1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12279 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Point of Privilege

Government borrowing. Mr. Clark –– 12279

Hon. J. Jansen

Oral Questions

Former chairman of Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

Mr. Sihota –– 12280

Investigation of possible breach of Social Service Tax Act confidentiality.

Mr. Reynolds –– 12281

Former chairman of Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

Mr. Sihota –– 12281

Government forms printed in U.S. Mr. G. Janssen –– 12282

Ministerial Statement

Confidentiality of tax information. Hon. J. Jansen –– 12282

Mr. Clark

Budget Debate

Mr. Dueck –– 12284

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 12287

Mr. Guno –– 12289

Mr. Reynolds –– 12292

Mr. Jones –– 12297

Ms. Pullinger –– 12299

Hon. J. Jansen –– 12303

Point of Privilege

Government borrowing. Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 12305

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have two special guests on the

floor today. Visiting from the United Kingdom is Mr. Robert

Rhodes-James, member of the House of Commons representing Cambridge,

and Mrs. Rhodes-James.

Mr. Rhodes-James is, among other things, a distinguished author and

biographer of Lord Randolph Churchill, Prince Albert and Anthony Eden.

He's also a member of that distinguished group in Westminster known as

the Breakfast Club. You may have recognized them by the rather

obnoxious ties they wear on Wednesday, one of which is worn by the men

in black at our table –– I had the pleasure of being hosted by them

last year on my visit to Westminster, so I thank members for making

them welcome.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, it's my special privilege this

afternoon to introduce to this House His Excellency Bruce Brown, High

Commissioner for New Zealand, and his wife Mrs. Françoise Rousseau

Brown. Would the House please join me in giving them a warm British

Columbia welcome.

MS. PULLINGER: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the

House a friend of mine and a very well-known Canadian writer of mystery

stories for children, who is also a constituent of my colleague in Oak

Bay. Would the House please help me welcome Eric Wilson.

MR. SERWA: On behalf of my colleague the second member for

Okanagan South and myself, I would like to introduce to the House 68

grade 7 students joining us today from Westbank Elementary School. They

come here with a great deal of pride, knowing they live in one of the

most beautiful communities in the best constituency in the province of

British Columbia. For my colleagues opposite I have to say it is a

constituency that has proudly provided Premiers of British Columbia for

30 years.

They come here accompanied by His Worship Mayor George Waldo, mayor

of Peachland, vice-principal of the school and a teacher there;

teachers Bob Hayes and Wayne Lawrence; parents Rod Barrett, Val Fenton,

Rita Whiteheat, Bette Ludwig and Pat Stoddart. Would the House please

welcome them.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like members of the House to

give a warm welcome to a constituent from Vancouver Centre, which is

one of the best ridings in the province and which a number of us hope

will provide the next Premier in this province. I'd like you to give a

very warm welcome to Mr. Donovan Kuehn.

MS. MARZARI: My colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

and I would like to welcome to the precincts the grade 5 class from St. George's

School in Point Grey, with their teachers Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Nutter. Would the

House please join me in welcoming them.

Point of Privilege

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my rising on this

occasion is threefold: first, to tender material in support of a motion

of privilege; second, to outline why these materials establish a prima

facie case that the Minister of Finance impeded members in the

performance of their legislative duties, thereby demonstrating contempt

for the rights and privileges of the members of this assembly; and

third, to indicate that I am prepared to tender a motion for your

consideration should you find that a prima facie case has been made.

On May 23, 1991, and again on May 28, 1991, the Minister of Finance

misled this assembly regarding how much money the government must

borrow to cover the operations of the provincial government for this

fiscal year.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It will be rather difficult for

the Chair to determine whether there is a prima facie case if there are

constant interjections. Perhaps the member for Surrey–White

Rock–Cloverdale would excuse himself until he is over his

interjections. Then we can proceed.

MR. CLARK: Last Thursday, May 23, 1991, I was willing to

accept that the minister had made an inadvertent error, but repetition

of this erroneous information yesterday — in direct contradiction of

the information given outside this assembly by the Premier — left me no

choice but to conclude that the Minister of Finance is deliberately

attempting to mislead this assembly.

Let me review the relevant statements and show why they are

incorrect. When I first asked the Minister of Finance how much money

the government had to borrow this fiscal year to finance the operating

costs of government, he replied: "The operating deficit for this year

is $395 million. That is the amount we will borrow for operating

purposes." He repeated this assertion a number of times during oral

question period and finally stated, when I challenged the accuracy of

his statements: "What was the debt requirement to match the operating

deficit of the operating fund for this year? I told him the truth. I

told him $395 million."

Yesterday, May 28, 1991, when the same question was deferred to the

Minister of Finance by the Premier, the minister stated: "The situation

is that there is an operating deficit in this province of $395 million,

which we have to borrow. On top of that, there are borrowing

requirements for capital purposes, which include Crown corporations,

reserve funds and other funds with capital needs."

Mr. Speaker, the minister has tried to mislead members and obstruct the business of this assembly by

[ Page 12280 ]

asserting information that his own financial

accounts clearly show is incorrect. He has sought to create the false

and misleading impression that the difference between the $395 million

that he claims must be borrowed for the operations of government during

this fiscal year and the $1.2 billion government-purpose borrowing

requirement contained in the government's own budget documents — and

admitted to by the Premier — is due entirely to the province's capital

requirements. This assertion is simply incorrect.

The real difference between the $395 million which the minister

claims as a general fund deficit and the more than $1.2 billion which

the government must actually borrow for direct government purposes, is

the budget stabilization or BS fund. The auditor-general and virtually

every single reputable accounting organization has asserted that this

fund is not even a fund at all. For example, the president of the

certified general accountants has stated: "The provincial government

continues to use the mythical BS fund to disguise the real nature of

the deficit." There is certainly no basis in fact for implying, as the

Minister of Finance has, that the BS fund somehow represents a

borrowing requirement for capital purposes.

The plain facts are contained in the budget documents. For fiscal

1991-92 the government estimates it will take in, in total revenues,

$15.311 billion. It also estimates that it will spend $16.545 billion

to finance the operations of government for fiscal 1991-92. The

difference between these two figures is $1.234 billion. This is clearly

the amount which the government must borrow to ensure the continued

operation of government during this fiscal year.

[2:15]

Finally, the minister's attempt on May 28, 1991, to attribute any

borrowings in excess of his artificial figure of $395 million to Crown

corporations and other funds with capital needs is incorrect and

misleading. The budget documents clearly show that over and above the

more than $1.2 billion in direct government purpose borrowing this

year, the government will require an additional $1.4 billion debt to

finance its Crown corporations and capital funding authorities.

The Minister of Finance, the chief financial officer of the

province, has an obligation to this assembly and its members to clearly

state the true bottom line of this province. By attempting to mislead

this assembly regarding the true state of the province's finances, the

Minister of Finance has impeded members in the performance of their

legislative duties and demonstrated contempt for the rights and

privileges of members of this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I now tender my materials for your consideration and would be grateful for your ruling.

HON. J. JANSEN: I would like to reserve my right to respond to this

motion, because I've responded in question period and tried to inform members

about the accounting respecting government debt. I would like the opportunity

to respond extensively at another time in this assembly prior to your ruling.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, on this question of privilege, I

would like to remind the member opposite that he should read a very

excellent book in this House...

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Every member has a right to speak on a question of privilege.

... Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia ,

second edition. It says: "Members use the term 'privilege' loosely to

gain the floor to register complaints on various matters or to make

routine announcements. Each Speaker (or Chairman) must gauge the use of

this device bearing in mind the temper of the House, the frequency of

its use and the spirit in which it is employed."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that all that the member has raised

today is a dispute as to facts between two members, which does not

qualify as a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any further members wishing to give advice to the Speaker?

Oral Questions

FORMER CHAIRMAN

OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: On Tuesday the Minister of Environment refused to

elaborate on an agreement concerning the member for Delta. My question

today is: will the minister confirm that an arrangement for employment

was made with the member?

HON. MR. MERCIER: This minister has made no arrangement for

employment with the chairman, who was removed by order-in-council, and

the answers I gave the other day apply equally today.

MR. SIHOTA: It may be that this minister hasn't, but the

ministry has, and your predecessors — your government — did. To make

the point the minister made the other day, no one would be making a

claim for just forgone per diems. Do you not agree there was an

arrangement for a period of five years?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The point I made the other day, and I'll

make it again today, is a claim might have been made, but this minister

is denying that a claim exists. That is the point that might be in

contention. To elaborate further, before a claim has been made in an

official sense, would not serve the government well.

MR. SIHOTA: The odour from this episode may not serve that political party well, but it would serve the public well to know what went on.

Mr. Minister, you can't say that there's no agreement or claim. On

Tuesday you indicated that "...arrangements are presently under

discussion." If there is no

[ Page

12281 ]

claim or agreement, then surely there would be no discussion.

The question to the minister is this: do you agree that the

discussions concern a salary payable to that member at the deputy

minister level — i.e., $80,000 a year for a period of five years? Is

that not the claim, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MERCIER: This member is a lawyer, and I understand

that he should know the process of making an agreement. In this

situation this minister is denying that any such agreement existed. If

this member is in any doubt about that, I'll say it again: there might

have been a claim to have an agreement in place. This minister is

saying that there is not an agreement in place, and that is the issue

that is before us. Until a formal claim is made in some fashion that

can be formally responded to, then this minister is taking the position

that there is no claim.

INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE BREACH

OF SOCIAL SERVICE TAX ACT

CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a two-part question for the Minister of

Finance. Yesterday while ruling on a privilege motion, Mr. Speaker,

supported as he is by the best legal minds in the Commonwealth, said in

reference to the actions of the member for Vancouver East: "On the face

of it, it would appear that an offence has been committed against the

confidentiality provisions of the Social Service Tax Act, and if so, an

investigation by the proper authorities may be appropriate." In light

of that serious statement, will the Finance minister advise the House

whether he has referred or will refer the matter for investigation by

the proper authorities; and in so doing, will he assure the House that

because a high-profile MLA is involved, a special prosecutor will be

appointed to assist in the investigation and charging process, as

suggested by the ombudsman?

HON. J. JANSEN: The answer to the first question is yes. The second question I'll defer to the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. FRASER: I will neither confirm nor deny that there's

an investigation underway, in accordance with the proper operation of

this ministry.

MR. REYNOLDS: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

Attorney-General. Would he agree that if there were to be an

investigation of any member of this House, his department would go

along with the recommendation of the ombudsman to appoint a special

prosecutor to investigate it?

MR. SPEAKER: It is out of order, because it's future policy.

Perhaps as we get back to question period, I might remind the members

that the Speaker is the person through whom questions should be

addressed, rather than directing them across the floor.

