British Columbians and assuring everyone that

they have a fair deal, will the Premier now agree to an independent

public assessment of the full value of the BCEC lands throughout

British Columbia?

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Not so long ago the same questioner, in another position and in another

place, was asking for the same sort of thing to take place. We

certainly know, and frankly, I would expect there are hundreds of

people in the business who are well aware of, the value of land in

Vancouver, Coquitlam and Victoria. We don't need to have further

studies. We don't have to bring in expensive consultants, as

recommended by the NDP. I don't expect the Leader of the Opposition to

really have any accounting knowledge, but I can assure him that we have

within the B.C. Enterprise Corporation a wealth of information to

provide all of that background, and we're making great progress.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair

for the House to go into Committee of Supply. The hon. second member

for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) adjourned debate, but he has

taken his place, and the debate will continue with the member for North

Island.

[ Page 3758 ]

BUDGET DEBATE

(continued)

MR. GABELMANN :

I often find myself having to speak at a time that is incredibly

anti-climactic, and after a performance such as that in question

period, it's difficult to come down to the tone and level of debate

expected in the budget debate. However, I'm sure that as members find

their way back to their offices and wherever, this place will quiet

down and I'll be able to get on with my comments.

I want to

talk today about one issue that is of concern to residents all over

Vancouver Island and in particular to residents who live in its

northern parts. That issue is the question of the Island Highway. We

all noted with some degree of surprise and, in fact, some degree of

shock that only $6 million has been allocated in this current fiscal

year's budget for the Island Highway.

I want to talk about

the Island Highway in some detail. I made a decision a few days ago to

spend my entire budget speech on the question of the Island Highway

when a dear friend of mine was very badly injured on the Island

Highway — not far from our home, actually — in yet another of

the tragic accidents that occur on that highway all too frequently. My

friend is in her third week in hospital, and for some days we didn't

think she would make it; but she now appears to be pulling through, and

I trust she will continue to do so. With her serious accident adding to

hundreds and hundreds of other serious accidents on that highway every

year — and literally dozens of deaths — I felt it important

to go through the history and the nature of this particular road in

some detail, to get it all on, the record in one speech.

just want to look at the kind of road we're talking about, and in

particular the kind of road we're talking about from Parksville to just

north of Campbell River. We have as a major highway in this province

what is in practice a local street; the highway from Parksville to

Campbell River is in fact a local street. People live along the

highway. In a great many of its miles there are accesses to the road

every 100 or 150 feet, driveways into individual residences. There are

frequent — and by that I mean every 100 or 200 feet —

unmarked left turns being made on a major highway. We have a number of

small towns and beach resorts through which this highway travels. We

have what is in effect a waterfront tourist route full of strip

development.

It is a 1948 highway, promised first in 1944

by the Premier of the day and designed and built in and around 1948. As

engineers in general will say, the road is full of vertical and

horizontal curves, making it excessively dangerous. It is a road that

is used frequently by big trucks hauling dangerous cargo to pulp mills

and for other industrial activity at the northern end of Vancouver

Island. It's a major truck route now serving the expansion of the Gold

River pulp mill and the continuing expansions over the years of the

Campbell River Elk Falls pulp mill and, of course, the mines both in

Port Hardy and at Westmin.

The road contains a mixture of both leisurely sightseeing — these trucks I refer to —

and too many people trying to catch a ferry with not enough time

allocated to catching that ferry. It is a dangerous mix. It's a mixture

of local and long-distance traffic, and at the same time it's, in

effect, a local street. While all this is happening with that

particular route, we have the population — particularly in the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona —

increasing at a rate above that elsewhere in this province and on this

island. As a result, there is an increased use of this particular road.

want to quote briefly from Hansard in 1980, from the Minister of

Highways of that time, the present first member for Cariboo (Mr. A.

Fraser). He was talking about some improvements to the existing road,

and he said: "That's only a stopgap measure and we're looking at a new

Courtenay Campbell River road. It can't come fast enough as far as I'm

concerned. " He says further on: "...it's a fact of life that the

traffic density on the road from Courtenay to Campbell River is

equivalent to the traffic density on the Trans-Canada Highway at

Kamloops. I think everybody that lives in Campbell River works in

Courtenay and everybody that lives in Courtenay works in Campbell

River, because boy, it's a busy piece of road — that's apart from the tourists." That was in 1980 — eight years ago.

1981 the ministry received a report that it had commissioned from

Graeme and Murray Consultants of Victoria, which recommended the routes

for the inland highway. Highway 19, it said, was handling 8,500

vehicles a day in 1979. It is expected to be handling 21,000 vehicles a

day by the year 2001, which is 12 or 13 years from now — from 8,500 to 21,000.

look at the actual traffic counts, and we find some interesting

information. I am going to compare the summer of 1987, because these

are the most recent accurate statistics available, and I'm going to

compare apples with apples.

If you are traveling to the

interior of British Columbia, excluding the Duffy Lake route, you can

go via the Fraser Canyon, the Coquihalla or the Hope-Princeton. You

have on that route a minimum of eight lanes — two in the Fraser

Canyon, four on the Coquihalla and at least two on the Hope Princeton,

on much of which you now have four lanes and on some three lanes. But

let's refer to it only as eight lanes, even though it is practically

nine or ten for most of its duration.

In the summer of 1987

there were 16,779 vehicles per day on those eight lanes –– 2, 000

vehicles a lane. At the same time on Vancouver Island, south of

Parksville where the Island Highway has four lanes, we had 17,847

vehicles per day –– 4,000-plus vehicles per lane. That's over twice the

capacity of the routes into the interior and more in total numbers than

either the Canyon or the Hope-Princeton would have covered if the

Coquihalla didn't exist.

So while we had the Canyon and the

Hope-Princeton, we had fewer cars on those two roads than we have on

the Island Highway south of Parksville, yet we somehow felt a need to

build the four lanes through the Coquihalla. If you look at the

two-lane road — and you could pick out a million different

statistics; I've just chosen a couple . . If you look at traffic in and

around Courtenay or Campbell River, the numbers are from 13,000 to

20,000 vehicles per day all year long, on a two-lane road. That is ten

times the number carried by the routes into the interior.

you look at the rural area, for example, between Courtenay and Campbell

River — say the Oyster River bridge or Merville in that

area — you are looking at approximately 9,000 vehicles per day in

the summer of 1987 — more

than half the number carried by eight to ten lanes going into the

interior. We do it on two lanes. I think those numbers are important.

They may have gone over the heads of people doing it quickly like this,

but I'm basically saying that the numbers on the Island Highway are far

greater than the numbers going into the interior.

referred to my friend's accident at the beginning of these comments,

and I want to refer briefly to a March 1981 newspaper story in the Campbell River Upper Islander . The

[ Page 3759 ]

headline

is: "Island Highway: the Path of Death." They talked about the 20

deaths on that particular road between Courtenay and south of Campbell

River in a four-year period — that short distance of 25 miles or less.

looked at the RCMP accident reports for the area in the North Island

constituency in the first 22 kilometres of highway from the Oyster

River Bridge into Campbell River. The accidents have been going up

every year. In that 22 kilometres we used to have only around 160 to

180 accidents per year. We are now into the mid-200s. In 1987 there

were 247 accidents in that 22 kilometre stretch of street that has to

also occupy a place as a provincial highway.

When you look

at the Highways ministry statistics for the area I referred to earlier

in terms of the 20 deaths between Courtenay and south of Campbell

River, there has been a 50 percent increase in the number of victims of

traffic accidents in that area from 1984 to 1987. We have a serious

problem, to .put it mildly, in terms of the dangerous conditions of

that particular road.

Let's look at some of the economic

questions involved in why it's so imperative that the budget not have

$6 million, but rather some significantly higher figure in it to build

this road at this time. When you look at the economics of the question,

Vancouver Island's industrial activity is being held back because there

is not a secure, safe and efficient transportation system.

The

economic development commission of the regional districts of both

Comox-Strathcona and Mount Waddington, which covers all of North Island

and most — if not all — of the riding of Comox, wrote to the

then-Premier in July 1979. In that letter the economic development

commission said, among other things: "The commission feels that the

delay in construction of the second crossing of the Courtenay

River" — which is now being completed — "and the construction

of the inland highway bypass is a major deterrent to the function of

the commission and the development of employment in the area." So here

was the commission saying to the then-Premier that it found it

difficult to function and to perform its duties as an economic

development commission because of the lack of a proper highway.

[2:45]

One

business person in the North Island wrote a letter to the then-member

of the Legislature for Comox in 1986, Karen Sanford. This letter comes

from the president of the Mt. Washington Ski Resort, a major employer

in the Comox Valley with spinoffs into Campbell River as well. The

president, Alex Linton, wrote a letter in which he said:

"This letter is in full support of the request by the Association

of Vancouver Island Municipalities for an immediate start of actual construction

of a first-class new Island Highway from Parksville to Campbell River.

"We operate by far the largest ski resort on Vancouver

Island and employ more people in winter than any other business in

Courtenay. Most of our customers, many from Victoria and district, are

becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the time and frustration

involved in the trip up-Island. Some are coming less often, and others

are going instead to Mt. Baker in the U.S.A., which should be

unacceptable to our tourist industry principles."

It now takes longer to travel from Victoria to Courtenay than it did 20 years

ago. "It's time to modernize for the future of Vancouver

Island."

