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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3719 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Environmental Appeal Board. Mr. Guno –– 3719

Mr. Miller

NDP "Medicare Notice" mailing. Mrs. Gran –– 3720

Community college and BCIT funding. Ms. Marzari –– 3720

JobTrac program. Ms. Edwards –– 3720

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Sihota –– 3721

Ministerial Statement

Ambulance dispatch services. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 3721

Ms. A. Hagen

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Michael –– 3722

Ms. Marzari –– 3726

Mr. Vant –– 3729

Mr. Guno –– 3731

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 3733

Mr. Cashore –– 3737

On the main motion

Mr. Rabbitt –– 3740

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today is a gentleman

with whom I've had an interesting symbiotic relationship over the

years, Mr. Patrick Thomas, and also with him is Mr. Mark Angelo of the

British Columbia Institute of Technology. I ask you to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some other symbiotic people

I'd like to introduce.... If Dale Lovick will tell me how to

spell it, I'll use it again.

In the House today I'm proud to introduce Mr. Stan Pukesh, who is

chairman of New Approaches — it's a public consultation on public

libraries in the province of British Columbia — and with him are two of

his committee members, Her Worship Audrey Moore, mayor of Castlegar,

and Ron Cullis, a mayor also on the committee. Would the House make

these people especially welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like this afternoon to introduce to

the members of the assembly two friends of mine. They are Mr. Peter

Suderman and Mr. John Martens. Mr. Martens is a longtime businessman

from the Prairies who has now retired. Mr. Suderman is an appraiser and

a realtor, and he's also a governor of the Real Estate Institute of

B.C. Not only are these two gentlemen known to me, but they are friends

of mine inasmuch as they were instrumental in getting me elected. They

worked very hard, and I'm not sure whether they did this to get rid of

me or whether they did this because they had confidence in me. However,

here I am. At one time they were members of my sales staff. I would

like this House to welcome them to this assembly.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, on behalf of our Speaker I would

like to ask you to welcome to the House today Elizabet and Dennis Lane

from Vancouver.

MR. DE JONG: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the

House today Mr. and Mrs. Henry and Bernice Steenbergen, who are the

associate pastors in the Christian Reformed Church of Abbotsford,

together with their children Daniel and Melinda; also with them are

their parents Lubert and Alice Steenbergen from Ontario. I ask the

House to give them a cordial welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: In the members' gallery today we have three

guests from that great alpine city of Revelstoke: Mayor Geoff

Battersby, Alderman Fred Beruschi and Administrator Bob Clark. I would

ask the members to make them welcome.

MR. CLARK: Today the NDP caucus met with a group called

Coalition Against Free Trade — many excellent patriots and

nationalists. People like Jess Succamore, Sue Vohanka, Blair Redlin and

others are in the gallery today. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MILLER: In the precinct today — but not in the gallery — is a member

of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union from Prince Rupert, Fran

Brown, who came all the way down to Victoria to meet with the rest of the Coalition

Against Free Trade group, of course very vitally concerned about the impact

of the recent GATT ruling and the implications for employment in the fish processing

industry in this province. I would ask the House to give her a welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: My colleague from Columbia River has just

pointed out to me that I introduced the administrator of the city of

Revelstoke as Bob Clark. If that is so, I would like to correct the

record. His last name is Carter.

Oral Questions

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD

MR. GUNO: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Both

the Islands Protection Society and the Haida nation have applied for an

appeal on a pesticide to be used in the Queen Charlottes. The

Environmental Appeal Board has asked 18 questions of the appellants

before they can appear, and these questions range from how animal life

will be affected to providing a cost-benefit analysis. Is it policy now

that appellants must meet these complex hurdles before they can be

heard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The writer of that letter, Frank Hillier,

the chairman of the Environmental Appeal Board, is an expert on

pesticides and has posed those questions to the appellants with that

expertise in mind, and I have no argument with the questions. Other

evidence will come out later as they go through the appeal process.

MR. GUNO: A supplementary to the same minister. Why has the

Environmental Appeal Board asked the Haidas about their position on

carcinogens in beer and alcohol, while it has not asked the same

question to the Islands Protection Society? I want to read the

question, Mr. Minister: "Number 10: What is your position on other

known carcinogens which human beings can be exposed to in the Queen

Charlotte Islands (i.e. mushrooms, bacon, ham. smoked salmon, potatoes,

celery, carrots, etc.) and the carcinogens which exist within a human

body such as human saliva, estrone, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, etc.

The Haida have received an identical letter, except there's one

difference: in this question, the chairman has included beer and

liquor. Can the minister explain the special treatment the Haida are

receiving?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not having seen the other letter you

referred to, no, I can't; but I will take that portion of the question

on notice. Thank you.

MR. GUNO: I just want to pose the question: would you not agree that is a particular concern, to have that kind of special treatment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't particularly know the line of questioning the member is trying to get at. All the items mentioned are carcinogens.

MR. GUNO: Then I'll pose this question to the Premier. Would

he not agree that this is a blatantly racist statement on the part of

the chairman of the board, and that this statement towards the native

people discredits the board; and for that reason would he not

immediately call for the resignation of the chairman of the board?

[ Page 3720 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have not seen nor heard the statement and I really can't comment.

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of the Environment. The minister

is aware of the letter because I wrote to him in the first instance.

The minister should be in a position to comment. One letter goes to an

environmental group and talks about the carcinogenic effects of certain

substances in carrots — and I don't know what that has to do with

pesticide appeals in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Another letter goes

to the same group at the same time and talks about alcohol. The

minister should comment on that because in my opinion it's racist.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That identical question was posed about

three questions ago by the member for Atlin. I said I was not aware of

the second letter, if there was one, that differed from the first

letter, which I am aware of, but I would take that question on notice.

Is that clear?

MR. MILLER: A new question to the minister. If the minister

looks at the letter, and I assume he will, and if what we say is borne

out, will the minister remove Mr. Hillier as chairman of the

Environmental Appeal Board?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister has stated that he

will take the question as notice. I don't think you can ask him any

further questions in that area. A new question by the member for Prince

Rupert.

MR. MILLER: A new question, Mr. Minister. The deadline for

this appeal is April 15. There's a great deal of confusion and concern

caused by the correspondence on this issue. Will the minister assure

the House and the groups involved that they will not be bound by that

April 15 deadline, so that this matter can be cleared up?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If I took it upon myself as a minister of

the Crown to tell appeal boards how they're going to handle their own

processes, then we wouldn't have the need for appeal boards.

NDP "MEDICARE NOTICE" MAILING

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier, and

it's regarding a notice that is going out to the residents of this

province. On the outside it says: "Medicare Notice" in red lettering.

On the inside is a request for money to help in the medicare fight, and

really the money is for the NDP party. I wonder if the Premier would

comment on the ethics and legality of this.

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I too have seen the

letter, and I'm sure many British Columbians have seen the letter

because obviously it's been widely mailed. I suppose a lot of people

would open the envelope because it certainly appears as though it's

very official. It's much like the envelope that might normally be

mailed from the medicare association. I think most of us are familiar

with the contents as well.

As far as I'm concerned, having reviewed it, I can't say whether

it's legal or illegal, obviously. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker and

all members of the House, that it's low-down; it's despicable; it's

cowardly; and if not fraudulent, it's an almost-fraudulent campaign. If

that is what it takes for the NDP to seek membership in their

organization, they've got a tough row to hoe. I could never be party to

such garbage, let alone put my name to such garbage, such as a Mr.

Harcourt has. It's garbage, garbage, garbage!

COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND BCIT FUNDING

MS. MARZARI: This is a question about a despicable,

fraudulent and cowardly act of the provincial government in its budget,

as it was expressed towards community colleges and BCIT. I should add

the word that what they're most concerned about is that the budgets

promised to community colleges and BCIT are low-down.

I would like to ask the Premier, since the Minister of Advanced

Education (Hon. S. Hagen) is out of town until 4 o'clock this

afternoon, when he's meeting with the executive of the boards of

colleges in this province: have you consulted with your minister about

the fact that there is an actual decrease in real dollars going into

community colleges in this province? Given your own rhetoric about your

priorities about post-secondary education, I'm assuming you have made

that consultation. Have you consulted with your minister about where

he's going to find that $7 million to bring them up to bare minimum

subsistence budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we've had many discussions

about colleges, universities and the educational system, and I can

assure all members that we have and will continue to have the finest

educational system in the country right here in British Columbia.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Premier, then I'll ask you a more direct

question about BCIT. We know that the Park commission reported directly

to your office, not even through your Minister of Advanced Education,

around BCIT last year, so I would imagine that you have been perhaps

even more involved with the cutback to BCIT than your minister has

been. Are you aware of, and what do you intend to do about, the $3.5

million to $4 million cutback in BCIT's budget this year? This is your

flagship of technology; this is your prime technological institute.

What are you going to be doing about this? Have you made up your mind

how you're going to make up this deficit, or are you going to decimate

the organization, the institute?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this probably could be

better discussed in some detail during the budget debate, but let me

say this: no institution, no particular group, no particular function,

is guaranteed automatically through good government that there's always

an increase or that things shall always remain as they are and that we

don't have to make changes from time to time.

I know that the minister is meeting with the officials and the

people from BCIT, and I'm sure that will lead to some very fruitful and

useful recommendations as to what changes they can agree upon. But I

can assure the hon. member that BCIT and all other colleges and

educational facilities will continue to provide good, responsible

programming in this province.

JOBTRAC PROGRAM

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture. Twenty million dollars for JobTrac was used

last year to support jobs in training in

[ Page

3721 ]

tourism, recreation and cultural industries in British Columbia. Now JobTrac

doesn't exist; it's not in the budget. Could the minister confirm that

$20 million is still available this year from his ministry for direct support

for jobs in training in these important industries?

HON. MR. REID: I cannot confirm that there is $20 million for

JobTrac in my ministry this year, because according to the budget

numbers there are no dollars for community JobTrac in 1988.

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary to the Minister of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture. Community organizations, including chambers of

commerce across the whole province, have already prepared extensive

JobTrac applications for summer work in the industries that I

mentioned. Will the minister assure this House that there is an

alternative to get the work done, such work as restoring and rebuilding

and maintaining camping and recreational projects?

HON. MR. REID: I can't confirm that there are provincial

dollars for that, but the communities themselves and the organizations

that the hon. member talks about are those leadership community groups

who, probably with their own initiatives now in 1988, will be able to

continue those programs.

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance. On March

22 I asked the Minister of Finance a question about insider trading

with American Canadian Systems Inc. He said at that time that I had

"hit on one that was presently under examination." After two weeks of

reflection now, does the minister still stand by that comment?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, I'm pleased to tell the hon. member

that we have adequate surveillance and monitoring activities in the

securities industry and that they are in place. They are working

effectively and we are cognizant of the issues of the moment that might

arise on a day-to-day basis, and we deal with them as they require

dealing with.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me put it this way: if the Minister of

Finance were Pinocchio, his nose would be growing. I've had the

opportunity to talk to investigators of the superintendent of brokers.

