1991 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1991

Morning Sitting

[ Page

11901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Presentation of 1991-92 budget. Mr. D'Arcy –– 11901

Mr. Lovick

Convicted child abusers in positions of trust. Mrs. McCarthy –– 11902

Presentation of 1991-92 budget. Mr. Lovick –– 11902

Mr. D'Arcy

Boundary Bay wildlife habitat. Mr. Cashore –– 11903

Ministerial Statement

Child care. Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11903

Ms. A. Hagen

Private Members' Statements

The pride of the Okanagan. Mr. Barlee –– 11904

Hon. Mr. Messmer

The state of politics. Mr. Brummet –– 11906

Mr. Zirnhelt

Political tradition in Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Ms. Cull –– 11908

Mr. Couvelier

Urban transit. Mr. Loenen –– 11910

Mr. Lovick

Tabling Documents –– 11912

Clean Environment Enforcement Act (Bill M202). Second reading. (Mr. Cashore)

Mr. Cashore –– 11912

Taxpayer Protection Act (Bill 92). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 11913

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Barlee

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Jones

Mr. Brummet

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 10.05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER : The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale.

Oh. On an introduction, the first member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. COUVELIER . Mr. Speaker, I rose, but I realize that with your advancing

years, it's difficult to see this far down the room.

wonder whether the members would join me in welcoming some residents of

the beautiful town of Sidney — specifically residents of Beechwood

Manor — who are with us this morning. They are Francis Thrupp, Phyllis

Davidge, Anna Love, Fred Fossett, Helen Greenwood, Keith Alexander and

Louise Dunlop. They are accompanied today by Pat Lloyd, the social

director at Beechwood; she is accompanied by her son Brody Loster, who

by the way is an honour-roll student. Their volunteer driver, Mr. Ken

Berger, is also with them. Would you please help me welcome some

constituents.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is that the member for Saanich is so far down the bench, it's hard to see him these days.

I'd

like to recognize and introduce the mayor of Surrey, Bob Bose, who will

be in the precincts today. Would the House please welcome him to the

precincts.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I would like the

Legislature to welcome my son Damon Zirnhelt, who is down here visiting

for a couple of days; my nephew Robert Ferrier from Prince George, who

is a student at the college here; and my constituency assistant,

Sharron Ransbury, who is also down for a few days.

MR. LOVICK :

I was tempted to rise to defend the Speaker's honour and eyesight

against those terrible remarks from the benches opposite, but instead,

I have an introduction, if I may.

I'd ask my colleagues in

the House to please join me in welcoming the Smith family — Martin,

Andrew, Dorothy and May — who are in the precincts today.

MR. SPEAKER :

I believe the member's remarks were based on the fact that I'm closer

to retirement than he is, despite a difference in years — much closer.

Oral Questions

PRESENTATION OF 1991-92 BUDGET

MR. D'ARCY : I have a question to the jovial member for Burnaby-Willingdon

in his newfound capacity as Minister of Finance. Nine days from now at midnight,

the government's authority to collect and spend the public's funds runs

out. Has the minister decided to present a budget for the consideration of the

people's representatives prior to his government losing legal authority

to spend public funds?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I understand that the government has all of the authority required to

spend funds on behalf of Her Majesty, and there will be a budget coming

down.

MR. D'ARCY : Can the minister advise the people

of British Columbia under what authority — without a budget and without

interim supply voted on by this House — he believes he has the

authority to take public funds — not government funds but public funds

— and expend them after midnight on March 31 to the extent of $44

million a day, $307 million a week, $1.3 billion a month?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

As the member well knows — I told him a few moments ago — there will be

a budget coming down. That is future action and as such cannot be

discussed in question period.

MR. D'ARCY : The

government will not have spending authority as of midnight on March 31.

There are school districts, hospitals, municipalities and numerous

government services that need to be attended to. The minister, even

though he is new on the job, has behind him the most competent

technical and professional line staff in the province assembled by the

first member for Saanich and the Islands. Those people are capable of

producing a budget in November, let alone December, January, February

or March. Why has the minister and his government failed to produce a

budget for consideration by the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The hon. member for Rossland-Trail is acting better than I've ever seen

him act in the House. I suppose television does something for one's

character. We will have authorities.... School boards will be paid,

government services will continue and a budget will come down.

MR. D'ARCY :

I recall a few years ago in this House the then member for South

Okanagan getting up and giving eloquent speeches about how he would not

see the government spend a dime without debate.

We're not

talking about dimes and nickels here; we're talking about billions of

dollars that the minister — new on the job, with limited qualifications

— intends to spend without any debate or even any scheduled spending

agenda. It shows a government in total chaos: you cannot make the

political decisions to present any kind of a document to the people.

Has

the minister decided on a specific day so that the people of British

Columbia will know what their money is being expended on and how much

of it there is?