The

Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities commissioned an economic

development strategy discussion paper a few years ago. It was produced

in 1986, just in time for the provincial election campaign. The

steering committee included two people who are now members of this

Legislature, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). It also included quite a

number of people who were Social Credit candidates in the last election

campaign.

Among other things this report. recommended by the Minister of Finance and the member for Cowichan-Malahat, said these things:

"The

present Island Highway is generally acknowledged to be inadequate along

many sections for its present traffic load and will almost certainly

become increasingly congested in the future. Public investment in

improvements to this important transportation artery may be expected to

produce major direct and spinoff benefits to the regional economy.

"The province has spent much less in recent years for highway construction on Vancouver Island than in other regions of B.C.

"...actual

per capita expenditures in the seven years between 1977-78 and 1983-84

for road construction on the B.C. mainland averaged nearly twice what

was spent on the Island. Planned 1984 road construction projects on the

Island amounted to a per capita expenditure of only $14 compared to

$87.40 for the rest of the province, exclusive of...the Coquihalla

Highway."

You can imagine what the demarcation would be if

you had included in the Coquihalla Highway in 1984 as well. They

conclude in their

section on transportation:

"This one investment" — the Island Highway —

"has the potential to enhance economic activity in virtually every

sector of the economy. In addition, it will demonstrate the kind of

long-term commitment to the future economic viability of the Island

region which will spur new investment and create new jobs. In short, it

is our turn for provincial investment."

I'm trying to speed

this along because of the need to get a number of speakers into the

agenda this afternoon, but I want very quickly to go through some

highlights of the political history of the Island Highway. While it's

not particularly germane to today's problem, I thought I would read a

clipping from the Colonist

dated March 8, 1906, datelined March 7, Nanaimo. "As a result of

general dissatisfaction throughout Comox district as to the manner in

which public money has been spent on roads, a representative meeting of

the settlers of Comox and Courtenay districts was held Monday to

endeavour..." — to get something going about the road conditions on

Vancouver Island in March 1906.

In 1935 we have continued

concern expressed. This is again in the Colonist , June 18, 1935: "Scant

attention is given to the peculiar needs of Vancouver Island in the

matter of highways..." is the lead in this particular story. It

concludes: "It's time that Vancouver Island had a new deal.

This is in 1935. We're way behind.

Another

story in 1935 is talking about Vancouver Island roads. I was amused by

this, and I think members of the House should have the opportunity to

hear this: "If progress in remodeling the highway system of Vancouver

Island is not carried on faster than the program of this year, it will

take as

[ Page 3760 ]

long

to put the existing roads in good shape as it did for the children of

Israel to make the journey from Egypt to the Promised Land — 40 years."

That puts us to 1975. We've been 53 years trying to get these

improvements on this Island. The children of Israel could do it in 40.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

final clipping which I would love the Minister of Advanced Education

(Hon. S. Hagen) to hear if he's in his office listening to the blower.

This is May 17, 1946, from one of the Victoria papers, and I'm not sure

which one. "MLA...to Resign. H.J. Welch, Coalition MLA for Comox,

intimated at a public meeting here last night that he would resign

unless the provincial government builds...." That's a road in the

Comox area, not the Island Highway bypass, of course. Just a flavour of

a few clippings out of many to indicate that this is an issue that's

been going on for a long time.

I won't read at length, but

in 1980 the then mayor of Courtenay, R.G. McPhee, talked to the

government about the need for the inland route from Parksville to

Campbell River. In part of the presentation he said: "This portion of

the Vancouver Island Highway has more fatalities than any other equal

in length of main highways in British Columbia." I would argue that the

statistics indicate that those highway deaths are increasing at this

point.

I have volumes and volumes of Hansard clippings

which I will not refer to, but ever since Hansard was started in this

Legislature, there have been references virtually every year to the

need for the Island Highway to be constructed, going right back to

1973. At that time, members should know, the Minister of Highways

promised to begin the program of four-laning the Vancouver Island

Highway from Victoria to Campbell River and upgrading from Campbell

River to Port Hardy. That work began in the early seventies, and the

northern part was finished in 1979. Since then, of course, nothing has

happened.

I was going to quote the Minster of Highways in

1982. He said very clearly then that they were very close to making a

decision on the northern

section of the road from Parksville to

Campbell River, but that was 1982, and six years later nothing has

happened.

Political commitments have been made by all kinds

of us on both sides of the House to do something about this. It was a

major feature of the NDP election campaign in 1986. We promised to

four-lane that particular section. I won't read all of this; there are

volumes and volumes of clippings which indicate promises from various

people. I know that every candidate on this Island talked about it and

made promises in the last campaign, and what have we got? Nothing. We

haven't even had a word — searching through Hansard — from the member

for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) or from the member for Comox (Hon. S.

Hagen) on the issue since they were elected to this Legislature in

1986. We did have a word — and I was pleased to have it — from the

member for Vancouver South the other day supporting the Vancouver

Island Highway. In any event, the issue has not been pursued

effectively by members on that side of the House.

In 1979,

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways promised to deal with the issue

of the inland highway. He said it was anticipated to take seven to ten

years to have the road we're talking about built, the reason being that

they would have to acquire the right-of-way and that would be going

into a lot of ALR. Seven to ten years from 1979 — that's nine years ago.

the commitment of the Minister of Highways of that day is to be

honoured, the road should be finished and we should be traveling on it

next year — to take the outside of his commitment, which was ten years.

1981 as well the Minister of Highways made a commitment. This is in the

Province of May 21, 1981. The minister "declined to say exactly when" —

it — "might be ready, but he made it clear that the government has

established a tentative timetable for construction. He also told the

Province he would like to see the first contract for the new highway

let by the fall of 1982, a starting date that would enable the

government to have the link completed by the next trip to the polls."

The story goes on later to talk about the expectation that there would

be a 1984 election; we had one in 1983.

Let's say they

expected to have the road finished in 1984. That's two years, and the

commitments were there from the minister. We've had plenty of that over

the years — too much of that over the years.

Because of the

time, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to cut my remarks short and just say to

the members of this House and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) that these promises have gone on too long. We are living on

this Island with a 1948-designed street that we are expected to use as

a major highway. It's totally inadequate; it's killing people

unnecessarily; it's injuring many people, including my friend who I

talked about earlier. I just think it's time we got on and recognized

that we cannot put up any longer with the level of safety and highway

standards on this Island. We cannot wait another ten years or more. The

traffic counts, according to those reports I've cited, will be triple

what they have been in another ten years. We have just got to get on

with that road now. The government will not be faulted one iota by

anyone on this side of the House if they add to their highway

construction budget beyond the $6 million indicated in the budget

address and begin more immediately to get on with the construction of

that route so that it can be completed in what is a reasonable period

of time. In my view, a reasonable period of time is two years from

today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I do welcome the

opportunity to contribute in the budget debate and to support the

budget that has been proposed by the government. I think it introduces

a factor of realism into the budget which has been lacking across this

country for some time, and I know that with the sort of partisan

political system that operates in this country, to get anything done

it's necessary to get elected in order to form the government. So

promises are made quite freely during election campaigns by all

parties. It's interesting, generally, that those who feel they have the

best chance of forming the government tend to try to be a bit more

moderate in their promises because they may have to deliver on them.

It's quite easy for people who have absolutely no hope of having to

keep their promises — or who feel they have no hope — to make wild

promises. In the election campaign in my own constituency, my opponents

sort of conceded the riding to me, but then went ahead and said they

would eliminate the sales tax in our area. They were going to create

artificial markets for the farmers; they were going to do all sorts of

wonderful things. They could try to force me into the position of

saying: "Me too." I chose not to. I chose to try to make responsible

promises to the people that I would try to do something.

Anyway, it's easy enough to make these promises and to use figures one way or another. As I've suggested, the budget

[ Page 3761 ]

responsible. Yes, it introduces an element of user-pay. I suppose that

what we've heard from the opposition throughout this debate is that

those people who use the services shouldn't be required to pay for

those services, that it should be someone else, creating the illusion

among people that services can be increased and increased and improved

continually without any cost to the users. That is impossible. Only a

socialist mentality could come up with that type of approach that yes,

more and more will be available to you from government. But at the same

time, every tax increase, every effort by government to raise more

money in order not only to provide those services but to ensure them on

a continuing basis is attacked by the opposition. So we have this

illusion that's created in the minds of taxpayers that you can have

more and it won't cost you a cent; it will cost — and I quote — "the

government somehow or other."

[3:00]

Even

if you translate that into some of what.... The opposition says you

should tax the corporations and the companies and the big businesses;

those are the people you should get the money from. At the same time,

they are supporting the workers. They are supporting all of these

people. I don't know who they think these people work for. Most of the

employees that they support are employees of the larger companies or

the small businesses that serve the larger companies. If there is a

pulp mill in my area, I am not naive enough to think that it doesn't

have some beneficial effects. The big company puts in the pulp mill.

Grocery stores benefit from that; apartments benefit from that; local

taxation benefits from that; the workers in the pulp mill benefit from

that; the welders benefit. The suppliers of all those services would

not have that kind of business if it wasn't for the pulp mill.