I've had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Brown at Canarim, and I've had

the opportunity to talk to Mr. Harwood, the president of Canarim. They

tell me that on March 22, when the minister made this statement, that

company was never under examination. Is the minister saying that those

people have been lying to me?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to learn that

there is now a dialogue between some of the principal industrial

leaders of this province and the socialists from across the floor. I

wonder whether the hon. member in introducing himself during that phone

call called himself the NDP — that is, the New Democratic Party — or

the new delta party? Was he careful enough to ensure that the recipient

knew who he was talking to?

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I didn't notice that the

gentleman was here during the regular introduction period. In the House

today is a longtime resident of Vancouver-Point Grey, whose family has

been in Vancouver-Point Grey for very many years. He is a young man

I've known since he was a young, enthusiastic and very precocious

15-year-old, and who has had a distinguished career on radio and

television in Vancouver and in many other enterprises. I'm sure he'll

be familiar to many members in the House. Will the House please make

welcome Mr. Bob Spence.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled an answer to a question on notice.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

AMBULANCE DISPATCH SERVICES

HON. MR. DUECK: Yesterday in the House the member for Prince

George North (Mrs. Boone) made some very damaging accusations in regard

to the dispatch of ambulances since we centralized them to certain

regions of the province. I have checked on these. The member is not

here; she was to get in touch with me on these particular instances. I

thought it was too serious a matter to let go for another day, because

when we're talking about the death of people because of some

mismanagement. it concerns all of us — no matter what side we're on or

what party we belong to.

I believe the one she is referring to was on April 1, involving a

John Palmer, and the Emergency Health Services Commission crew's

response time was two minutes. From the information received,

assistance was not required. When the crew arrived and found the

patient in cardiac arrest, they immediately called for and received

fire department assistance in under four minutes. Some apparent

confusion by the calling party as to the address was the cause of the

delay in calling for an ambulance. There were no delays whatsoever

because of dispatching.

The other case was April 4 and the patient's name was Fred Nartz.

The ambulance arrived in seven minutes, provided advanced life support

protocols for 20 minutes and transported the patient to the hospital.

The patient arrived at Prince George Regional Hospital in a conscious

state. He was hospitalized for more than five hours before suffering a

fatal cardiac arrest in the IC unit.

Furthermore, the provincial chief coroner, Vince Cain, this morning

checked out all the various emergency transports and dispatches in the

northern regions, and he indicated that his department had no knowledge

of any deaths in the north related to ambulance dispatching.

Clearly from the evidence. the remarks yesterday were fallacious and

inflammatory, and they were there to bring scare tactics to the seniors

whom we want to serve. I think all of us have that in mind, Mr.

Speaker. We want to do our best for the seniors, and I think by and

large we do that. However, the scare tactics that have been used in the

last while are inexcusable, and I think this House deserves an apology

from that member for the statements she made.

[ Page 3722 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: As the minister has noted, the member who asked

the questions yesterday is not here. Indeed, she had to leave the House

very shortly after asking those questions to attend to some matters in

her riding.

[2:30]

I will not comment on the specifics, which I know that member wants

an opportunity to discuss with the minister. However, I would comment,

in respect to the questions that the member raised, that a broad number

of issues were discussed around the adequacy of ambulance services to

the people in her community, and there was a generic problem that was a

part of that issue that I think she will want also to discuss with the

minister.

I want also to comment briefly about the minister's last statement

that we do not want to cause fear and concern among our older people,

and to say that in some respects, in reference to issues presently a

part of our discussion, seniors are in a state of uncertainty because

of a lack of information and lack of certainty. Much of that, in fact,

is because of information that doesn't come from the minister.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, 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)

On the amendment.

MR. MICHAEL: In debating the budget address and the motion, I

speak against the motion. In doing so, it was my decision to somewhat

vary from the budget before the House and do some comparisons with the

only other area that I could possibly compare with, the province of

Manitoba, that being the only socialist province in the Dominion of

Canada. I thought it would be interesting, after having listened to the

debate from the opposition, the number of questions asked, to go to the

library, get some documents, get the Manitoba budget, and just compare

it with what we're doing here in the great province of British Columbia.

In obtaining a lot of information from the library, a lot of it is

perhaps repetitive. It's common knowledge in British Columbia, as an

example, that Manitoba is the only western Canadian province that's

against the free trade agreement. It's also evident that Manitoba has

the lowest credit rating of any province in western Canada. It is also

indicative, in looking at the revenue Manitoba receives, that 12.9

percent of their total income comes in the form of federal equalization

payments — there again, the only province in western Canada to receive

federal equalization payments in the last fiscal year.

Just as a matter of information.... This is information that is

certainly pertinent to the debate, in that it leads into the type of

statements made in our budget about the federal government cooperation

with the province of British Columbia. Had we got anywhere near that

12.9 percent into our budget, British Columbia would have received an

extra $1.475 billion into its coffers in the last fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, in examining the Manitoba budget, it's quite obvious that

theirs is an economy driven on borrowed money. It is a temporary situation.

Their unemployment is reasonably low right now on a percentage basis, but if

you look at the facts and the number of dollars they're borrowing.... As

an example, the great Limestone dam project — $1.7 billion in borrowed money,

indeed putting 1,700 workers to work, but to be phased out starting in the

year 1990, with an enormous amount of debt. As yet, for the record, 60 percent

of the power to be generated by that great project remains unsold as of this

date.

It's also interesting, in looking at the Limestone project and

listening to the members opposite attack the province of British

Columbia for exporting our power to the United States, with the great

theme that exporting power is exporting jobs, that here we have an

example in Manitoba where they're building an enormous dam with

enormous capacity and planning on exporting every ounce of power

generated to the United States of America — into North Dakota and

Minnesota. For the record, since 1981, Manitoba has lost 11,000

manufacturing jobs. It's obvious that companies are not locating in

Manitoba and indeed are relocating because of the severe corporate tax

and payroll tax imposed by the government of Manitoba.

In looking at the facts from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the

members should know that in British Columbia from January 1987 to

January 1988, 90,000 new jobs were created, the vast majority of them

full time. The statistics also show that in Manitoba the growth rate

was precisely zero. The records will show that not one single new job

was created in the province of Manitoba in that 12-month period.

Mr. Speaker, I've listened to the members opposite talk about

education and the amount of money that the province of British Columbia

is putting into education, so I put the two budgets side by side, and I

find that in British Columbia, on table 15 of our budget, if you look

at the percentage of money devoted to education in relation to total

dollars spent, you will find that the province of British Columbia

funds education to the tune of 23.35 percent of our total expenditures.

In Manitoba, I truly expected that figure to be way up in the high 20s

or perhaps even around the 30 percent level. What did I find on page 3

of the budget in brief? I found that a paltry 17.1 percent of

Manitoba's budget was spent on education as compared to British

Columbia's 23.35 percent. I would ask that Elsie McMurphy pay close

attention to that the next time she decides to attack the province of

British Columbia on education spending.

Also interesting in looking at the Manitoba budget, turning to page

9 — again, very interesting statistics regarding value for tax dollars.

I will read from their budget, on page 9 of the speech: "Yet Manitoba's

overall spending remains moderate. It is fourth-lowest among provinces

and almost $200 per person lower than the ten-province average." They

go on to say: "That is good value for the money." In their graph, they

show the ten provinces, and guess which province is indeed the lowest

of all the provinces in Canada? That is the province of British

Columbia, which is $400 lower than Manitoba and $600 lower than the

Canadian average. While they in Manitoba are patting themselves on the

back about the great job they are doing in getting value for the

taxpayer dollar, they are indeed indicating to the rest of Canada that

British Columbia is doing the best job of any province in the Dominion

of Canada.

In looking at the deficit, Mr. Speaker, and turning to the lead page in their budget address, I wish the first

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) were here, the critic for the socialists opposite, because you talk about budget juggling and

[ Page 3723 ]

misleading figures. Mr. Speaker, they don't talk

about deficit when they do a

summary of where they are in this or past

years. Their word for "deficit" has been replaced by the words "net

budgetary requirement." That's what they make mention of; they mention

the word "deficit" hardly at all. I will refer to that later. But the

big joke is that they clearly have a shortfall of $334 million in this

current fiscal budgeted year. But what do they put under it? They say:

"Well, we have less capital expenditures." They deduct that from the

true deficit, and they come up with a net operating requirement — net

deficit — of only $66 million. If there's anything I've ever seen in

the way of misleading figures, I would certainly say that the Minister

of Finance in the province of Manitoba is certainly guilty of cooking

the books.

In looking at the public debt, it is interesting to look at the very

fine print on page 14 of their budget. They mention in one little line

— it's hardly noticeable; they tried to hide it on page 14, tucked in

way behind the front pages — that public debt costs are estimated at

$523 million, bringing total spending to $4.55 billion. That is the

position the province of Manitoba is in, in relation to their public

debt.

I must say that if you look at the total expenditure for Manitoba,

you will find that for every dollar spent in Manitoba in this coming

year, 11.47 percent of all of their expenditures is going toward debt

payment. In British Columbia, you will see in table 15 that that figure

is only $605 million, and when you consider that our population is some

three times the size of that of Manitoba, we in British Columbia are

indeed doing a good job in controlling our deficits in general.

Compared to Manitoba, our total expenditures are 5.1 percent of our

budget for debt servicing, and in Manitoba it's 11.47 percent.

They make mention about fed-bashing. We've heard a lot in this

debate about the amount of fed-bashing that's going on. It's

interesting again to see what the NDP socialists in Manitoba say about

fed-bashing on page 25 of their budget: "In Manitoba, federal funding

has dropped to 43 percent of the costs of health and higher education.

The federal contribution now falls over $123 million annually short of

an equal 50 percent share in our province." They go on and on talking

about how tough things are because of that cruel federal government

back in Ottawa not giving a fair share. They're blaming Ottawa for

their woes and the terrible state they're in.

We've also heard a lot from the socialists over the years about

these corporate welfare bums. It's been the leading slogan in previous

federal election campaigns. There are a couple of interesting things on

page 28, under mining taxes, and I will read them into the record. One

sentence: "In 1984 a loan of $10 million was made to Sherritt Gordon

Mines Ltd. to maintain production at the Ruttan mine." Another

paragraph reads as follows: "In 1986 a forgivable loan of $2 million

was made to SherrGold to help develop the MacLellan mine and maintain

the town of Lynn Lake." It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that they are

great on the old proverb: do as I say but don't do as I do.

The other thing they talk about is the total deficit, and if you

look at the amount of borrowed money that Manitoba is looking at in the

current fiscal year, you will see that their total requirements are

$1.33 billion. Of that $1.33 billion, they are only going to be

collecting $179 million for refinancing. That means that their total

borrowing, their net borrowing, the bottom line in the coming fiscal

year for a province with one million people, is going to be $1.151

billion.

Compared to that, in British Columbia our net borrowing position

after we borrow what we need to borrow and pay off what we are

committed to borrow will only be $329 million. So comparatively,

British Columbia has three times the population of Manitoba, but

Manitoba is borrowing three times the amount of money that we are in

British Columbia. So you can see the terrible position that that

province is in as a result of NDP socialist management. And where that

province is going to be in the future, Lord only knows.

