1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3707 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mr. Harcourt –– 3707

On the amendment

Mr. G. Hanson –– 3710

Mrs. Gran –– 3712

Mr. Miller –– 3714

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming approximately 59 grade 6 and 7 students from Coquitlam

Elementary School in Coquitlam. Half of this group is in the House at

the present time, and the others will be present later. They're here

with their principal, Mr. MacDonald, and also Mr. Payan. In the

precincts with their students are also Mrs. Greenough and Mr.

Robertson. Mr. Speaker, this group is here in a second attempt. They

started to come to the Legislature several weeks ago, but their bus

broke down and therefore they were not able to complete the trip. So I

ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), with all due respect,

to take note and recognize the need for backup buses.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. HARCOURT: I was talking briefly to the Clerk of the House

today about whether we should offer another prayer this morning. If I

had had that opportunity, I would have said 0 Lord, forgive the

government for they know not what they do. Except, I may say, that

hundreds of thousands of British Columbians know what they're doing to

them.

This budget is a reflection of the government's failure to serve the

interests of British Columbians. This budget shows that this is a

government that takes British Columbians and their tax dollars for

granted. And this budget is a clear indication that British Columbians

now find themselves under attack from their own government. But as

British Columbians, we're not surprised that this government is digging

deeper into our pockets. Last year this government took $700 out of the

pockets of the average British Columbia family; this year they have

done the same. Last year this government increased the tax burden on

middle- and low-income British Columbians, while cutting the income

taxes for the wealthy and for big business.

Mr. Speaker, last year this government increased fees for public

services — which are, in effect, hidden taxes — with no regard for a

family's ability to pay. Let's have a look at some of those. Let's have

a look at how, last year, this government increased fees for starting

and running a business, building and buying a home, taking a vacation,

going to court, driving a car or truck, farming, fishing, doctoring

animals, forming a partnership, running a railroad, constructing a

building, making a phone call or getting sick — just to name a few of

the areas where this government last year increased the fees on British

Columbians.

Last year this government showed that behind the rhetoric and the smiles is

the fantastically big hand of a Social Credit government — a big hand that digs

deeper into the pockets of middle- and low-income British Columbians. It's

digging deeper into the pockets of B.C.'s working families and the pockets

of the poor, the elderly, the sick and the unemployed of our province.

Mr. Speaker, we were hoping for some relief this year in the budget.

Unfortunately, once again we have a budget that is unfair. This year

this government has continued its tax attack on British Columbians by

unfairly increasing the taxes and fees for the average British Columbia

family, unfairly decreasing the tax burden on the wealthy and big

business — the people they truly represent — and by unfairly increasing

the fees and taxes for the poor, the sick and the elderly. Mr. Speaker,

this budget continues the tax attack on British Columbians by taking

another $700 out of the pocket of the average family. That's $1,400

over the last two years that the Vander Zalm government has taken out

of the pockets of working families.

This budget offers no relief from last year's tax increases on

middle- and low-income taxpayers. As a matter of fact, what this budget

does is to lay the burden as follows: individual British Columbians now

shoulder 83 percent of the tax burden; corporations and businesses only

17 percent. This budget cuts income taxes for big business while it

increases health care premiums on families by $192 and on individuals

by $108.

At the same time, this Social Credit government has been cutting

health care services and creating a crisis in our medicare system. I

have only to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the tragedies that have

happened over the last many months at the Children's Hospital — over

700 young children waiting for an operation because there isn't funding

for that hospital. Yet there's $2.5 million for the B.C. Lions. We have

400 heart patients,18-month waiting-lists, and the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) says: "Oh, that's just a fad." Heart operations are

just a fad. Well, let me tell you, that's not a fad. It's not trendy.

I'll tell you about the Pharmacare program that we helped to get

underway. I want to tell you the results of this magnificent Social

Credit government's attitude towards our senior citizens in this

province. When I was travelling to the many communities that I visited

last year and over the last few months, in Quesnel I ran into a senior

citizen who had been to his pharmacist. I talked to the pharmacist.

This senior citizen had diabetes, and because of the Pharmacare fees

that this government imposed last year, he hadn't been in for a month.

He was deathly ill because he couldn't afford his insulin. That

pharmacist had to rush one of our British Columbia senior citizens to a

$1,000-a-day hospital bed, deathly ill because he couldn't afford the

drugs for his insulin....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the members, if they want to have a meeting, have it outside. Thank you.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, that is just a continuation of

this defensive, desperate government's tactics. They're not prepared to

listen to British Columbians, we know that. They're not prepared to

listen to the Leader of the Opposition. They've decided that the best

defence is to be offensive. And believe me, they've succeeded. They are

indeed offensive to the vast majority of British Columbians.

[10:15]

Let's talk about the unfairness of this budget and this government's

programs to hurt the people of British Columbia. I've been, for a

number of days now, trying to get the Premier to deal with the

legitimate, tragic situation of up to

[ Page 3708 ]

100 patients who are suffering from that dreadful

disease of AIDS and of providing the drug AZT to these patients without

their having to dig deeper into their pockets. The Premier has offered

no relief to these people, and yet he's prepared to change his mind on

those who are having organ transplants and offer relief there.

I asked him about the 60 families this year and 95 families in the

next year or so who are going to need the drugs to deal with their

children's growth deficiencies. They need growth hormones. He's not

offering any relief in this budget for these people. What a terrible

crisis he has created in health care.

In terms of business, he keeps the income taxes on small business at

the second highest level in Canada. They dropped from 11 percent to 9

percent, but they didn't have the courage in the budget to admit that

they'd increased those taxes from 8 percent to 11 percent last year; so

they're still higher than they were last year. That is foolishness of

the highest order because small business in this province is providing

80 percent of the new jobs in British Columbia. They should be

encouraged, not shackled.

It's the women who are creating twice as many enterprises as men. As

Charlotte Whitton, who used to be the mayor of Ottawa, said — somebody

asked her what it's like to be a woman in politics: "Well, I'm glad you

asked that question. Unfortunately we have to be twice as smart as men.

But fortunately that's very easy." As you can see from the success of

the women entrepreneurs in this province, creating twice as many new

enterprises as men.... They're not being encouraged by this government,

with this kind of taxation policy.