FORMER CHAIRMAN

OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: British Columbians are tired of a government that

cuts backroom deals with its friends and insiders. The question now to

the Minister of Environment is: would he agree that there was a promise

not just of salary, and not just for five years, but of all the perks

that deputy ministers are entitled to, including the provision of a car?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a claim was filed with respect

to the position referred to. The response of this minister was to deny

that claim. The claim was not put in any formal manner beyond that, and

until such time as it might be, I have taken the position that there is

no claim and that no remuneration is payable, in line with the

questions that you posed.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister has indicated that a claim was

filed. Your leader said that your government has nothing to hide, if I

may quote her. Now we're talking about a claim with a member here —

talking about what may be a secret deal with your ministry. In fact,

Mr. Minister, as you've already indicated, there was a letter of

understanding between the member and your ministry governing this

matter. Have you reviewed that letter?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I've already answered it. The problem I

have is that should the government deny and want to refute that claim,

then the member opposite should realize that he might impair my ability

to deal with this matter on the basis fairest for the taxpayers of the

province.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Minister, you say that there was a claim.

That claim was in writing. Have you reviewed that claim, which was made

in writing?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the problem I have here is

that I don't want to appear to be lecturing a lawyer on law. But there

is a difference between a claim being filed and a contract. My position

is that as long as it's in the status of a claim, then I have taken the

appropriate action to this point in time on this issue.

MR. SIHOTA: You saw the claim; you've read the claim. Are you

now prepared to table the documents that you have in your possession

relating to this matter?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I don't think this member could have been a

very good lawyer, because I really have explained this in a number of

different ways. The position taken by the former chairman is to claim

for something, and this minister is saying that nothing is claimable

on. So the very point that you're trying to determine is the future

disposition of this matter rather than the past history of this matter.

[ Page 12282 ]

MR. SIHOTA: This is an arrogant and corrupt administration,

and it thinks it only has to answer to its friends. I want that

minister to understand that his arrogance will not stop us from asking

questions about its corruption.

For the time being let's put aside the matter of the future claim.

On Monday you said in the chamber that the former chairman was

expecting additional moneys. Let me provide you with the quote: "The

former chairman's position is that there might be some additional

remuneration forthcoming."

My question to the minister is this: how much money has he received to date?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The question is, how much remuneration has

he received to date? I would take that on notice as to the exact

amount, but it was in the nature of the normal stipend for that job as

set out. The normal stipend in this case would be nil, because the

person was a member of the Legislature and not entitled to additional

compensation. I'm not sure about things like a car expense or

reimbursement.

GOVERNMENT FORMS PRINTED IN U.S.

MR. G. JANSSEN: A question to the Minister of Government

Services. Yesterday the minister claimed she had sent $140,000 worth of

printing across the border because the specialized bar code could not

be printed in B.C. or Canada. Can the minister confirm that this

particular job was simply contracted to a print broker who did the work

in the United States? And can the minister inform the House what

research was completed to assure her officials that no local or

Canadian printers could perform this job?

[2:30]

HON. MRS. GRAN: On behalf of the staff at the Queen's

Printer, before I answer this question I want to ask the member for

Port Alberni for an apology to those people.

The forms in question went out to tender.

MR. PERRY: Just call the election.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Does the member for Port.... Where is that member from? Vancouver–Point Grey. Do you want me to answer the question?

Eight Finance ministry forms are in question. Five of those forms

have to have special bar coding, and that printing is not available in

British Columbia, nor is it in Canada. Four or five firms bid on the

job. Two were from British Columbia, and the rest were from eastern

Canada. The firm that won is Island Business Forms, a company here on

the Island for the last 35 years. They in turn sent the printing out to

the United States, because it is the only place that it can be done.

But all of the other companies would have sent the forms out to be

printed in the United States as well.

What really bothers me about this question is the light that it sheds on a

part of government that is very proud of their operation. Today on a personal

phone call to a staff member there, this is what he said to me: "I can't

understand why they're asking that question when they know what kind of

an attitude we have over here." I believe the attitude adjustment needs

to be on that side of the House.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Supplementary to the minister. The minister

is attempting to dismiss this matter by suggesting her cross-border

shopping only costs us $140,000. I know this is only a few flights home

on the government jet to the minister, but it's a lot of money to B.C.

printers, many of whom are small business operators. There are at least

two companies in Vancouver that can print sequential bar codes. What's

more, the government of British Columbia — B.C. Systems Corporation —

has two machines capable of doing the job. Will the minister simply

admit a mistake was made and make sure that B.C. government printing

jobs get done in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in

defending the employees or the policies of the Queen's Printer. But I

do have a problem with the light that is being shed by the opposition

on the operation of the Queen's Printer. It would seem to me that the

head of the BCGEU should be asking his members not to vote NDP.

Ministerial Statement

CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX INFORMATION

HON. J. JANSEN: Yesterday Mr. Speaker ruled on a matter of

privilege raised by the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound respecting

actions by the member for Vancouver East. Although Mr. Speaker said the

privilege question had not been established for technical reasons, his

ruling also indicated more substantive concerns, which in turn raise

fundamental questions that this affair has caused to be directed to me

from members of the public.

Mr. Speaker, our tax collection system is built on the foundation of two necessarily

immovable pillars: voluntary compliance and confidentiality, supported by random

audits. Citizens must be able to rely on that confidentiality Officials of the

Finance ministry must also be confident they are not adversely painted by the

wrongful acts of anyone among them. Members of this House must not be seen to

be abusing citizens' privacy by the pattern of examples their leadership

sets.

Accordingly, I want to assure our staff that all prudent steps will

be examined to ensure that those who might wrongfully disclose

information do not continue in a position requiring that confidence.

Further, I want to assure all citizens of this province that, despite

the inappropriate acts of members opposite regarding their apparent

disrespect for individual privacy, tax information is confidential. We

will take all proper steps....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I assume this is a ministerial statement, although it

[ Page

12283 ]

would be very difficult to find out from his

content. It is my contention — and I can give you a citation — that the

minister has strayed far beyond policy or ministerial administration

and...

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Thumper.

...taken a deliberate excursion into "general arguments or

observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation or too distinct a

reference to previous debates...." These are distinctly out of order,

and I would invite you to remind the member of the rules as set out on

page 51, having to do with statements to the assembly and reply — by

that great parliamentarian, that great mind at the table, Mr. George

MacMinn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has had this difficulty

for some time. When ministers rise with prepared statements, the

statements are occasionally prepared by people who aren't aware of what

parliamentary practice and rules are. The Opposition House Leader is

quite correct in that the scope of debate.... There is no debate. The

scope of the statement made during ministerial statements is to be a

ministerial statement and not to be argumentative. There is ample

opportunity, not only in the preceding point of business but at other

times, to get into arguments. The Chair is in a difficult situation

because the Chair is not given advance notice of what the statement is

going to be, and in many cases it's a prepared statement. So I would

ask the ministers who are going to make these ministerial statements to

please have someone read Standing Orders, the rules of the House,

before preparing these things, because it's awkward for the Chair to

try and judge in advance.

I ask the minister to continue, in order, which means not to be argumentative but to merely state the facts.

HON. J. JANSEN: Tax information is confidential. We will take

all proper steps to ensure your privacy is not abused — it's a wrongful

disclosure of your own confidential information. To that end, I

sincerely request that the member for Vancouver East provide the Deputy

Attorney-General with the name or names of the "reliable government

sources" who provided to him in the first week of May 1991 the

information he made....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: The same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister

has again ignored the rules of the House, and now he's asking questions

of the hon. member. This is neither an administrative nor a

policy-oriented subject of a ministerial statement. Again he's

transgressed the rules of the House. And if he does it again, we'll

call him out of order again, because he's always out of order and has

been ever since he stood up.

MR. SPEAKER: It is the determination of the Chair as to who is in order

and who is not in order. I do appreciate this additional help that I receive

from members from time to time. The difficulty is that most of what the Minister

of Finance has to say is quite in order. It's when they strain for the punch

line that they get out of order.

However, I didn't have an advance look at what he was going to say,

so I could not pencil out the punch lines, which would have allowed the

whole thing to be quite in order. The minister understands that, and

he's going to conclude now. Then we'll have someone else speak.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member opposite doth protest too much. I

do not want the name, nor do I want the name made public. I simply ask

that member for Vancouver East to help the proper authorities clear

this matter up as quickly as possible. It is within his power to help;

it is the right thing for him to do and will enable him to help right a

wrong. I request he commit now to do so.

MR. CLARK: This is the most corrupt administration in the history of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now we're going to end up doing

it all over again, and my patience is being tested. What a ministerial

statement is supposed to be is very clearly laid out in Parliamentary

Practice — and so is the reply. It is a statement; it is not

argumentative. We have lots of time for argument. Hopefully it will be

in committee, and I won't have to attend. But the vast majority of the

remarks are out of order when you begin with a statement such as the

member made. So if the member wishes to add something specific to the

portion of the minister's statement that was in order, I'll accept it.

Otherwise, I'll have to rule you out of order.

MR. CLARK: In a parliamentary democracy Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition has an obligation to raise questions regarding the conduct

of the administration. This is the highest court in the land. We

receive information on this side of the House. We have an obligation

and a duty to root out corruption wherever we can find it. I tell the

people of British Columbia that this side of the House will not be

muzzled.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I didn't rise earlier on a

point of order because you handled it extremely well, realizing the

member was totally out of order. But for clarification it should be

noted that the Minister of Finance merely asked that member to right a

wrong. When you're totally wrong, you should do the honourable thing

and right that wrong. There was no attempt on this side of the House to

muzzle the opposition.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we are nearing the end of

the session and perhaps we're nearing the end of the parliament, but

perhaps not. The difficulty I have is that some of you will be here in

ensuing parliaments, and I would hope that if I'm a

[ Page 12284 ]

visitor in the gallery that those of you who were

here in this parliament will not plead ignorance from lack of

instruction from the Chair of any of the rules that you are actually

bound by.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. DUECK: It is a privilege and a pleasure for me to rise

and speak in support of the budget. At the outset, I would like to say

that no one in this House has the monopoly on caring, the monopoly on

intelligence, the monopoly on new ideas or the monopoly on ethics. That

goes for both sides of the House.

The people are pleased with the economy in this province. If we look

at 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, we have a $1.2 billion deficit that

averages out to $200 million a year. Can anyone point to a province in

Canada that has consistently had an average deficit of a $200 million a

year?

This budget, with a $395 million deficit, is the type of budget

people expect from the government in a recession period. I am proud to

go to an election with the budget we're putting forward this year. This

budget recognizes both the fiscal responsibility and the social

responsibility expected of governments today but so very rarely

delivered.

All we have to do is look at Ontario. It has been asked again and

again: "Why are you bringing up Ontario?" It is an example of socialist

government, and just as the other side uses us as an example, we are

using Ontario as an example of what the socialists have done. And the

last of the story about Ontario has not yet been told; this is only the

beginning. In my opinion, it's only the peak of the iceberg, and the

rest, which is yet to follow, we'll see in the coming months.

Our party has delivered responsible budgets for years, and

consequently has been returned to office again and again. This will

continue. I am confident that the people of this province will again

elect a free enterprise system, and that is the Social Credit

government.

A $395 million deficit in these times is acceptable to maintain our

social programs. It is a responsible budget, an honest budget and a

caring budget. This is the type of budget British Columbians expect

from a government that they support. We will not mortgage our future

and leave a massive debt for our children. I am a father and a

grandfather, and I have taught my children that one must be responsible

in matters of economy. Therefore I believe the same applies to

government: we must be responsible; we must not spend more than we take

in. There are times when we have to borrow, and that is fair enough.