The

oil and gas industry is basically run by large corporations. It costs a

million, two and a half million, to drill a well; one in four may be

successful. The ordinary small businessman cannot go out and drill a

well. It takes a large corporation to fund that kind of activity and

get the credit from the banks. Yes, they expect a return on their

money. But when that big corporation drills a well in my constituency,

it employs something like 65 people. We found out during the NDP years

of 1972-75, when they virtually drove the oil and gas industry out....

The corporations left for better territory, but guess what else? A

lot of people from my area, the small businesses that no longer had to

service the oil wells, had to leave as well.

I'm trying to

make the connection that these people say: "Hit the big ones and hit

'em hard;" in most areas they already pay a good share of the tax.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Well, of course, the socialist philosophy of fairness is something that

I have some trouble with. For instance, if you'd like to take it in

terms of principle, you support the principles of fairness, I take it,

and yet you just came from a convention that said: "Because some people

didn't ask our permission to run for municipal office and didn't accept

that, they're going to get kicked out of the party." I know of people

all over this province who run for municipal office, and many of them

hold Socred memberships. Not one of them has to ask permission from the

Social Credit Party in order to run for municipal office. Not one of

them has been kicked out or had their membership lifted because they

ran for municipal office without the blessing of the Socreds. And there

you sit talking about fairness, Madam.

Member. I think you

have the audacity.... I don't know how you don't swallow when you

talk about democracy in your party — even in the name. Democracy is

okay to talk about; what about practising it?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

But the thing is that they don't have to ask permission of the Social

Credit Party to run for municipal election, and they don't get kicked

out of the party if they run without begging for permission to run. Now

talk about that one. And you've got the audacity to talk about fairness.

what we have is the socialist mentality of saying that more and more

will be provided and it will come from the people who create the jobs,

and somehow or other there's no connection between.... If a company

locates in British Columbia, that creates jobs. If it locates somewhere

else, that creates the jobs somewhere else. I believe I read something

about your convention: that some of your people believe that there is

not a corporate dollar in this province that hasn't had blood attached

to it. Wow! The business community. And then the irony of it, I guess:

a resolution, I understand, to turn down any request for contributions

or participation by the business sector in supporting your party, and

then to put a businessman on your executive. My, what principles.

Principles of convenience, Madam Member, convenient to whatever you

like in partisan terms.

The opposition has continually and

I'd know this fairly well in my Education ministry said that they have

done all kinds of surveys in this province, and they have used this to

say that the people have overwhelmingly agreed that they would gladly

spend more money on education or on health, and then when some more

money is asked of them, to say: "Okay, we agree that education and

health need more money, but you're going to have to contribute; it

doesn't come out of a magic money tree somewhere." And then they turn

around, and when some of that is incorporated into the budget, and,

yes, more money will be spent, but some more money will need to be

taken from you in order to do that.... So they use these surveys as

their argument to say that the people want to spend more money on it;

as soon as the taxes go up at all, they attack the government for

increasing the taxes. Do you believe in those surveys, or don't you?

I'm quite willing to suggest that if people are saying we want more

money spent on education, I'm delighted. There are surveys that show

that, and I want to give people the opportunity to do that, because I

think education does need more money.

Their leader here

talks about freezing the development of any of the Expo lands until you

determine a fair value. On whose terms? What determines a value? A

group of socialists getting together in a room and saying: "This is

worth this much"? Mr. Speaker, in the real world what determines value

is what it will sell for. I had a house in Fort St. John during the

boom. It was worth over $100,000, because people were paying over

$100,000 for that type of House. Some years later when the oil

industry was flat and a few other things were flat during the

recession, nobody would pay me $40,000. What was the real value of

that house, $40,000 or $100,000? But it’s so easy to say the market

or the value is what we will get together in a room and decide. Well, I

decided the value was $200,000 for my house, because that suited my

purposes, except that $200,000 was a complete illusion, because nobody

would pay me $200,000 for my house. They wouldn't even pay me $40,000

for it. So what was the value?

[ Page 3762 ]

The

point I'm trying to make is that the value of that land is what the

highest bidder will pay for it, and that process has been followed.

We've heard a great deal in the last while about who said what and who

shouldn't have said what and who talked to whom and who didn't talk to

whom and whatever the case may be, but in actual fact the process went

on as the process should. So it's the actions that I think we have to

consider. The process has gone on. Qualified bidders were established,

they put in their tenders and those tenders are being evaluated to

decide which is the best offer you can get; and that, in a sense,

determines the value, not what it might have done if you had sat on it

for ten years. Because it might also have gone down, as I pointed out

in my analogy of my house in Fort St. John.

If I had sold,

I could turn around and say that if I sold the house for $50,000, 1

lost $50,000. But I could also point out that that was a value that

the marketplace dictated. Maybe it's my judgment. Maybe I should have

sold it at that time. The only thing — something the members can't

understand —

is that to get into an equivalent house, I would have had

to pay the same amount of money for it. In other words, did I lose

$50,000 or did I gain $50 000? 1 don't really know. But those members

that side know. They decide something has a value and therefore that's

what should happen.

I maintain that it's only a socialist

mentality that can try to determine artificially what the value of

something should be without going to the market for it.

suppose I'd be a little bit more receptive to the Leader of the

Opposition's statements to freeze this land deal if he wasn't the same

member who had said, "Stop building Expo; stop doing this," and if it

wasn't the same party that said: "Don't build the Bennett Dam; don't

build a reservoir." Because I can remember, even before I got into

politics in the early 1960s when the Bennett Dam was proposed, that the

opposition stood up in this House, I believe, from what I've read, and

said that if they were government, they would stop it. And the Peace

Canyon Dam: if they were government they would stop it. They said that

if they had any say, they would stop the Site C dam. And they have

constantly attacked this government for the road-building programs and

for the railways. They would have stopped the building of the railway

line to Fort Nelson if they had had the influence. What that railway

line generated was a lumber industry in Fort Nelson, a considerable

lumber industry, with hundreds of people employed and many amenities

that came to the town because of that. What the hydroelectric power in

this province generated was industry that came in here and created

revenue, so that many of the services that we enjoy now, which are

among the best in Canada.... That was where that came from, not

from a socialist philosophy.

When you think of it, Mr.

Speaker, nowhere — when they've gotten into the position to try and

make all these wonderful theories work — have they been able to make

them work. They didn't make them work in British Columbia; they haven't

made them work in Manitoba; they haven't made them work anywhere. But

they still go on and, persist in promising more services at less cost

to you. I wish their philosophy would work, because I would love to get

onto that bandwagon and say: "We will give you more money and more

services, and I promise, so help me, that it won't cost you another

cent in one way or another." It would be nice, wouldn't it?

could use other examples. They support the employees in the logging

industry very strongly, and it's a symbiotic relationship. They very

much support those in the logging industry, but at the same time they

support every group that protests against logging anywhere in this

province. Every group that protests against making logs available, they

join and support that group, but they also support the workers.

People

who build dams supported the socialists and they supported them — they

supported each other. He said those who build dams should be good

socialists. Yet it is a party that doesn't want to see another darn

built in British Columbia and didn't want to see all the dams built

that are there so far. They objected to the Revelstoke Dam, the Peace

Canyon Dam, the Bennett Dam, all of these things.

[3:15]

So you have a party there, and only the socialist mentality, I

believe, can somehow or other see no link between more services and

economic development, between roads and economic development, between

tourism and economic development, and between hydro and economic

development.

They set themselves up as the real

benefactors of the seniors in this province. They want more homes for

the seniors. They want more of that, but it shouldn't cost anybody any

more money. They try to delude the people that it doesn't cost to have

more and better homes.

More medical services should be

provided; but, please, it shouldn't cost anybody any more money. The

medical services in this province are a bargain to anyone — a very good

bargain, and very much supported.

One of the things those

members constantly will not touch is the fact that those who don't have

the money to pay their medicare fees have them paid for by the Social

Services ministry. The people who can't afford to pay them get their

fees paid. If we're only talking about those people who can afford to

pay, why shouldn't they?

MRS. BOONE : The working poor are stuck by this government every time.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Do you want a turn now or later?

still go back to your element of fairness. You have fairness, but you

sat in this House and applauded your party leader sending out in a

government-looking envelope.... It was another method to try and

frighten seniors in this province — stamping it on the outside with

what looked like a government stamp, "Medicare Notice, " almost

suggesting to seniors that if they didn't contribute to whoever asked

for some money in there, they would lose their medicare. That is not

true. That was a fraudulent, pretentious use of what seemed to be a

government document. Medicare notice! Asking for funds to support the

NDP in a brown, government-looking envelope stamped "Medicare Notice."

They all sat here and applauded when that was brought to their

attention. How can you applaud that?

Somehow or other,

we're supposed to spend more and more money. They object to government

deficits. They object to higher taxes. They object to lower spending. I

don't know. It's only a socialist mentality that can reconcile those

two and say: "We can spend more money, we can hold down taxes and we

can hold down deficits." You can't have it every way. Whether you do

that in your personal financing or you do it in government financing,

it just doesn't work.

When you look at the totals of the

revised estimates in this budget and the new allotments for '88-89, out

of a $713 million increase, over $511 million has gone to the social

[ Page 3763 ]

services

ministries: Health, Education, Advanced Education, Attorney-General and

Social Services. Over five-sevenths of this money has gone to the

social services. They stand there on that side of the House and attack

this government for not caring about people, when three-quarters of the

money from the budget now goes into that and the greatest proportion of

the increase has gone to the social services.