It's hypocritical. They talk free enterprise and then strangle it,

or offer $400,000 loans to losers that go bankrupt. They've increased

user fees for the mentally ill, for alcohol and drug abuse residential

programs, for extended care for the elderly. Let's look at a few

examples. They've increased ambulance fees for the sick and the elderly

by 25 percent, from $28 to $35. They've increased extended hospital

care fees for the sick by 15 percent, to $19.20 a day. They've also

increased fees for the mentally ill by 15 percent, to $19.20 a day.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is unfair because it provides no increase

in GAIN income assistance for the poor and the unemployed, and it

provides nothing to significantly improve the status of women. As I

mentioned, the status of women in business is succeeding in spite of

this government. There's no mention of equal opportunity, of pay

equity, or of an increase in the minimum wage, which directly affects

the women in this province. We've made a commitment to increase that by

a dollar at least, to make sure that women, who are mostly in the

service sector and would be affected by the increase, have a chance for

a decent income. And if they had a chance to get out and work, they

can't because there's no mention of child care in this budget, except

in the Premier's recycled program, to inflict on us his personal views

on abortion.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is unfair because it increases student aid

to a level that's still below the Canadian average, while they've

effectively decreased funding for our universities and colleges. It is

indeed a voodoo education policy. We've had voodoo economics; now we've

got a voodoo education policy, where you increase demand and cut back

supply. That's what's happened: we've increased student aid and then

cut back on teachers, classrooms and the resources required for those

students. What you've done is increase the bitterness and frustration

of our young people, particularly in the north and the interior, where

they don't have access to technological and trades training or to a

university background. There's no mention of that in this budget.

They've increased the property tax for rural homeowners. They've

raised taxes on gas, car insurance, beer, alcohol and cigarettes. This

is an unfair budget, Mr. Speaker. It's not only unfair; it's dishonest.

It's a dishonest budget because, for example, it increases taxes on

beer, alcohol and cigarettes and yet only 25 percent of those new

revenues goes back into substance abuse programs. It's been costed out.

We collect $400 million out of alcohol in this province, yet we lose $2

billion a year because of alcohol abuse. It's no major effort to

address that.

This budget is dishonest because it cuts the highways operation and

maintenance budget by 15 percent, while it sets aside — and I'm sure

the Island MLAs are just so overjoyed at this — $6 million for the

Vancouver Island Highway. One small step for the Island Highway. It

will take a hundred years to build the Island Highway at that rate. As

a matter of fact, that's one and a half days' cost of work on the

Coquihalla Highway.

Mr. Speaker, this budget fails because it does not begin to address

the unfair taxes for the average taxpayer. It digs deeper into the

pockets of British Columbians. It shows that the government is not

listening to British Columbians; it shows that the government is more

interested in pursuing its moral and personal agenda than dealing with

the bread-and-butter issues so important to British Columbians. It

shows that the government takes British Columbians and their tax

dollars for granted. They take the intelligence of the people of

British Columbia for granted by insulting it with this BS fund, this

budget surplus fund.

I'll tell you that I've been trying that out on some of the members

of my credit union, VanCity. I said, "Think of it this way," as I was

waiting in a very short lineup — tremendous service at this credit

union. An excellent credit union — they've got a progressive, effective

board of directors — and it's the second largest credit union in the

world, after the U.S. Navy. I only had a few seconds to talk to some of

the people in the lineup with me, and I said: "Think of it this way.

Here's what this BS fund is all about. This BS fund is like you going

into your bank manager and borrowing money to then place in a fund for

a rainy day." They looked at me sort of awestruck that somebody would

be so stupid as to do that. I said: "Well, that's your government."

That's why I was tempted to offer that prayer at the beginning of the

session: Lord, forgive them because they know not what they do — to

borrow money to put into a rainy-day fund.

I was brought up by a good Scottish grandmother who said that you

put cash into a rainy-day fund. Maybe that's old-fashioned now, in this

credit card mentality that we have on the other side of the House. But

that's the New Democratic way; we put cash into our rainy-day fund when

the hon. member for Nanaimo was here.

If you want to know about real rainy-day funds, why don't you look

at that raving radical government to the east of us in Alberta with a

heritage fund? They put income from their natural resources into a

rainy-day fund, and that's what has been getting them through the

depression. They didn't sell the assets of that province off; they used

the income from their resources to help through the tough times.

If you want to know another good example that's even closer to home,

why don't you visit the magnificent city that I'm a citizen of,

Vancouver? Look at the property endowment

[ Page

3709 ]

fund. When we started in 1976, it was worth $70 million. It's now worth

over $400 million, creating $30 million a year in revenue, and we used that revenue.

We didn't sell any assets off; we used that revenue during the depression

of 1982 to the present. We used the income; we didn't sell off the assets.

Are you watching my lips move, over there on the other side of the House?

Do you know something? We balanced our budget. I heard criticisms

coming from the other side of the House of us balancing our budget

because, by law, we had to. But they missed the whole point. We didn't

slaughter our services. We didn't layoff a whole bunch of people; we

didn't panic. We kept our great city looking clean. We didn't lay off a

whole third of our police force or fire department like the member for

Richmond — who was then from Surrey and then over to Richmond when he

came to run against me for mayor — campaigned on. We didn't do any of

that. We kept the city stable, healthy, clean and attractive, so we

could play our role in hosting Expo and be proud of it.

I'll tell you what else we did. We hosted our city's centennial

program –– 100 years of creating the wonderful, marvellous city of

Vancouver. We had some funds to be able to do that, and it was cash. We

didn't have to borrow to do it; we paid cash for it.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about your credit rating?

MR. HARCOURT: You know something about our credit rating?

That's a very good point, because I recall that during this upheaval

when we were introducing all these things, I sent our director of

finance to New York. I said: "I don't like a double-A credit rating for

the city of Vancouver. We deserve far better from you people in

Manhattan." Do you know what they did? They came to see Vancouver, and

they agreed with us, and they raised us to a triple-A credit rating —

only one in five in North America.

Do you know what happened at the same time? They decided while they

were out here that they would visit Victoria and have a look at the

books over here and see the way Victoria was handling this recession.

Do you know what they did? They were so shocked and scandalized by it

that they dropped the credit rating of the province; they dropped it to

a double-A.

So the budget really is unfair. The budget is hypocritical; it's

cruel and savage. Citizens are going to have to continue to band

together to protect themselves from this government. That's not what a

government should do. People shouldn't have to band together to protect

themselves from their own government.

Mr. Speaker, I must respond. I cannot help myself. I must respond to

the last speaker on the budget debate, the hon. Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Veitch). I am indeed saddened that he is not here to hear me,

as I sat courteously through his remarks yesterday — as silly as they

may have been. He was talking about negative, doubting people, and he

kept looking in his own benches. He kept looking across at these

negative nabobs. He kept looking at his own people. We were smiling

over here, and we were happy and enthusiastic because we know British

Columbia's going to outlast this Social Credit government and get good

government after the next election.

I was astounded that he continued to say that the hon. member for Vancouver

Centre was opposed to Expo and how terrible that was. I didn't have the

heart to tell him that I was opposed to Transpo, not Expo. I didn't have

the heart to tell him, so I'll tell him today, and I hope he's listening,

that Transpo was brought to our city council in May 1980....

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: No, it was brought with the hard-nosed. businesslike details by one of his predecessors who was then Provincial Secretary.

[10:30]

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, that's what they were trying to do. Evan

Wolfe was trying to explain Transpo. Do you know what he said to us?

I'm sure the hon. second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) with his

sterling knowledge of finances would understand that we had cause to be

concerned and to again band together and protect ourselves from Social

Credit. The then Provincial Secretary stood in front of us and said:

"Transpo is only going to cost $75 million."