The other thing is the tremendous attacks we get on what we should

be doing with labour and increasing the minimum wage and providing

better settlements for labour in British Columbia. It's interesting to

look at the other

section of the Manitoba budget which is entitled

"Economic Review: The 1988 Manitoba Budget." Turning to page 14 — I

find this incredible; I couldn't believe it when I read it, but here is

what they say in their economic review — they say: "In 1987 the average

hourly wage in the manufacturing sector was $10.48.... the lowest of

any province in Canada and 14 percent below the national average of

$12.22."

They go on to say that base-rate settlements for collective

agreements in the first three-quarters of 1987 were lower in Manitoba

than in Canada — 3.3 percent compared with 4 percent."Wage settlements

in Manitoba have been at or below the national average since 1984."

What a confession for a Minister of Finance to make, the NDP socialists

in Manitoba admitting that the labour costs, the average wages in

manufacturing, are the very lowest in the Dominion of Canada, lower on

this chart than Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick — all those

have-not provinces in eastern Canada.

[2:45]

Guess which province on the chart the Manitoba Minister of Finance

shows to be the leading province in the Dominion of Canada, and by a

significant amount. The province of British Columbia. In their own

document they talk about us being at the top of the heap.

Further to that, they talk about membership in trade unions. They're

beating their chests back in Manitoba about what a great percentage of

people in Manitoba belong to trade unions. Thirty-seven percent of the

non-agricultural workforce belong to trade unions in Manitoba. I took

it upon myself to do a little bit of research, and I find that in

British Columbia 40.3 percent of the non-agricultural workforce belong

to trade unions — again. significantly better than what we find in the

province of Manitoba.

In looking at the economic review again and turning to page 21, we

find a mention of Manitoba hydro rates. It goes on to talk about how

the residential and industrial electricity costs in Manitoba are among

the lowest in the world. Boy, I found that very exciting. I went to the

library and got some more information on that, and guess what I found?

I found that there's

an act in Manitoba called the Energy Rate

Stabilization Act, and in pulling out a column written by Fred

Cleverley of theWinnipeg Free Press ,

he says that the province of Manitoba also confirmed that the amount

charged to the Energy Rate Stabilization Act, an approximation in the

current year — this was last year — was approximately $65.8 million.

"Last year, for example, if the tax subsidy had been

added to power bills, every monthly bill in the province would have

climbed by $12.50."

Again, clear deception is outlined in their budget. Mr. Cleverley goes on to say:

[ Page 3724 ]

"If the $12.50 actually paid were added on, the rates in

Winnipeg would be the fourth-highest in Canada, using the same list. Manitobans

have really been paying much more for their electricity than consumers in Toronto,

Saskatoon, Regina...Edmonton and Montreal."

It's very interesting when we get into these things and just see what's going on in other areas.

In looking at those types of figures and statements, I thought that

there must be something hidden somewhere — that things were better in

other areas of taxation. Because clearly things are bad in the overall

taxation system. So I thought, you know, it's got to be cheaper when it

comes to paying property taxes. That must be where Manitoba really lets

the average working stiff off really cheap. So I went and did some

research on property taxes and asked for some comparisons. My first

request was: "Please get me a comparison in Winnipeg and Vancouver.

Give me the gross property tax pardon on a home in Vancouver worth

$100,000 and give me the same for Winnipeg." Here's what came back from

research. This is before the homeowner grant. Gross property tax on a

$100,000 home in Vancouver is $1,148, compared with approximately

$2,025 in Winnipeg. Gross property taxes are approximately 75 percent

higher in Winnipeg than in Vancouver.

I thought, well, there's got to be something wrong with that. Maybe

they're just taxing the rich and letting the poor people off. So I went

back to research and I said: "Look, there's got to be another answer to

this. Give me the comparisons between Vancouver and Winnipeg on a

$70,000 home," Here's the story. Gross property tax on a $70,000 home

in Vancouver is $804, compared with approximately $1,525 in Winnipeg.

Gross property taxes are approximately 90 percent higher in Winnipeg

than in Vancouver.

Well, I said, there's got to be something funny here. This can't be

so. It can't be that bad. It's got to be hidden in the homeowner grant.

There's got to be an answer to this thing. They must have a homeowner

grant in Manitoba. I wouldn't believe that they would have, because I

remember how the NDP opposite criticized our government when we first

brought in the grant. They had all kinds of names for it; they were

very much opposed to it. However, I find that Manitoba does have a

homeowner grant. So I thought, this has got to be the answer. They must

have a very generous one, much more generous than British Columbia.

Again, here's what I find. Homeowners in Winnipeg receive a $325 grant,

and seniors receive an additional $175 for a maximum grant of $500.

What do we give in British Columbia? Do we give the $325? No, we give

$380. How about the seniors? The seniors in Manitoba receive a $500

grant, we in British Columbia $630.

So I flubbed out on that one too. I was trying my best to find

something in Manitoba that was better than in British Columbia, but I

came up with zero. Indeed, it's worse.

Now, I thought, we'll go and look at the population. Because of all

the great things we've been hearing in this House about the tremendous

job that they're doing in Manitoba with the NDP there, I'll bet you the

population's going strong. So I went back nine years as a result of

reading the budget; they refer to the nine-year population growth. I

see that population in Manitoba has gone up a whopping 47,000 in nine

years, an increase of 4.5 percent. Turning to British Columbia and

doing a comparison for the same nine years, our population has

increased by 383,400, or 15.08 percent.

Thousands, I might add, are leaving the province of Manitoba. I believe between

7,000 and 8,000 migrated from Manitoba in the last calendar year and have

come to such provinces as Ontario and British Columbia, which are the two provinces

with the highest growth in the Dominion of Canada.

I thought I would go over the same nine years and do a comparison

with the great job they were doing in Manitoba in the way of job

creation. With this socialist government back there and all that we

hear from the members opposite about the great job they're doing in

socialist Manitoba, surely that's where they must be able to shine.

So I went to the economic review

section of their budget and checked

it out from 1979 to 1987, and I found 36,000 new jobs in nine years — a

growth of 7.8 percent. In the same period in British Columbia: in 1978

we had 1,103,000 people working; in 1987 we had 1,306,000 people

working — a gain of 203,000 jobs or 18.4 percent. Mr. Speaker,

repeating what I said earlier, in the last 12 months going back from

January '87, Manitoba had zero growth, even with the limestone project.

I suggest, with the phase-out of that project starting next year, that

you're going to see Manitoba in real trouble, while we in B.C. had a

growth of 90,000 jobs — most of them full-time jobs.

Looking at the financial statistics again, on page 8 — I'm going to

"Direct and Guaranteed Debt." This is probably the most indicative page

of all that I will be talking about and the most indicative example of

the socialist performance in NDP Manitoba. That graph should be sent to

every household in the province of British Columbia and every voter in

the upcoming Manitoba election, because it tells the real story of

what's going on in Manitoba.

From April 1, 1982 to December 31, 1987, their debt has gone up from

$4.6 billion to $9.027 billion — a 93.13 percent increase in debt in

five and a half years. From April 1, 1986 to December 31, 1987 — and

this is their figure; it's in their document — their debt has gone up

by $1,725,000,000 — an increase of 23.6 percent. Now you talk about

fiscal responsibility. That graph right there on page 8 of the Manitoba

economic review portion of their budget is a sad, sad story indeed, and

one that I'm sure the opposition parties in Manitoba will be pointing

out to the voters in the election at the end of this month.

On page 10 of the economic review we go on and talk about the

revenue per capita. Here's another dandy. You see Manitoba again giving

British Columbia a pat on the back probably without being aware that

they're doing it, but indeed they are. They say: "Manitoba's fiscal

situation compares favourably with that in other provinces. Analysis of

1987 provincial budgets shows that Manitoba revenue per capita is

third-lowest...$251 per capita below the ten province average."

It's interesting. In looking at these figures, which is the

second-lowest? B.C. is $551 lower than the provincial average — not

$251 — indeed $300 better on a per capita basis.

Looking at the expenditures on a per capita basis, they go on

similar to the last page: "The Manitoba government has placed great

emphasis on providing quality services at reasonable cost." Really good

stuff. That sounds like our Finance minister. It goes on to say: "In

1987-88, Manitoba's budgeted per capita expenditure was fourth-lowest

among provinces, $196 below the ten-province average." Mr. Speaker,

guess which was the lowest province in the Dominion of Canada. Indeed,

British Columbia was lowest. We were $393 per capita under the province

of Manitoba. Again Manitoba is complimenting the things that are going

on in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 3725 ]

Mr. Speaker, we will now talk about debt service costs. Here's

another interesting graph. It's on page 13 of the Manitoba budget

financial statistics section, and they go on to say:

"High-interest rates have resulted in additional costs

to borrowers. Lower rates in the United States and elsewhere have provided opportunities

to reduce interest costs. The recent rise of the Canadian dollar, particularly

as measured against the United States dollar, offsets some of the effects of

foreign exchange fluctuations which have occurred over the past few years. Manitoba's

budgeted debt service costs per capita in 1987-88 were fifth-lowest among provinces

and close to the ten-province average."

Guess, Mr. Speaker, which was again the second-lowest of any province in the

Dominion of Canada — only $8 behind the province of Alberta. British Columbia

came in nowhere near the Manitoba figure of $429, but we were at $179. So again,

before the members opposite attack the great Social Credit government of the

province of British Columbia, perhaps they should go to Manitoba and read that

budget, and they would probably better understand what a great job we are doing

in the province of British Columbia.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) spoke yesterday,

and I heard him while I was sitting in my office doing some work. He

was talking about the amount of tax that the citizens paid in British

Columbia. Of the total income,83 percent was derived from the citizens

with a paltry 17 percent coming from corporations.

Well, by golly, I heard that on the speaker and I thought I've got

to do some homework on that. I'll bet you if I look at the Manitoba

budget they have taken in buckets more than 17 percent. They're

probably up 25, 35 percent. So I went through the income

section of

their budget and I added up every single thing I could. I threw in

water taxes, revenue taxes, corporate taxes and capital taxes. I went

through the whole thing.

I'll read some out for you for the record. Page 3 of the revenue

estimates refers to corporation capital tax, insurance corporation tax,

mining tax, oil and natural gas tax, minerals and petroleum and other

energy, mines, parks, forestry, fisheries and other natural resources,

corporation income tax. I added them all up and related them to the

total income. Guess what the percentage came to. Nowhere near the 17

percent we are getting in the province of British Columbia; their

figure came to 9.22 percent. I do hope the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew is listening.

The member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and several other

members have made scathing attacks on the province of British Columbia

and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health for the increase

that we made on the price per room for those in our extended-care

facilities, increasing the percentage from 75 to 85 percent.

It is interesting to compare our figure now with the other ten

provinces in Canada, because we are lower than every single province in

the Dominion of Canada with a possible exception of Alberta, which has

a triple-tier system that is pretty hard to put a percentage on. I was

sure when I looked at it I would find Manitoba not at 85 percent,

certainly not at 75 percent; I expected to find Manitoba at maybe 50

percent or 60 percent, to give those seniors all that extra money that

the members opposite keep talking about their needing. Indeed, in

looking at the facts, despite the fact that their wages are lower and

all kinds of other things are lower, cost of living just as high, the

basic charge that they levy on their seniors is 85.8 percent. Under our

formula we leave a minimum disposable income of $109.31, and in

Manitoba they leave $97.27. Strange, I can't understand why none of the

members opposite bothered to do some checking before they launched

their vicious attack on our Minister of Health and our Minister of

Finance. I find that very, very interesting.