We have a

considerable increase in education this year. Was that ever

acknowledged by any of them over there? Absolutely no way. All they do

is pick away at things. They blithely go ahead and make interprovincial

comparisons, saying we're the worst in the country and that sort of

thing. In the first place, that's not true even if they use the figures

they're using. I have said repeatedly that if you use all that this

province spends on education, we stand comparison with any province

across this country. When we report only operating costs, statutory

pensions and a few things like that, we get a cost per pupil in this

province of $4,022 in 1987-88, which is considerably below several of

the other provinces -about halfway down the heap. But when I add up all

that we spend on education in this province, including the buildings,

the pensions, all of that, I come up with a figure of $4,593 per

pupil, almost $4,600, which puts us second in this country to Ontario

- well above most of this country.

Which figure do you want

to use? They very carefully use that one. They have very carefully

tried to orchestrate a belief in the mind of the public that the

education system in this province has had cutbacks. Baloney! How can an

increase every year have been a cutback? How can you say that is a

cutback? The teachers' salaries which they defend and say that we have

among the lowest teachers' salaries in this country.... What they

neglect to mention is that this government puts an additional 10.5

percent into the pension fund. So if you have a teacher that gets a

$40,000-a-year salary — and many of them do — you add another $4,500

or $5,000 to that, and you have a truer picture of what teachers are

getting.

Besides that, from 1977 to 1987 — a ten-year

period — the average salary in the industrial complex in this whole

province went up 77 percent. The teachers' salaries went up 100.61

percent in that same ten-year period, and we're told that we're beating

these people. My goodness! I know time is fleeing on, but I would like

to conclude with one point. We have put an extra $135 million into the

budget this year to accommodate what the school districts said they

were short, and they had to go to their taxpayers for $129 million over

and above what the fiscal framework provided.

So we said:

"We accept some of your arguments; we'll bring all this funding up to

date, and we'll put in $135 million." The new budgets have come in —

the proposed budgets from the school districts. Mr. Speaker, we put in

$135 million to bring them up to currency. They have absorbed that in

their new submissions and added another $129 million. Then they say

it's the government's fault that the local taxpayers are going to have

to pay a lot of money. How do you do this?

MR. REE : Are you going to vote in favour of the budget?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I think I'm going to vote in favour of the budget. You bet I am.

MR. BARNES :

Thank you for that very warm applause, fellow colleagues. I am not

going to support the budget. I would very much like to. I want to be

fair, as a good democrat would. This is number 15 for me, and I must

say that even with those three budgets between 1972 and 1975, none of

them are perfect. No budget is ever perfect. However, they should be a

guiding principle for all of us, no matter who is in power, especially

in a democracy where we believe in the concept of government by and for

the people. That should be our number one objective. I want to know

where this government is going, because that doesn't seem to be the

guiding principle behind this government's actions.

We just

listened to the Minister of Education make a fairly compelling case

about the high cost of education and the costs not normally included in

the equation in terms of the ratio per student, and that if all costs

were included, British Columbia would probably be number two across the

country in terms of expenditure per student — something like $4,300.

How

can you argue with money spent if the books are there to show? I am

sure the minister would be glad to bring those books forward so that we

could look at them.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES :

He'd love to. Do you hear that? I am sure you would do it with the same

amount of enthusiasm that your colleagues did when we asked for the

books on the Coquihalla. We got all the facts. Everybody knew where

every dollar was, and there was no skullduggery or monkey business. But

let's face it, we are in a political arena; the government wants to

look good. It's our duty in the opposition to try to challenge the

government on all points to ensure equity, fairness and responsibility

- all those principles that the nearly three million citizens in this

province expect us to adhere to. That's what we're trying to do.

if we stick strictly to dollars and cents, I am afraid we are going to

get lost. I am sure there are many objectives, but certainly one of the

objectives should be to provide the very best services, opportunities

and resources to the taxpayers as possible, because that's why we're

here as stewards of their resources. As you have said many times, Mr.

Minister — so has the Premier of the day and the Premier before

-governments have no money of their own, not one dime.

The

people have 100 percent of the money, and they should keep 100 percent

of it either through regulatory power, resources or whatever means. It

is their business; this is their place of business, and they're all

shareholders. That's where the problem is. They're not being recognized

as shareholders; they're getting short shrift. Too many of them are

being eliminated and overlooked. That's what concerns me. I wonder

where this government is going. I wonder if this government has got its

priorities confused.

This budget speech starts off with a

cynical note. Very early on, the Minister of Finance says: "Let's get

used to it. Times are good. The economy is boiling and it looks as if

we're going to have great prospects for the future, but get used to at

least 10 percent unemployment." What kind of objective is that? What

kind of enthusiasm and confidence is that to give to people out there,

especially young people and those in the public school system who are

attempting to get into the post-secondary levels?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : You won't let us develop things.

MR. BARNES :

The Minister of Education says we won't let him develop things. I wish

that we had a choice in how things were developed in this province,

because one of the

[ Page 3764 ]

difficulties,

especially for me, is having to stand up in this House and appeal to a

government that really operates on a completely different plane. It

doesn't start from the premises I just gave in my

preamble. It never

has, and it can't, because it has a different agenda; it has a

political agenda. We're not talking about that in the budget, but if

you read between the lines you will see that this government has a

political agenda that is deliberately designed to take away from the

people these powers that we're talking about, to ensure that they do

not have them - only a semblance of the right to vote, of the right of

access to power, to be able to participate in this system. We know it

through the decentralization sham that you've got where you set up

eight ministries of state and gave them $8 million. How much of it did

you spend? Only $300,000 after 10 months. Why didn't you spend this

money? You didn't need it.

All I'm trying to say is that

they can do what they wish when they want to if they have the will.

It's a matter of priorities. It has nothing to do with what is needed,

and that's why this budget is such a sham. I'll tell you, after so many

years of listening to this government come in with these budgets and

give us their rationale for why they can no longer afford adequate

services for people, it makes me sick. I can say that without

equivocation. It makes me very angry to think that we can squander

money on all kinds of projects, not just the Coquihalla but all kind of

schemes. We never hear any more talk about northeast coal. We used to

hear the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) talking

about how great it was going to be and what kinds of contracts we had

sewn up, and the Japanese were going to be just pouring money into the

B.C. economy. Why don't we hear any more about that? Why isn't the

government running around and yelling and screaming about all of the

benefits that it is getting from Expo? Because, in fact, most of the

money that we've been making in the last little while, especially from

lotteries, has been paying off that debt. It started off in debt, and

we're still in debt. The ALRT is another example. There are all kinds

of projects.

[3:30]

The government

comes forward with printed rationales on how things are doing well and

how things are getting better. Although I get dismayed from time to

time, I can tell you that the one thing that has stuck in my mind

throughout all of this is the real objective of this government. I'm

not going to be sidetracked by what you've got printed in your budget,

because that's just a numbers game and we all know how that is. That's

sort of like that BS fund you've got; you know, the budget

stabilization fund, $450 million. Except there's no money in it until

the government gets ready, and then it will spend the money that it

doesn't have yet, but in the meantime it is starving social service

programs and privatizing valuable resources; if they can't sell them

they give them away. Assets are going out in fire sales.

In 1982 you had something like 50,000 people working in the public service.

Today we have barely 30,000. The government says we've got to economize;

we've got to become more efficient and cut costs. Any intelligent analysis

of the situation, I'm sure.... The second member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Ms. Marzari), as Chairman of our Public Accounts Committee, would point

out that when you look at the costs associated with privatization — not only

the buy-outs of contracts for early retirement, etc., but the contracting of

consultants and the other kinds of contracts necessary in order to get the services

done for the public — it's just a dodge. It's a sham. It doesn't

stand up to credibility. So what is the real objective? What's the real

agenda of this government?

maintain that it's politically motivated; I maintain that it's

ideologically motivated. And you don't have to be an expert, Mr.

Speaker, to realize the reality of what I'm saying — to realize that

this government's overall initiative has been one of seizing power, and

taking power and doing what it pleases. I think the Premier has made

that very clear; once he got power, he has chosen his executive

council, and he would like to have instilled in them the kind of guts

and moxie for them to follow his dictates. Unfortunately, he didn't do

a very good job of indoctrinating them in advance, and he found them

all over the place.

Nonetheless, the government of the day

is out of place. It is not respecting the rights of the people of this

province. Unfortunately, in our system we have no rules with respect to

impeachment. We have no way in which we can demand the resignation of

the government. Although we can ask for it, we can't force it. I'm sure

that if we could, this Premier would do the Social Credit Party a great

service, because he would be gone; the people would recall him, because

this government is obviously in real trouble.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Wishful thinking.

MR. BARNES :

It's not wishful thinking at all. In fact, if you want to know my true

wishes, Madam Minister of Municipal Affairs, I want him to stay. As far

as I'm concerned, he's one of the best things that's ever happened as

far as the political battlegrounds are concerned, because he has gone

way over his head. He has reached far beyond his mandate. He has taken

this on as a personal opportunity for him to do his own thing, even to

the detriment of his colleagues. I think he's going to be challenged

for it, not only inside but outside. I want him to stay. I think he

would make a great foil for our opposition leader in the next election.