Now I am a reasonable person. But do you know what I had sitting on

my desk? I had the Malouf report about the Olympics in Montreal — about

the $1.2 billion cost overrun from the 1976 Olympics, when the mayor of

the city of Montreal said: "The Olympics in Montreal have as much

chance of having a deficit as I have of becoming pregnant." Do you know

what happened? Not only did that mayor perform a modern medical

miracle; he had quintuplets. He had a $1.2 billion deficit in those

Olympics. I'm sitting there listening to the Social Credit government

tell me that Expo — Transpo, it was then called — was only going to

cost $75 million. I had Expo 67 to look at, a great success, sitting

there 15 years later, an eyesore and a disgrace in the middle of

Montreal.

Do you know something? I sent a telegram. I said: "I'm going to take

care of the people of Vancouver, because I don't believe this

government. It's going to cost a billion dollars." Do you know what? It

cost a billion and a half.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Tell us about the telegram.

MR. HARCOURT: The telegram said that. I sent that telegram

before the election, and do you know something? I got elected. I beat

an incumbent Social Credit mayor. I faced the same attack after I had

whipped those megaprojects into shape so we weren't at risk in our

city, so we had a triple-A credit rating, so we balanced our budget.

I heard the same negative nabobs of Social Credit in 1982 when they

ran another Social Credit mayoralty candidate at me. Do you know

something? I won by 3,000 votes in 1980 against the incumbent Social

Credit mayor. Do you know how much I won by in 1982? By 36,000 votes. I

said: "I'm proud to stand up for the people of my city. That's what I'm

elected to do, to take care of their business."

Well, that wasn't good enough, Social Credit continuing its....

Please continue this tactic. Please continue to attack me on Expo.

I'll tell you what happened. In 1984 we had a visitor to our city to

run for mayor. He talked about running for mayor in Surrey, and then he

decided to hold a press conference in Richmond to talk about running

for mayor in Vancouver. Then he moved into the founder of Teck's modest

little million dollar house in Southlands with a heated swimming pool

that costs more to heat than most people make in a

[ Page 3710 ]

month. He came into the city and said: "Oh, that

Harcourt is just too anti-Expo. He's just too tough on the provincial

and federal governments. He's just taking too good care of the people's

business in Vancouver, and I've got to do something about that. So I

came in as a hit man to knock off this mayor." Do you know what

happened? He turned the gun on himself. He blew a big hole through his

political career. Do you know what happened there? I beat him by 40,000

votes, and he decided to create an imaginary world for himself to

escape the reality of that electoral defeat. I guess he couldn't afford

the air fare down to Disneyland, so he created Fantasy Garden World

right here on some of our best farmland.

You know something, Mr. Speaker? I heard the same argument; I

couldn't believe it. I go from 3,000 votes to 35,000 votes to 40,000

votes. They used the same argument against me in 1986 when I ran as an

MLA in Vancouver Centre, and you know what happened? We lapped the

Social Credit candidates. We didn't just beat them, the senior member

and I; we beat them by more than two to one. We lapped them. We sort of

waved at them as they went by the second time: "See you next election.

Please come back and use that same argument." So believe me, I do hope

that the government continues to attack me on Expo and to attack New

Democrats for wanting to have a province that's well run.

Do you know what we're against, Mr. Speaker? We're against bad

management; we're against fiscal irresponsibility; we're against

budgets that are unfair and cruel; we're against Coquihalla scandals

and cost overruns; we're against the disgraceful decisions to put

together the disaster of northeast coal; we're against the silly

thought processes that went into privatization and decentralization.

But do you know what we're for, Mr. Speaker? This is why people are

looking forward to the next provincial election, when the New Democrats

are going to be able to tell them: "We're fighting for British

Columbians. We're for a good deal from the federal government, not for

whining and snivelling about not being able to negotiate." We're for a

stable and prosperous British Columbia, and that's what British

Columbians are going to get after the next provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment. It goes as follows....

MRS. GRAN: He forgot.

MR. HARCOURT: No, I wanted to give a chance for the New

Democrat caucus to show you how enthusiastic we are about winning the

next election. When I see the quiet and not-so-quiet — usually noisy —

desperation from the rabbit pack on the other side, I feel even better

about the next provincial election.

The motion reads, Mr. Speaker, that the motion "that Mr. Speaker do

now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply" be

amended by adding the following words: "But this House regrets that the

hon. the Minister of Finance has continued to seek increased revenue

from fee increases which will directly impact on the poor, the sick and

the elderly, and that the minister has continued to increase the heavy

tax burden on middle-income and working families in British Columbia."

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment seems to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. G. HANSON: It's a pleasure to second this amendment to

this budget. I want to direct my comments to the impact that this

document will have on the constituents of Victoria. I know there are

some very important aspects to this budget which impact on health care,

on the well-being of the senior citizens of this community. The unfair

taxation that is provided here in fees and taxes takes away $1,400 from

every British Columbian over the time this Premier has been in power.

But before I do that, I want to remind all the members of a

particular promise that was made in October 1986, around the time of

the provincial election. I think it stands out as one of the most

cynical, opportunistic moves ever made by a politician in this

province. I think you all remember the promise to lower the price of

beer. Do you recall that? The Premier was speaking to a meeting of

radio broadcasters, and he commented that "beer has become so expensive

that many labourers can't afford a glass after work," and that he'd try

to lower the cost. Here's someone sympathetic with the working people

of the province, right? He said: "One of the pleasures of labourers is

that after work they can stop and have a glass of beer." The Premier

said: "We've made it so pricey that few of them can afford it anymore."

Here's a Premier, newly elected at the Whistler convention, seeking

a mandate from the people of the province, who now is expressing a

political message to the working men and women of the province of

British Columbia, and in editorial comments they say — and I'll give

you the exact quote: "This seems to be a case study in hypocrisy and

opportunism." This was the Vancouver Province

of September 3. A case study in hypocrisy and opportunism — because

that body, that paper, that organ recognized very clearly what the

Premier was doing. He was expressing in an election tactic to the

people of the province that somehow he was on their side with respect

to a minor pleasure, a cold glass of draft beer after a hard day of

labouring, working in the factory, working in the office, and so on.

Isn't that interesting? You know, in the United States, voting

records of congressmen and senators are monitored very closely by

lobbying agencies. What people say prior to an election, what they do

after, and their voting record — what they do in the House — determines

in large part whether they're going to be returned again, because with

their system that is a relevant factor.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this province, the

ordinary working person, male or female, remembers that little item

that happened in October, 1986: the Premier promised to look into,

seriously, the prospect of lowering the price of beer. It was too high,

too pricey, and he was going to do something about it.

Let's look at the record. He was elected in October of '86, when the

price of a case of beer was $10.30. On January 7, less than three

months after he was elected, up went the supplier price by 50 cents to

$10.80. On March 20 of the same year, 1987, the social service tax

decreased by one percentage point, and it dropped by 10 cents. But

guess what? On January 6, 1988, a supplier increase plus a federal tax

increase of 3 percent pushed the price to $11.35. So we're now $1.05

above what the Premier had suggested was too high in the first place.