I do wish I had more time to go through some of the things that are

happening in Manitoba in the area of the Limestone dam. But I will say

that in 1986 Manitoba exported to the United States 7,009 gigawatts

worth $111.7 million. In the same year in British Columbia we exported

2,103 gigawatts worth $45.5 million. In reading that, I thought to

myself that with the ratio there, with them exporting more than three

times as much as British Columbia, surely they would be getting more

than three times the revenue. Not so.

I get a report which is compiled from the National Energy Board

annual report. and I find out how much they are receiving mills per

kilowatt-hour, and I find out what a great bunch of negotiators they

are back in Manitoba — the NDP socialists. Because in British Columbia.

while we ship much less to the United States than Manitoba does, our

price per kilowatt-hour is 26.3 cents,

whereas in Manitoba in 1985 the

figure was 17 cents. If you look at 1986, Manitoba was only able to

negotiate an average selling price of 15.9,

whereas we in British

Columbia negotiated an average rate of 21.7. So in 1985 we did a better

job to the tune of 54.7 percent, where in 1986 we did a better job to

the tune of 36.5 percent.

I take it my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry I didn't have more

time because I have much more here on my desk to tell about the great

province of Manitoba, but I think the members have got the general

picture about the, kind of job that they are doing there, as compared

to we here in the great province of British Columbia.

[3:00]

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: Not too many friends. In the House this afternoon

are some very good friends of my family. Mr. and Mrs. Dick Christmas

and their grandson, Adrian Achurch, are here to view the proceedings.

I'm glad it is as constructive as it has been. Will you please bid them

a very warm welcome.

MR. PELTON: I also rise to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PELTON: While listening to my hon. friend make this

excellent speech, I noticed a fine group of young Canadians come into

the gallery opposite me. I can't tell what squadron they belong to

because my glasses don't give me that kind of vision, but they are a

group of fine young air cadets. I see at least three officers with

them. Fine young citizens of Canada and British Columbia, and I think

the House should give them a very, very warm welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, I'm wondering if we could briefly suspend the rules of the House and allow the

[ Page 3726 ]

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) to rise

again and make at least some fleeting reference to the motion before

the House, or indeed the budget delivered the other day by the Minister

of Finance.

MS. MARZARI: I rise to speak to the amendment, and the

amendment to the motion around the budget speech has to do with the

disastrous impact of this budget on the poor, the sick and the elderly.

What I would like to address is the issue of broken promises:

promises that have been made by this provincial government to the

people of B.C. over the last many years; promises that have been made

at election time; promises that have been made in budget speeches and

in throne speeches. Yet when we actually look at the numbers, when we

look at the estimates and the actuals — that column at the other end of

the estimates that shows what was really spent — and when we look at

the cutbacks that are reflected in the numbers, I think what we have is

a trail of broken promises, not just this year's budget speech but last

year's and the year's before. It is for that reason that many of us in

the opposition are in the House in the first place: because we have

sensed, in the communities that we live in, that over the years

promises have been made and not kept. Grand words have been spoken, and

the words have meant very little.

Those of us who have come to this House through the experience of

municipal councils understand, perhaps even more than others, what

broken promises mean when they're made to municipalities, to people who

live in small towns and cities around the province. In fact, you can't

get away with this kind of stuff when you're on a municipal council.

When you make a promise on a municipal council, you're right there.

You're not sitting 70 miles or perhaps 300 miles away. Your phone

number is there in your mayoralty office or in your aldermanic office,

and you are immediately accountable. I have a feeling that a lot of

what we've seen, a lot of the rhetoric and the promises not backed up

by the numbers, we could only get away with here, isolated as we are

from the people we serve.

You have cut health care. You have maintained health care in those

areas where people managed to send enough letters to protect the

services that they cared about: the physiotherapists, the massage

therapists and, thank heavens, the naturopaths. They roused enough of

their consumers and their clients to get to you with letters, and I'm

glad to have been part of that lobbying process and procedure. But you

have cut health care. You have taken services out of the health care

system. You have put onto a user fee

schedule certain services that we

have always considered to be a part of our right as consumers and as

patients of medical services in this province. Not only have you cut

health care, you have imposed fees and increased fees: hospital fees,

pharmaceutical fees, fees for seniors; fees for everyone basically who

comes to use health services.

You have said that you want to promote day care for children. In

fact, by buying in to the federal government day care promises and

schemes, you are actually going to allow day care to atrophy in this

province. The number of safe licensed spaces will not be increasing in

this province. They haven't been increasing much at all over the last

ten years, but they would not be increasing as much as we could expect

them to increase if we looked at other provinces and what they have

managed to negotiate over the years with the federal government.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I don't refer to Manitoba, because I felt for a moment I was living

in Winnipeg; and it was rather a relief to come back home when the

introductions of people in the gallery took place. It sort of focused

us again for our discussion here. I should also add that the Manitoba

statistics quoted by the previous speaker were ones we were all regaled

with last year, I seem to remember, around the discussion of the new

property tax you brought in last year. So I think we've been through

that speech before. I'm sure the member thought he was doing original

research, but I think that if we looked at Hansard , we'd find all those statistics reamed out last year by different members on your side of the House.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: No, just keep repeating them, because if you've only got so many speeches.... Keep it coming.

The child care situation is something that gives us great concern.

We have seen you cutting family spending power. The increase in

taxes and fees you're promising is going to adversely impact on family

spending power by — we are calculating — $700 a year. But you're not

controlling the costs that families have to pay on a day-to-day basis

in this society we live in. Even people on welfare who are in receipt

of transfer payments are not being lifted to anywhere near the actual

cost of living; even where, through transfer payments, you are capable

of controlling the costs that families pay, you aren't in fact doing it

with the GAIN regulations.

I also notice that you've cut women's programs in your budget by

$50,000 this year. Now that doesn't sound like a great deal; it sounds

a bit nickel-and-dime to be mentioning it in a budget speech response,

where we very often talk billions — or at least hundreds of thousands.

But a $50,000 cutback, from $709,000 to $644,000, is a major cutback in

a budget which is not that large to begin with, in a community that

wants to help women, in a government that doesn't necessarily refer to

women as people, but generally places them in a family setting, refers

to them as members of families and certainly wants to keep them that

way. I should say that the $50,000 cutback in women's services is going

to be sorely missed, if only because when you're dealing with such a

small budget, it's very carefully monitored by the people who work

within that budget, and spread very thin in a province where women's

groups and associations are making more and more demands and needing

more and more services.

Of course, this begs the question on the whole issue of bringing

women into the labour market on an equal footing with men. The kind of

pay equity program we would envisage would certainly not even begin to

be covered by this paltry budget in the first place. But the $50,000 is

significant, taken out of the ministry in which it's placed, especially

when we notice that the Premier's office is taking a massive budget

unto itself — somewhere close to $200 million, I guess. It hasn't been

broken down very well, but much of it might well be spent on the

antithesis of women's programs — in other words, depriving women of

choice.

I also see broken promises in decreasing quality of education. This is where I want to make a major statement, because

this is the issue, in my opinion, that most affects us all. You are placing increased demands on the post-secondary

[ Page 3727 ]

education system that it cannot possibly survive.

On the one hand, you're claiming that post-secondary education is one

of the foundation stones of the society you want to build. And then

when we actually look at the numbers, when we actually take the words

and translate them into numbers, we see quite the opposite picture.

As I look at the community college budget and BCIT budget, the

question comes up: how long can you continue to talk about quality and

being up there on the national scene in terms of your sense of

standards when we are faced with budgets that are in fact declining

radically in real dollars and we stand tenth of ten in Canada? In terms

dollars spent per student on post-secondary education, we are way at

the bottom, even below Newfoundland, even below the Maritime provinces,

on some of these variables.

When you go to national meetings, as our Minister of Advanced

Education (Hon. S. Hagen) did last October to Saskatoon, what do you

carry with you? As I look through the proceedings of that meeting in

Saskatoon, that meeting of university and college professionals, of

students, of interested business people, of federal bureaucrats and

ministers and provincial ministers of post-secondary education, what

did B.C. carry into that meeting? It carried in a 1986 paper written by

the Universities Council talking about planning and the necessity to

plan post-secondary education and the necessity to encourage and force

post-secondary educators and institutes to develop mission statements,

to develop five-year plans, to develop expenditure patterns and to

develop ways in which post-secondary can be provided to more people

without reducing excellence. That 1986 paper by the Universities

Council — which was disbanded, as you will remember, by this government

in 1987 — was taken to a conference in late 1987, basically promising

and espousing principles that this government can't even begin to

muster. The ability to plan has been decimated in this administration,

I fear, through the letting go of many staff and the inability of the

remaining staff to adequately meet planning needs of our post-secondary

institutions.

[3:15]

What is the impact of this budget on our post-secondary

institutions? Let me turn first to the universities, because they have

to deal with crumbling infrastructures on two campuses, the older

campuses, and they have to deal with new development at the University

of Victoria. They have to deal with an ageing faculty in the space of

the next ten to 15 years, so that as the faculty ages new people can

come in and there would be some sense of continuity and some sense of

passing on of information to new faculty, and training. But this

government actually contemplated the notion of dealing with that

problem by pulling this province out of

section 15 of the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms. This isn't planning; this isn't sit-down,

five-year fiscal planning. This was the kind of knee-jerk reaction that

makes us a laughing-stock in the country when we are trying to

establish a reputation for ourselves with first-class, par excellence

post-secondary institutions that can attract students and faculty from

around the world.

The universities are concerned about maintaining and increasing

their standards of teaching and attracting students, and they are

looking at increasing access for more students, whether at the graduate

or at the post-graduate levels. What do they face with this budget?

They face a 5 percent increase, a light at the end of the tunnel. Last

year they received a 5 percent increase, and this is perhaps further

incentive of a bare maintenance budget. They seem to be actually

grateful in this province. I would suggest that for the universities we

have provided subsistence money and a little bit of planning. because

we have encouraged the university administrations to sit down with us

and do a little bit of planning,

Let me turn to the community colleges and to BCIT, because these are

the institutes where the students are suffering badly. Here for the

community colleges we have no money and we have no plan. We have a

promise this year of $287.1 million. Last year the estimate was $284.5

million. The $2.5 million increase just happens to correspond almost

exactly with the decrease recently announced for the B.C. Institute of

Technology. It's almost ironic that within a week of announcing this

tiny increase to community colleges, BCIT was informed it would receive

a core budget decrease of the same amount.

Now I will just pursue that a little, because these numbers

themselves aren't terribly indicative of what's really going on. The

$2.5 million increase into the community college system, in basically a

$300 million budget, is not what it seems. First of all. the actual

amount that went into community colleges last year was $290 million

when you take into account the fact that funds for excellence were used

and certain grants were given to various community colleges over the

year as they needed them. They are not reflected here in actuals.

Between $287 million and $290 million there is a real decrease in the

dollars going into community colleges this year if you take the actuals

and not the estimates from last year.