[ Page 11902 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The member alludes to another day and another time, when the NDP — the

then government of the day — was overspending at a terrific rate. They

had no idea where their finances were at, no idea where the money was

coming from, and they called an election in the midst of winter to try

to get around a particular situation.

You'll have ample

time to debate the budget when we bring it down. I can tell you that we

worked last night, we'll be working over the weekend, and as soon as it

is physically possible we will be bringing a budget to this House.

want to tell you something else. There are other items that impact upon

a budget now: there are changes in the economy, changes at the federal

level and there are things that have been done recently which impact

upon an economy. You may want to go ahead and guess the way you,

guessed on your last instrument that you brought into the House. We're

not going to budget that way in British Columbia. We're not going to

repeat the mistakes of 1972-75. The member can huff and puff all he

wants. There will be a budget coming....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The Chair is certainly pleased we don't have a question period every Friday.

[10:15]

MR. LOVICK :

This is a very simple question to the Minister of Finance; indeed, it's

tailor-made for the Minister of Finance. One week ago, this minister

promised interim supply. The question is very direct and very simple.

Where is it, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Interim supply normally follows the tabling of a budget paper in the House. The hon. member would know that.

CONVICTED CHILD ABUSERS

IN POSITIONS OF TRUST

MRS. McCARTHY :

My question today involves three or four ministries, all involved in

social services: Attorney-General, Ministry of Health, Ministry of

Social Services and Ministry of Education. I will direct this to the

Minister of Social Services in his capacity as chairman of the social

services committee of cabinet. Can the minister assure this House that

anyone who has been convicted of the abuse of children and who is in a

position of trust in a schoolroom, a day care, a child care centre or

any other publicly funded institution will be disallowed to return to

that position of trust or any other position which involves the serving

of children?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : I thank the member for the question. I can assure

the member on the government policy with regard to that. That is demonstrated

by the actions of my Ministry of Social Services, where we have the responsibility

of protecting children. Nothing that's carried out in my ministry has the

same attention and concern as the need to ensure that children are adequately

protected when they are brought into the care of our ministry. That includes

monitoring very carefully the people who are given the responsibilities and

the rights to look after and care for these particular children. We do take

every precaution to make sure that children are not in any way placed in jeopardy.

Admittedly,

we deal with a great number of people. It's difficult to be sure that

every single one of those is monitored to the extent of knowing

precisely what their backgrounds may be. I guess this whole issue begs

the question of individual rights of people against the need to

protect. Perhaps that's something that the public of British Columbia

should have the chance to voice their opinion upon. I, as Minister of

Social Services, firmly believe that the right of Protection for the

children comes before anyone's individual right.

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to go through each ministry of the social

services with this question. I now have the assurance from the Minister

of Social Services, but I would also like to have the assurance to this

House today from the Minister of Education, who is responsible for

children in the classroom.

HON. S. HAGEN : I would be

pleased to respond to that very important question. I too feel that

this is a question all British Columbians are concerned about. Some

time in the future all British Columbians will have an opportunity to

respond to that question. We in the education system are certainly

concerned about that issue, and I know that parents and all British

Columbians are.

PRESENTATION OF 1991-92 BUDGET

MR. LOVICK :

A moment ago the Minister of Finance shattered our illusions and said

that promises made about interim supply aren't going to be kept. Will

the minister then answer this question: what authority do you propose

to use to pay the bills after March 31?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I would hate to shatter any of the host of illusions that the member

may have from time to time. We will use the authority given to us by

law.

MR. D'ARCY : A few minutes ago the member from

Willingdon spoke of 1974-75 as though.... That was the past. This is

now. I would remind the minister that if we want to go far enough into

the past, back to seventeenth century Britain when the Crown insisted

on spending money without supply being voted by the Commons, they had a

remedy: they decapitated the king.

I am not suggesting such

cavalier action in this particular case. But the minister has said, in

reply to both my question and that of the first member for Nanaimo,

that he has legal authority to spend money without a budget and without

— I'm tempted to say

[ Page

11903 ]

"in the fullness of time....” He is going to spend

money without a budget and without interim supply. The only legal way

to do this is through special warrants. Special warrants are available

only when the House is not sitting. Mr. Speaker, the House is sitting

today. Why can the minister not bring in at least an interim supply

bill until he gets his act together and brings down a budget?

MR. SPEAKER : I might remind members that it was Mr. Speaker who was beheaded when he took the message to the king.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I don't want to behead either Mr. Speaker or the member for Nanaimo or,

indeed, this wonderful member who is going on into retirement or some

sort of a promise in NDP Valhalla-land somewhere — I don't know where.

MR. BLENCOE : Answer the question.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I'll answer the question if you will be quiet for just a moment, hon. member. You know, it's both listening and speaking.

will do our financing according to the laws of British Columbia. There

will be a budget brought to this House, which you will have ample time

to debate. I believe the debate time is six days or eight sittings. You

will have all the time you require, and I imagine you'll do the

research that you have done before — which won't be much — but you'll

continue to do it and you'll continue to criticize.