But it requires responsibility.

Our party has always believed in lessening the burden of taxes on citizens,

and we will continue to be frugal. Our party has always believed in providing

a network of social programs to assist those in need, and the budget has done

that. For example, 72 percent of our total expenditure is for social programs,

which are in education, health and social services. That is a big percentage,

and I think we should be commended for that.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We spend 27 percent of our total expenditure on education. We hear

so much about education, health and social services being underfunded,

but when you look at the percentages spent in those areas, you will

find that they are great compared to other provinces. You can compare

them, but we haven't got time to go into all that today. In health

alone, there's $5.4 million. I know something about the Health

ministry, and I truly believe that if we don't find some method of

providing those services in some other way, we will not be able to

carry that burden. When we consider the percentage increase this year,

it will soon be an increase of a billion, a billion and a half or two

billion dollars a year. It cannot be done. The economy of British

Columbia, with three million people, cannot carry that. We must find a

way to deliver health services as well or better, in some other way.

There are many methods and options that we have discussed in the past.

I also would like to say that 4 cents of every dollar of revenue is

spent in retiring our debt. That is the lowest in all of Canada. We do

not spend a lot of money to pay off debts. It's 4 cents, which is

really a very low figure. Ontario spends two and a half times as much.

If we continue paying a percentage greater than what we just discussed,

again we're spending all our revenue on retiring our debt. It cannot be

done — not in individual households; not in government. It is not just

a book entry, where some people say it doesn't matter — government

borrows money and you enter it on that side of the ledger. It is an

actual debt that must be paid off. That money must be earned. It must

be generated in this province by people. And I submit that British

Columbia has done a very good job in doing that.

B.C. has the lowest net direct debt as a percentage of GDP in all of

Canada. How can the opposition argue some of these beautiful statistics

that I'm quoting? You should actually say: "We're proud of that, and if

we ever get into government we will continue that performance." This is

very good news, this is positive news, and the public is not fooled by

rhetoric from the opposition. When I travel around the province, I hear

that they're not fooled. They know what's going on in here and that

games are being played. They know that the real result is what comes

out at the end, what we pay in taxes, the dollars we spend and how we

spend our money in general terms on services so much needed by the

public.

For example, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada says that

B.C. sets the example for fiscal management in Canada. This is not

Social Credit talking; this is not someone from our side of the House

saying we're great. This is the investment dealers of Canada. Compare

that to a $10 billion deficit for one year. Everyone knows where that

is. I'm afraid to even mention the name, because I'd be repetitive. But

that's not the end of the story. They have now actually

[ Page

12285 ]

forecast the deficit that they will carry for the

next four years. It is frightening, because Ontario was in longterm

debt by $35 billion. They themselves say: "In four years we will double

that amount." That's not the end of the story. That's what they're

saying. It will probably be far greater than that. It is really a sham.

What we basically have to say is that it's really socialism. It really

gives me the heebie-jeebies when I think about it.

I am convinced that the people of B.C. will ensure that Social

Credit will continue to govern B.C. and will win the next election

hands-down. People are tired of the negative whining from the

opposition. They are fed up by members opposite opposing everything

that the government has done. They have no solutions, but they have

much to crow about. They have no real solutions. Have they ever come up

with a solution? Just criticism. They are truly experts in the art of

opposition. You know, I can understand that. Tell me, who has had more

practice and experience in that role? Who has had more experience in

the art of opposition? This is their expertise from years and years of

being on that side of the House.

Mind you, the NDP certainly have toned down their rhetoric and their

total view on the philosophy of socialism. They really are trying very

hard to go down the middle of the road, and say: "No, we're not like

those people. No, no, we've changed." Let's not forget. All those

people that are listening in today, I want to tell them: remember

socialism is socialism is socialism. They remain socialists, and you

can't change that. They're trying very hard to get rid of that image.

But it won't wash. It just doesn't wash. People won't be fooled. They

are a lot more sophisticated than you think, and they will not be

fooled. They will not elect this opposition to govern this province in

the future. Social Credit believes in individual enterprise. This great

country of ours was built on individual initiative, not controls on

businesses, strangling them out of existence.

The second member for Victoria last year talked about a tax on

speculation, like flipping property. I see Ontario has just announced

they are going to do the same thing. The Ontario government had a tax

on speculators flipping property, but let me tell you what happened:

they spent one dollar for every 3 cents they collected. When they did

an analysis of all the people in place to collect this flipping tax on

property, this speculators' tax, they abandoned it. Now this government

comes along — they're a lot smarter; they don't learn from history, oh

no. They say: "We're going to catch those speculators." They're going

to spend another buck to collect 3 cents. Do you know what? They will

do exactly that. They will analyse it again, and they will abandon it

after a while, because it doesn't work.

A lot of it is rhetoric from both sides of the House, I agree. But when we

really come down to the basic facts of being a socialist or a free enterprise

party, you have to admit that to govern, to have good management, it cannot

be done in the socialist form. The example is that in this province we have

had good money management for many years, and it has shown, because people have

said: "Yes, we like what you're doing. Yes, this is the land of opportunity,

and we will elect you again and again." We will continue to be good money-managers.

The people know full well that Social Credit government has done that in the

past and will do that in the future.

[3:00]

A comparison of free enterprise and socialist governments around the

world reveals a consistent pattern of higher taxes in socialist

countries and lower taxes under free enterprise governments. It's not

Peter Dueck or the Social Credit government speaking; these are facts.

These are from economists that have written this up in journals. The

highest tax rates in the world are those in socialist countries. That

promotes....

Interjections.

MR. DUECK: I wish the members from my side would quit. I want to talk to these people.

That promotes the underground economy. I was in Sweden, and someone

at the level of deputy minister told me, when I asked him about taxes:

"Well, it's very high." I think it was something like 72 percent in his

particular wage bracket, and the value-added was 20-some percent. I

said: "How in the world can you make ends meet?" Then it dawned on me,

and I said: "What is the underground economy like?" You know what he

told me? He said: "If we don't have to give a receipt, and if it's

cash, it's automatically 50 percent off." That's what happens when you

tax people out of existence. That's why we don't want that type of

government.

People in British Columbia have a choice, and that choice will be

coming up very soon. As a matter of fact, I can guarantee it within a

year, perhaps less than that. People have a choice. They can elect a

government that's efficient, a government that's fiscally responsible,

good money-managers, government that cares. The proof is the economy of

British Columbia. They can elect the most efficient government in

Canada today, versus the other side of the coin: government controls,

much higher taxes, Big Brother watching, no incentive, taking away

personal initiative. That is the other side of the coin.

In 1990, net immigration into British Columbia was 64,000 people.

Why are people coming here? They don't come because they like me or you

or anyone else; they come to British Columbia because it's a land of

opportunity.

Nearly half of the jobs created in Canada a year ago were created in

British Columbia. Just imagine: a province of three million people

creating 50 percent of all new jobs in Canada. That's British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. DUECK: Yes, but 50 percent on the other side that were

created in the other parts of Canada were the same type of jobs. This

is a record that cannot be beat.

People know this; they're not dumb. They know there's a stable

government in British Columbia that's fiscally responsible and that

allows people to prosper

[ Page 12286 ]

— not one that puts fear of uncertainty in their

current fiscal policy or worse still, the uncertainty of future policy

that could be even more scary than what we see today.

The Leader of the Opposition says they will balance the books, yet

all the promises made in the last few months would add another $2

billion to the expenditure side of the ledger. I believe he has some

explaining to do about the tax and spending intentions of his party,

because it just doesn't add up and he knows it. I think the Leader of

the Opposition is not a fool. He is making political speeches. He knows

that if all the promises are kept, they cannot balance the budget. They

will be at least $2 billion in the red. I believe that the explaining

must be done by the leader before too long, so that people know what

the choices are. He skillfully evades all such questions. He talks

about underfunding, but promises no tax increases and a balanced

budget. Now just imagine all those promises: no tax increases and a

balanced budget. It cannot be done. What the NDP say and what they

would do are two different things. The myth they try to portray is

moderation. The reality is uncontrolled expenditure.

I would now like to say a few things about my constituency, which is

very important to me. I think I live in one of the most beautiful and

decent communities in all of British Columbia. I've resided there since

1951. I used to know all the people there, but it's growing so rapidly

that now I don't recognize a lot of people when I go to a shopping

centre, because we now have roughly 85,000 people in the

Abbotsford-Matsqui area.

Central Fraser Valley constituency is without a doubt one of the

most vibrant and active constituencies in the province. This can be

said not only about our business sectors, but also for the

organizations: the many groups and dedicated individuals who make up

our communities. I am certainly proud to represent such a uniquely

community-minded constituency as Central Fraser Valley, and I will

continue to work hard to bring about many more initiatives to benefit

our area.

They know that Social Credit government is committed to furthering

economic growth and diversification, preserving our environment and

fostering an education policy committed to enhanced access to

university education in our local area. Fraser Valley College is a fine

educational institute that we can all be proud of, but I believe that

our local students should have the opportunity to receive a university

degree without having to travel great distances. I am committed to

lobbying the Minister of Advanced Education very hard to get a

university-college in Central Fraser Valley.

While driving around our constituency, one may see firsthand the

record number of new homes, apartments and commercial buildings being

built in Central Fraser Valley. Housing starts alone in the area,

particularly Abbotsford-Matsqui, have increased phenomenally since

1986. In addition, many of our businesses are expanding, and new ones

are being created weekly.

We don't see the pessimism that I hear from the opposite side of the House.

Our community is vibrant, growing, happy with the government and successful.

When I come into my community they thank me for the good job we're doing

in government and how we're managing their tax dollars.

I would like to speak a little about the unsung heroes in British

Columbia, particularly in my constituency. These are the volunteers. We

talk so much about budget; we talk so much about staff; we talk so much

about all the people we've got in the community. We seldom talk in this

House about the volunteers.

After many years of government taking on more and more social

responsibilities once borne by the private citizen, the churches and

what have you — you can go back in history — the pendulum seems to be

swinging back again where the private citizen is saying: "I'm offering

my volunteer services to the community of my free will, for no pay."

Researchers at the University of Michigan recently did a study, and

they found that people who do regular volunteer service are healthier

and live longer. Why aren't we all involved? Most of us are, I think,

in some way or another. The idea of giving back something to the

community of your own free will seems to be undergoing a very great

revival among people who we least expect it from, and that is the "me"

generation — the young people. They are now awakening to the fact that

there's much satisfaction in doing something for free, offering your

services and also helping other people

Community Affairs of Canada, for example, tell us that Canadian high

schools have been mobilizing students to help the disabled, entertain

children and drive people to and from hospitals. They help slow

learners by tutoring them, and they babysit for working mothers. All

this is on a voluntary basis. This also is very evident in my

constituency. I would like to say that we have more volunteers in our

community than anywhere else, other than New Westminster perhaps. I

spoke with the member for New Westminster on many occasions when I was

Minister Responsible for Seniors, and they do have an excellent group

in New Westminster that is very active, and I certainly commend them.