If you take a decrease of that magnitude and add inflation, we are

dealing with a very substantial decrease. In 1982-83, $273 million was

invested in the community colleges, and now it's $287 million. We're

only looking at a 4.8 percent increase in a society and a community

which is claiming that post-secondary education is extremely important,

crucial, and that we want our kids to have a place to go and we'd like

to keep them at home. We don't want to send them to Toronto or Calgary.

We don't want to send them to California. We want to keep them here, I

think. It's somewhat inconsistent to hear those promises and then see a

less than 5 percent financial — not real dollar — increase into the

community colleges. If you talk about real dollars with inflation,

we're talking about a 27.7 percent increase in inflation since 1982.

Match that against a 4.8 percent real dollar increase, and what we're

faced with is a deficit of staggering dimension and a community college

system that is reeling as a result.

What does it mean for the colleges? It means inability to build the

kind of administrative planning facility that you need. It means a

complete inability to develop capital programs. It means bare-bones

maintenance. It means cutbacks in programs. It means inability to

provide the programs that students need and that colleges want to

provide. It means crowded classrooms, so crowded that one instructor

told me at the beginning of the year last year that students were

sitting on the stairs and standing crammed at the back of a lecture

theatre. The instructor looked out and wondered how she was ever going

to be able to mark the papers and prayed that those students would

drift off or drop out of her course. The quality of the lecture that

she gave did not deteriorate, but you can imagine the impact on an

instructors morale to see a room that was built for 45 people holding

90 people who had been allowed to enroll in the course because of sheer

demand and necessity.

What does this budget mean for students in community colleges? This budget basically means that students are not

[ Page 3728 ]

going to be able to enroll in the courses that they

want. The courses won't be there. They will not be able to apply for

three courses, which is what they need in order to qualify for a

student loan. Very often they have absolutely no ability to become

part-time students in a community college because community colleges

have organized their full-time equivalents so tightly to qualify for

their funding. Because they're on formula funding, the first priority

is most emphatically given to full-time students. Part-time students

are very often turned off or turned away. I should add that those

part-time students are very often women who are raising a family or

living elsewhere with their employment and are then not able to come

for part-time courses at the community college.

Talk to me about student financial assistance. The bright spot here

is the doubling of assistance, something that I think the minister can

be reasonably proud of. In the last year student financial assistance

has quadrupled. This budget takes a budget that had already been

doubled and doubles it again, something to be commented on and

applauded. The government side has taken no pains to applaud itself. It

has done an excellent job of patting itself on the back on this one.

Let me throw a few other variables into this pot. What happens when

a student realizes that they might qualify for student financial aid,

quits their job or adjusts their life and makes their plans and shows

up at Douglas College to sign up for a full-time course? The likelihood

at this point is that they won't be able to get the courses they want.

In fact, last year for the first time Douglas College kept very close

tabs on how many students were turned away, and the numbers vary

between 800 and 1,200 full-time students. That's not even counting

part-time students or students seeking part-time education. At least

800 students — that's the conservative estimate, and I'll use

conservative estimates because I don't like blowing up figures for the

sake of looking good — were turned away at the door, This year, if we

look at a doubling of student financial assistance, and if student

financial assistance has anything at all to do with people's feeling of

access to opportunity, we might well see 1,600 students turned away at

Douglas College. Lineups would be absolutely out the door and down the

hill towards the Fraser River — not a desirable situation for

ourselves, for this government, or for those students.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: About 800 students being turned away? When I was

in small retail at Christmastime, I would stand behind my cash register

and look at the clients in the lineup waiting to give me their dollars,

I should say to the member from South. I made sure that they could pay

their money and take the merchandise out of the store, okay? If I have

to put it to you in small retail terms, I will. I think that as a

province, as a retailer of post-secondary services to our children, the

least we can do is make sure that when they're lined up at the door,

we've got the services to offer them.

I also want to raise this question around the student financial

services. This is perhaps even more distressing. You can say to

yourself that because we've got $50 million going into student

financial assistance now, we're going to have twice as many students

availing themselves of these moneys. But I have to add here that what

we have been watching in this province in the last few years is a

burgeoning and a growing of the number of small private colleges around

the lower regional mainland and throughout the province.

That is, community colleges cutting off programs and pushing certain

programs out into the community; or people in the community

establishing private colleges and getting their licences — without a

great deal of monitoring, I should add, and very little supervision,

not the kind of supervision that I should think we should be providing;

but a very overworked office which has now encouraged and licensed 400

small private colleges run by one or two people, sometimes a small

board. They are providing post-secondary education, most often in the

service industries — perhaps hairdressing, perhaps computer technology

— at rates which sometimes exceed three times the going rate for the

community college equivalent course.

So we now have an indication that students are receiving loans for a

ten-month course of up to $7,000 out of the student loan fund. It

suggests to me that we're not going to be looking at a doubling of the

students receiving the loans; we're going to be looking at a tripling

of the tuition charged by small private colleges as post-secondary

institutes are privatized. We will be looking at the same number of

students carrying our provincial dollars into private schools and

private settings not properly monitored, by my reckoning, and our money

is going to be spent on loans to students who are not getting the

quality of education that we could provide them for one-third the price

in our community college setting. So that is also an impact of this

budget. This is macho manoeuvring of the worst variety.

[3:30]

Most tragic of all, and the issue that's facing us most drastically

today, is BCIT. What is happening with BCIT that $2.6 million has been

removed from its budget? It's not recorded in the estimates, but the

administration at BCIT were informed on March 29, just last week, that

they could look forward to a $2.6 million decrease in their base

budget. That does not take into account $900,000 that they are

anticipating spending on staff increments over the next year or so.

That is not taking into account special programs which have been

amortized over a number of years, programs which BCIT specializes in

and which only they can do. There is a suggestion from BCIT. The

president, Roy Murray, has issued a declaration, a letter, to his staff

and to all those who care to hear, expressing his fear that basically

BCIT is looking at an effective cutback of $3.5 million to $4 million

this year, out of a total budget of $52 million last year.

If community colleges are faced with zero planning and zero budget

increase, zero money, BCIT is being faced with actual decimation — not

only a lack of planning, but a major 8 percent cutback in its ability

to provide service to students and its ability to provide stability to

its faculty, its administration, and to this province's reputation in

the field.

I would say at this point that unless we sit down, not in a crisis

situation, and deal with post-secondary problems in an adult way, deal

with the community colleges, work with BCIT to rebuild its morale, and

sit down with the federal government to renegotiate the EPF, which the

federal government is now prepared to do, I am told.... It is now

softer in its attitude than it has been. Unless we are prepared to do

that, our post-secondary institutions will become third-rate. We will

not be able to keep our faculty. We will not be able to keep our young

people here in the province. We are going to lose any credibility we

might once have had. It's not a happy picture for the future of this

province in this very crucial area of building a reputation in the

technical trades and in the community college field.

[ Page 3729 ]

I will end there by especially putting out a call for immediate work

to be done around BCIT, immediate work to rebuild that budget and to

help that institute rebuild itself to the flagship that it is and

should remain as the Park report last year suggested to the Premier.

There is an immediate demand that we have to bring the community

colleges at least to a subsistence level of a $7 million increase at

this point. Then we can call ourselves credible once again, and start

the planning to reconstruct the system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we proceed with the debate, the second member for Okanagan South asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS: In the gallery today we have a resident from

Rutland in the great constituency of Okanagan South. I'd like everybody

in the House to make welcome Mr. Bud French.

MR. VANT: I'm pleased that even the member for Rossland-Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy) noticed my presence here today. For sure, I rise to speak

against this amendment, this socialist fear mongering amendment first

proposed this morning by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Harcourt).

MR. R. FRASER: Did you say socialist?

MR. VANT: Yes,1 certainly did. There are just a handful of them in the socialist corner of the House this afternoon.

This amendment mentions the poor, the sick and the elderly. Believe

me, there's lots for the poor, lots for the sick and lots for the

elderly in this budget.

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) said just a

little earlier this afternoon that there were cuts in health care. I

can't figure out what kind of socialist arithmetic she's into here, but

the overall budget was certainly increased by 10.2 percent. Indeed,

there is an 11.5 percent increase for the Medical Services Commission,

an 11.4 percent increase for Pharmacare, a 10.1 percent increase for

hospital programs, a 12.5 percent increase for emergency health

services, and golly, a 10.6 percent increase for continuing care

services. The way I look at it, that is certainly not a cut in health

care.

So for the most

part I'm against this amendment, and I certainly

support this excellent budget. It is a good budget. It's not a perfect

budget, I'll admit that; I am realistic. After all, no budget ever is.

I'm sure that for the Minister of Finance it's not an easy job to

figure out who gets what and who pays for what. I compliment my

colleague the hon. Minister of Finance for his cautious estimates of

expected revenue last year. Indeed, with good Social Credit government

we set the stage last year for economic growth, resulting in $551

million of unexpected revenue.

For sure, this 1988 budget is a people budget. People, I am

convinced, want jobs, not welfare. After all, this is the best way we

can possibly help the poor. People also, of course, have very high

expectations of services from government, and Social Credit delivers in

good times as well as in tough times. The question for all of us is:

just what is it out there that generates the necessary revenue for

these good services for the poor, the sick and the elderly? It's really

not the government that generates this revenue; it's really the private

sector. The big job generators overall, it is agreed, are the small-

and medium-sized businesses, so indeed it is good news in this budget

that the small business income tax rate will be reduced from 11 percent

to 9 percent on July 1 this year. This will lower it below the level of

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and

Newfoundland. Already — indeed, it started January 1 this year — the

general corporation income tax rate has been reduced from 15 percent to

14 percent. What a contrast that is to the highest corporate income tax

rate in Canada — in Manitoba — of 17 percent.

I must admit that I have always called those in the corner of the

House the socialists, but I guess they would prefer to be called the

NDP — the "No Down Payment" party, or the "No Darn Policy" party. As a

fairly new member of this House, I sit and listen to speech after

speech and try to figure out just what their policy is about certain

things. They say they care about people — as though they had some

exclusive claim to being the people party — about the worker, about the

poor and the sick and the elderly. In Manitoba, where I'm sure that

very shortly we'll see the demise of the last socialist administration

in Canada, right now you pay high personal income tax at one of the

highest rates in the country. To add insult to injury, they still have

that payroll tax. They talk about working families and a heavy tax

burden on middle-income people in this ridiculous amendment. I just

wonder what they would do if they were in power in this province.

MR. R. FRASER: They'd shoot down the NDP budget themselves.

MR. VANT: Yes.

In British Columbia — if you read our wonderful 1988 budget — the

average personal income tax rate was reduced by $100. Do you know

something, Mr. Speaker? This puts no less than $148 million into the

pockets of those poor working people out there. That is definitely

something for the middle-income and the work-in- families of this

province.

In Manitoba you even have to pay a sales tax of 7 percent on meals.

Everybody has to eat, even the poor and the working families. Of

course. in British Columbia there's absolutely no sales tax on meals.

In the Cariboo, that great constituency which I represent, we have

many seasonal resorts, and tourism is extremely important to our

economy. We certainly welcome the deduction of 50 percent of the

assessed value of all tourist accommodation to a maximum of $150,000.

For sure, Mr. Speaker, this helps the small seasonal resort operator

who initially feared the removal of the seasonal resort tax

classification. This means that the "ma and pa" seasonal fishing

resorts in the Cariboo can now, with this significant property tax

reduction, keep operating and improving and expanding their facilities.