You'll

also understand that if there are any warrants either before or after

any given period, those are attached to any supply bill and you'll have

ample time to debate. There is never a dime without debate in this

House — only under the NDP.

BOUNDARY BAY WILDLIFE HABITAT

MR. CASHORE :

This question is to the Minister of Environment. Trees are at this

moment being cut in Boundary Bay in the only forest in that area. The

property, coincidentally owned by the brother-in-law of the Minister of

Parks, who is also the area's MLA, contains 80 different bird species

and art archaeological site with a confirmed Indian midden, and as the

only forest in Boundary Bay, it is a proposed nature park. The question

is: has the minister decided to use his powers under the Environment

Management Act to protect the blue heron and other wildlife in the area

by declaring the forest a wildlife management area or by declaring this

situation an environmental emergency?

HON. MR. SERWA :

First of all, I would like to say that the House just had debates

yesterday with respect to private property rights, and this side of the

House really believes in the right of private property owners to enjoy

those property rights.

In this specific case, to the

best of my knowledge, the trees are being cut for a fence-line so that

the individual can pasture cattle in that particular area. Over and

above that, my ministry has sent a staff member over to assess if there

are environmental concerns. I have talked to the mayor of Delta, so

we're familiar with that. A staff member is going over there to have a

look at it, but I would say that until that information comes back,

there is no further planned action. There is no environmental emergency

at the present time, and under the act it is only if there is an

environmental emergency.

Ministerial Statement

CHILD CARE

HON. MRS. GRAN : I rise today to make a ministerial statement on a matter of major importance to British Columbia families and their children.

Last

July I established a child care task force with a mandate to find and

recommend ways to increase the number of affordable, accessible,

quality child care spaces. On February 28 that report was released. It

presented government with a wide range of options and recommendations.

At that time I pledged quick action.

Today I want to inform

this House that after a careful review of that report and its

recommendations our government has taken positive action. We have

allocated $55.3 million in new funding to cover the first three years

of our child care expansion program, with $12.1 million to be spent in

the first year. We have also established a child care team which will

be led by Women's Programs. Under this new funding a number of

important child care initiatives will be undertaken to support and

expand existing child care.

Mr. Speaker, we believe as

government that parents hold the ultimate responsibility to care for,

support and educate their children. We also believe that expanded child

care is good for both families and our economy. Our government is

committed to stronger, healthier family units, because they are the

core and the heart of our very society.

This new child care

program and the related initiatives will further strengthen the

foundation on which families in British Columbia stand.

MS. A. HAGEN :

We of course welcome any dollars that are committed by government to

the expansion of services to children and families. We would agree that

there is no more important task than dealing with issues that provide

for care and the economic well-being of families.

Yesterday

we and, I know, members of the government met in this House with women

who were poor, who live on marginal rates of welfare assistance and who

are the working poor — people who are struggling with high rents, high

costs and jobs which do not pay them a fair wage for the work they do.

Many of these people have small children who require care in order for

their parents to participate in the economy in any meaningful way.

The amount of money pledged for next year is small — $12.1 million. However small, it is welcome.

[ Page 11904 ]

But

we must remember that there are 300,000 children in the province in

need of care. I would note that we are perhaps in the dying days of

this government's administration, and it is difficult for us to speak

very cheerfully of this modest endeavour in the days when we are

looking at a government which has had five and a half years to deal

with this issue.

We hope that we will have an opportunity

for this item to be debated fully through a budget, and that we are not

looking at special warrants and the government operating outside this

domain, so we can fully examine from the minister's brief statement how

this money will be allocated and whether we can be assured that

regrettable that we do not have that opportunity to proceed with such a

debate in the near future.

[10:30]

However,

we welcome whatever the small initiatives are on the part of the

minister, who we know is concerned about this issue. We will look

forward, in fact, to the much more that is needed for the children and

the families of this province if they are to fully participate in an

economy and a society, that means they have a fair shake as the most

important people in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE PRIDE OF THE OKANAGAN

MR. BARLEE :

Like many other members in this House, both in the past and today, in

following an honourable tradition, I rise with considerable pleasure as

I take this opportunity to comment on the fascinating history, the

present conditions and, hopefully, my vision of the future for my

constituency of Boundary-Similkameen.

To those not familiar

with this unique part of British Columbia, it closes on the U.S. border

and stretches from east to west through the arid country of the

province. In fact, the true desert of British Columbia is contained

within my constituency. From the windows of my house, my wife and I

look across Osoyoos Lake to the rolling sand dunes of the Inkameep

Indian reserve. That part of British Columbia is virtually unchanged.

The land is, I think, as pristine as it was several centuries ago when

the Indians rode through it.