The point that I'm going to get to after this is that this was the

most cynical, Tammany Hall kind of manoeuvre that this province has

ever seen during an election campaign. He had no intention whatsoever

of keeping that promise.

[ Page 3711 ]

Then on April 1, 1988, in this budget, the provincial social service

tax increase from 6 percent to 10 percent pushed the price to $11.80,

$1.50 more than at the election time, and at election time, the taxes

in this province made a case of beer $1.50 more than it was in Alberta,

and $2.50 more than it was in Washington State. So about half of the

total price was in taxation. And the breweries slapped his wrist very

quickly, indicating that if there was going to be any decrease in the

price of beer, they were in charge, and it was going to come from taxes

and not supplier price.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't that long ago that the price of beer in the

province of British Columbia was regulated by the Legislature. It was

regulated by government, and it was regulated by government because we

have several large breweries with more or less a monopoly position and

it was recognized that if prices had to increase, there had to be some

justification to the Legislature for that increase, because it's a

licence to print money, it's old rope. That has always been recognized.

That was deregulated by the Bennett government. W.A.C. Bennett

recognized the merits of a regulated beer price. But his son

deregulated it.

[10:45]

My point is that if this province had been advised by this Premier

that he was going to take the big first slurp out of every draft beer —

on a 10-oz. glass, he was going to slurp away the first big gulp — he

would never have been elected the Premier of this province.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ten percent sales tax.

MR. G. HANSON: Ten percent sales tax. So now every one of

these people he referred to — the labourers, the working men and women

who couldn't afford a beer — when they go home from work and stop in,

VZ takes the first big slurpy, and he's redefined "the big slurp" for

the people of the province. And they will remember, because he had no

intention whatsoever of following through on that. The Province

editorial board picked up on that well before the provincial election.

I point it out in my remarks because it is an example of how a

politician could mislead the public on a matter which would influence

the voting behaviour of the men and women of the province. The margin

of victory over the last three provincial elections has been relatively

minor, with approximately 45 percent of the people of the province

voting for this side of the House and close to 50 percent for that

side. So we're not talking about a lot of vote shift to change this

House. That particular suggestion, that he in some way was sympathetic

with the working person's ability to afford a beer after work, was, as

the Province said, cynical opportunism at its worst.

I want to refer now to a couple of matters that are of great urgency

in my particular constituency. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Victoria,

along with White Rock, has the largest number of senior citizens in

British Columbia. Because of the climatic conditions and the quality of

life here and in White Rock, they are very suitable places for people

to retire. Seniors are a very important part of our local economy. That

dimension of our economy is something we value.

The hardship that has now been included in this budget, increasing

the costs of long-term care from 75 to 85 percent of combined old age

pension and guaranteed income supplement, will decrease seniors'

disposable income from $178 to $103, which would leave approximately

$3.39 per day for individuals in this circumstance. I don't have to

draw a picture and shine it on the wall of this Legislature for members

to understand what $3.39 buys in April 1988. These people who have

worked all their lives and who find, through no fault of their own,

through the ageing process, that they're in long-term care, have to be

seen as a source of revenue for the province. It has to make one wonder

what the spending and revenue-generating priorities of this government

really are. A budget document is really the manifestation of the

government's allocation of the spending pie. When they use senior

citizens in long-term care to generate revenue, under the argument that

they have the ability to pay, it's got to be a real tragedy in terms of

our approach to looking after our parents in their later years.

Another revenue-generating priority of the budget is to see

individuals requiring coverage under the Medical Services Plan, and

with the ability to pay, as a source of revenue. After years in this

province of a recessionary economy that has not really recovered from

the 1981 recession, people are nevertheless now obliged to increase

their medical services premiums. For families, the rate increases from

$42 per month to $58 per month, an increase of $192 to a total of $696

per year. There are provinces in this country where people don't even

pay medical services premiums; yet this province is using it as a

source of revenue to offset medical costs. For individuals, the rate

goes up from $20 to $29 per month, an increase of $108 to a total of

$348 a year.

In an area that has a large number of seniors who need access to

quality health care, both long-term care and extended care, and also

access to goods and services.... We've heard members of this House laud

the health service that we have in this province. I'd like to take them

on tours of emergency wards and unused space, to meet with staff that

are overworked, working extra shifts, having high incidence of back and

other health problems because of added stress due to inadequate

financing of health care in this province. So $555 million in

additional revenue will be collected in fees and premiums in this

budget from people who have not recovered from the recession. This

government believes in withdrawing demand from the economy, withdrawing

spending power by adding usurious fees and premiums on every aspect of

service that the citizens expect to be given at a reasonable rate, and

the government sees that as a source of revenue.

Mr. Speaker, this Premier was elected without a program laid clearly

before the public, with the exception of a few matters which I've

alluded to earlier in my remarks, where he had no intention whatsoever

of ever fulfilling the promises that he made. It was one of his

30-second clips into a radio station which became something that the

public thought he did intend to meet, in honesty. Those are the kinds

of things that make people cynical about the functioning of government:

something is stated to the public, that an attempt would be made, yet

there is no effort or intention to follow through. That creates the

cynicism that we see in the young people and the public, and every

member of this House knows exactly what I'm talking about.

This budget hurts the ordinary family. It extracts money that they

don't have for coverage, for medical care. It extracts money from

people who are under long-term care and reduces their ability to have a

modicum of comfort and spending flexibility for simple little pleasures

in their lives. So these people on the old age pension and GAIN

supplement, the people with the lowest incomes in our province....

After the amount of money is taken away for their care, they have only

$3.39 left.

[ Page 3712 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's appropriate to make a comment about a

great person who was in this House back in 1972, a man by the name of

Norman Levi. He is someone whom that side of the House takes pleasure

in vilifying from time to time because of an overrun in the Ministry of

Human Resources of $100 million. That $100 million was a gap between

the knowledge that this province had of seniors who were living on

under $200 a month. When he brought in the support for seniors, there

was no idea how many seniors were living on an income under $200 a

month. This government is rolling that back to the point where seniors

are again going to be on cat food and dog food in this province. I kid

you not. That is the way it is going, because incomes have not risen,

and every time there is any increase in the old age pension, then it's

extracted back, and the people never really receive those federal

increases that come through to the province. The standard of living for

seniors in this province is slowly eroding away again.

What we need is someone with the spirit of Norman Levi to come again

in this House through the New Democratic Party and say: "I am committed

to the living standards of the senior citizens of this province." The

mothers and fathers of all of us really do deserve to be treated better

than to have $3.39 a day left for their lives. I don't think there's

anything that says more about the inhumanity of this budget than that

$3.39 left for a person in extended care after the government takes its

chunk.