This benefits the elderly, so those retired folk can enjoy fishing at

these resorts.

I'm very pleased also about the increase in the Ministry of

Environment and Parks budget for this year. Continuing fish enhancement

programs will be most welcome, and the restocking of some of our 8,000

lakes in the great Cariboo. We can look forward, too, to more

conservation officers being posted where they are needed to prevent

poaching and to further enhance opportunities for recreation in the

wilderness.

In the Cariboo the forest industry accounts for over 60 percent of the employment base. This budget provides over

[ Page 3730 ]

$90 million more for silviculture. This will ensure

the future of our forests. This increase is most welcome, and the

Cariboo forest region looks forward to its share of this significant

budget increase. People will be employed planting, thinning and

brushing. Of course, this government expects that the private sector

forest industry, in order to have the privilege of long-term tenure of

Crown forest land, will gradually take on more and more responsibility

and will this year plant seven million seedlings. This will increase to

192 million seedlings by 1993. Again, all of this will ensure the

future of our wood supply. This is a very important part of our sound

economic base, which is so essential to providing services for the

poor, the sick and the elderly.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

For metal mines in British Columbia, and in particular Gibraltar

Mines, Blackdome and Mosquito Creek in the Cariboo, the reduction in

the mineral resource tax from 17.5 percent to 15 percent will improve

their competitiveness, ensure their future and of course maintain over

500 jobs for some of those middle-income and working families. The

mining tax reduction from 15 percent to 12.5 percent on coal and

structural materials will have the same effect. Indeed, I was very

upset the other day during the actual budget speech when the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) said "shame" to that. He must

be against the survival of these industries and the provision of all

those jobs.

[3:45]

You know something, Mr. Speaker? More people work in the coal-mines

in B.C., thanks to northeast coal. We have more of a share of the world

coal market than ever before. People working is what our Social Credit

government and this budget are all about, and expanding our share of

those world markets is very important. Indeed, capital investment is

way up in our province. It shows confidence, and with confidence our

budget predicts an increase this budget year of up to $12.7 billion in

total. That is exceedingly good news, and again it will assist in that

necessary economic activity.

Education funding for kindergarten to grade 12 is up 7.4 percent. In

our great constituency of Cariboo, over 85 percent of the operating

budgets of School District 28 in Quesnel, School District 27

(Cariboo-Chilcotin) in Williams Lake and School District 30 (South

Cariboo) is paid by the province. This helps the cost of long

school-bus runs.

Also, the province increased the homeowner grant to reduce local

school taxes in this budget by 9.6 percent. There's something in this,

Mr. Speaker, for the elderly. Indeed, their homeowner grant will be

$630, and the general grant for middle-income and working families is

$380.

Indeed our province contributes no less than $125.5 million in this

budget year to teachers' pensions. Now if that isn't help for the

elderly, I don't know what is; that is an increase of 7.9 percent. Who

could possibly criticize that?

University funding is up 5 percent. That's more than the rate of

inflation. Indeed, if some of those elderly professors at UBC don't

retire, that too could be construed as something in there for the

elderly. Of course, at the other end of the age spectrum, the best

student aid program in Canada has been announced by this budget. Now

doubled, it totals a whopping $58 million.

But I will be very objective and realistic about this budget. The

only problem I can see for the Cariboo constituency that I am proud to

represent is in the funding for our colleges. As I look at it, it is

only up 0. 89 percent. Cariboo College has programs and campuses not

only within my constituency but in the great constituencies of Kamloops

and Yale-Lillooet, yet their enrolments last year, as the members from

that area will know, went up no less than 25 percent, and our colleges

will probably be faced with a salary increase of 3 percent this year

and operating costs may go up as much as 4 percent.

That will be a tough one, but of course, not being part of the

negative persons' party over in the socialist corner of the House....

Being positive, perhaps we can utilize the contingency

section of the

budget if necessary, so that the colleges can make ends meet and we

will have delivery of quality post-secondary educational programs.

Indeed, the minister responsible is meeting this very day with the

chairmen of these various college boards, so we do listen and respond

to the concerns out there.

Not only in accordance with this ridiculous amendment before us at

this time.... Just the other day the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) accused us of overtaxing the poor and the elderly. But we have

a first-class, quality, long-term-care program in this province, in

both extended and intermediate care. B.C.'s per them charge to the

residents is still lower than most provinces in Canada, lower of course

than Manitoba — as the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael)

just said in great detail. Indeed, our senior citizens in continuing

care will have a higher minimum disposable income than any other

province in Canada except Alberta. In B.C. the resident pays $19.20 a

day. The government, on the other hand, pays an average of $46 a day

for the care of these long-term-care residents.

This is certainly a people budget. Social services, health and

education now consume the lion's share of the budget — no less than

about 69 percent. I look at the expenditures by ministry, and I am

pleased to note that Agriculture and Fisheries is up this year by 16.9

percent. That makes up for the 3.3 percent cut last year.

The great Cariboo constituency is largely rural. Two thirds of our

62,000 people live in the unincorporated areas. Our public roads system

exceeds 7,000 kilometres. As I have said in this House many times

before, only one-third of those roads are paved, so continual upgrading

and maintenance are extremely important. Last year I could accept the

cut in the Transportation and Highways budget due to the very ambitious

and, I must say, essential highways programs in 1986.

I must say that I am concerned this year that this ministry's budget

has been cut a further 14.2 percent. Good, safe roads are essential to

the well-being of our people and our economy throughout the province.

In a riding like the Cariboo, good, well-maintained roads are the only

means by which all those thousands of people who live in those rural

areas can get to work, to the schools, to the hospitals, into town to

do business and out to the lakes for recreation, etc. I look forward to

an increase in the highways budget in subsequent years, as we

responsibly nurture and set the stage for continued economic strength

in our economy.

You know something, Mr. Speaker? In terms of care for the elderly,

it's often in those sunset years, the period of retirement, that

old-timers travel. They too need a first-class road system, and that

brings to mind tourism. It's a great part of our Cariboo economy, and I

note that that ministry, when I look at last year and this year, lost

its increase and dropped about $5 million. The big tourism marketing

effort last year paid off handsomely. We trust they will keep coming

back.

[ Page 3731 ]

With the momentum and, of course, with the

worldwide reputation we have gained from Expo 86 and with our natural

beauty and our friendliness....

I have concern for middle-income and working families. This

government is a responsible government. Yes, those with the ability to

pay will be faced with Medical Services Plan increases: $9 more per

month for a single person; $7.50 each for a couple; $16 more per month

for a family. What about the poor? This government is not only

responsible but indeed very generous. Some 360,000 low-income Medical

Services Plan subscribers and dependents receive some form of premium

assistance. That is valued at no less than $68 million. That is

certainly in there for the poor, the disabled and the disadvantaged.

People on income or disability assistance do not pay Medical Services

Plan premiums.

MR. R. FRASER: What do they pay?

MR. VANT: Nothing. This is paid by a generous Social Credit government; and that amounts to no less than $36 million.

Interjection.

MR. VANT: Right. Less than that sneaky letter that was sent out under the guise of the medicare program.

Many others have their Medical Services Plan premiums paid by their

employer. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? Even with that increase

in this year's budget, our Medical Services Plan rates are still lower

than Ontario's — that great, rich province in central Canada.

Finally, I must say a word or two about fiscal responsibility. The

socialists in the corner of the House here keep talking about our

accumulated deficit. Indeed, the second member for Victoria likes to

not only talk about the direct debt of the province; he also likes to

throw in all those contingent liabilities out there, all the debts of

Crown corporations. They really like to just throw in and exaggerate

everything they can.

Our direct debt is of great concern to me. As a true Social Credit

Party member, I believe in a balanced budget. Deficits are only

necessary in tough times to maintain services. That's where rainy-day

funds come in. Again, that's for the poor and the elderly. This is to

prevent or ease the down cycles in our very revenue-based economy. Of

course, we will diversify; we are making progress. We will have the

privatization benefits fund as well. Again, the poor and the elderly

will all benefit by that new fund. British Columbia's net debt, by the

way, in relation to the provincial gross domestic product is lower than

Manitoba's — lower, indeed, than all provinces' except Alberta's. This

didn't all happen by accident. Decades of Social Credit government in

both British Columbia and Alberta made this possible. We have a proud

record.

This budget addresses our contemporary and our future challenges and opportunities.

To me the budget is all about responsible management of the public purse. This

budget sets the stage for continued growth of the economy. Both these aspects

are what guarantee for our people the level of service that they expect and

that they deserve. This budget will preserve our health care system. It will

promote wellness. This budget invests in our people through our education system.

This budget gives us a strategy into the nineties and, indeed, right on into

the next century. This budget ensures the future of our forests, the competitive

position of our businesses, the attraction of capital and the creation of jobs.

Overall. Mr. Speaker, it's a very good budget, with lots for the poor, the

elderly and the sick. Therefore I am against this amendment and very much for

this budget.

[4:00]

MR. GUNO: I'm quite glad to rise today to speak in support of

the amendment to a budget which seeks to have continued increased

revenues from fee increases which will directly impact on the poor and

the sick and the elderly. I think it's a first-rate amendment and

should be supported.

In my speech I want to focus on the impact of this budget on my

constituents in the north. I can't help but feel a strong sense that

this budget offers little hope for people who live in the north. It is,

as my colleague from Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) described it,

urban-oriented, but I would say that except for the privileged few, it

offers little hope even for the many people who live in cities in

British Columbia. Conspicuously absent in this budget is any mention of

new initiatives to make living in rural areas more bearable in terms of

providing even the most basic services in health and social programs. I

want to go into that in some detail later.

In my opinion, a budget should not only be fair but should have some

balance. I'm not talking about a balanced budget, but it should have

some kind of proportion. This budget is not. by any stretch of the

imagination. fair or balanced. This budget is a cruel hoax played on

the people of British Columbia: cruel because of the Premier's promise

of a fair and open government; a hoax because it creates an illusion of

better times for people of British Columbia, which in reality it is not.

It bears repeating that this budget reveals a government totally

lacking in compassion. Witness the Finance minister's non sequitur the

day after the budget was made, when he suggested British Columbians

should get used to 10 percent unemployment. I believe a few years ago

the Social Credit government said that they should act used to 6

percent. He stated that most of the unemployed aren't really interested

in full-time work, and that Ontario's 5.2 percent unemployment wasn't a

result of economic growth. They should so wish, Mr. Speaker. He claims

that there is low unemployment in Ontario because "the winters are so

cold there, people have to keep busy." I must say that the large number

of unemployed young people in my riding, especially in the Nass Valley,

would take cold comfort from that kind of insensitive remark by the

Finance minister. It does get pretty cold up there, but still there are

no jobs, and it's not because the young people are not trying. There's

simply nothing happening there. This government has failed to address

that very critical problem in the north, and it is a tragic waste of

the human resources we have there.