The western outpost of my constituency is the historical mining town of Hedley,

once a gold camp of considerable renown. The eastern anchor of my constituency

is Christina Lake, where I spent many happy days of my childhood. It's kind

of strange how the memories come flooding back even from decades ago. I remember,

with almost absolute clarity, sitting on a little wooden bridge on Sutherland

Creek and watching the CPR, the Kettle Valley trains, trying to inch up the

grade towards places like Farron and Fife. In those days the CPR often had to

send down another locomotive from the roundhouse in Grand Forks so that they

could make that grade. It is one of my enduring memories.

There

a couple of others about trains. I remember, when I was about five,

listening to the whistle of the Great Northern as it echoed across the

valley. It was a forlorn sound, in the childhood memories that linger

on. I guess it's easy to reminisce about familiar country. I suppose

there's something special about wandering through an area where your

parents and grandparents lived. Perhaps it's genetic memory.

grandparents were there in the 1890s, when once-famous towns like

Cascade City, Phoenix, Boundary Falls, Camp McKinney, Fairview and

other storied towns were booming. Today most of those town have

vanished — some of them without a trace. All things change, I guess.

today I'm a representative of that constituency, which despite some

potential has suffered some significant economic reverses in the past

few years. When I travel up the Okanagan trough, which separates the

Similkameen from the Boundary country in my constituency, I am

particularly aware that, although there is considerable potential, we

really haven't taken advantage of our natural gifts. Certainly that

part of the Okanagan Valley is considered by many to be among the most

scenic parts of the Okanagan. But many of the people there have been

hard pressed.

The orchardists, in particular, have

experienced years of hardship: hanging on to orchards despite the hard

times, preserving the agricultural greenbelts for all of society. This

is a region where the land held by the farmer — land which sometimes

has been owned by generations of the same family — instead of being an

asset, as it should be, is too often a liability. Apples that sell for

89 cents a pound or more in the supermarkets return about 4 cents to

the grower. This has contributed to the present malaise in the

tree-fruits industry, a malaise which threatens both the orchardists

and the valuable greenbelts of the Okanagan.

I apologize

for my somewhat reflective mood, Mr. Speaker, but there are areas of

deep concern to me. Another disturbing sign is the traditionally high

rate of unemployment all through my constituency. I don't care whether

you go to Summerland or Penticton, Keremeos, Oliver, Osoyoos, Grand

Forks or Greenwood — the story's the same. This area has some of the

highest unemployment rates in British Columbia. Today that rate is an

alarming 16.5 percent and growing daily. There are 20,000 unemployed in

my area. That problem in turn affects our small businesses, which are

already reeling under the impact of the free trade agreement. I've

examined the effects of the free trade agreement since it was

implemented, and I'm apprehensive about its far-reaching effects.

Every

major town in my constituency — and there isn't one exception — is

within an hour's drive of the U.S. border. The increase in traffic over

the past three years has been staggering. Two-thirds of a million

people now cross over into the state of Washington every year from the

border points in my constitu-

[ Page

11905 ]

ency, most of them to shop. Those dollars that they

leave in the United States are one-way dollars. They do not circulate

back into British Columbia. The once-acclaimed free trade deal has been

a poor deal for the border towns and a poor deal for my constituency.

Another

indicator is the demise of the railways in Boundary-Similkameen. For

three-quarters of a century the Kettle Valley Railway — a branch line

of the CPR — ran through the towns of our area. It was a mainstay, a

steady employer and historic link in the south country. But today that

railway no longer runs. The hundreds of miles of track which threaded

through some of the most spectacular scenery in the entire west lie

abandoned, and the right-of-way stands deserted and overgrown.

Those

years when copper, silver and gold were king in my country are long

gone. Even celebrated mines like the Highland Bell, which produced 40

million ounces of silver, have been closed.

Despite these

setbacks, I foresee a turnaround for my constituency, I believe our

tourism potential is virtually unlimited and that our tree-fruit

industry — the major employer in the valley — will soon turn the corner

and become economically viable again. But to succeed, we must implement

a strategy for both — a long-term and well-thought-out strategy.

HON. MR. MESSMER :

I'm very pleased to be able to reply to the speech we just heard from

the second member for Boundary-Similkameen. He certainly has taken us

back into history and told us about the old days in

Boundary-Similkameen and a little bit about today. Of course, it's

today we're living in. While it's nice to hear about the past — and I

agree with him that those are memories we all wish to relive once in a

while — today we have the existing world of economics out there that we

must deal with.

The Boundary-Similkameen area, of course,

has looked ahead for many years, if you go back, it's because of the

stance that was taken not only by the government of British Columbia

but also by the municipalities on the waste-water management that they

have in the valley. This started back in the seventies. We realized at

that time that we had to develop some type of either spray or

biological control over our sewage treatment in order to be able to put

it back in the lake or to use it as spray irrigation. That started as

far north as Vernon and, of course, has continued down through the

southern part of Boundary-Similkameen. We realized that this had to be

done in order for us to be a winner in the tourism game, because the

lakes are so valuable not only to us who live there but to the visitors

who come. At this present time we have probably some of the best sewage

treatment plants in all the world. The biological and chemical plant in

Penticton which has just been completed is outstanding. We have people

from all over the world coming to view it and to see what the

specifications of that plant are.