I think the things he's talking about that he thinks he can do as

Premier in this province.... Either democracy's going to prevail;

either there's going to be such a thing as the right of choice...

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Like it does in your organization, eh?

MR. BARNES : ...like it does in my organization, that's correct, and like it

should do everywhere you have rules and guidelines. That's what this

country is made of: rules and guidelines to help us all. That's what

this office is about -that's what the Premier is supposed to have taken

an oath to do. What opportunity does any of us have for serious input?

What opportunity does even the cabinet have for serious input? Because

you have to find out after the fact what's going on in this province.

want to suggest as well that there's a lot of credibility to the

charges that we are seeing the erosion of the universality of health

care in this province. We are seeing the beginnings of a two-tiered

system for those who can afford it, where profitability is the motive.

feel that ultimately we'll see the public school system at risk,

despite what that minister says, in terms of access to fair education.

Already we have examples of those who are more affluent but still wish

to have their children in the public school system choosing the schools

that they think would be the most accommodating for their needs. In

other words,

[ Page 3765 ]

they're

finding the areas and the communities that are more conducive for their

children's environment. They're not leaving their children in the

communities that they happen to live in; they're finding, they're

picking, they're choosing. That's the beginning, because those families

and those communities are the ones who make the contributions to the

communities. Perhaps they're the ones who are a little more articulate,

have a little better capacity for comprehending the future and

understanding the trends — they're not the poor people, the ones who

are without economic means — and therefore there is a shifting of

values, of economic muscle in certain districts. It's happening despite

your efforts, Mr. Minister of Education. You may not be setting it up,

but that's the choice that they have, the same as they have the choice

to go to independent schools.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : And they shouldn't have choice?

MR. BARNES : They can have the choice. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the minister....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : No choice allowed under socialism.

MR. BARNES :

No, you just seize on that. While you're talking about choice, let's

ensure that there is a bottom line in this, regardless of your specious

attempts to distract. The point I'm making is that the children, the

youth, the families — they count. The communities count. That's your

job. That's what the public school system's all about: to ensure that

those young people have an opportunity; that you don't deprive them.

You

know yourself that many of them have very few discretionary funds, and

you know that many of the people on social assistance in some of those

areas — who are dependent on fixed incomes by one means or the other —

can't participate. That's a disparity in this system, and you're

saying: "Oh, well, it's laissez-faire. If they want it, they can get

out and hustle." This is the point we're trying to make: there is such

a thing as a poverty syndrome, which you should begin to understand.

There are conditions in which people become poverty-stricken. It

doesn't always have to be economic; even though it often starts that

way, in time it becomes psychological. It begins to affect people in

serious ways. You are not addressing that situation, Mr. Minister of

Education, nor is your government, and it's clear that your political

agenda is entirely different than what it should be.

The

same goes for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), who I'm sure

will be speaking in a few minutes. I'd like him to point out to us how

we are not heading towards a two-tier system or, even worse, that we're

not going to see the erosion of universality of health care in this

province, because that is the ultimate objective of that side of the

government. The ultimate objective is everything for profit: education

for profit; health care for profit; no social housing. Nothing that the

government is going to be involved in.... All the government wants

to do is to have the right to tax, to run a few programs that may

benefit it. God only knows what your real agenda is, but it sure isn't

to help the people of British Columbia, not when you tell them that

they have to get used to 10 percent unemployment; that we can't afford

to feed hungry children in the schools, when there are 600 or so in the

city of Vancouver. They have all kinds of ad hoc feeding programs in

the city in the elementary schools.

What is your government

doing about it? It's saying, because of ideological reasons.... You

would argue with that and say it's not ideological. Your reasons are

that these families should be looking after themselves: "If we know

where the families are, we'll go out and help them." But that's just

another scam job; that's just another diversion. You don't intend to

look after those families. In fact, to say that "families are the

strength of our future" is one of the most dishonest, hypocritical,

sinful, shameful statements you could ever imagine coming from a

government that just a few years ago wiped out all those programs. You

wiped out family support programs; you fired about 600 social workers

over a short period of time, calling it restraint; the crisis program

for youth; postpartum counselling for mothers. You wiped them all out,

and the consequences were disastrous, and now you come back and say:

"We're going to look after the family." Big deal!

I wonder

what your scam is there, because the kind of thing you're talking about

looking after is really a political game. Ultimately you do not want to

see the people in this province have the ability to make decisions for

themselves and to ensure that their resources are used equitably and

for themselves.

This was part of the thing that the

opposition leader was pointing out today. No one on this side of the

House is opposed to the development of the Expo site, as long as it's

done fairly and people get a fair return. But what guarantees are there

that we're going to get any fair...? What about the social housing

commitments that were made a few years ago by the council? Are we ever

going to see those? What input has the public had? We've been running

around trying to read the paper to find out what's going on; the

members of the Legislature have no idea what's going on. In fact, the

members of cabinet don't even know what's going on. It's not right.

You

say you're talking about fairness, decentralization. What a sham!

Decentralization for what? You mean to tell me I get myself elected and

sent here and I've got to go talk to a couple of MLAs from other

ridings to find out what's going on? Get serious.

As I say,

we can spend some time on this budget talking about the details, but I

can assure you that the real agenda behind Social Credit has never been

to provide good services for people. You have your own agenda. If you

had your way, you would privatize government itself. You've done your

best to do everything to undermine it. How many standing committees sit

in this Legislature? Name them, besides Public Accounts. Which ones?

Every session they are listed. Everyone's listed, but we never sit, we

never travel, we never get an opportunity to get input, and it's a big

joke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. BARNES :

All of you guys know it's a big joke. It's about time you guys on that

side of the House started talking to people like things really mattered

around here, like you're trying to do something for people.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : It's strange that we have the best services for people anywhere in North America.

MR. BARNES :

Sure. Have you ever taken a look at some of the ones on the streets,

how they're selling their bodies? Have you ever gone down to the crisis

prevention centre for youth and seen how many of them are threatening

to commit

[ Page 3766 ]

suicide?

Do you know that we don't have sufficient psychiatric services for

youth in this province? You should find out some of the facts and

what's going on. There's havoc out there on the streets. Have you ever

looked to see how many native youth drop out of school, don't have any

place to go, feel alienated in society? You get on the ball and start

doing something if you really care about people.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that this budget certainly says all the right

words. It says a lot of things that one would like to believe,

particularly that the government's aim is to try to improve social

services, and that it is going to be good for all of us in the future.

But there are many people who don't benefit.

Let me just

close by showing you one small aspect of the hypocrisy of this

government. We all know that this "save the family" routine is only an

attempt to try to win the abortion argument and appease a few friends,

that you have no serious desire to help the family any more than you

have in the past.

Why is it that a youngster in a foster

home can receive so much more support from the provincial government

than he could in his own home? Why is it that the government talks

about the family, when families are living in poverty, living 50

percent below the level of poverty? Why is it that the government

refuses to even consider raising those rates? If it doesn't want to

raise those rates, why doesn't it accept the fact that people are

living in poverty and having to commit some kind of offence under the

regulations in order to get the funds they require? We know that: it's

by design.

[3:45]

There's probably

not a member over there who would deny that people on social assistance

live below the poverty line, that they do not have enough money. You

know that. Why don't you do something about it? Why don't you say: "Okay,

we'll raise the amount of allowable earnings $400 or $500 to bring it up

to the poverty line, even though we can't give you the dollars. " Why

don't you do something like that? Be realistic.

Why don't you allow them some flexibility under their shelter allowance,

instead of pegging it to the amount of rent and saying: "Regardless of

the rent, if you have a place you can rent for $100 and we're giving you

$200 for shelter, then t you can keep the $100. That shows good enterprising

skills. Good for you. You can shop around." Instead, they find a place

for $150 and you say, "Well, you owe us $50, " and the people are

already living in poverty. Highly illogical.

My second final wind-up is to say that the cabinet may not have moxie and guts

according to the standards of the Premier, but what about the Premier himself?

What kind of moxie has he got? Has he got the moxie to back up his challenge?

Families are the strength of our future. Will he back that up by doing something

about the hungry children in d the schools? Will he ensure that there are no

hungry children in the schools?

MR. BARNES : You can talk politics all you want. The t fact is, those children are hungry, and they should be fed

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Member, I can assure you that the r children don't know that

politics are being played; all they t know is that they're hungry. Are

you going to feed them?

HON. MR. DUECK : It is my

pleasure this afternoon to speak in support of the budget. I would like

to say at the outset that in my opinion it is a fair budget, a

responsible budget, a forward-thinking budget, and a budget that has

real compassion for those in need.

I have said that this is

an honest budget. The budget does not promise a pie in the sky. It is a

real budget; it's up front. The budget does not hide the fact that

services cost money.

With respect to the Ministry of

Health, this budget is designed to make sure that the health programs

that the Social Credit has built over the past 35 years will be well

funded for the next 35 years. This is an honest budget which looks to

the future.

We are told again and again that there is a cut

in the health budget. Our budget for the coming year is over $3.9

billion. This is an increase of $375 million — not $1 million, not $2

million, not $20 million, not $100 million, but $375 million. And again

and again, I hear from the opposition that there is a cut in the health

budget. I don't understand the kind of accounting they use on that

side. I'm not an accountant, but I see one sitting across from me who I

understand is an accountant and a good one, but apparently they don't

understand the elements of accounting.