Mr. Speaker, I second the amendment to the budget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to acknowledge that present in the

House are the remainder of the Burquitlam Elementary grade 6 and 7

class, along with their teachers, Mrs. Greenough and Mr. Robertson. I

would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

MRS. GRAN: I rise to speak against the amendment. This

morning I am going to be a little bit more political than I normally

am. I think it's fair to say that of the members on the Social Credit

side I probably have warmer feelings toward the opposition than most. I

have a great deal of respect for many of the members on that side of

the House.

Lately we've heard a lot about leadership in the news: the

leadership of our Premier. I'd like to direct my remarks to the

leadership that is offered up by the opposition, and it ties in to the

budget, Mr. Speaker. What I want to talk about is fear-mongering, which

has concerned me for a long time in this province. Whether a government

brings down a budget that makes everyone happy or not, it doesn't, in

my opinion, give the opposition the right to terrify the residents of

this province.

As an example I'd like to use a medicare notice that has gone out. I don't

know where this notice went or how many people it went to, but it was brought

into my constituency office by a senior citizen. On the outside in red it says,

"Medicare notice," and it makes it look important and official. On

the inside are letters signed by the Leader of the Opposition, a request for

money to fight the medicare problem. It's a letter for money for the NDP.

There are no facts inside it, it is slanderous toward the government, and it

is terrifying for the people that read it.

I view this as an irresponsible act and I find it extremely

disappointing, given my warm and fuzzy feelings toward the opposition.

The request in that letter is for about $250, and this goes to senior

citizens whom we hear are all in a really bad situation. But those

senior citizens are being asked by the NDP to dig deeper into their

pockets, to give them $250 to write up pamphlets, to send out socialist

literature. I just simply find that appalling and I think that the NDP,

and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, owe the public of this

province an apology.

Not once in any speech on the opposition side have I heard any talk

of premium assistance. Premium assistance is of great value to many

people in this province and it has been changed so that more people, in

fact 60,000 more, will receive assistance. Those people in this

province who are in difficulty are being looked after by this

government, have always been looked after by this government. I say

that the NDP have done a great disservice to the medicare system and to

the people that we serve collectively in this province.

[11:00]

I think the same holds true for the long-term-care program. The

long-term-care program was brought in by a Social Credit minister with

whom I worked for ten years. That program is a wonderful program. It

has provided a great deal of quality care for senior citizens in this

province. I think we all know, including senior citizens, that there

are bills to be paid, and in order to maintain those services we have

to make sure that we can continue to pay the bills. The bottom line on

long-term care that we've heard so much about from across the way is a

$19 difference. What we're talking about is $19 — not the amount of

money that they on that side seem to think it is.

I have thought for a very long time that the socialist philosophy

needs to have poverty to exist. The only way that a socialist party can

thrive in a country is to continually make us believe that most of the

people in the country we live in are poor and need our help. So all of

their political philosophy is based on helping the poor people. But

what it's really based on is keeping those people poor for their own

political benefits.

I ask the opposition members to rethink some of the things they do

to raise money and to try to turn people in this province into votes

for them. We had a question yesterday from a member across the way

about ethics. I think that this medicare notice brings the ethics of

that party into question. I ask them to rethink doing this kind of

thing in this province. The only people they are fooling are themselves.

I would like to compliment, first of all, the Minister of Finance. I

have no difficulty in supporting this budget. I am proud of this

budget. I am proud of the job that the Minister of Finance has done

over a short period of time, and although there are items in the budget

that make me uncomfortable because it means that some people will have

to change the way they live a little bit, for the most

part I think

it's a good budget. It's a responsible budget, and I support it

completely.

I am particularly happy to see that chiropractors, podiatrists,

physiotherapists, orthodontists, massage practitioners and naturopaths

were left in the medical system. Of all the letters I've received in my

19 months as an MLA, I've received more letters from those people than

from anyone. Their fear of being removed from the medical system was

[ Page 3713 ]

warranted, I suppose, from remarks that may have

been made by the Minister of Health, and I'm just happy to see they

have been left in.

I think the budget that the Minister of Finance has brought down

proves that this is a government committed to doing what is right and

not what's politically expedient. That is where the difference lies

between the Social Credit Party and the NDP. What is right for people

isn't always popular, and when you know what the bottom line is in

terms of dollars, then you have a responsibility to be honest and

truthful with those people.

Our medical system and our long-term-care plan need to be valued in

terms of dollars, and if it means that a small, affordable user fee

needs to happen, then that's what we need to do. To do anything less is

an affront to the future citizens of this province, which just happen

to be most of our children.

I have wondered why the media and the NDP aren't talking about the

reduction in tax to small business. The income tax rate on small

business has been cut from 11 percent to 9 percent. No one is saying

anything about that. The NDP aren't sending letters to small business

and saying: "Gee, they've finally given you a break." No, because

that's a positive step. That's not something worth talking about. Are

the NDP sending letters to students telling them about the increased

financial assistance? No, because that's another positive move, and

it's not worth talking about. I say to the opposition through you, Mr.

Speaker, that you do yourselves a disservice because you make

yourselves look negative and always looking for doom and gloom.

More money has been provided for the universities, and a smaller

amount for the colleges. I have to say that I would have been happier

to see more money for the colleges and perhaps more for the

universities. I believe, quite frankly, that education has to be our

number one priority on both sides of the House, because without

education, self-esteem and what is needed to get a job and exist in

this society, we will never overcome the social problems that we have

in this country. Education is the key.

I'd like to talk for a few minutes about the social problems that we

have in the province of British Columbia. Again, the Premier has been

roundly criticized for his stand on abortion and now his stand on

wanting to keep families together. I can't let an opportunity go by

without saying that I support the Premier's view on family completely,

100 percent. I think that most of the problems that exist with our

youth today are because families don't care so much anymore. They don't

stay together anymore. Young people, if they don't like the rules at

home, can go out and get social assistance and live elsewhere.

I think that the individual responsibility so important in this

human race has been removed, and it's been removed by social programs

that are too generous, that offer an alternative lifestyle and, in

fact, have become a way of life, a business. Poverty is a business to

many people in this country, and I find that shocking. I participated

in a poverty forum in my own constituency, and I was appalled at how

poverty is something that exists and is created, almost, by those

people who want to be the advocates for poverty.

I'm not sure what everyone in here thinks about poverty or, Mr.

Speaker, what you think about it, but I think poverty takes many forms.

It takes the form of despair, for whatever reason, whether it's despair

because you don't have enough love in your life, whether you're

mentally or physically handicapped or you haven't been equipped with

the education to get a decent job and you're frustrated because you

know that you can do better things, or whether your family didn't care

enough to spend time telling you about the values that must exist in a

society.

Poverty isn't just not having enough money, and no government

program will ever eliminate the kind of poverty I'm talking about. The

only way we're going to eliminate the despair in our society is by

reaching out to one another, and government programs will never

accomplish that. I believe that community after community is going to

have to start reaching out, particularly to the single parents raising

children on their own who are often alone. Their own families don't

even give them the support they need, for whatever reason. But it's

important that we send that message out to the people who look to us

for leadership. I believe that the program introduced by the government

this week does send that message out.