The communities in the south have always had controlled growth and zoning.

Prior to the agricultural land reserve, it was communities in the south that

knew what they were doing. They knew they didn't want large growth; they

wanted controlled growth at roughly 2 percent, and this has continued. However,

since the Coquihalla Highway has gone through, which was instrumental by this

government, we now see a large increase in development within the Okanagan area.

As a matter of fact, it was reported recently that the building permits in Kelowna

were the same as for the province of Saskatchewan. That says a lot, either for

us or detrimental to Saskatchewan — one or the other. Building permits in the

south Okanagan are up.

Yes,

I agree with the member opposite that unemployment has always been high

in the Okanagan. It has been for years. Even though we have lots of

jobs as far as the building and construction industry are concerned,

these are seasonal jobs. We also have those people who come to the

Okanagan because of the great weather that we always enjoy, who only

work part-time and choose not to work for the rest of the year. It's a

nice sort of life.

The member opposite talked about the

fruit industry. I can tell you, on this side of the House we have tried

to help the fruit industry. We haven't just said: "Vote for us, and all

your troubles will be over." We initiated the Lusztig report, and

because of that report we see today the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit

Authority, which has already come in and decided that $2.1 million

would be allocated towards replanting within the Okanagan area. They

have offered $3,000 per acre. I'm pleased to say that already we have

65 applications representing roughly 130 acres. I'm hopeful there will

be more coming in.

The wine industry, of course, has had a

great turnaround in that we were forced to pull out the vines within

the Okanagan, but we now have a stronger industry than we've ever had

before.

Things are doing well in the Okanagan. The problem

we have, of course, is trying to slow down the process so we can enjoy

what we have, enjoy the golf courses that are being built for tourists

to come and visit us, enjoy the luxuries we have, without becoming a

large metropolitan area.

I'm sure that in the years to come

you will see that Highway 3 coming from Vancouver to the southern part

of Boundary-Similkameen, along with the Coquihalla Highway, will be

filled with people coming to invest, to live and to enjoy their lives

in the greatest place — I agree with the member opposite — of

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. BARLEE : I concur with some

of the statements the member opposite has made. The grape industry has

rebounded to a degree. However, I think the major problems still

remain. We still have an inordinately high unemployment rate — 20,000

workers out of work, and the answers are not short-term jobs, part-time

jobs or $5-an-hour jobs. The answer is a long-term strategy, which we

have not had in the Okanagan for a decade or more. We still have a

problem with the tree-fruits industry. Despite the Okanagan Valley Tree

Fruit Authority, most of the orchardists think it may be a bit of a

sideshow. It may

[ Page 11906 ]

smoke and mirrors. It may not be, but it's certainly late in the game

for many of these orchardists who have been struggling for over a

decade.

We haven't made any moves to dull the negative

impact of the free trade agreement. Certainly taxes are still high, and

it goes on and on.

Perhaps our most interesting wave of the

future is tourism. I believe that a long-term strategy in tourism is

necessary. I don't see any evidence of a long-term strategy. It's the

number one business in the world, and we don't have a long-term

strategy, The budget for tourism is $25 million a year, and this

government took an extra $25 million and put it into Music '91. Well,

that's a one-shot item. I think that money would have been better spent

in the areas where it was really needed, with locals who understand the

tourism problems.

Both of us come from the area, and both

of us are quite familiar with it. Quite often we agree, and sometimes

we disagree. We are both from the city of Penticton. I was there from

1984 to 1986 as curator of the museum. I was in contact with some of

the tourism officials in Portland, Oregon, which is a large city not

too far distant from the Okanagan. They had a little sternwheeler down

there they called the City of Portland , and they thought it was marvellous. So I sent them a photograph of the SS Sicamous ,

which is probably the most magnificent sternwheeler in the entire

northwest. It's intact, and it has been there for 75 years. Don't

compare it with the Moyie . I like the Moyie , but there's no comparison. I can go over it bit by bit with you.

The

answer I got from the city of Portland was this: "We think your

sternwheeler is magnificent. We had never heard of it before. By the

way," they said — their last words, "where is Penticton?" That's

because we do not have a tourism strategy.

If any area

requires a long-term and coherent tourism strategy, it's ours. We have

virtually everything. We have the abandoned rights-of-way. We have a

classic right-of-way from the old KVR with trestles and bridges — some

of them several hundred feet long over a span of about four and a half

miles. We have the SS Sicamous ; we have the desert country; we have old mining towns which are still standing.