I spoke earlier about the bureaucrat I met in Sweden. Do you know

what he told me also? He told me this with a bit of embarrassment. He

said: "Do you know that we are sponsoring government classes to teach

people to be volunteers?" Unheard of! Because for years they were

teaching people the concept that no one should do anything without

being paid. They are now saying: "Oh, my goodness, there's a great

resource in seniors, and what have you, who can help, and they love to

help." And they now have courses to teach them how to do it. That is

the socialist government.

Karen Hill of the Canadian Council on Social Development says:

"Self-help is really mutual help. By giving of ourselves we not only

help someone else; we help ourselves as well." Someone was overheard at

a service club — and I don't know whether this is true or not — saying:

"I'd gladly volunteer if they paid me a decent wage." That's not

volunteering.

The concept of mutual support is implicit in every major religious belief in the world. For example....

[ Page

12287 ]

Interjection.

MR. DUECK: Member, listen up. I've got some good stuff to tell you.

Mr. Speaker, I said every religion in the world has the same concept. For example,

in Hinduism they say: he does not live in vain who employs his wealth, his thought,

his speech to advance the good of others. Taoist philosophy: the way to heaven

is to benefit others. The prophet Mohammed: a man's true wealth is hereafter

the good he does in this world to his fellow man. In the Old Testament, the

example of Job: I was eyes to the blind and feet I was to the lame; I was father

to the poor; and the cause, which I knew not, I sought out. In the New Testament,

the parable of the good Samaritan. Every one of them.... And we have forgotten.

A lot of people do not think that volunteers give a tremendous

service to our community. A little thought and a little kindness are

often worth more than a great deal of money. Volunteer service is so

valuable to its beneficiaries as to be literally priceless. Who could

ever count what it's worth to a crippled child to be taught how to swim

or to an elderly shut-in, for example, to have someone do the shopping

or drop in to chat? We could go on and on with examples.

Would you believe volunteer activities in Canada account for 3.3

percent of the Canadian GNP? Would you also believe that 374 million

man-hours were spent in volunteerism in one year in Canada? It is

absolutely phenomenal. Sir Wilfred Grenfell, who spent many years

helping the people of Labrador....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time, hon. member. I know it goes by quickly when you're having fun.

The second member for Boundary-Similkameen asks leave to make an introduction.

[3:15]

Leave granted.

MR. BARLEE: I would like to introduce 16 students from the

Kettle River country, from the far reaches of that historic part of

British Columbia — places like Bridesville, Rock Creek, Westbridge and

Beaverdell. They started out about 5 o'clock this morning and are

accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Louise Fossen, Mr. Lonnie Mader and

Mr. Dean Corbett; and their driver, Mr. Chris Anschetz. I would ask the

House to help me welcome them to the precincts of the House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to

take my place in the budget debate and to start out by saying that the

most important budget figure is not in the budget. The most important

budget figure is three-million-plus, and that is the number of

individual budgets we have in this province.

On June 4 the federal census-takers will begin to give us a more exact number,

but whatever that number is, we know it will be more than it was ten years ago.

During that time our province has experienced tremendous growth in spite of

two major recessions. People are attracted to British Columbia partly because

of the climate and partly, too, because of the climate of opportunity we've

been able to create with successive Social Credit budgets.

This year is no exception. The $11 billion that we will spend this

year on health care, education and social services exceeds our entire

budget when we were first elected in 1986. That's a commitment to

people that's second to none in this country That's a commitment to

sound management and a reflection of the strength of this government.

That strength in turn reflects the dedicated, hard-working cabinet

supported by an outstanding public service.

The key to our success has been our principles — values that the

average British Columbian understands and believes in: the ethic of

reward for work, and caring and compassionate free enterprise. These

things have been said before, so why do I repeat them now? I repeat

them because this simple lesson in home economics is lost on the

opposition and their friends in Ontario.

People vote with their feet, and they vote by the thousands year

after year for British Columbia over other parts of Canada. Why do they

choose British Columbia? They come here because it's a beautiful

province and because there are jobs. They choose British Columbia

because taxes are low and because government services are second to

none. They choose our province because they don't want their children

and grandchildren saddled with the debts of reckless, irresponsible

governments. They choose British Columbia because our education system

is second to none. People know their children will receive the best.

Most importantly, they choose British Columbia because they see a

better future here than elsewhere.

Let me refer to a couple of very specific, fundamental comparisons.

Let us look at British Columbia versus Ontario. Why Ontario? Because in

Ontario the very same party as members opposite are basically tearing

up the economic and financial fabric of Canada's largest and once most

prosperous province. So what does the table on page 81 of the budget

say? It says that for a single-income family of four earning $45,000,

taxes and health care premiums will cost $6,028 in British Columbia

this fiscal year. In Ontario that same family will pay $6,940. That's

an added tax burden of $912 per family, and the NDP have been in office

less than one year.

There's more. There's a hidden tax, like a hidden agenda of the

members opposite if they should ever succeed in gaining the power they

seek. The hidden tax is the deficit. Government deficits are a tax

timebomb. The borrowing mounts, it accumulates and the interest on the

debt ticks and compounds. The interest clock ticks and ticks. They

don't want to listen on the opposite side of the House, but whoever is

home when the creditors come knocking will have to pay the bills.

They'll have to pay the debt and the accumulated and compound interest.

Let's go back to table H3 on page 81. Let's look at the line which

adds the hidden taxes to the annual tax burden and compare again

British Columbia under

[ Page 12288 ]

Social Credit with Ontario under the NDP The total tax and deficit

obligations for our family of four in British Columbia is $6,518 per

year. In Ontario the burden is $10, 807. A family of four is paying

$4,289 more. That is the hidden agenda of the members opposite — $4,289

more by way of a tax bill. Next year it could be worse, and the year

after that worse again. People understand these simple facts. That's

why people move to British Columbia in droves. They're moving here

because it's worth moving. It's worth the cost and the dislocation to

go to a province with a future.

Suppose for a moment that British Columbians were faced with an

Ontario-style NDP. Heaven forbid. I notice the Leader of the Opposition

isn't in the room, but never mind the slick talk of my Vancouver lawyer

friend, the Leader of the Opposition. The NDP fiscal penalty would be

served up here as well. No one is fooled. The penalty would be billions

of dollars in spending and billions of dollars in taxes and hidden

taxes. Where would the money go? There are unmistakable clues. They

come from the head of the B.C. Government Employees' Union, from the

head of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, himself a failed NDP candidate,

and from the Leader of the Opposition, who vows to tear up successful

and balanced Social Credit labour legislation. Why quarrel with

success? Why go back to the bad old days of nasty strikes and wide open

secondary picketing — unless you're serving a special interest agenda?

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know there

is a certain amount of latitude with respect to notes, but it's not

customary in this House to have a member rise and read verbatim a

transcript of a speech. I'd ask the Chair to bring that Premier to

order.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems that in

the view of members of the opposition there should be one set of

regulations for our side of the House and a different set for theirs. I

think we should all be treated the same way.

The public knows that NDP policy will not mean better services for

British Columbians and that taxpayers will simply pay more for the same

level of service. British Columbians know that NDP policy will take

from hard-working average British Columbians to meet the endless

demands of special interest groups. In the long run, serving the

special interest groups simply means that our children will go broke.

It's really very easy to go broke. It's the lazy man's way, but it's

not my way and it's not our government's way.

In spite of all we have accomplished, you will hear claims that we have not

done enough. There is always good that needs to be done, but there are never

enough dollars to do it all. In my view, the secret of success is balance; not

just balance between expenditures and revenues, but balance between present

and future needs. The balance between taxpayers' ability to pay and the

taxtakers' plans to spend; balance between the highs and the lows of economic

activity in a province which depends on healthy export markets for its life

blood. That balance requires understanding, commitment and vision.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Hon. member, are you interested in listening? If you're not, possibly you would just like to leave the room.

Understanding how hard it is to earn a dollar and how easy it is to

spend one, the commitment of this government is to get value for the

money we're spending and the vision to invest in the services and the

infrastructure that will certainly keep our economic life-blood pumping.

In the past our highways and the powerlines have been the veins and

arteries of our province's economy. These investments have served us

very well. But today our priorities are shifting as we look forward to

a new economy and greater emphasis on higher skills, entrepreneurship

and environmental balance. We look forward to diversifying our economic

base, renewing our forests and securing an attractive climate for small

business growth and innovative companies. These firms will increasingly

add value to our products, and create the greatest portion of

good-paying jobs. We all know that the greatest number of jobs are

created by small business in this province.

This year we're maintaining the second-lowest overall taxes in

Canada. While spending 71 cents of every tax dollar on health,

education and social services, which is a record in Canada, our per

capita debt is the lowest in the country, and we're spending only four

cents out of every dollar to service that debt. Mr. Speaker, only four

cents out of every dollar. We will not balance the budget this year on

the backs of patients in our hospitals or students in our classrooms,

but we'll balance the budget over the business cycle while providing

major enhancement in new school construction and an increase of more

than 12 percent in our provincial health care budget. This year we're

increasing the supplemental grants to half of the amount by which

school taxes exceed the maximum basic homeowner grant, once again

confirming our commitment to home ownership as the basis for sound

families and strong communities throughout this province.

[3:30]

The opposition talks about open government, but on this side of the

House we're looking forward with great anticipation to the open

opposition. The opposition is fond of telling us to cut the same budget

20 times, instead of finding 20 places where the budget could be cut.

But even their own party's financial policy analyst, Douglas Broome,

has disagreed with this political shell game. We think the public

deserves to know what they would do instead of compensation fairness.

It amazes me that they won't tell us where they get their facts — we

saw another example of that here today — even when their facts are

clearly wrong. I'd like to say more about the opposition, but I really

hate to be negative. I'd hate to be a public servant in a province that

didn't have sound financial management.

[ Page

12289 ]

The most important thing about this budget is that it's good for the

three million budgets of average British Columbians, who we are all

here to serve — not the organized voices of protest and dissent, but

the too often unheard voices of frustration and worry from the average

British Columbians. These are the people who work hard to support

themselves and their families to make ends meet, and who dare to hope

that tomorrow may be a little brighter than today.

I believe our province has matured; our economic outlook is sound.

But we recognize that the natural resource industries are not going to

generate jobs at the primary and secondary level to the extent that

they have in the past. I believe we have excellent prospects for higher

value-added forest products, but I also recognize that we need action

on the memorandum of understanding with the United States and perhaps a

more flexible attitude toward exchange rates.

An artificially high dollar is equally bad for B.C.'s forest

industry. On the other hand, we're delighted by the federal

government's recent announcement of a major review of factors which

affect Canada's competitiveness in world markets. The review is of

great importance to British Columbia, which derives a large part of its

prosperity from foreign trade. Our quality of life is second to none;

everybody in the House knows that. That's going to be an increasingly

important factor in our economic future.

New companies will increasingly seek out locations based on quality

of life in all its aspects: the environmental, the economic and social.

That's really why people and companies are moving here.

Over the term of this government, the number of people employed in

British Columbia has increased by almost one-quarter of a million,

roughly the population of greater Victoria, and that's an astounding

figure. At the same time, many others have come to British Columbia to

retire which has put tremendous pressures on our health care system.