There is a debit and

credit part of the ledger; there is an expense side and a revenue side.

But somehow or other, the socialists think there is only an expense

side of the ledger — you spend money whenever you please, how much you

please, and the money somehow will come your way.

They

truly believe there is a money tree. Everyone surely has a money tree

in the back yard. You go there with a long sweeper and go around a few

times until you have a load, and then you know what to do with it.

There is a money tree. They truly believe that. You don't have to earn

money; you just gather it. I wish I was so lucky. I ask myself: why are

they so negative? I could really say that NDP stands for "no down

payment. " If you add negativism to it, it could well mean the

negative, no-down-payment, socialist party of British Columbia.

know that under our system we have to have opposition. That is clear

and that's how our system is built. I agree with hat, but surely from

time to time we could have some positive, constructive criticism. There

have been members from the opposite side who have from time to time

come to me and asked about a concern regarding health in their own

constituency. This was good. We were able to correct.... Even if we

didn't agree, we had good discussions. I think this should continue.

But by and large, I see again and again that it is negativism —

constantly negative.

Whatever we do on this side — spend an extra $375 million on health care —

it's negative. They talk about a cut. I do not understand it, until I really

start thinking about it. Why are they so negative? I've come to the conclusion

that they do his for political gain. They feel that by being negative, somehow

people will listen. They scare the seniors, frighten sick people and children,

just to gain a few political points. I think it's despicable and I do not

believe it will work.

They

even oppose such programs as strengthening the family. How could anyone

oppose a program of that kind? I would like to just highlight a few

things in this program. We ay our future needs responsible decisions.

They criticize. In their words, we don't need responsible decisions.

We're viewing all policies which may present unintended barriers o

forming or maintaining strong families in British Columbia

They're opposed to that. I don't understand why, but

[ Page 3767 ]

they

say that's no good. In this program we have also developed a resource

guide in which every resource in British Columbia, the address and the

place, is listed. They're opposed to that. Now why would anyone, no

matter what political party he belonged to, be opposed to something

like that?

They're opposed, for example, to counselling

for those who wish to prevent pregnancies. We have some pamphlets in

our program that show various methods of birth control. I heard before

that they were in favour, but for some reason or other, suddenly they

are opposed to it. They are opposed to the video which gives some

people some indication of where help is available and where they can go

for some counselling. They're opposed to that too — a woman has got

herself in an unwanted pregnancy and, of her own free will, would

perhaps like some assistance. Surely you cannot be opposed to someone

who is seeking help. Why would they be opposed to that?

Social

Services and Housing — infant day care. Again and again we hear that

we're not doing enough for day care. They're opposed to that. They say

that support of residential accommodation for women who have got

themselves in a situation not of their liking is archaic. We're saying

that if somebody needs that assistance, we're going to make it

available. But they're also opposed to that.

They're

opposed to family support services and associated family programs,

whereby we will perhaps find help for people who have children who are

difficult to handle. They're opposed to adoption and more information

on adoption of needy children, where families and couples would like to

give some children a good home. They're opposed to family maintenance

enforcement. I don't understand why, but they're opposed to it. They're

opposed to marriage preparation.

The total program, which

we consider a positive program, they're opposed to from start to

finish. And I would sure like to know on what grounds. Mr. Speaker, to

be a good socialist, you must be negative and you must criticize.

W.A.C. Bennett was a man who always took a second look. Whenever he

came out with a program, he would take another look, and with a second

look would perhaps change his mind. And it so happened that he did

change his mind. He said they weren't fit to run a peanut stand. "But,

" he said, "that was unfair. They were, but they couldn't do it with a

profit. "

We have the best health care system in the

country. Canada has the best health care system in the world. Our

health care system did not happen by accident. It took the courage, the

vision and the determination of many Premiers and Health ministers over

a 35-year period. It was the Social Credit Party that introduced

hospital insurance in British Columbia; it was a Social Credit

government that introduced the first — and still only — long-term-care

program in Canada. Bill Bennett's proudest achievement was the

introduction of a long-term-care program in B.C. in 1978 — a Social

Credit Premier and a Social Credit government. To this day, no one else

in Canada has a comprehensive, integrated long-term-care program.

The

budget also refers to pilot projects here in the capital region. Again,

they make light of that and criticize it. I think it is well worth

looking at this for just a moment. We're developing a seniors care

centre where seniors can be looked after in a more integrated facility.

We're also improving health care for seniors, and we're trying to

provide a fuller range of medical services to them in one centre — a

convenience and quality care, if you will, at one stop for health

services.

We're also providing community health care in a

more coordinated and integrated function for everyone. This is now in

the beginning stages of being developed. I think it's a great venture

that my ministry is on, and 1 believe it will be proven to be a

successful program because we believe it is easier and ultimately

better to maintain health than to retain health.

Our health

care system provides for 30 million medical claims a year, just to show

you the size of the ministry. We attend to a quarter of a million

emergencies each year. We have over three million in-patient admissions

and over two million out-patient visits to our hospitals each year. It

is a massive program.

We talk about emergency services. We

were highly criticized in the last couple of days about the ambulance

service in British Columbia, which has to be without question the best

anywhere in Canada. Each time it is criticized I follow it up, and I

find it was erroneous. It was criticized again to put fear into the

people of this province who have had an unfortunate situation — the

seniors and the sick people — just to create some unrest and perhaps

gain a few Brownie points. But it will not work; people aren't that

stupid. They're a lot smarter than what you give them credit for.

provide assistance to mental health patients with a network of 2,000

beds throughout the province. This does not include the Riverview

Hospital. We provide out-patient services to 18,000 per year. In our

services to the handicapped, we assist 17 child development centres.

Our excellent long-term-care programs assist over 40,000 people with

home nursing care and facility care. We have 17,000 longterm-care

beds. We have 7,500 extended-care beds. We are in the process, over

the next two years, of adding 1,200 new beds. We have allocated $140

million this year for capital construction. Next year it will be over

$150 million, and they say we have cutbacks. What kind of accounting is

that?

[4:00]

We're not talking

about $10 million. We're not talking about $20 million. We're talking

about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and again and again

I hear them talk of cutbacks in Health. Surely if anyone could

criticize someone for lying to this House, that would be one time. I'm

not saying they are, but they certainly could be criticized, because

it's not true. It is absolutely not true. When you take a real good

look at the problems that arise daily — mainly from the media and from

other individuals — most of the time they are not substantiated.

Generally we can clear at least 90 percent of these up within a very

short period of time.

This

budget provides for an even

better and expanded health service delivery system. We are concerned

for health and health service in this country today, but we're also

concerned about the health of people in the future. We cannot just look

at today. That would be very short-sighted. When you look at the future

you sometimes have to do things that aren't as popular. It is always

easier to do the things that are popular, but I think it takes guts....

It takes a government that says: "We must look at the future. We

must provide for the people that come after us, for our children and

their children." That's what we're trying to do. We don't want to

leave a bankrupt province as a legacy to our children. This budget

ensures that that will never happen. Again, we are concerned about the

future; we are concerned about what will

[ Page 3768 ]

happen to health care in years to come. Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the opposition: there is no money tree.

What

makes me pleased is that the budget provided to me this year will allow

me to continue the excellent health care programs this province has

become accustomed to. I don't know what polls the NDP were referring to

when the member from Prince George said British Columbians are

dissatisfied with their medical program and with the health care they

are getting. All I can say is that the polls they are looking at must

be something other than the ones that I see — perhaps even some of the

propaganda they are peddling themselves and finally beginning to

believe; in fact, that is what the people are saying on the outside.

had the opportunity twice last year to go and visit the other Health

ministers of Canada, and in every case - and I say this with some

delight and some pride - they asked me about our long-term care, about

our extended care, about the programs that we have for the mentally

ill, about the programs we have for sick people in our province. They

were very concerned about how we did it with the moneys that we are

spending. Not only that, but two provinces sent delegations down here

to see our senior people so that they could copy what we were doing.

don't want to say that we're doing everything right; of course we

aren't. We've got much improvement to look forward to. But I'm telling

you, when you talk to these people.... And they're not all Social

Credit members; as a matter of fact, we are the only Social Credit

Party in the country. They are from all walks of life, including your

party. They were most keen to see how we did certain things in our

programs that they want to model. So that speaks for our programs. I

would like to say that we are proud of that, and it will only make us

even more anxious to do more things in health care that are affordable

and that we can do under the current situation and with the moneys

available.

But the scare tactics, the fear-mongering.... Again, to be a good socialist it helps to be negative. As a matter of

fact, I think that is part of the mandate you must sign before you join

their party.

It must be great to be in opposition, where

you can criticize the budget, complain, talk about all the things you

should change, but never have to perform, because you never get

elected. So you can say anything you want — and talk is cheap. You can

say, "Oh, that's wrong," criticize everything, because, after all, you

don't have to perform. You don't have to show that it can be done. You

can just sit there and criticize, and that's exactly what you're doing.

But

people aren't that dumb; they know the service they're getting. I think

I get around in the province more than anyone in this House, and when I

talk to the seniors, to the nurses, to the doctors, to the people in

hospitals; when I go to children's hospitals.... Even with all the

problems.... When you have a budget or an organization as big as

Health, there will be problems. But I'll tell you, by and large they

are very happy and they love what we're doing in the area of health

care.