[10:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

THE STATE OF POLITICS

MR. BRUMMET : Unaccustomed as I am to following a pre-prepared script, in the interests of time I will try to do so today.

One

of the essential elements of our society is some form of government;

another is some form of leadership. Without these essential elements,

we would flounder in all directions, achieve very little order and make

no common or societal progress.

As anthropologists and historians piece together the early evolution of human

beings, they find that their survival and progress was dependent on some form

of social organization. People developed an order, accepted or selected leaders

and acknowledged the decisions made by those leaders. The leaders achieved their

positions by virtue of some accepted prowess or leadership qualities, and they

retained their leadership roles as long as they were supported by the majority.

This structure has continued through the ages to the present time.

The

accepted leadership qualities have changed — as an example, from raw

physical power to social and intellectual strengths, although some

remnants of physical power to determine leadership still persist. As

our society has grown in numbers, each leader increasingly represented

more people. In most societies we have a form of representative

government.

Today, whether it be in clubs and organizations

or at the municipal, regional, provincial or federal levels, we need

some form of representative governance. We still select our

representatives on the basis of leadership qualities. We select

candidates because they have shown qualities such as honesty,

integrity, social concern, initiative, good reasoning skills,

intellectual capacity and good communication skills — among others. We

select these candidates because we believe they have the necessary

qualities to best represent us in leadership roles. But once they are

elected, other than at the club or the organization level, we suddenly

label them all "politicians" and treat them accordingly, whether they

are elected to the government side or to the opposition side.

Progressively,

our society then forgets the qualities which made them suitable

candidates and tars them all with the same brush of derision. Suddenly

they are generalized to be unthinking, uncaring, unresponsive and

selfish. Newspaper columnists and open-mouth shows use a myriad of ways

to express contempt for politicians in general. Snide remarks are

standard procedure. Leadership per se, regardless of the individual

involved, is in disrepute. With derogatory remarks a standard item in

the news, is it any wonder that subsequent surveys show that people

hold a low opinion of politicians in general?

I have no

argument with any criticism where an individual is shown to be

deserving of criticism, but I take umbrage at the generalizations that

label all politicians as unworthy and uncaring. Undoubtedly,

politicians "have brought some of this on themselves" through the

actions of some. This has been further abetted by our protagonist

system. Politicians make personal allegations and attacks on each

other. Our media feel that there must be conflict or controversy

inherent in a situation before it makes a good news item.

should add that while in general our society denigrates its

politicians, there are individuals who retain their faith in us as

individuals. But even then they will subscribe to the view that

politicians are not to be trusted — that they are "in it for

themselves."

Members on both sides of the House are well

aware of the personal and family sacrifices that any member makes to

serve in this elected position. But whoever tells that part of the

story.... If we allude to it ourselves, we are accused of whining and

of having gone into the job knowingly. I submit that no one

[ Page

11907 ]

who runs as a candidate really knows in advance what this job entails, but they do learn to accept and adjust as required.

Yes,

there are plus sides to this job: the broad learning experience, the

opportunity to achieve results for people who need help, the travel

involved, the people you meet, etc.

In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I want to refer to a recent column by Carol Goar, an editorial

columnist. It was reprinted in several newspapers under the heading

"Undermining Now an End in Itself." It was in reference to a speech by

MP David MacDonald, and they made these points, among others:

"We

may be too adversarial. Are politicians as a group really serving the

country by taking sides on an issue driven by partisan objectives?

"Government

critics, be they opposition MPs, interest groups, paid lobbyists or

ordinary citizens, consider it their right to tear down everything that

is placed before them, without worrying about the consequences or

offering alternatives.

"Constructive

criticism has its place in politics, but Members of Parliament and

Canadians generally seem to have forgotten how to be constructive.

Undermining those who govern us has become an end in itself."

Those

comments express my thoughts better than I could do myself. I believe

that we must have government, and consequently we must continue to

elect representatives. As a society we must try to elect the best

possible people and then perhaps retain some faith in them after they

are elected — and in our own judgment in that regard.

Perhaps

all of us as politicians could help to restore some faith in the system

were we to place less emphasis on our partisan objectives and more on

best serving the purpose for which we were elected. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I

will admit that I have played a partisan role in this House and that I

have learned to give as good as I got. But I'll tell you, that was not

one of the most appealing parts of my position.

Perhaps my

views are idealistic, but certainly they offer more hope than the

situation described in the preliminary report of the Spicer commission,

which stated: "People are widely frustrated with their politicians."

That serves no one well. From whence will come our future leaders, if

anyone who achieves a position automatically becomes a personal target

for the popular sport of undermining as an end in itself?

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I'd like to start by thanking the hon. member for making his notes

available so that we knew the high road he was going to take in his

speech. I would like to reply in kind.

I got into politics

because I thought it could be a better place to be, by allowing people

to yank our chains, to force us to be accountable, and to feed ideas to

us to make our society and our civilization a better place. But I think

leadership is a two-way street.