The message for too many years has been: "If it doesn't work, get a

divorce. If you don't like things at home, you can go on welfare." I

could go on and on. and there is a time when we have to say, enough is

enough, and start accepting responsibility for ourselves. I think that

time has come.

This society cannot be proud that last year we had 11,000 abortions.

That's not something to be proud of. I'm simply amazed at some of the

opposition members who demand free-standing abortion clinics, as if it

is some inherent right for women. Women as well as men have to be

responsible.

I think that the debate we've had on abortion, precipitated by the

Premier, is one that has been healthy for this province. It has shown

us that a lot of people do care and that it isn’t just a woman's right

to destroy that life. I think we have to really search our souls before

we go any further with demanding free-standing abortion clinics.

I'd like to say a few words about the budget stabilization fund. I'm

not going to call it a BS fund, and I wish the minister would find

another term. I want to say that it was an extremely wise move, and

I'll tell you why. We all remember the days of restraint and the

massive layoffs. Any wise family and any wise government sees fit to

put money aside for those days so that when there is a downturn in the

economy we can continue operating and not have to put people through

that exercise ever again. So I support that fund completely.

I'd like to say a few words about the victim assistance program and

a few words of praise for the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), who

has been very sensitive to the needs of victims. In my own constituency

and the constituency surrounding, we have the victim assistance program

underway. They work with all of the volunteer organizations in the

community.

[11:15]

In Langley we have a special organization, called the

victim-offender reconciliation program. It was started by a Christian

organization. They bring the victims and the offenders together, with

the blessing of the court. Wonderful things happen in that program.

Victims are able to confront the person who offended them, and the

offender is able to see what he or she has done to the victim. In many

cases, especially with young people, it has turned that person right

around. If there is anything I would like to see, I would like to see

that part of the program extended to the rest of the province, because

I think it's a good one. Again, it's reaching out to one another and

not having the coldness of the judicial system or government doing it

for you. It works, Mr. Speaker; I know it does.

[ Page 3714 ]

I'd like to conclude by thanking the Minister of Finance again for

the hobby farms and not following through with his budget plans for

last year. They have deferred the implementation of the farm

classification changes announced in last year's budget, and frankly I

am very happy about that. Hobby farms in areas like Langley, Matsqui,

Mission and I guess all over the province provide a great deal to our

economy. They are people who have chosen a lifestyle.... Some of the

criticisms are that many of them have money, that they're doctors and

lawyers. Lots of them aren't — some of them are teachers and

politicians. They are people from all walks of life. They have chosen a

lifestyle that means that they have to get up a lot earlier in the

morning and work a lot harder in their lives, but they have chosen to

offer their families a little bit of the country. I would hope that the

Minister of Finance doesn't follow through with the recommendations in

last year's budget at all, because the hobby farmers in my constituency

are certainly worth having.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for listening, and I would just like to

repeat how much I do support this budget, how much I appreciate the job

that the Minister of Finance has been doing, and how much I hope that

the opposition will become a little more positive.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I was reluctant to interrupt the

eloquence of my compadre from Langley, so the guests I was going to

introduce have unfortunately left the chamber. However, for the written

record, I would appreciate the opportunity to inform the House that we

were visited in the last half hour by a group of students from

Claremont Secondary School accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Kubek.

More importantly, they were accompanying a couple of visiting students

from Wales who are on a student exchange program. I trust the House

would join me in wishing them well with their study of our

deliberations and thank them for their interest in those matters.

MR. MILLER: It's started already, and I haven't even started

my speech; I'm being heckled already. I can understand the reluctance

of the Minister of Finance to intrude on anybody who is congratulating

him, because it doesn't happen very often.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the motion before the House, and

what I see are the failures of this budget. What I see are the failures

of the Minister of Finance who, if he keeps it up.... His comments to

the press have been mounting up of late. If he keeps it up, he's going

to get an award for being the most flippant MLA in this House, or at

least the most flippant member of the cabinet. I'm increasingly coming

to the conclusion that perhaps we should call him "Mr. Cavalier."

I want to deal with some of his comments on this budget that were

made on March 25. It's a really important issue. It's quite a grave

issue, really, in terms of a significant portion of the population of

this province who are not working. The minister, in his flippancy, told

British Columbians through the press that B.C.'s jobless rate is so

high because so many people don't want to work. That's rather

astounding. He suggested British Columbians should get used to 10

percent unemployment. What a tragedy — the Minister of Finance telling

British Columbians they should get used to 10 percent unemployment. He

said many of those listed as unemployed aren't really interested in

getting a full-time job, but only in finding some source of income that

will support them "while they pursue their personal goals of

self-realization." Is that what the previous speaker talked about when

she talked about people who have the little hobby farms and seeking

alternative lifestyles?

He agreed, however, that Ontario was running an unemployment rate of

5.2 percent. But the reason for that, he said, is that the winters are

so cold that people have to keep busy. Some people could look at that,

I suppose, and find some humour in it. But I'm sure that the 10 percent

of the people in this province who are unemployed don't find any humour

in the Minister of Finance treating them so callously and saying that

they don't want to work, and the only reason that people in Ontario do

work is because it's colder there. What kind of bizarre, flippant logic

is that from the Minister of Finance, who wants to be taken seriously?

I assume he wants to be taken seriously. I don't know why he's so

irreverent. What does that say about the minister's vision for the

possibilities in British Columbia?

It's my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of remark can come only

from a government that has been in power far too long and has really

lost touch with the people of this province. They have become so

arrogant in the fact that they've been in power in this province for so

long that they have lost touch with the people. When the Minister of

Finance can say that we have to.... His budget says: "Get used to it.

Ten percent unemployment is the norm in British Columbia." The

arrogance is akin to the Liberal Party before they were defeated in the

last federal election. They had been in power so long that they thought

they had a natural right to govern. They were referred to as that — the

naturally governing party. I'm afraid that this Social Credit Party in

British Columbia has come to that point. After more than 30 years, for

the Minister of Finance to tell the people of this province that 10

percent unemployment is the norm, get used to it — it seems to me a

major admission of failure of the policies of the Social Credit Party

in office.

We live in a province that is blessed with an overwhelming abundance

of natural resources, with probably the greatest single forest resource

in a state in the world. And the Minister of Finance tells the people

of this province that 10 percent unemployment is the norm. What a

tragedy! What an admission of failure!

As with any government that has assumed the kind of arrogance that

30 years in office has brought, is there any realistic assessment of

their policies in terms of that figure? No. What they like to do is

blame the poor. Let's blame those people in our society who are really

least able to stand up and defend themselves, who have the least clout

in our society. They can't organize as well, the unemployed can’t

organize as well, the seniors can't organize as well. Let's load it

onto their backs. Let's say that the problems in our society really

have been created by these people because they're too demanding.

They're not responsible, they're too demanding, they're taking too much

from society. They have a real fixation for blaming the poor.