Not only is this budget unfair and unbalanced: there is a surreal

quality to it. It talks about the mythical budget stabilization fund,

ostensibly set up to provide for rainy days. Mr. Speaker, it raises the

question: rainy days for whom? It certainly is not for the people who

have to bear the incredible burden imposed by this budget. In their

case, when it rains it pours — all the time, unrelentingly. It's

raining today. I wonder. how bad does it have to get before this

government realizes that we have a crisis out there, particularly in

the north? When the Social Credit government talks about saving for a

rainy day, in actual fact they're talking about saving for an election

year.

Mr. Speaker, this budget stabilization fund — BS fund as some have, I think. correctly labelled it — certainly does not

[ Page 3732 ]

bear any economic reality. It is a gross

manipulation of figures. In his response to the budget speech the first

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) did a great job of exposing this

rather transparent effort of the government to continue to hoodwink the

public.

The Premier has been quite honest in saying that his strategy is to

really put the screws to the public in the first two years and then,

come election time, start to unleash the funds and give the goodies,

and the people will come running and support the Social Credit. He

calls that honesty; I call that stupid arrogance.

Interjections.

MR. GUNO: You bet it is, but I have to keep reminding myself

that this is a government that is led by a Premier who lives in a

castle in a place called Fantasyland.

I don't want to be unkind, but I sincerely wish that this government

would wake up to the fact that you can't run a government the way you

run a business or a family budget. As stated by John Kenneth Galbraith

in his recent book, Economics in Perspective ,

with regards to the fallacy of this position: "Wise state policy in all

its diverse needs and complexity does not necessarily accord with the

rules that govern even the most wise and most prudent family."

A further example is the fact that individuals in British Columbia

still pay 83 percent of all income tax paid in British Columbia, while

corporations pay only 17 percent. This is in comparison to 1981 when

individuals paid 75 percent and corporations paid 25 percent. So

there's a regressive pattern.

Just to highlight the unfairness of this budget on the family: this

year's budget takes $700 out of the pockets of the average British

Columbia family in tax and fee increases. Added to the tax grabbed in

last year's budget, it makes a total of more than $1,400 in the 18

months since this government took office.

In terms of the Medical Services Plan hikes which have been more or

less universally condemned by many observers as brutal, for families

the rate increases from $42 per month to $58 — an increase of $192 to a

total of $596 per year. For individuals, the rate goes up from $20 to

$29 per month — an increase of $108 to $348 per year. The question that

must be asked is: is this fair? No, it isn't.

A further example of the unfairness is that the increased premium

will bring an additional $141 million in revenue, meaning that the

government will collect a total of $555 million from premiums. These

increases make the premiums the fourth largest source of provincial

revenue. The corporate tax at $557 million is projected to bring in

only $2 million more than premiums. Again I pose the question: is that

fair?

The Finance minister has justified the level of premiums by saying

it represents 50 percent of fees paid to doctors. This seems to me to

indicate that we can expect further increases in premiums any time

doctors' fees are raised, in an attempt to blame premium increases on

doctors. Only Ontario, Alberta and B.C. collect Medical Services Plan

premiums.

This is not only unfair; it doesn't make much economic sense,

because it does impact on the competitiveness of business. For example,

the premium increases will hit many businesses, as businesses pay

approximately 50 percent of the premiums in B.C. We can't buy the

argument by this government — or their claim — that the subsidy plan

has been improved. The changes do not protect those already receiving

subsidies from the increases. Families who already are receiving

subsidies face increases of 38 percent. Individuals already covered

face increases of $45.

Turning to the seniors: another example of the heartlessness of this

budget. It is truly disheartening to see how this government is

treating our seniors. Surely the people who have contributed so much to

the development of this province deserve more from this government. The

government has not backed down on its increases in charges for

long-term care from 75 percent to 85 percent of combined OAP and GIS

income. This will raise something in the order of $18 million per year.

The change is that seniors in long-term care will now be eligible to

apply for the GIS. That's a small relief, but so minuscule in the face

of the continuing onslaught of the government on seniors. The total

income of seniors receiving OAP and GIS is something like $679 per

month. In most cases, that fee for long-term care will rise from $500

to $576 per month. This will decrease the seniors' disposable income

from $178 to $103, leaving only $3.39 per day.

I think that that's unconscionable, particularly in light of the

fact that seniors must pay for things like wheelchairs, denture

relinings and glasses, with what little money they have left after

paying out the long-term care. In addition to that, things like user

fees on physiotherapy and the $5 dispensing fee for prescriptions must

also be paid out of the disposable income of the seniors before you

even consider personal items.

I want to turn a bit to the items relating to my riding in Atlin and

to speak from a more or less rural perspective. I feel that I first

have to acknowledge the extension of the B.C. Hydro grid to Stewart. I

must commend the government for responding to the efforts of the local

people of Stewart. I myself have raised this matter on two occasions in

question period, and again, I must say that the government has finally

responded.

But this is only a beginning. It is, I acknowledge, a much needed

ingredient in the diversification of the local economy in that area.

Stewart has the potential to develop the first port facility for that

area. This new access to power should open up that development, and I

would urge that the government get together — if they are still on

speaking terms — with the federal government in terms of pursuing this

matter.

[4:15]

I look forward to the government moving with some alacrity to see to

it that the forest licence-holders make good on their promise to build

local mills so that value can be added to our forest resources.

Licence-holders in the North Kalum TSA have been granted licences to

export over a million cubic metres a year — an incredible drain of

opportunities to get our local people working. So I hope that there is

no excuse now for these forest licence-holders not to make good on the

promise to add value to the forest resources there. These have been

fairly significant considerations in granting these licences.

Again, to reinforce what was said by my colleague for Rossland-Trail

(Mr. D’Arcy) about the incredible lack of services in the rural areas,

it's certainly true for Atlin. It's not uncommon for people to travel

many miles to obtain the most basic services from government.

It is because people choose to live in the north, in these isolated

areas, that they continue to live there despite the fact that there is

such a neglect on the part of the government in providing these

services. I refer to people in the small community of Atlin, who have

to pay a disproportionately high property tax just to fund the overruns

in their school

[ Page 3733 ]

district funding. It's not really overrun because

there are frill items that have to be paid for. These are overruns that

are really geared to fund the most basic educational needs of the area.

Again, in terms of my riding, in terms of lack of services, I refer

to Telegraph Creek, where people have to suffer the fact that there is

very little policing there. Anytime there is some kind of major report

of some criminal activity, it takes sometimes two days for the RCMP

stationed 70 miles away in Dease Lake to respond. These are everyday

sorts of problems that the people in Telegraph Creek and Dease Lake

have to contend with.

So there is a very strong sense, as I said before, that this

government has relegated the citizens of the north to a second-class

status. I think that is unfortunate in terms of public policy, because

it has forced so many of our people, sometimes in futility, to move to

the larger urban areas where they are more vulnerable to such things as

alcohol abuse and so on.

There's an even bigger problem in terms of this kind of pattern of

people moving from the rural areas to the larger urban area. The

Brundtland report indicates that one of the great pressures on the

continuing ability of our earth to be able to sustain our way of life

is the growing concentration of the population in large urban centres.

It states that by the year 20 10, over 50 percent of the people in the

world will be living in these large cities. I think that kind of

pattern should be reviewed very strenuously by government in British

Columbia, in terms of how it will impact on services.

In terms of the highway system in Atlin, I must say that there is

not much prospect in the budget for much-needed upgrading of the

highway system throughout Atlin, especially Highway 37. As I understand

it, there's something like a 14 percent decrease in the transportation

budget dealing with highways.

This is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, in regards to Highway 37 because

we are, I believe, missing a great opportunity to develop tourism in

that area. In my travels through Atlin — and I try to do that as much

as I can; it's a vast riding, so sometimes that is not always possible

— I'm always awestruck by the natural beauty of the area, the

incredible diversification of natural beauty. Take, for example, the

grand canyons of Stikine; the Atlin lakes; the lava plains in the Nass.

These are natural beauty tourist attraction areas whose potential, I

think, we have really failed to exploit. The present state of Highway

37 is a bar to increased traffic to and from the Alaska Highway.

In terms of the highway system throughout the Nass, it is in a

horrendous state, and I think that is something that has been in

existence for many years. When one sees the number of logging trucks

rolling out of the Nass Valley carrying forest products from that area,

fuelling the economy of the south and of the multinationals, it is

really unfair to see that people in the Nass Valley must put up with

the horrendous state of the roads and the high unemployment. I think

that is unacceptable and there is nothing in this budget that would

alleviate that kind of situation.

When you compare the response of the government to the plight of

Stewart — which I'm not in any way criticizing, because I think that

three years ago they were on the ropes, economically speaking, when the

mining companies shut down operations. The speed with which this

government moved to bail out that community was commendable, but it is

highly selective because it ignores the similar plight of the people in

Nass River. It just completely ignores them. I think that's

unconscionable and highly discriminatory.

So I have no doubt that the roads into the Nass will improve when

the number of non-Indians or non-Nishgas have exceeded the population

of the Nass. I really feel that, because that horrendous state of the

road has been in existence for 20 years. and it is rendered even more

useless by the continuing, traffic of these big logging trucks.

Another blow to the northerners is the pathetically small increase

in the financing of the B.C. community colleges and institutions. For

us, the college in Terrace is a very valuable institution. It's the

only institution that a lot of our people can afford to attend to

prepare for higher learning institutions. So under the successive

Social Credit governments, colleges have been underfunded. The small

increase found in the budget is certainly going to mean more

cancellations of pro-rams. more students being turned away from major

institutions.

But if the colleges are further gutted, as seems to be the case in

this budget, then what little opportunities our northern youth had will

be taken away by this government which can’t seem to realize the folly

of underfunding the education of our young people.

I listened to the government speakers citing the increase in student

aid, which is welcome and long overdue. But I wonder how useful it is

without a corresponding increase in funding for community colleges and

institutions.

I listened this morning to the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran)

and her pious ramblings about poverty, its roots and the lack of

responsibility of the unfortunate, which I found to be highly

offensive. It was an obvious attempt to curry favour from the Premier,

after a rather brief sojourn into independence.

At any rate, I'm amazed at the Social Credit members continuing to

get up and offer their simplistic view of the world — a one-dimensional

view. An example is the $20 million budget which has been touted to be

the Premier's response to the crisis in the family in British Columbia,

when in actual fact it's his holy crusade against abortion. It just

begs the question: who isn't for the family? Who isn't for motherhood?

I think we have to be practical and get to the source of the problem.

Why hasn't this government focused on the area of prevention? The

member for Langley’s holier than thou ruminations would be tolerable

were it not that she reinforces the fact that this government is

totally devoid of compassion.

I suspect that all the sound and fury from this side of the House

will not move those members. I'm reminded of a quote I ran across

recently from Will Rogers who said: "People's minds are changed through

observation and not through argument." Maybe if government members

would open their eyes and observe what hardship this budget will have

on the seniors, the sick and the ordinary working people. then they

might change their minds. But I doubt it; blind ambition is too well

entrenched over there.

I support this amendment, and I would urge the members to support it also.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I waited with bated breath for

the last speaker, because I was sure he was going to support the budget

and not the amendment. I thought from his tone that be was going to be

with us — his positive upbeat tone which has characterized that side of

the House and the positive view of the economy and the good sort of

buoyant

[ Page 3734 ]

optimism that is prevalent on that side. I thought

for sure that he'd be supporting this budget because the budget is a

very good mixture of tax incentives, a move toward more fiscal

responsibility by balancing the budget, which is getting closer, and a

planning-for-a-rainy-day philosophy. We took a small step in that

direction in 1981 by the creation of some funds and a silviculture

fund, but unfortunately in the recession that followed, those funds

were emptied. I think that to create such a fund and to have it

available will produce much better evening of these very unsettling

cyclical periods that we tend to go through.