While seniors account for 13 percent of our population, they use

about 45 percent of health care funding. On average our population

continues to age as the baby boom generation works its way through the

system. As new pharmaceuticals and technology become available, health

costs get higher. As we live longer, the costs of care increase. For

all of these reasons it's clearly vital that we keep our competitive

edge and a vibrant free enterprise economy to generate the revenues

needed to sustain the quality of these services.

I would invite the opposition to join us in facing up to these realities. They

would find it a refreshing change from the things they usually talk about in

the House. It's neither right nor proper for us to spend the income of future

generations without accountability, representation or a sound plan to ensure

the long-term prosperity of the province. The public understands that. That's

why they have chosen Social Credit time and time again. Even in 1972, a majority

of British Columbians chose free enterprise. But then, as in Ontario last year,

the forces of free enterprise were divided, with tragic results for taxpayers,

average families and young people looking for expanding opportunities. We will

not allow that to happen again.

We will not leave the public in the dark about the real and clear

choices between this budget and the philosophy it represents on the one

hand, and the opposition's patently plastic approach to the old

politics — promises, promises, promises. Talk is cheap. The actions of

the NDP in Ontario are far better evidence of what British Columbia's

future would look like under the opposition than any plastic promises

they make here today.

Our achievements as a government in building British Columbia, as

evidenced once again in this very sound and responsible budget, are

clear. These are the best evidence of what this government would

provide three million average British Columbians over the next four

years. Night and day — the choice is very clear. The budgets of three

million British Columbians depend on that choice. I have confidence

they will once again make the right choice.

In conclusion, I'm delighted to support this outstanding budget

which reflects the excellent work done by my colleague the Minister of

Finance and member for Chilliwack. It's good for the people and it's

good for British Columbia.

MR. GUNO: It is with great pleasure that I take my place in

this debate. I want to acknowledge for my elders, as is required in my

upbringing as a Nisga'a, the fact that I have followed Sigidim Hanak ',

which means in Nisga'a "this lady, " and is really an acknowledgment of

the office of the Premier and the person who occupies it, and to say

that it is a privilege to follow her in this debate.

I want to say that I join my colleagues on this side of the House in

condemning this budget as a sham and that I'll be voting against it. I

do so for a number of reasons, many of which have been so clearly

stated by the previous speakers on this side of the House. Indeed, I

listened with a great deal of interest to the speech by the member for

New Westminster yesterday, who so forcefully and eloquently laid bare

the government's deception that it is both caring and a good fiscal

manager. I agree with her conclusions and the conclusions of the rest

of my colleagues about this budget: that it is a confusing political

document and that it is unfair and certainly not caring.

I want first to talk about the budget's reference to the Ministry of

Solicitor-General, an area that I am responsible for as a critic.

Except for the announcement of three new correctional centres that will

be replacing the Oakalla facility in 1992, there seem to be no other

new initiatives in the Solicitor-General's department to deal

effectively with some of the issues that need to be dealt with in that

area.

For example, our correctional institutions are still

disproportionately populated by native Indians. I've pointed out this

fact since I was first elected in 1986. I have yet to see any response

by this government about this travesty of our justice system.

Nor is there any indication of a review and upgrading of the provincial emergency program so that British

[ Page 12290 ]

Columbians can be assured that the government can deal with any type of major emergency that may arise.

There are a number of other issues within the Solicitor-General's department

that have not been dealt with. I don't think there's been any new initiative

in terms of training correctional institute personnel to deal more effectively

with prisoners. Perhaps the Solicitor-General has been too preoccupied — or

dare I say Messmerized — in his misguided notion that the poor are ripping off

the government in Ontario.

Perhaps the Solicitor-General and indeed this government have missed the obvious

point that youth criminality is a symptom of a larger malaise. I thought that

the second member for Vancouver Centre dealt with it well yesterday by pointing

out that it is the intolerable conditions of life that bring about such a rise

in the crime rate. I think that the Premier's rather hysterical reaction

to the reports of the rising crime rate in British Columbia can be qualified

by experts pointing out that perhaps there isn't that kind of real increase

but rather an increase in reporting crime. I think we have to be a little more

circumspect in terms of trying to deal with this problem. We can't just

build new jails and hire new prosecutors. I think we have to look at the conditions

that give rise to the phenomenon. This budget will only worsen those conditions,

as there are no provisions for the growing unemployment of our young people

in British Columbia.

I want to move to the part that I find the most disturbing about the

budget. It's not the budget in itself but the continuing effort by

this government to hide the fact, so obvious to everyone, that the

government has presented British Columbia with a record deficit to the

tune of $1.2 billion in 1992. I think the continuing efforts by our

Minister of Finance — the third one that we've had — who continues to

doggedly insist that the budget deficit is just $395 million.... This

is what I'd find most disturbing: the efforts of those opposite to I

deceive the public about the size of the deficit.

I would describe such an effort as Orwellian doublespeak, but I

think that such a crude effort to hide this is so transparent that

there is no way we can use such a sophisticated level on such a

pathetic attempt to skirt the truth. I would concede that there is

plenty of room for debate about the advisability of having such a

deficit. Politics, after all, is about working out conflicting demands

on scarce resources. This is one of our duties — to deal with those

conflicts — and this is the forum where that process is worked out.

But for that political process to work effectively, there must be

some parameters against which rhetoric replaces the truth. As

political leaders, it is incumbent upon all of us to set an example —

to deal with tough issues with some integrity.

[3:45]

I point this out because the Premier, in announcing her candidacy in

the coming leadership convention of a her party, has said that one of her top

priorities is law and order. We on this side of the House are also for law and

order — but with justice and fairness. My point is that this commitment to

law and order, this commitment that the Premier has so dearly attached herself

to, somehow rings hollow when this government continues to refuse to come clean

about the size of their own budget. It is difficult to take the Premier and our

government seriously when they break their own legislation — the tax protection

legislation, which just ver a month ago they so glowingly passed with enthusiasm.

I would suggest that the government has a major credibility problem. It is perceived

by the public that hey will do anything and say anything to cling to power. I

don't see how they can provide the moral leadership amid such ethical confusion

and hypocrisy. In ordinary times such a spectacle would be serious. But these are

not ordinary times. The erosion of public confidence in our politicians and our

political institutions is unprecedented in this country and province. The growing

public cynicism about the political process is not a phenomenon that we can continue

to ignore. If we do, we do so at our peril.

For us in this House to demonstrate that we're serious about dealing

with some of the more difficult economic and constitutional problems,

we have to start with the basics. I would suggest that the basics are

political honesty, political will and political leadership. This government has had ample opportunity to demonstrate that they

can provide that kind of leadership, honesty and direction. But judging

by the throne speech and this budget, I suggest they have failed

pathetically.

I want to deal just briefly with some of my own riding issues. Because I will be the last member from Atlin....

AN HON. MEMBER: Historic.

MR. GUNO: Historic, yes. I take great pleasure in dealing

with some of the problems that we have to face in the far north. It's

ironic that when people, especially embers from the urban areas, talk

about the north, they talk about Prince George, forgetting that Prince

George is really central — halfway.

I want to speak about the budget and how to fix my riding. First, I

must say that once again the priorities and needs of the northerners

have been ignored. It is true that there have been some concessions to

the needs of us northerners. I would say that the expansion of the

Medical Plan to include travel allowance for patients who have to

obtain specialized treatment away from home is welcome news to my

constituents. But overall, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the budget

does not acknowledge the fact that there really are two British

Columbias: one in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island,

wherein most of the wealth and opportunities are allocated or exist;

and the second the rest of B.C., where the further north you go, the

horse the conditions are in terms of unemployment and social, health

and educational services. If we're going to have balanced economic

growth for all British Columbians, we must move beyond this hinterland

metropolis mentality, which is the hallmark of Socred economic strategy.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page

12291 ]

I want to move on now to the issue of aboriginal land claims, an

issue quite dear to my heart, obviously. Ever since I was elected to

this assembly in 1986 I've watched and listened with great interest to

this government's struggle to grapple with this very complex and

long-standing issue. They were consistent for the first four and a half

years in simply sandbagging, stonewalling and making it very difficult

to come to a rational way of dealing with this problem. But I must say,

Mr. Speaker, that their turnabout in the last few months has been

rather breathtaking and quite interesting. The obvious question arises:

is this a genuine effort on the part of this government to finally

accommodate the long-standing grievance of the aboriginal people, or is

it a deathbed conversion? I hope it is the former. Because as my

colleague the first member for Victoria commented yesterday, we really

should maintain a non partisan stance on this issue. It is a

long-standing human rights question that needs to be dealt with in a

non-confrontational way. I think we owe it to all British Columbians to

take on that kind of strategy.

It's true that this budget provides some very impressive increases in the native ministry to facilitate negotiations....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell that to Don Ryan.

MR. GUNO: Yes, I will tell it to Don Ryan, and I think you

will find that he understands that kind of strategy as well as most

aboriginal leaders do. They have said so and continue to say so. It's

those members over there who heat up the rhetoric.

On the other hand, the Premier, in spite of the rhetoric about this

new accommodation, talks about law and order, which I think is a

euphemism for clamping down on roadblocks. And what about roadblocks? I

think it's a political expression by a desperate people who feel that

their aspirations are simply being ignored and sandbagged.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's breaking the law.

MR. GUNO: It is not breaking the law. It's no more breaking

the law than this government continuing to break the law over on their

side. What I find very disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is that we surely have

not learned from the lessons of Oka, and this government...

HON. J. JANSEN: Do you agree with roadblocks?

MR. GUNO: ...and especially given the Finance minister's

comments right now, simply has ignored history. In fact, that myopia, I

think, is prevalent throughout this government. In spite of the fact

that they say that they're going to accommodate, that they're moving

into a new era of relationship....

Interjections.

MR. GUNO: What about breaking the law and the aboriginal rights? What about that? That naked force....

MR. KEMPF: Do you agree with roadblocks?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. This is debate time on the

motion; it is not question period. Possibly the members could hold

their questions until question period and allow the member for Atlin to

continue with his comments on the budget.

MR. GUNO: Actually, I don't mind the interjections; I think they're quite revealing.

I bring up the situation at Oka because I think it has some very

valuable lessons to offer all of us, and I think we can avoid another

hot summer if we can be a little more understanding about this issue.

Naked force, stated under the guise of law and order, is the worst way

to deal with an issue that is so long-standing, complex and explosive.

I listened to the comments made by the Attorney General in his

debate speech a couple of days ago that aboriginal title does not

exist. He referred to the McEachern decision to confirm that position.

I am troubled by that, because it sends some very bad signals. In so

arrogantly dismissing the legitimate claims of the aboriginal people,

he invites further confrontation. That, I would suggest, is a direct

contradiction of the statement of this government that they are moving

into a new era of accommodation. The logical extension of the argument

that aboriginal people do not have a history and that they do not have

the institutions of an organized society is an ethnocentric view that

would relegate aboriginal people to being only part of the flora and

fauna of this land. The aboriginal people will never accept such an

outrageous ethnocentric view.