And it's consistent. I recall — I'm sure many people in this

province still recall — the current Premier when he was the Minister of

Human Resources. We recall the enjoyment he got, when he was appointed

the Minister of Human

[ Page 3715 ]

Resources, from trotting out his shovel and saying:

"All you people out there who are on social assistance, we've got the

cure for you: we've got this shovel for you." He attacks the people in

our society who are least able to mount any defence of their position.

He attacked them with some glee. I think they later auctioned off that

shovel — extremely poor taste — at some Social Credit function, and

somebody who was extremely wealthy, who never has to worry about the

cost of drugs or anything else, probably paid a relative fortune for

that shovel, and there was probably a lot of laughter around.

Meanwhile there are poor people in this province — single mothers,

people in desperate circumstances — and no thought given to them. They

are the problem. Quite frankly, it's appalling to many in British

Columbia to have that kind of arrogant, unfeeling attitude continued by

the comments of the current Minister of Finance. It's: "Blame the

poor." I listened to the last speaker and the kind of heartfelt

discussion she was undertaking with regard to individual responsibility

and trying to create some kind of fundamental changes in our society.

But what do we get? What's the reality of this government's approach to

the people of this province? It's: "Let's blame the people who can

least afford to do anything about it."

Look at the staggering load they put on seniors in the last two

budgets, saying to people on GAIN in long-term care: "We're not content

to take 75 percent of your income and leave you with 150 bucks a month,

so you can spend it on things that you might want as an individual. No,

we're going to raise that. We have to take 85 percent now. You've got

too much." What kind of caring attitude is that? How arrogant can you

get, when you have to go to that group in our society and say: "No,

your disposable income is much too much. We're going to leave you with

maybe $100 a month." Are these not people with wants? Do people over

there not understand? Would they like to have a disposable income of

$100 a month? Maybe they're too wealthy, along with being too arrogant.

And the restraint program. People in this province were told: "You're

to blame for the state of the economy in this province. We're going to have

to cut back on health and education, on services." All the while, as has

been revealed last year and this — that program blaming people who could least

afford it — what were they doing? A billion dollars. They had the biggest shovel

in the world and the biggest truck and they were shovelling it off the back

into fast-tracking that highway.

So here we are in 1988 — 30 some-odd years of this administration,

and they've come to the point where they've told the people of British

Columbia: "Get used to it, folks. As a result of our being in office

this long, what you now have is 10 percent unemployment. That's what we

offer the people of British Columbia." That was the message that the

Minister of Finance gave to the people of this province. In terms of

some kind of economic future and economic vision, it's 10 percent

unemployment.

[11:30]

I wonder. Are we different than people in Ontario? We're human beings. We're no different than people in Ontario.

We're the same. We have the same needs, the same wants. We think the same. There's no difference between us in British

Columbia and the people who live in Ontario. Human beings are the same the world over. We're pretty basic; we have

some basic wants and needs. We're no different. Why is Ontario 5.2 percent? Has Ontario got a 5.2 percent unemployment

rate because the people in Ontario are different? No. How about Sweden? The unemployment rate in Sweden is 1.9

percent — less than 2 percent. Are they different from us, the people in Sweden, in that somehow they're more

motivated? No. There's no difference; they're the same. My ancestors came from there. They're no different. The

difference is in the government they have. This government — as I said, in a province blessed with probably

the greatest concentration of natural resources — has blown it. The record is tragic in terms of the development

of those resources for the benefit of the people of this province. They've blown it. I think they don't have really

much of a business sense at all.

I want to deal with one aspect of that natural resource: forestry. There has

been an overwhelming change on the revenue side in forestry. We know — and I

know probably better than a lot of people — of the cyclical nature of that industry.

Believe me, it is cyclical; and believe me, it will turn down again. The budget

states — and they're nice words — that forests remain the foundation of

our economy. And they're right. We have moved on the revenue side in the

forest industry, in terms of the government's take of the revenue, from

$130 million in 1985-86 to the present estimated revenue in 1988-89 in this

budget of almost $700 million. That is the most massive increase, I suggest,

on the resource side or any other side, that any budget has witnessed over that

period of time. That is an incredibly massive increase.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit surprised at the lack of comment from

industry. I know that some people have commented quietly, but I'm a bit

surprised at the lack of comment in terms of the size of the take that

the Government is now taking from the forest sector.

I suggest that, first of all, it's unsound to engage in that kind of

budgeting, where you have that massive increase in that short a time. I

suggest that that's not the way to implement tax policy. Surely what it

does stand as is a condemnation of previous policies. If it was

possible to effect that kind of massive increase in revenue from the

forest sector, what does that say about the policies that were in place

when we were only getting $130 million and less; in fact, when we were

only getting $130 million and spending $350 million on the expenditure

side? What does that say about the policies of this administration,

which has been in office far too long, in the development of those

resources for the people of this province? Is that why they now say

that 10 percent is the norm?

Further, Mr. Speaker, that increase was not brought about because of

a conscious policy decision on the part of Socred administrations; not

at all. In fact, the reason that was brought about was the efforts of

the U.S. lumber lobby. I'm afraid, despite the rather buoyant times

we're going through now and despite the huge increase on the revenue

side, that it’s going to haunt us that the U.S. lumber lobby has such

significant control over our forest policy. It's fine to enjoy the

revenue; it's fine to create a $450 million rainy day fund. It's fine

to do all those things, but I say beware, because I think there's a

downside to a lot of this.

Look at the capital investment. The budget again proudly proclaims

that we're looking at a 17.4 percent increase in 1987 over 1986 in

total capital investment — some $11.2 billion. If you look at the

increase from 1986-87, 80 percent was in two areas: housing and forest

products. Eighty percent of that new capital investment was in housing

and forest products; by my calculation, some $2 billion — $1 billion to

housing and half a billion to the forest industry.

[ Page 3716 ]

Housing is a valuable investment. There's no question that it

stimulates the economy and creates demand in terms of all the products

that are used in housing, labour and all the rest of it. But it does

not create lasting economic benefit. There are no real sustained jobs

created by investment in housing. Investment has to go into

manufacturing. It has to go into new plants, new equipment and new

processing facilities. That's the kind of investment we need in British

Columbia to sustain economic growth, to get rid of that phony notion

that we have to live with 10 percent unemployment. I'm afraid that the

investment, despite the rather sharp increase on the pulp side, is

simply not enough. I do not think there is enough capital investment in

the manufacturing sector, in areas that are going to create real and

lasting jobs to really change this province from what it has been for

so many years and what this party in office has simply been prepared to

accept.

We remain dependent on the resource sector. This budget does not

change our position one iota in that respect. Inevitably — and I talked

about the cyclical nature of the industry — we will be faced with a

downturn in the forest sector. What are we going to do? Because our

policy has been made in the U.S.A. we've got a target revenue system.

It's not flexible. It doesn't respond to the marketplace. What's going

to happen when the crunch comes?