I also see the budget as showing the strong commitment of the

government to strengthen essential social services, and it is a budget

which does so and puts a great deal of additional new money into

health, social services and other social programs. I want to talk for a

minute about fairness in taxation and the stimulus in this budget to

economic growth on the basis of taxation, because it is a very good

budget. It stimulates the economic activity of the mining industry,

small business and tourism. I just want to talk about each of those.

The mining industry is one of the province's great industries, but

because of depressed metal prices, no industry has had such a hard time

and been so exposed in the last four or five years to international

markets. It's only recently, with gold and some other prices, that

we're seeing an improvement. During those periods, all the government

subsidies in the world, all the infrastructure in the world, wasn't

going to get that industry back on its feet.

[4:30]

Now that those prices are improving, this government — through this

budget, through a reduction in taxation, through increased expenditure

on important vital infrastructure — is giving this industry a chance to

take off. I commend the government and the Finance minister for the

subsidization to Cassiar. I think that company and that mine has proven

itself in the asbestos market, and done so through difficult years. Now

that that asbestos vein is running out and there's very little in the

main pit that can be mined, the development of a new asbestos mine in

that location is well worth the investment.

But what I'm so delighted with is that this Vander Zalm government

is following what I think is the most important economic policy in this

province, the one that was followed by both Bennetts: that is, that the

well-being of British Columbia isn't just lower Vancouver Island; it

isn't just a ribbon of industrial development in Vancouver and the

lower mainland. This province is much broader and greater. It's the

whole hinterland in the north. You've got to put money and investment

into the place where the resources are, where the people produce those

resources. You've got to spend that money. That's what this government

has done with Cassiar, and that's what this government has done as

well.... The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) knows well what moving that

grid north to Stewart means for job opportunities in Stewart and the

whole part of the lower part of his riding — the access to tidewater

through Stewart, that year-round port. That's where that asbestos is

going to come from Cassiar. That's where it's going to be shipped out.

The economic opportunities for Stewart are going to be enormous, and

the grid is the key to that. The key to that is power and investment.

So I'm delighted with those initiatives. I'm also delighted with the

taxation breaks that have been given to small business and tourism. I

think that's long overdue, and I commend the Finance minister for his

wisdom and his fortitude.

I notice, though, that there are some losers in the taxation policy:

smokers and drinkers. I'm not going to indulge in praise of sin

taxation, because as a sinner I'm certainly an offender; not as a

smoker and a drinker, but as a sinner. I must say that I don't mind one

bit the tax going up on cigarettes, but when they start to hit my pipe

tobacco and my cigars, and when these sneaky bureaucrats in Finance

with their quiet indexing automatically take more and more money out of

the pockets of poor people like me who can't afford their pipe tobacco

anymore, then we've got to revisit this policy. I don't mind cigarette

taxes, I don't mind taxes on alcohol going up, and I don't even mind

paying 10 percent on draft beer, which I duly love; but pipe tobacco

and cigars, that's going too far. I'm prepared to consider supporting

the rest of the budget, but it's a close thing on those, I'll tell you.

Social spending and health: up 10 percent. A 10 percent increase in

health spending — $375 million — yet if you came in this chamber and

listened to some of the gloomy prognostications opposite, you would

think there were great waiting-lines; that we had the national health

scheme of Britain; that people are not able to get facilities or beds;

that we had some kind of crumbling health system. Instead, we have $375

million of additional money put into what really has to be probably the

finest public health care system in the world.

What I like is that this Minister of Finance, for a change, had a

bit of a vision on preventive medicine. I remember that when he said

that on budget day and when it was discussed afterwards, some of the

members opposite pooh-poohed it and didn't seem to think it was

anything but trite commentary. But it isn't trite commentary; we

haven't had ministers in this province speak as eloquently on the

preventive value of health spending as the Minister of Finance did. I

just want to go back to some of his words there because I think they

should be emphasized: "Despite spending more and more dollars, we are

still hypnotized by curing sickness rather than keeping ourselves

healthy." In other words, the health system has been an illness

maintenance system. We have paid a lot of lip-service to preventive

medicine, but we haven't put dollars where our philosophy is. In this

budget we're putting some dollars there. We're recognizing that at the

end of the scale.... Chiropractors, podiatrists, physiotherapists,

massage practitioners and so on provide preventive services that may

not require, if they're plugged in early enough, the massive

expenditures required later by hospitals and medical practitioner

treatment. It's a good program.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I also want to praise the inclusion by the Ministries of Health,

Education and Social Services of very major additional, new funding for

the disabled. I want to single out the role that the second member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) has played in that community, and

at an earlier time in the International Year of Disabled Persons, when

he was the executive director of that program. I know that under him

programs for the disabled and the Premier's council on the disabled

will have not just a profile but a particularly advantageous position

for accessing government programs. The additional spending in this

budget in that field is very welcome, I can assure you.

We have some excellent educational programs for the disabled. When I

was Minister of Education a number of years ago, we were just starting

on the road of integrating into

[ Page 3735 ]

the school system and into the regular classrooms

special education children and children with special needs. We've come

a long way along that route in the last ten years. Many children who

were left at home, hidden under a bushel, forced to educate themselves

or to have their parents assist them, but who never appeared in a

regular classroom, are now there benefiting from education at various

levels. I don't say that's a point of view or a policy exclusive to

this side of the House; it isn't. But I think it should be acknowledged

and recognized that it's been highly successful.

Having said that, we have to be very, very careful on all these

policies, such as integration of special needs children into the school

system and its counterpart, deinstitutionalizing physically and

mentally handicapped adults into the community. Both those programs are

good programs that this government supports, but we have to be very

careful to realize that we are always dealing with individuals and that

it's not going to be of value to every student with special needs to be

put into a regular classroom. Nor is it going to be advantageous to put

every physically or mentally disabled adult living in an institution

"into the community," because in his case he may need some special

care. He may be more comfortable where he has specialized service. He

may not be able to function in the community. So we can't treat them

all like sausages in a sausage machine. We can't treat them all like

some kind of doctrinal guinea pigs and force-feed them into some kind

of program where we're going to deinstitutionalize them all, or put

them all in a classroom if they're students. For many of them that's a

good thing, but for some it isn't. So we've always got to have

alternatives, and I hope we never lose sight of that when dealing with

both children and adults who have disabilities.

I want to also say that the budget contains very major increases in

the student aid program. I say, as someone who represents a number of

students in my riding and has had a good association with the

university in my riding for some years, and with the University of

British Columbia, that this student aid support — I think it's some $34

million now — is very, very well received. I think it's a good

investment.

I know that during the years of restraint we didn't do very well in

the field of student aid for some years. In fact, it was in the last

year of the Bill Bennett regime. when my former colleague Jack Heinrich

took hold of the student aid program, rescued it from oblivion and

restored it on a road where there was incentive and reward for

achievement and marks, not just for those who happened to come in the

top 10 percent but also those who completed their programs and were

able to pass.... They got an additional amount of money for doing that.

The present minister in charge of this, the Minister of Advanced

Education (Hon. S. Hagen), has secured a very major lift and

improvement and enrichment in the program, and I commend him and the

Finance minister for that.

I also commend the computer- acquisition spending in this budget. If

we're going to have our young people compete in the technological age,

they've got to have the tools to work with. Our computers in some

schools have been woefully inadequate, and despite the efforts that

have been made by the Minister of Education over the years, it was

always hard to get funding in tough years for things like computers.

Now we're putting that money in a needed investment.

In the Attorney-General's ministry the budget has supported a number

of new programs. We've done very well. I want to acknowledge with pride

the funding that has been put into this budget for the family

maintenance order enforcement pro-ram, an absolutely first-rate program

which we talked about during the passage of the bills. The new money in

that program should make it possible for us to make some real progress

in getting off the dependence on the courts and on a system that wasn't

working. People who have not been able to get support from their

spouses will now be able to get that support. They will be able to have

some dignity and will not have to be on income assistance. I can't say

that overall we're going to end up making a lot more money for the

treasury. I would like to think that we did, but I know that the

motivation of that program is to bring about fairness and personal

responsibility, not to try to make money.

The victim assistance program is another one — 2.1 million of new

dollars this year, $1.9 million last year. It is a very well supported

community program, and another one which really stresses personal

responsibility. It stresses the fact that you invest a little bit of

money in people who are victims of crime, you give them the courage,

the training, the strength and the support so that they can go into

that courtroom ultimately, and they can stand there and testify. If

they have the courage to do that and withstand the ordeal, then the

person who committed the crime against them will be put away and won't

go free because they are unprepared or unable or don't have the

emotional support or the networking to get them through that ordeal.

Now they ' 11 have that, and it means that we'll be able to put away

the guy who did that. That means that somebody else won't be his victim

next week or next month, because he'll be inside.

Now if we could get a parole policy that would keep him inside for a

few days, we'd be all right. We've Lot to get a new approach to that,

and this budget and these estimates reveal that we will be putting some

more resources into that field. We will be developing and announcing

very shortly a Green Paper on parole. I am very pleased to see that the

National Parole Board very recently, in mission statements that it

leaked to the press, indicated that at Iona last it has made as its

major and sole and first priority the protection of the public in cases

involving violent crime. I think that we're on a new track in the field

of parole, and victim assistance programs and the reparation parts of

that and the restitution parts tie in very well.

I also note that the budget has a

section on increased expenditure

on legal aid — some $2.1 million of legal aid. There was another lift

last year, so that the legal aid expenditures during the past two

fiscal years have increased from $14 million to some $19 million. All

of that, I think, will be welcomed by the people who work with

impoverished applicants who seek better access to the courts.

I want to mention a few economic initiatives besides the ones at

Cassiar and Stewart, which are so important. One, of course, is the one

under investigation at present: the racetrack initiative. I would be

remiss, Mr. Speaker, coming from the area that you come from, if I

didn't mention the great potential of this industry in your area and in

the whole valley. It has the potential to be to be one of our major

horse-breeding areas in the whole of North America.

[4:45]

We are much better favoured than Ontario because of climate, and we

will become the capital of Canada in this field, I believe. We now have

10.000 people who are dependent directly on the industry, and I see

that amount as probably doubling in the next five years, if we develop

a good policy for thoroughbred and standardbred racing. That

[ Page 3736 ]

doesn't mean a policy of handouts; it means a

policy of government support, government encouragement for some new

facilities, government encouragement to take care of zoning and the

problems that are necessary, and to give the support so we can have

some world-class facilities.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: We cannot leave that track alone; that's the whole problem.

MR. WILLIAMS: You can rebuild it.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Certainly we can rebuild it. We can rebuild

it right there on that site. There's ample land to do it there. It is a

myth to say that there is not room to do that there. There is room to

do it, and a first-class, world-class track can be built at the present

racetrack site. But we've got to have some proposals and people with

imagination who are prepared to do that.

I am pleased to note in the press within the last week