The opposition have been doing nothing constructive

to build a better health care system. They have continually created

fear and uncertainty among the people of B.C., especially the seniors.

Instead of looking for solutions, the opposition have tried to scare

British Columbians into voting NDP. That is an absolute shame. They

could help by at least bringing some suggestions forward that may help

us in delivering a better health care system — and I must say, there

have been some among them that have done just that. But sometimes I

really feel they look with glee when something happens, even to the

detriment of an individual; even when someone dies. Perhaps they can

put just some responsibility, or say something went wrong.... I hope

it's not correct, but it appears to me that they look with glee because

perhaps now they've got something again to criticize.

think that is despicable; I think that is absolutely horrible. They

should try to solve that problem if it is in their area, and we would

try to help them. When the opposition tries to discredit our health

care program, I sometimes wonder whether they're talking about the

75,000 involved in delivering health care in this province. Are they

saying those people are not doing a proper job? Because those are the

people who are delivering the health care system. Are they saying in

fact that those people are doing a lousy job, and criticizing? I think

we should build up the people who deliver the health care system and

say: "You are doing one fantastic job under the circumstances." We

should support them. But are they really talking about the people who

work there, or is it just something to create some negative feedback

again: "Maybe we can make a couple of Brownie points; maybe we can get

another vote by scaring people enough"? They go about discrediting the

service, scaring the public with NDP fundraising letters in a cowardly

way. The NDP's actions are shameful, all in the hopes of getting a few

Brownie points. But again, it will not work. You can't get points that

way. I think you have to do it the other way: you've got to be more

positive.

The budget recognizes the future needs of our

seniors. This budget takes a realistic approach to making sure our core

programs have a good financial foundation that future generations can

count on. I can't understand what the opposition sees wrong with that,

unless they, perhaps like their cousins behind the Iron Curtain, want

to keep their citizens ignorant of reality. I notice the member is

laughing. I would laugh too; I'd laugh in shame.

Funding

for serving our seniors is a very important issue, not to be

trivialized with political rhetoric. We have been examining for a long

time the manner in which we can support the needs of our seniors. We do

this continually, to give them a better life in their senior years.

After all, they have worked hard to get to that particular stage in

life. We know that in the next so many years there will be many more,

and we will join their ranks. We feel that by the year 2001 the number

of seniors over 75 will increase by about 70 percent. You probably ask

why we are doing things. We are looking to the future. There have to be

dollars there for those people who will come on line. I want to

reassure the seniors of this province that the actions we have taken in

this budget are designed to ensure that adequate funding is available

to meet their needs.

This government is concerned not only

with maintaining an excellent health care system, which we have today,

but also with ensuring that our children will be able to benefit from

an affordable, comprehensive, progressive health care system. This

budget ensures that this basic principle will be maintained.

Minister of Health, I am concerned about the lack of vision and

understanding that the members of the opposition have shown with

respect to the initiatives that this budget will allow us to pursue, in

order that we might retain our position as leaders in the health care

field. During the difficult years of economic downturn in the early

eighties, it was the Social

[ Page 3769 ]

Credit

government that had the vision and the courage to lead the way in

Canada in controlling costs that were out of control and when runaway

costs were in such dire straits that some measure had to be taken. We

had that courage. We did that, and we came through those bad times. The

reality, however, is that today we have a more efficient,

better-managed and more accountable system which is delivering more

services to a larger population. The reality also is that there will

never be enough money in health care to meet all demands, or the wishes

of everyone.

Our responsibility is to ensure that we

maintain an affordable and comprehensive health care system. The

resource allocation decisions are difficult and not always easily

palatable. However, we assume that responsibility readily and strongly

believe that this budget recognizes our responsibility, as well as the

general aspirations of our public. By working together with our health

care professionals I believe that we will be successful not only in

maintaining but also in advancing our health care system, which is

looked upon enviously by so many people in the world.

Mr.

Speaker, I am more than just pleased with the level of funding my

colleague the Minister of Finance has allocated to me. I am also

pleased that other initiatives will benefit the citizens of my

community. I commit myself to protecting the health care system of this

province, to providing the best affordable service equally to all

British Columbians, to assisting those who are poor, to asking those

who can pay to pay a nominal amount, to preserving what we have

developed in health care for our children and our children's children.

This is my duty, I believe; anything less would be irresponsible.

No,

my friends, there is no money tree. As a matter of fact, if you looked

carefully, that tree in your backyard would probably turn out to be a

little pussywillow. It is the real world out there. The piper must be

paid, and who is the piper? It's the taxpayers of this province, and I

think the money that we have allocated for health care — $1,300 for

every man, woman and child in this province — certainly cannot be

criticized as a cutback.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I have found

the last few speakers from the government side very interesting. I

think the old adage that you know how well you're doing by the kind of

opposition you have is probably a good one. I think that what we can

deduct from the last two speakers is that we had a heck of a good

convention, because we sure seemed to push a few buttons on the

government side.

[4:15]

Coming

back to this House and hearing the rhetoric from the government side

and hearing them defend the government's actions and the budget really

shows that the opposition, in its convention and in its speeches in

this House around the budget, are really hitting a few buttons over

there — a few really sensitive spots. What this budget does is shift

the responsibility for the payment of government services more and more

onto the average British Columbian. It increases the cost of being a

British Columbian and decreases the services that British Columbians

can rely on getting.

What this government has done with

this budget and with previous budgets and legislation — and the

Minister of Health protests so loudly — is to increase the taxes that

British Columbians pay and increase a list of services for which the

people of this province have to pay user fees. That is what is

happening under the guidance of this Health minister. The minister

seems completely unable to understand that the more you increase the

burden of taxation on the people of the province, the less they are

able to support their families, the less they are able to educate their

children and the less they are able to do the job that they are trying

to do. The minister increases the list of health services that health

care no longer pays for in this province.

The minister

talks about strengthening the family program. I think that it's a

really good opportunity — and I welcome the chance — to take a look at

what that program really does and the hypocrisy of this government to

suggest that this program will strengthen the family: the glitzy ads

being played again and again on TV, the romantic vision of the

Premier's and — I would imagine, by the Health minister's own words —

the Health minister's view of what families experience in this

province. If this government truly supported families and truly

supported the majority of people in this province, they would not be

insulting the intelligence of the people of this province by bringing

in these glitzy ads paid by taxpayers' dollars. Instead they would be

supporting the good work being done in communities all around this

province: the professionals, the community service organizations and

the family service organizations that have been starved under this

government; the planned parenthood organizations that are targeting the

same programs this government purports to be supporting. If this

government truly cared, this government would not be spending all of

this money on a propaganda program. This strengthening-the family

program that they're talking about is a very thin veil, a very thin

guise to again promote the views of the Premier and the Health minister

on women’s role in society.

The reality in this province is

that women have got to feed and house those children. If this

government was in support of families and children, they would be doing

the things necessary to allow families to get on with the job. Instead

of talking about getting used to 10 percent unemployment, instead of

decreasing the support for community colleges, this government would be

supporting families and supporting women in their plight to feed those

children.

This government is not doing that. This

government is very clearly increasing the burden on families. This

government is increasing the barriers to women. The second budget that

this government has brought down has increased the financial burden on

families and decreased the services to families. The government has

instead chosen — and shame on you — to bring in a glitzy, romantic,

propaganda program.

We want you to open your eyes. We want

you to see the reality of families in this province. We want you to

support those families. We want you to support community colleges. That

is the opportunity.

To have the Minister of Advanced

Education (Hon. S. Hagen) applauding comments and calls for support for

community colleges again just shows the hypocrisy. Because it is you,

sir; it is your ministry that has cut back the opportunity and has

increased the barriers not only for women but for young people in our

communities. The lineups of young people at those community colleges

that have been turned away, that have had their future denied them....

Those are the decisions that women have to make in this

province when they decide whether to bring a pregnancy to full term:

whether they can feed their kids, or whether they have to save their

money to be able just to keep the roof over their head, to pay the

taxes that this government demands of

[ Page 3770 ]

them.

When this government increases the tax burden and the financial costs

for seniors, what they are doing is increasing again the burden that

families must bear. Our constituency office, since this budget has come

down, has had increasing calls from families saying: "I have my mother

or father in an extended care home, and we can no longer afford it

because of the increased burden that this government is putting on our

families. Our mother and our father are going to have to come back

home. We're going to have to take care of them, and we don't have the

resources to do that. What that will mean to us is that we can't pay

for the increased costs of supporting our children and their future."

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

This

government is stealing from families. This government doesn't care

about families. This government is living in a dream world, in a

fantasy land. The people that are paying are the people of this

province. We pay through taxes, and we pay doubly because of the

increased burdens — the shift of burdens, the shift of costs. Rather

than living up to your responsibility to deal with the needs of the

people of this province, you are shifting the burden onto individual

families, onto individual women and onto seniors who have worked and

built this province into what it is.