We too feel that we are often called names and that politicians have gotten

a bad name. But we feel that to make that better, we have to earn respect. I

think that earning that respect means that we have to err on the side of doing

what's right, doing what's honest.

One

of the weaknesses we have as a culture, though, is that we have allowed

leadership to be institutionalized. We haven't, in our institutions of

parliament, taken leadership and said to the people: "You help us lead.

We will share the power and influence." I think leadership is a two-way

street. It's a constant process of saying to the people: "You take

charge." When they say, "We can no longer take charge” or "We need

government or a law," then they'll give us a mandate. Far too often we

take our election as being a licence to do what we think should be

done- and be accountable every four years — rather than seeing it as a

mandate. Far too few things are developed. We have to emphasize that we

need a process in and out of the Legislature to share information and

to have the best possible information before we debate laws.

The

fact that people feel they've lost control is a serious matter. I don't

think it's an accident that the Spicer commission has reported that.

I've made a lot of speeches recently about that and have gone through

accountability sessions where I make myself available to answer the

tough questions. There aren't that many tough questions. There are

frustrations, but when you explain the other side, quite often people

begin to see that other side. So we have to go out of our way to

explain what we're doing. People don't want to be governed by public

opinion polls, but when we tell them that this is a reflection of what

they feel and that we're trying to respond to what they feel, then they

react a little better. Problems occur when the right questions aren't

framed and we get divisiveness. When leaders exploit those divisions

instead of trying to collapse them and work on the common

denominator....

There's been a lot of talk about the role

of consensus — that if there isn't general agreement, then maybe on a

lot of items we ought not to proceed and we should nurture the process

of making sure that people get together and share common values, and

reach some agreement on how government ought to proceed. That's the

difference between governing by law and allowing the culture to govern

the society. Culture represents shared values, and we have to talk

about those values as they change and try to seek a common ground,

because culture will always be stronger than laws, because in the end

laws are coercive.

But it can't just be values; it has to

be behaviour. People have to behave in accordance with the values they

share. One way we can increase participation and confidence is to make

what a former ombudsman has called a quantum leap in participation at

all levels of society in those processes important to making decisions

on what the government ought to do.

The other issue we have

to be very careful of is majority versus minority rights — the whole

idea of governing so that we don't run over the rights of the few by

having some kind of a tyranny of the majority. We have to be very

concerned about that when we

[ Page 11908 ]

talk

about the rule of the majority. That's the delicate balancing we have

to do in making judgments as elected leaders. That's not easy. But when

people have explained to them that they might represent a minority

view, as long as you respect that view, they will accept that maybe the

majority will have to rule.

But I'd like to emphasize that

it is critical that we see openness in our communication, openness in

information, openness in process, and that when we teach our children

in our schools, we encourage them to become educated as democratic

citizens so that they have the feeling of effectiveness — that they can

make a difference. They must learn those skills when they are growing

up.

MR. BRUMMET : I've no problem with the comment of

the member that we must earn respect. As individuals we earn that

respect when we are selected as candidates. But once you are elected

and called a politician.... Any show or column has derisive remarks

about politicians. What happened to the qualities on the basis of which

people selected us — on either side? They say: "They're all alike;

they're all in it for themselves." What has changed those personal

qualities?

I've always considered myself honest, but the

general view is that because I'm a politician I can't possibly be

honest. I take umbrage with that generalization. If I lie, then they

have every right to attack me for my dishonesty. We're talking about

individuals.

I have no problem with accountability. We

should be held accountable, and we should be open. I've tried to do

that myself as much as possible.

[11:00]

The

member mentions that we should not rely on public opinion polls but

that at the same time we must involve the public in every decision. In

other words, we must elect our representatives and then have total town

hall meetings to decide every issue. It might work. I have no problem

with involving the public. But if public opinion polls are so bad, how

can you say at the same time that we must ask the public on everything

we do in terms of government?

I can't resist. When the

member talked about majority and minority rights.... Yes, I think we

always have to be cognizant of minority rights, even though we have to

feel that the majority makes the decision. But ask any smoker about

minority rights.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The opposition House Leader seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE : I wish to make an introduction of 33 students and their teacher,

Mr. Fuller, from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School in my riding. Would the House

please make them welcome.

POLITICAL TRADITION IN

OAK BAY–GORDON HEAD

MS. CULL :

I want to talk today about the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, their

concerns and their traditions. Many people think they know Oak

Bay–Gordon Head. They snicker about tweed curtains, crumpets and

cricket and fall into the trap of the stereotype that many people think

is Oak Bay–Gordon Head. But as a resident and as someone who has had

the privilege of representing the people in this community since 1987,

when I was first elected to the school board, I can tell you that while

we too have some fun with the stereotypes, the reality of Oak

Bay–Gordon Head is really very different.