The Minister of Finance, as I said, seems prone to making really

silly and flip comments. I just want to deal with one more before I

move on. It is on page 39 of the budget book. This is the kind of

perverse logic that.... I'm not trained as an accountant or an

economist or anything else; I'm a working person. But I can read. When

I read this I throw up my hands in despair. It is on page 39 under the

heading "Conclusion." This is a conclusion that was drawn by the

Minister of Finance: "British Columbia is likely to be less affected by

a slowdown than other areas of Canada that have recently experienced

growth that their economies cannot sustain in the long run."

What kind of gobbledegook nonsense it that? What he's saying is that

because Ontario has a 5 percent unemployment rate, they're going to

regret it because they will not be able to withstand a future shock in

terms of a recession; there's no sense in having a 5 percent

unemployment rate because, boy, you're really going to get it. Let's

keep ours at 10 percent and we won't suffer as much. What kind of

message is that to the unemployed people of this province? I'm appalled

at this rather clever, self-congratulatory Minister of Finance — too

clever by half — who can put that statement in a budget document.

I don't know what's the matter with these guys on the other side of

the House. Usually they try to heckle me, but they're rather silent

today. Maybe I'm getting to them.

I think we have some serious difficulties in terms of our economic

position as a province. We're not making any fundamental change. We

remain a resource-extractive economy, heavily dependent on commodity

prices on the world market.

I want to turn to a couple of areas in the budget and tie them into activities in my constituency.

First of all, I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage)

is a fairly well-meaning person who has a personal commitment to

agriculture, but I'm a bit dismayed, and I think it's a bit misleading,

when I look at the figures in the budget and I look at the forecast.

Let's track the amount of money that has been authorized to the

Minister of Agriculture in terms of the activities of his ministry, and

what he has done with it.

First of all, the estimate for '87-88 was $99.1 million. He

underspent that by $21 million. I suppose we could take that as an

example of the cynicism in terms of manipulation. Incidentally, dealing

with that — the rainy-day funds and the overestimating expenditures and

the underestimating revenues — you know it's an old trick, and I

suppose any government's going to try it, but you guys don't have the

skill and finesse that W.A.C. had. He could do it and get away with it.

I don't think you're going to get away with it; it's too naked. Anyway,

he had $99 million at his disposal. He only spent $78 million. This

year he's estimating $91 million, and the budget document says that

that's a 17 percent increase. I don't think that's a 17 percent

increase; I think it's an 8 percent drop. He didn't spend the funds.

I want to tie that in, also, with privatization, because the

agricultural community in my constituency, which is rather small, but

significant in terms of the Queen Charlotte Islands, has some very

dedicated people who have been at it for a long, long time. There's a

long history of agricultural activities on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

They have relied for a number of years on a very excellent civil

servant, the district agriculturist based in the Smithers office, who

is a casualty, if you like, of this ideological privatization move.

He's going to be gone. His office is going to be gone. They don't even

have a secretary, and these people in the Charlottes are very concerned

that this individual — I am sure he can be replaced with an individual

with equal commitment — has encouraged and fostered agricultural

development on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The whole range, from 4-H

Clubs, and making sure that that community stays together with some

pretty minimal support, but stays together.... The Minister of

Agriculture is well aware of their concern. They've written to him;

they've written to the Premier. I would only ask that the minister —

and I will take it up further with him in his estimates — give serious

reconsideration to closing this office.

[11:45]

Secondly, Transportation and Highways. Again, we had a $130 million

cut last year; we've got another $120 million this year. The Premier

and the budget document talk about the need to expand our Pacific Rim

ties, Pacific Rim shipments, exports. The port of Prince Rupert, I

think, is the sleeper port on the coast of British Columbia. It's an

excellent facility. The federal government is committing another $30

million to $40 million in terms of expansion of the general cargo

facility of that port. We've seen a pretty rapid increase in the

amounts of goods that are shipped out of there.

But the transportation facilities are less than adequate. I know I

got a commitment last year from the previous Minister of Transportation

in terms of that final

section of Highway 16 that needs to be

reconstructed, but the highway is deteriorating badly. Further to that,

the highway goes down through the main street of Prince Rupert. We have

I don't know how many heavy trucks going through the downtown — lumber,

ore — and it is a dangerous situation. There needs to be a bypass.

It's a well-accepted principle by this and previous governments that

bypasses for that kind of activity are the responsibility of the

provincial government. There needs to be a commitment in terms of the

activities of that port and in terms of the safety. I saw a lumber

truck overturn near our civic centre, near our high school, and spill

its entire load. If it had

[ Page 3717 ]

done it ten minutes or half an hour previously,

there would have been casualties. Those high school kids come out of

that route, and that lumber truck turned over on a sharp corner.

It needs to be taken out of town, and I would hope that the Minister

of Transportation — again, I will try to deal with that in estimates —

would give serious consideration in terms of Pacific Rim activities,

because I think the port of Prince Rupert is going to continue to grow,

and we're going to get to the position where we're not only exporting

goods from British Columbia and other parts of Canada but we'll also be

importing goods through that port. It's an excellent port; it has a

good rail line, and it's a good feed into the rest of Canada.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Finally I want to deal with an area of investment that I think is

seriously deficient: the whole question of apprenticeship training. We

are investing billions of dollars in pulp and paper. We're putting all

of this capital investment in machinery and equipment. We're increasing

our output. But where is the investment in the people? People are just

as valuable, if not more valuable, in terms of those kinds of

operations. Industry in this province has not done its job in terms of

apprenticeship training. It's an excellent opportunity. I think it's

cost-effective; I don't think it's a major cost to the provincial

government. If we're prepared to put investments into plant and

machinery, which we should be doing, then we should be prepared to put

investments into people.

Still, there are going to be skill shortages; that's documented. The

Minister of Labour should be aware of that; the government should be

aware of it. There are going to be skill shortages. I do not want a

repeat of when we ran out of skilled tradesmen, importing them from

somewhere else. I want B.C. children to have the opportunity to acquire

those skills.

They deserve that opportunity. They do not deserve being told by the

Minister of Finance that you've got to live with 10 percent

unemployment; they don't deserve that at all.

I'm personally prepared, from a political point of view, to make a

commitment — and I think any government in this province should make a

commitment — to full employment, Maybe you won’t get it; maybe you'll

only get it down to 5 percent. But if you make the commitment, you

don't have to live with the fatuous statement by the Minister of

Finance that 10 percent unemployment is the norm in British Columbia. I

categorically reject that.

We need our own vision for British Columbia. That vision doesn't

mean we have to go to Margaret Thatcher's Britain and say that

privatization is the cure-all for this province. It doesn't mean we

have to go to Ronald Reagan's America. I was in Seattle last week, and

I tell you I'm appalled at the poverty on the streets of Ronald

Reagan's America. We don't need that in Canada; we don't need it at

all. We need our own vision, and we need to be excited about the

possibilities for this province. I don't think that this budget

provides a vision. I don't think there's any excitement in it, despite

the magical Mel's 450, and we can argue about that until the cows come

home. I don't even think it's cute.

Mr. Speaker, I think this budget is a major disappointment to the

people of this province, and I fully support the motion before the

House.

Mr. Michael moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly

Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British

Columbia, Canada