For the Minister of

Health to stand there and to tell us that he is looking after the

future needs of seniors.... The seniors of this province thought

that that's what they had worked all their lives to do. They paid

taxes, they built this province, and they did so in good faith. They

did so because they were looking after the future. It was their energy,

their money, their commitment that built this province, and now you are

abandoning them. By shifting the tax burden onto the average family,

onto seniors' backs, you are increasing the number of people that can

be classified as working poor — as people living below the poverty

line. That will cost everyone in B.C. That is the future you bring to

the people of B.C., to the youth of B.C., to the seniors of B.C. It is

hypocrisy for you to say, when you deliver budgets like this, that you

care about the family. The only thing that this government cares about

is furthering its narrow, unrealistic view of the way a society should

operate. Your vision is a vision that does not reflect the needs of the

people; it is a narrow, cruel, punitive vision.

The

previous speakers have talked about the NDP and the socialists, about

the opposition. Well, let me tell you that when I come back here and

listen to the kind of rhetoric that came out of the last two speakers,

I am very proud to be in opposition. I am very proud to dissociate

myself from this government. I am very proud to stand with the New

Democrats and with my leader, Mike Harcourt.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The Minister of Environment says we should get used to being in

opposition. The Minister of Health says it's easy to be in opposition

and you should try being government. Well, we've asked the Minister of

Health to resign, because he in the past has not been able to fulfil

his mandate. Clearly, the people of this province do not have

confidence in the Minister of Environment, because of the work that he

has done. I believe very strongly that the people of this province,

because of the last year and the record of this government, do not have

confidence in this government.

Maybe it is time that this

government, before it sells out all that the seniors have built in this

province.... Maybe it is time that you felt what it is like to be

in opposition and you felt what it is like to try to do the people's

business and to carry the responsibility for half of the population of

British Columbia with the kinds of resources that we have. It's about

time that the kinds of things the New Democrats have been talking about

have an opportunity to be fulfilled — our vision, our image.

That's

what we've been talking about this weekend. We've been putting together

policy, and I'm sure that the Social Credit members do not understand

how a party democratically develops policy and builds for the future,

taking the ideas of the people of this province and putting them into

well-thought-out policy that spells out what we will do when we form

government in a very few days. The way this government is going, it may

be sooner than you think.

[4:30]

I'm sure that the members of this government don't understand how a

political party builds its strength and its consensus from its members,

how elected people work with the membership, how we develop policies

together, and how we meet that kind of consensus and support around the

good ideas that spell out how we will govern a province.

This

government talks about fiscal responsibility. This is the government

that likes to position itself as the government that can manage. Well,

your record is abysmal. This is the government that would not disclose,

would not open the books, would not let the people see how they spent

their tax dollars on Coquihalla. This is the government that continues

to shift the responsibility of running this province from those who can

pay onto the rest of us, with increasing burdens and decreasing

service. It's a government of smoke and mirrors; it's a government that

again is cruel.

So I take my place proudly in opposition to

this budget. I take my place with a great deal of support from the

people of this province, because the people of this province have had

enough of this government's hands in their pockets.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I am delighted to take my place in this budget debate. We thought we'd

have the pleasure of the hon. Premier speaking to us this afternoon in

this slot, but he was busy, obviously, with the first minister from

Quebec. Therefore I am pleased to rise in the Premier's position.

MR. CASHORE : You've got to wear a smoking jacket.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I quit smoking about three months ago. My smoking jacket got burned.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Come on, you guys! I want to get on with this, what it is I want to get on with.

However,

I am pleased, as all members on this side of the House have been, to

speak to the budget at hand, the second budget presented by this new

administration, and to speak in glowing terms of how it's going to

serve us well in the next year.

Briefly, if I could comment

to the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) about

governments and elections and being in opposition or government, we're

here because the majority of the people thought that we should be here,

and you're over there for the same reason. And until that electorate

wants to do something about that, I am afraid we will have to take our

respective positions in this

[ Page 3771 ]

place.

That's just the way it goes. You may have a different opinion about

where we should respectively be sitting in this Legislative Assembly,

but the people of British Columbia have contrary opinions to you.

Also

I do take offence to what the member had to say about our government's

position on services to those in need, particularly families and

children.

The member will remember, of course, just before

adjourning the first session of the thirty-fourth parliament, that we

brought in outstanding and landmark legislation with respect to

maintenance for families, for those who have had problems in family

divorce, young ladies primarily, and families seeking maintenance. I

think we're all obligated in this province to the outstanding and

remarkable work done by my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. MR.

Smith) in bringing legislation like this to the people of British

Columbia, and as well to our colleague the hon. Minister of Social

Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

Those two

gentlemen, hon. members will know, brought in legislation that goes a

long way to bringing maintenance orders and the care of maintenance

orders into the twentieth century and making errant husbands realize

the responsibility that they have.

Further to the member's

comments with respect to our services for families and children, the

member is advised to attend the Legislative Assembly tomorrow when we

go into debate of the Minister of Social Services and Housing. If she

follows those debates, she will note that the services for families and

children budget in the estimates, on page 169, are increased

considerably from $105 million to $114 million — a remarkable increase

of $9 million. For you or anyone else to say that we are neglecting

families and children in the province of British Columbia is totally

unacceptable. Any fast look at the budget will show that.

Thirdly,

with respect to what you had to say in terms of developing policy, it's

interesting that you spent twenty minutes discussing policy and yet did

not present any. That is typical of opposition debate, when they say

that our policy should change but, in fact, never have the desire, the

wit or maybe the care to present their own policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes, the moxie. I have moxie. Further, after looking at a recap of your

recent convention, if you're going to develop a policy without

involving businessmen and other representatives in your party, it's

going to be very difficult, because until you adopt a comprehensive

approach to involving all people to contribute to and support your

party, you're going to be seen as being one-sided, owing to a few and

not including everyone in your policy-making, and that will be very

difficult policy to develop and to sell to the province of British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER : Not Emery, though.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, not Emery.

the few moments I have, I'd like to speak briefly to the estimates of

the Ministry of Environment and Parks and how they shape up in the

budget speech. I'd like to discuss a few comments that have been made

with respect to this ministry. My critic the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley mentioned in the throne speech debate....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes, we'll do those in a while. I'm discussing my role in the budget and what the budget does for me.

The

critic mentioned in the throne speech debate that British Columbia had

not acted as quickly as it could with respect to the Brundtland

commission, the first ministers' round-table report and its impact on

Canada — in particular its impact on British Columbia. I want to react

to that and say that we're probably further ahead than any other

province in Canada with respect to those recommendations.

When

meeting with the first ministers last October or November — I

forget

the date, but it was shortly after the last CCREM meeting in

September — the Premier agreed that British Columbia would

certainly have that

type of task force provincially to fit into the federal scheme of

things.

I want to tell you something that is interesting

from a British Columbia perspective — and I take no credit for this

because it happened well before my time; it happened during the

administration of Bill Bennett — and that is the great progress this

province did make in terms of environmental legislation and

environmental policy.

For example, the members of the first

ministers' round table federally recommended that in all cases a

Minister of Environment should be involved in economic development. I

can tell you that it's been the policy of this government for years

that the Minister of Environment always sits on the Cabinet Committee

on Economic Development. That has been in place for eight or nine

years, in my memory, in British Columbia. It is not yet done in many

other provinces; it's not yet done federally. But it has been in place

for some time now in British Columbia, and I think that's something we

should be very proud of.

Also, it was recommended in the

first ministers' round table of the environment that there be

environmental land use committees. Good Lord, we've had that for some

time. Going back to the first Bill Bennett Minister of Environment,

which was in 1977.... Something the New Democratic Party didn't do

when they were government but something that W.R. Bennett brought into

place was a Ministry of Environment with appropriate legislation and a

cabinet committee level to make the proper environmental decisions and

bring to the cabinet level concerns of the environment. I'm quite proud

of this government and the record it's had in terms of environmental

measures.

I can tell you — and I would have full

agreement with my Canadian counterparts, because we've discussed this —

that British Columbia is light-years ahead in terms of environmental

legislation in Canada and also light-years ahead in terms of the

process that environmental measures take in Canada.

Briefly,

I'd also like to speak about my Parks budget and discuss a bit about

parks. As you might know, it has been in the news lately — the

Strathcona and others. I'm pleased to see — as I'm sure are all members

who are interested in this great world-class provincial park system —

that we have a $2 million increase in the parks and outdoor recreation

budget this year, from $30 million to $32 million. That reflects our

government's concern with improving our park system in every way we

can. We added about a million hectares last year, and we will continue

to add.

A recent acquisition was Botanical Beach. We were

able to preserve good access to this remarkable beach in the Sooke area

which features some of the most unique marine tide pools in the Pacific — so unique, as a matter of fact, that the

[ Page 3772 ]

University

of Minnesota began studying these tide pools just at the turn of the

century, 1901 to 1905. They saw this area as probably being the most

unique area of its type on the Pacific coast. From that point of view,

they indicated to all and sundry that it should be preserved and it has

been. We were able just in the last couple of weeks to preserve the

foreshore of the land behind the Botanical Beach area, the pools, for

public access and to keep it away from the loggers' chainsaws, and for

the enjoyment of the people of British Columbia.

My time is

running short, but there's one more item I should talk on briefly

because it does stem from the increased budget figures for the parks

and outdoor recreation branch, and it deals with Strathcona Park. As

many members are aware, there has been some serious consideration over

the development of Strathcona Park in the last couple of years. The

Wilderness Advisory Committee gave us recommendations which were

followed by and large, with the one exception of there being further

hearings. That was one thing the cabinet of the day did not follow. So

following some considerable public pressure, I'll admit, we did strike

a further commit