An

article appeared in the Times-Colonist today by Steve R. Lundin entitled:

"By What Right Do We Alone Define 'Human Rights'?" This

article

refers to comments by Rob Angus about the fact that native American culture

and land claims make clear the extent...that it simply does not exist. He

states that:

"Angus reaffirms Chief justice Allan McEachern's

convenient definition of cultural worth and thus perpetuates those

ethnocentric attitudes that have historically justified countless

crimes against humanity. As an archaeologist whose career has

encompassed the study of North America's first settlers, I am dismayed

to discover such attitudes still exist today."

Mr. Speaker, I've been fortunate in living in two worlds. I have

been educated as an aboriginal person in my own community and have been

brought up as an Nisga'a. I know the language; I know what it is to be

a Nisga'a. But I've also been educated in a western way

One of the benchmarks that Mr. Angus uses to determine whether or

not you have a civilized society is the existence of written language,

so he dismisses our society as being uncivilized because we have an

literature; I've read Chaucer, Yeats, Wordsworth and some of the more

imagery, the human wisdom and understanding of the human psyche that

are inherent in both. So I find it difficult to understand that the

people on the other

[ Page 12292 ]

side would say that we have no history and no institutions.

I also studied law. I studied your law, and I actually practised it

for a while. But I also was taught Nisga'a Ayuuk which means Nisga'a

law. I find the similarities to be amazing: similarities in notions of

presumptions of innocence, of fairness, of a fair way of settling

disputes. After all, if we didn't have those, how could we have existed

for ten thousand years?

[4:00]

Also, I've been part of your political system and been involved in

our own political system; and, quite frankly, judging by the members

opposite, they are certainly no example or record that I can send smoke

signals home about.

At any rate, my point is that I don't think anyone, no matter how

civilized they are, can judge and say, "You have no human rights,"

because to extend that argument is to extend the same kind of mentality

that gives rise to the kind of situation we have in South Africa and

even to the same kind of ideology that Nazi Germany operated under, and

that's a dangerous notion.

I also want to quote one of the statements that Mr. Lundin made: "To

state that since native Americans possessed no linguistic concept of

ownership...is like saying that before the Declaration of Human

Rights humans possessed no rights." Surely one would hope that those

qualities which we use to define our civilization and hold it as just

and moral would also, by virtue of our belief in them, extend to our

treatment of other, different cultures. In the absence of this, we

would make a mockery of such ideals, and that's the danger here:

continuing to ignore and trying to play politics with the very

fundamental human rights that we call the aboriginal land question.

That is why we must make every effort to seek ways of understanding.

As aboriginal people, we have something to offer, and there is an

opportunity to form a a synthesis that future generations of British

Columbians can enjoy. It's kind of ironic that this House is surrounded

by replicas of Indian culture; and yet inside this House we continue to

say, at least on the government side, that they don't have any rights,

that they, as a superior civilization, can move in, and just by edict

eliminate them as human beings. We have to make that kind of effort.

I must say that there has been a new climate and in no way.... I have

to acknowledge that when the member for South Peace River was Minister

of Native Affairs, he did all he could to come to that kind of

understanding. I'm proud to be part of this party and of our leader,

who has the political fortitude to say: "Yes, when we form government

we as a party will negotiate and will negotiate honourably."

I want to conclude by just saying that, as I said before, I plan to vote against

this budget, because I believe it is not what the Finance minister says: that

it is only a $395 million deficit, that it is caring and that it is an example

of good management. I think it's the diametrical opposite of all those claims.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge the members here to vote against this

budget.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's always a pleasure to speak in the throne

speech and budget debate, because it's the one opportunity we get as

members to discuss all the issues that take place in this House.

One of the concerns I've had, Mr. Speaker, especially in this

session, is the personal attacks that are taking place in this

Legislature — the ethics. We heard the member for Vancouver East this

afternoon defend his wrongdoing by going on the attack and talking

about the corruption in this government, instead of answering his own

problem.

I'm going to break my speech into basically three parts.

I want to talk about the ethics of government and the ethics of the

NDP in Ontario. People might say: why are we always talking about

Ontario in a British Columbia Legislature? Well, Ontario is one of the

few governments in all of Canada that's New Democrat — in fact, the

only one, and probably a good reason why there aren't more. I think

also we have to make sure that the people of British Columbia know what

they could expect from a New Democratic government if they were to form

a government in this province. They across there have their transition

teams. Why aren't they telling the people of British Columbia which

recommendations they've made to the government of Ontario, since

they're on their transition team? Let's talk about some of the things

that are happening in Ontario, and ask: who are the transition team

down there? Which one of these issues are they part of?

I'll also talk about the ethics of the member for Vancouver East,

the ethics of the Leader of the Opposition — all political, nothing

personal.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'll talk about the ethics of the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, both political and business life. He likes to

talk about my business, Mr. Speaker; I'll do a little talking about his.

The New Democrats in Ontario have been in power just a little over

seven months. There have been eight scandals — a little over one a

month — since they got into power. One MPP was jailed. Two cabinet

ministers have been fired, and two more should have been. Taxpayer

money has been wasted covering up a severance agreement. A police

investigation has been ordered against one minister, and

conflict-of-interest investigations have found another minister and a

parliamentary

secretary guilty.

Twenty-six of the 76 of the promises made during the election have

been eliminated; they're not being done. A $2 billion deficit was

promised by Bob Rae during the election campaign. What have they got? A

$10 billion deficit. That's NDP ethics for you.

Toxic discharges were to be eliminated in Ontario under the NDP; now

they'll be reduced over an indefinite period of time. Mr. Speaker,

that's the kind of ethics that they've got in the New Democratic Party.

This is a government that has been in power seven months. My God,

after five years they won't have anybody left to sit on the government

benches, because they'll all be fired or in jail.

Mr. Speaker, Peter Kormos, the minister of consumer affairs, was

fired after some protest groups within their own party didn't like him

being the

[ Page

12293 ]

Sunshine Boy in the Toronto Sun. I don't find that all so bad, but

that was considered a conflict by the Premier of Ontario. What was bad

about that minister was that he hired a convicted wife-beater as his

chief adviser on sexism in advertising. Where are the ethics of the NDP

doing that sort of thing? Where is their common sense? But that's what

they've done in Ontario.

This one, I know, will tickle my colleague behind me, because it was

a big issue in this House, raised by the NDP Cabinet minister Marilyn

Churley, despite her quick expansion of income to approximately $90,000

a year, has continued to live in her subsidized $850-a-month,

two-bedroom co-op suite. There's a minister in an NDP government. I

haven't heard our New Democratic friends talking about that. They sure

liked to talk about it in this Legislature when it happened. She

promised to move out and free up the space for low-income people as

early as last summer, but she didn't do it, she only moved out on May 1 of this year.

The Solicitor-General, the man in charge of the police in Ontario,

is under police investigation for writing to a judge. That's New

Democratic Party ethics: a Solicitor-General writing to a judge. Could

you imagine the headlines we'd get in this province if anybody on this

side ever thought of doing that? But it's coming from that side over

there. They don't care that their colleague the Solicitor-General would

write to a judge.

Social Services minister Zanana Akonde continued to hold

directorships in a magazine company and a condominium development

company. She was found guilty by the conflict commissioner, but Premier

Rae kept her in his cabinet. He said that she didn't intend to do it.

He believed there was no challenge to her integrity, but she was found

guilty by the conflict commissioner. That's the NDP when they're in

power. The people of this province have a right to know what could

happen if they had a chance here.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to talk too much more about Ontario, but I

wanted to lay that ground rule. The people of British Columbia.... That

is the great thing about television. Television in the House is a

promise that this government kept. If you want to go back and look at

what this government promised in '86, we've kept all those promises.

We've kept a balanced budget, and we're not in the hole like the NDP

It's not good enough in this province to have a Leader of the

Opposition who won't answer questions to the media and won't tell them

what his budget would be. That's not fair to the people of British

Columbia. Let me talk about the Leader of the Opposition. I quote him

from the Times-Colonist , and they're never wrong. He says:

"It's not our style to get down in the muck." Here's a quote from the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, if you can believe this: "He made it

very clear to the caucus. He has set a style for us, and we're not

going to get into the mud-throwing." Mr. Mud made that statement — the

man from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I can't believe it. That statement

alone should go before our conflict commissioner.

We know what we've heard from the member for Vancouver East in the

past few days. We've heard him say that he got some information from a

very reliable government source. We've talked about that. It will

probably be dealt with in some other place.

Let me quote what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was

mayor of the city of Vancouver, because people of the province should

know. This is the man who's quite happy when he sees 20 of his pictures

in an editorial that are all the same — to have that image of being

smooth and cool and doing nothing. This man, when he was mayor,

promised swift and tough action against any aldermen or staff who

leaked confidential council materials to the press. "If I discover a

staff person doing this, he will be disciplined or fired." The Leader

of the Opposition added that if an alderman was involved, he or she

would not be worthy of office. That quote comes from the Vancouver Sun , May 27.

His Finance critic has admitted that he used a leaked document in

this House. I would certainly question who leaked it to him. If the

information was false, maybe he's being set up; I don't know. But he

got up today and said that the opposition had a right to ask questions

on leaked documents. His leader has said that people who use leaked

documents wouldn't have been on his council. Why is he sitting on the

front benches of the NDP today? A cheap political shot at a former

Premier who's already had enough problems, already faced the issues in

this province. Do you kick somebody when he's down, especially with

false information, and then give him a half-hearted apology? That's not

acceptable in this House, and I know that members on the other side

agree. I know they won't say it. They're concerned that their friend

made a political mistake by saying three words he shouldn't have said.

If he had just got up and apologized, there'd be no issue. They are

concerned. They know that deep down they wouldn't respect any

government that used leaked documents illegally.

The Leader of the Opposition has to answer that question. Why isn't

that question being put to him? Why isn't he answering that question

about leaked documents? When he was mayor he didn't like it; he had

control there. But now that he's in opposition, it's all right? I don't

agree with that; the people of British Columbia don't agree with it.

[4:15]

MR. JONES: What's illegal?

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Burnaby asked me what's illegal.

Leaking documents from the tax department is illegal. In fact, your own

member said in the press scrum yesterday that he wouldn't do it again.

He knows it was wrong, and just apologizing isn't enough in this House.

You would be on the question floor every day if it was a member of this

side. If they had something leaked about a member of the opposition,

you would be on every television station and in every newspaper,

demanding the resignation of anybody on this side of the House.

So wave your hands. The public is going to know. We all know there's an election coming up soon. And

[ Page 12294 ]

he's waving a book; Mr. Speaker, we can all write books. There's an

election coming soon, and we're going to talk about some real facts

during the election. We can talk about the good record of this

government. If you want to talk about scandals, we'll talk about NDP

scandals. We can go back and talk about Charlie Barber, who was a

member of a previous government. We've all got skeletons in the closet.

Nobody's perfect.

Let me quote from one of the members who's running....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Are you running?

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm certainly running in the next election.

I've got one of the best constituencies in British Columbia. I've got

lots of friends here who have asked me to come out to their ridings to

make the same speech, and I'll do it a hundred times.

Let me talk about some of the candidates for the NDP in the next election.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Let's talk about your candidates.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll talk about your candidates, and you can talk about ours.

Mr. Speaker, let me read you this quote:

"'I'm very reluctant to sit down and sign a cheque

to Revenue Canada. The ball's in Revenue Canada's court as far as I

am concerned, ' Hertzog said, adding that he is continuing to withhold a

portion of his income tax each year. He said he withheld $482.51 in 1986 and

$283.51 in 1988, amounts he estimated as the portion of his taxes that would

have gone to Canada's military budget."

This is NDP Vancouver-Quilchena candidate Stuart Hertzog. He's been ordered

to pay it by the courts; he refuses. He won't support the Canadian forces;

he won't support what they just did in the Middle East. That's

the kind of candidates they've got in the NDP; that's the kind of ethics

they've got in the NDP.

Let's talk again about NDP ethics and some of the things that you

don't see on the front pages of papers. I don't knock the media for

that, because they're not the government. A lot of things they do just

don't attract the same attention that you attract if you're government.

I remember David Poole — a big issue. Well, the Leader of the

Opposition was sued by his former principal secretary James Hayes for

wrongful dismissal, and he had to pay $89,200. Was that as big an

issue as the Premier's principal secretary?

Bob Williams faced legal action from the city of Victoria early in

1979 for $3,200 in back taxes owed for a building he owned on Johnson

Street.

John Brewin, the Member of Parliament right here in Victoria — and he's

a New Democrat — owed Revenue Canada $86,000 in unpaid taxes when he declared

bankruptcy, citing a total debt burden of $200,000 only months after successfully

running for a seat in the House of Commons. Brewin's case went to the Supreme

Court of Ontario last summer. Despite owing $80,000 to the Canadian government

— you and me — in unpaid income taxes, Brewin saw fit to attend the Commonwealth

Games in New Zealand at taxpayer expense.

That's the NDP ethics. If John Brewin had been a member of this

assembly, he wouldn't be sitting here. You can't sit in this House if

you're declared bankrupt. He would have had to resign. He's still a

Member of Parliament, representing this area.

MR. MILLER: How's Mongi doing these days?

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll talk about that. You want to talk about my companies. I'll talk about them, but I'll compare them to some of yours.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you the Leader of the Opposition's comments

about John Brewin, the NDP member in Victoria: "Like any businessman,

he's got the option that business people have to cut their losses.

Sometimes businessmen go bankrupt when their investments go down the

tube, and John's choosing that option. That's business. You win some,

you lose some. You make a profit sometimes, you lose money other times."

I have a business. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew wanted to

ask questions in this House about it. It was a bad business decision by

a company, but only one. All the others are good. But we're chastised.

Where are the people on that side when somebody like this is ripping

off the taxpayer? They hide away behind the corner.

Let me talk about the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I don't get

upset too often, because I've got good friends on all sides of this

House, but when I see that saint on television, the piousness of what

they're going to do with ethics, how they wouldn't do this and how he

gets up every day asking questions in here like he knows all the

answers.... I don't know how he got his law degree, but anyway, he did.

About March 20, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew complained

that the former Deputy Attorney General had decided not to follow the

recommendations of an RCMP officer to charge a former Provincial

Secretary. His complaints were widely endorsed by the media, as they

strongly criticized that decision by the former Deputy

Attorney-General. The Leader of the Opposition also huffed and puffed

with applause — as he does — and both of them said a charge should

proceed so the accused could clear his name.

Remember, the RCMP officer recommended a charge. Guess what? The

very same RCMP officer who recommended those charges also said the

member for Esquimalt should face criminal charges. Further to that, as

everyone knows, the Deputy Attorney-General for Alberta, who was acting

exactly in the capacity of a special prosecutor, said that if the

evidence he had seen was fairly put before a judge, the member for

Esquimalt would likely be convicted of his crime.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I don't knock the media, because I'm saying here that they cover government more than opposition.

[ Page

12295 ]

But I would also say to the Leader of the Opposition, who demands

the strictest of ethics on this side of the House, that he should do

the same on his side of the House, and that that man should not be his

justice critic.

It's amazing to me that the member for Esquimalt wouldn't have asked

for the same justice for himself that he demanded for members on this

side of the House. Why wouldn't he do that? Why wouldn't the Leader of

the Opposition have those same ethics and ask for the investigation to

flow through? That's all we ask: that everybody be treated fairly in

this business. But you stand up there on that side of the House

pontificating about your piousness and how wonderful you'll be. You

don't like to remember your friends in Ontario; who have been in power

for only seven months and have made more mistakes in seven months....

As I said earlier, at the end of five years there won't be any of them

left.

The member for Prince Rupert said: "What about your company?" Yes,

I've taken some flak from the other side, but I can live with that.

That's politics. But I also think that if you're going to look at

people's private businesses and want to bring them up on the floor of

this chamber, we should have a right to look at their businesses. We

should have a right to talk about the member for Esquimalt and his

family business. My business is a family business.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say that everything I'm going to mention

here has not been received from any secret sources. It's all available

to the public by just searching for it. I asked a source to research

S&S Stores Ltd. I'll read you the report. This is not in my words,

but in the words of the person who did the thing.

MR. JONES: Is this at government expense?

MR. REYNOLDS: You ask if it's at government expense. In fact, it's not. I paid for it personally.

It says:

"Bachittar Sihota, father of the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, incorporated a company in B.C. named S&S

Stores Ltd. This company was dissolved on January 4, 1983, and restored

on January 9, 1987.

"There is a connection between this company and the company

which operated in Montreal in the 1977-78 period and which was involved in tax

return discounting. The connection is that they are one and the same company,

having a B.C. office at 4179 Salish Drive, Vancouver, British Columbia. The

Montreal firm, operating as a division of S&S Stores Ltd., was investigated

by the consumer protection office of the province as part of an investigation

which resulted from suggested abuse under consumer protection legislation. A

second office of S&S operating in Hull, Quebec, was raided in March of 1978.

The Montreal Gazette reported on March 20, 1978, that 'staff at the Vancouver-based

S&S tax discount centre were apparently alerted about the raid and had left

the store with their files when investigators arrived.' After the raid,

S&S closed all three of their offices in Quebec.

"There is evidence of financial difficulties as early as

1976 for Bachittar Sihota, while operating as Algard Investments Ltd. Actions

were also taken against S&S during the following years and judgments obtained

against [the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew] as guarantor of the obligations

of Furniture and Carpet City, also known as Interior Liquidators and Furniture

City, operated by Bachittar Singh Sihota.

"Personal properties owned by [the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew] in Prince George and Williams Lake were subject

to numerous actions, culminating in foreclosure proceedings on both

these properties. There were more than 13 actions taken by lenders or

others against the interest of [the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew]

in these two properties and a third owned by him in the Musqueam

reserve area of Vancouver. They included actions to recover legal fees

for services provided, a garnishee action for the recovery of a

business debt and numerous actions resulting from default under

mortgages. The Musqueam property was not lost in the foreclosure

actions. Attached you will find a copy of a list of actions taken and

the dates of their initiation."

The first action against him was a Royal Bank foreclosure on a house

in Musqueam; the second action, an Afro-Canadian Mortgage suit to

recover brokerage fees; a CIBC foreclosure action on Williams Lake

property; a Canpar Ltd. default judgment; Paramount Furniture —

proceedings dismissed; a CIBC default judgment against M.S. as

guarantor of father's business loan; Cavco Carpets, garnishee against

his wages from law firm re business debt; Eaton-Bay Trust, foreclosure

on Musquearn house; Prospect Mortgage, foreclosure on Musqueam house;

Central Financial, foreclosure on property in Prince George; an

interesting one here — Swinton and Co., default judgment for unpaid

legal fees; Commerce Capital, foreclosure on Musqueam house; Central

Financial, foreclosure on Musqueam house.

Actions taken against S&S Stores, while the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was president: Employment Standards writ of

seizure and sale for unpaid wages — for a man who's the Labour critic

on the other side; Her Majesty, unpaid sales tax; Hankin Furniture, an

unpaid account.

When did the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew take the vow of

sanctity? He gets up in this House — Mr. Clean. I look at that record,

and I don't know any free enterprise business that is that bad. I don't

like to have to put that on the record, but I'm tired of taking the

nonsense from that side. It's time they started to look at their own

house, and it's time the people of British Columbia started to look at

that side of the House in detail. He's the justice critic and the

labour critic, and he had to be sued for legal fees. The NDP love to

ask questions about our contacts in business and what we do.

Bob Williams was a good, hard-working member of this House. Some

over here didn't like him as much as others, but I always liked his

ability to raise some hair over here. I thought he was a great

opposition member. He was chairman of the largest credit union in

British Columbia, and you give him credit for that. The member for

Vancouver–Point Grey was on the board also. It's a good company, but it

probably had a lot of bad loans. Do we get a list of those all the

time, so we can criticize their management capabilities? No, we don't.

If they were on this side of the House, and if anybody here was the

chairman of a credit union or a

[ Page 12296 ]

bank, you can imagine the ~pressure we would go through.

This has to go both ways. We should be debating what the budget is

doing for this province, and what might happen in the next election. We

should be asking those questions in question period. The question

periods over the last few days, with the exception of one member whose

questions I like, was rather dull. You're not doing your research, and

I think that's what you should be doing.

You should also be telling the people of this province what you're

going to do if you become the government of British Columbia. They have

a right to know that. If you don't like the budget the way it is now

and you think we've got too much, what would it be like if we got all

your promises? The member for Vancouver–Point Grey wants to double

welfare rates. What would it be like in this province? Would it be like

Ontario? We have a right to know as people in British Columbia if

you're going to be like Bob Rae, who indicated he might change the

rules in the Ontario legislature because he doesn't like the filibuster

against his budget by the Conservatives. Even his own Speaker ruled

against him. I give him credit. Speakers are always pretty good that

way; they're pretty fair. He ruled against his own government and tried

to stop the filibuster.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We've got to know that. What kind of rules will we have in this

House under a New Democratic government? Will they cut down the

estimates to a small number like they did before? It was this

government, if you remember.... A lot of the voters will forget, because

in 1972 half the voters weren't born. They should remember that your

government cut down the size of the estimates. We won an election on

that. We went back and said: "We'll open it up. You can debate the

estimates all you want." Your government cut it down to a very small

amount of time. We couldn't even debate them. Remember? No dollar

without a debate or something.

[4:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a dime without debate.

MR. REYNOLDS: That was it. What are you going to do? What is

your party going to be? You're afraid to tell the people of British

Columbia what you socialists will do. My God, if we could just get a

little more coverage of what's happening in Ontario.... I would imagine

that we won't have an election until September or October. There's

going to be a lot more coming out. Every day the little clippings are

in the paper.

We will remind the people at election time, because they still remember Expo.

We wouldn't have had Expo if your leader had been leader of this province.

We wouldn't have Tumbler Ridge if it was up to the Leader of the Opposition.

We wouldn't have the Trade and Convention Centre in B.C. Place if it was

up to the Leader of the Opposition. We wouldn't have the Alex Fraser Bridge

or the LRT — the best one in all of North America — if it was up to the Leader

of the Opposition. More importantly, we wouldn't have the Coquihalla if

it was up to those people over there. All they could talk about was how much

it cost and that it was an overrun.

Listen, if you think we have overruns.... We still balance a budget.

Look at Ontario — $10 billion over. Give me a break! The best highway,

one of the best in North America.... The member for Penticton drives it

all the time, I'm sure.

Mr. Speaker, what about the other big issue? It's the one that's

good for the environment: the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. We

wouldn't have that if it was up to the Leader of the Opposition, but

we've got it because this government is in power. That's going to stop

a lot.... I remember the member for Burnaby talking about oil tankers

and what we are going to do about them — not that we ever had a wreck.

But their Ouija board said there is going to be an accident some day.

We put in the natural gas pipeline. We eliminated 200 to 300 shiploads

of oil going back and forth in the harbour all the time. It's a

fabulous thing. We're going to eliminate all that soot in the air on

the Island. All the pulp mills are going to burn natural gas instead of

hog fuel. They opposed it over there, because a few of their little

left-wing environmental idiots — I'll call them that because they are —

get them to support them. They use that in the mailer; I love it.

Anybody who is opposed to that gas pipeline doesn't know what they're

talking about. It never ceases to amaze me how upset they get when you

bring a few facts to them.

This government, Mr. Speaker, has the best environmental record of

any in Canada, and we've done more innovative things than any other

government in Canada. There are things we can be proud of at election

time. This government has the best financial record of any government

in all of Canada. This government has got the best education record,

and compared to Ontario it's unbelievable. We have the best health care

in all of Canada here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to social services we get beat out a

little bit by Ontario, because they doubled their welfare rates. They

are paying them more money now than the average wage-earner in Canada

makes. That's because they are irresponsible. The socialists are

irresponsible, Mr. Speaker: they give money away.

They talk about our different bills. I love it every time I see

their BCGEU leader and others talk about: "Hey, we're going to get out

and get our people to vote NDP." I hope he keeps on saying that,

because we don't get elected in this province, as Socreds, unless we

get a lot of labour votes — and they like us, because we make sure

there's construction going on in the province, so they can get jobs.

All your labour leaders who've got their big, fat salaries and their

homes in West Vancouver.... They live in West Vancouver: John Laxton, a

lawyer, a $4 million house on the water; Jack Munro, up on a mountain,

his wife running somewhere in Vancouver. I thought that was pretty

neat: lives in West Vancouver, runs in Vancouver for the NDP. Big, fat

salaries. They'll all support you guys in the paper, but they probably

go in and mark their X next to the Socred, because they want to keep

their

[ Page

12297 ]

jobs. Those socialist union leaders, they won't have much to spend

if these guys get into power, because they can't run a chicken farm.

I could go on and on, but I see my time is up. I just want to say

I'm proud of this government, proud of the budget, and I'm going to

vote for it.

MR. JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing

me, because unlike the previous speaker, I do have a few comments to

make on the budget before us.

I'd very much like to talk about a small aspect of this budget, but

a very important one. It's part of the budget that affects unemployment

in the province of British Columbia. But before I do that, I would also

like to make a few general comments.

After the thoughtful and high-road speech of the previous speaker, I

thought, for a few minutes there, we were in Queen's Park. Some members

on this side suggest that the members opposite want to talk about

Queen's Park continually because they want to deflect attention away

from their own budget. I don't believe that for a minute, Mr. Speaker.

What the members opposite are really doing is getting practice. They're

getting ready to criticize the government's budget, because they're

getting ready for opposition, which is where they'll be after the next

election.

The question I'd like to address is the question of credibility.

Credibility in terms of this budget is something that all members in

this House know about. We know what a budget is. Members in this

chamber know that a budget is a political document. It's part of the

process of image-making; it's part of the process of optics; it's

trying to create an impression out there in the public. We have to

wonder, on this side, what sort of impression was created. What sort of

message was sent to British Columbians by this budget? Was it one of

stability? Was it one of consistency? Was it one of honesty and

straightforwardness?

Mr. Speaker, the Times-Colonist had an

article on May 22 that

quoted one of the economic authorities in this province, Mr. Al

Kerfoot, president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of

B.C. He said: "The provincial government continues to use the mythical

BS fund to disguise the real nature of the deficit. It's more smoke and

mirrors." This budget before us is not one of trying to create an image

of straightforwardness and honesty; it is another smoke-and-mirrors

budget.

What did the editorial of the Times-Colonist say on that same

day, Mr. Speaker? "No matter what [the Finance minister] or any other

Socred says, the actual deficit...is $1.23 billion." The former

Minister of Health, who is at this moment being sworn in as the

Minister of Advanced Education, Job Training and Technology, still

tried to perpetuate this afternoon that same myth of $385 million. The

editorial goes on to say: "To argue otherwise is simply dishonest."

Brian Kieran said on the same date: "Anyone stupid enough to swallow

that load of fiscal rubbish should have no trouble believing the

Socreds have discovered compassion and caring in their final budget

before an election reckoning."

Mr. Speaker, that's the message being sent by this budget. It's not

one of caring and compassion, or stability and consistency It's one of

deceit, dishonesty and confusion. This government has operated for five

years on that ethic: the ethic of deceit. It is so endemic, so

systemic, so ingrained in Social Credit thinking that even when the

budget before us probably would not have been that highly criticized in

the province, they could not come forward and talk about the bottom

line openly and honestly. They could not come clean. They could not

'fess up to the reality. They wanted to create some sort of image that

just didn't wash. Everybody but the Finance minister and the former

Minister of Health is out of step.

The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound spoke a few minutes ago

about promises. He talked about that government keeping promises. Well,

Mr. Speaker, a very short time ago in this chamber we debated a bill,

Bill 92. It was called the tax freeze act. The government was talking

about freezing taxes. What did members say at the time? The Finance

minister of the time, who is now the Provincial Secretary, said: "As

well, the act prevents the provincial government from introducing any

new taxes whatsoever." There was an interjection at that point. I

assume that somebody asked: "Are you sure that's what this act says?"

The former Finance minister said: "That's right, no new taxes."

So what happened a very short time later? What happened some two

months later? My colleague the member for Vancouver East has a line. He

says: "This government didn't even wait until the next election to

break their election promises." That's not an accurate quote; it's not

an accurate statement that the member for Vancouver East made. That was

not an election promise; that was legislation. That was a bill that was

approved in this chamber unanimously Two months later, this government

turns around and increases taxes in violation of that unanimously

passed legislation. Everybody is out of step except those people.

In this House the other day, the Minister of Government Services had

the temerity to criticize the former Premier for his defence of that

legislation that we all voted for. She had the temerity to criticize

the former leader for standing up, for being consistent, for believing

in something that the former Premier stood for and saw approved in this

House and is now being criticized for — for being consistent. It's

typical of a Social Credit government to criticize one of their members

when they stand up to be counted for something that stands for

consistency, openness and honesty.

What happened to Bill 92? What happened to freezing the taxes? Did

we see another bill that overrides or contradicts that bill? In this

session, clearly what we see in this chamber is a contempt of

parliament. Everybody in this House voted for legislation that is now

being trashed by the Social Credit government.

The image this government is trying to create in this budget is one

of caring and concern for people. Over and over again in the budget

speech, the Finance minister talked about people: people first, people

programs, people-oriented, people are number one.

[ Page 12298 ]

According to the Finance minister, we are going to move to a kinder

and gentler British Columbia. We are going to try and move away from

the hard and callous image that the government has had for the last

five years and, in a deathbed repentance, try and change that image.

[4:45]

Well, that is a farce. It's a farce because of one particular aspect

of this budget that was totally ignored. There was no mention in this

budget of the serious problem we face: unemployment. The budget speech

ignored some 167,000 British Columbians who are out of work at this

time. The member opposite for Columbia River, the member for Kamloops,

the member from Prince George and the member for Nelson Creston did not

have any input into this budget, or any mention or measure of dealing

with the serious problem of unemployment, which was ignored.

A significant event happened in between the time of the tax freeze

of Bill 92 and the bringing down of this budget. In that short period

of time, in those short few weeks, we moved to double-digit

unemployment numbers: 7.7 percent in January 1990 and 10.2 percent last

month. To try and put that in perspective, we must consider that

something like 10 percent of the workforce is unemployed. If we try to

put that in terms of constituencies, an additional 35,000 people were

thrown out of work last year. Thirty-five thousand people is a whole

constituency. If that was in one constituency, we would have a member

representing a whole constituency of newly unemployed persons. I

realize that not everybody in the province is capable of entering the

workforce, but a 10 percent unemployment figure might suggest that

something like five members out of 69 in this chamber would represent

unemployed families.

Perhaps then, if we looked at it in those terms, we would see a

budget that at least had some mention of unemployment, if not some

serious measures to address that serious problem. But what we saw from

this callous Social Credit government was no mention of it, no

programs, no effort — from a government that purports to care about

people, in the words of the budget.

What you want to do, Mr. Speaker and members opposite, if you want

to learn about unemployment, is talk to my friend from Port Alberni. If

members opposite availed themselves of that opportunity, clearly they

would learn about the hardship of a community where many of the members

have been thrown out of work in the forest industry, and about the

tremendous toll that that takes in human terms. The member for Alberni

is always eloquent, but I've never heard him more so when he speaks on

behalf of those unemployed forest workers.

I have sat waiting for almost five years on this side of the House. I've

been waiting for a labour market strategy. All we hear from that side is the

rosy picture of British Columbia. They have rose-coloured glasses. They are

avoiding the reality of unemployment in this province. And what did we see in

this budget in terms of trying to address that?

Mr. Speaker, one part of the budget that I have a responsibility for

looking at is the job training, apprenticeship, labour market and

policy programs part.

Guess what happened to that part of the budget. Has it been increased along

with the overall 8.1 percent increase? No, the part of the budget that held

out some hope for those unemployed British Columbians is down $1.3 million.

It's down 4 percent, and when we consider inflation and other factors, it's

down over 10 percent, dashing the hopes for British Columbians that there might

be some programs. That part of the budget is at the same level as four years

ago. It has not increased. The timing of this government — the government

that fires its Finance minister on throne speech day — is incredible. There

could not be a worse time for a cutback in that budget.

Mr. Speaker, what we know in this province is that the labour market

has undergone incredible structural change. We've gone from a

goods-producing economy to a service economy. Between 1981 and 1989

some 25 percent of the employment in the goods-producing sector was

eliminated, and between 1975 and 1989 in metropolitan Vancouver 96

percent of the new jobs were in the service sector. Now that's not such

a bad thing. When we think of the service sector we think of

low-paying, low-skilled jobs, and that's not necessarily the case. Many

of those jobs are in the sophisticated knowledge-based and

information-based sector. Such jobs as research and development,

marketing and business services are part of that expansion.

We know what happened in Port Alberni. That industry retooled, and

in that retooling many formerly employed skilled people were thrown on

the unemployment rolls. Skilled workers were left to fend for

themselves. This part of the budget that held out some hope for those

workers in terms of addressing the unemployment problem and providing

programs that could retrain them has gone down in the order of 10

percent.

The point is that in the unskilled area we have some 92,000 people

unemployed, and in the middle management area we have some 30,000

people unemployed. Training must be in place for those workers;

training must be in place for those that have been idled by the shift

from a goods-producing economy to a service economy.

What's been needed — and this government has never understood — is a

countercyclical approach. When the economy slows d