To begin with,

it's actually a series of small communities, including Oak Bay, Cadboro

Bay village, the University of Victoria, the part of Saanich that is

known as Gordon Head and, after the new boundaries come into effect,

the rural part of the Blenkinsop Valley. All of these communities share

one very important characteristic in common: they have a very strong

independent streak in their thinking. They also share a dedication to

the preservation of a style of life — a love of our residential areas,

our trees, our beaches and our parks — and the determination to fight

tooth and nail to preserve it and to improve it.

One

well-known source frequently quoted by New Democrats — Gorde Hunter —

described Oak Bay in this way, and I like to think it captures the

entire tradition of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Mr. Hunter said: "Whether deep

thinkers know it or not, the actual hub of the universe is at a spot

somewhere in Oak Bay village. More wisdom is probably spoken in those

few short blocks than anywhere in the world, and certainly more common

sense." Common sense — that's the characteristic I like about Oak

Bay–Gordon Head. A practical approach to solving problems is the

tradition in my community.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is a

conservative community — not in the big "C" partisan sense, but in

terms of being cautious, suspicious about change for change's rake and

wanting to know that those they've elected to represent them will think

carefully before they make decisions. We're also looking for strong

leadership that will protect our quality of life and for elected

officials who really listen to us.

In the last 15 months

I've spent many hours talking to people in the community, listening to

their concerns and trying to find solutions to their problems. In a big

urban riding like Oak Bay — and it's one of the most populous ridings

in the province — it's difficult to be aware of all the issues and

concerns out there. So I've tried to keep in touch with people by

holding a number of neighbourhood meetings — 16 to date in the last

year and a bit, with more scheduled. Through these meetings I've met

hundreds of people and heard about almost every issue you can imagine.

I want to touch on just three of these to illustrate a little bit about

what Oak Bay–Gordon Head is all about.

[ Page

11909 ]

The environment continues to be a major concern for people in Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, and sewage is their prime concern. We have beautiful

beaches, and we want to be able to use them safely. More importantly,

people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head want to act responsibly with respect to

the environment. I've brought up this issue with the Minister of

Environment from time to time both in this part of the session and last

year. Both the current and the past ministers have sung the same

refrain and said. "Clean it up yourselves; no special handouts." Well,

the people in my community aren't looking for handouts, but we do

expect to be treated fairly. Members on the other side seem to have

forgotten that it wasn't too long ago that many municipalities in this

province received 75-cent dollars to clean up their sewage problems.

But

as I said, the people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head are practical, and we

really don't have the patience to argue about what went before. What we

do want to see from the provincial government on sewage treatment is a

recognition of the problem, a timetable set out so that we'll know when

we will have sewage treatment and a fair funding formula so that we can

get on with sorting out the impact it's going to have on our taxes. We

also want to know that the provincial government is going to go to bat

for us with the federal. government and get some federal money to clean

up our waters, as was done in the Great Lakes and in Halifax harbour.

Mr.

Speaker, about 40 percent of the people in my riding have some

university education. We know the value of education, and we're very

concerned that our children have the best education possible. But it

seems that this government has seriously misjudged my community's

concern about education. Yesterday I heard the Minister Responsible for

Women's Programs talking about how well this government has treated

post-secondary education. I'd like to invite her out to the University

of Victoria to talk to third- and fourth-year students who can't

complete their degrees because they can't get the courses they need.

I'd like to ask her to come to my high schools and talk to honour-roll

students who can't get into university because there are no spaces for

them.

Earlier this week 300 parents showed up at a meeting

that the Greater Victoria School District held on its budget process.

They made it clear that they hold this government responsible for the

$14 million that has to be cut from the budget. Let me say again that

we're not looking for handouts. We don't expect miracles, but we do

expect a government that will get its spending priorities straight and

recognizes that our children are our most important investment.

Oak

Bay also owes a lot to its senior citizens. There are many senior

citizens in Oak Bay–Gordon Head — over 20 percent of our residents are

over 65 years old. Most weren't born here, but once we come here we

don't leave. Why would we want to?

Seniors are feeling let down by this government. They can't understand

why the government stalled so long on guaranteeing the future of the Victoria

Health Project. Being practical, commonsense folk, they knew it worked, they

knew it saved money, and they couldn't understand why we had to make it

a national media issue before we got some action on it.

The

true spirit of Oak Bay–Gordon Head was summed up beautifully by a

parent at the meeting I mentioned earlier. Mr. John Minkley said: "Each

of us came here to make a pitch for our own programs and ended up

gaining respect for others. Let's work for our neighbours' children."

That's the tradition in Oak Bay–Gordon Head: thinking through the

problem and working together for a commonsense solution that makes

everyone better off. That's the tradition I'm proud to serve in.

MR. COUVELIER :

The subject matter is of such heavy content that I desperately would

have appreciated the courtesy of an advance copy of the presentation so

I might more adequately have responded to it. I notice that our side

had that courtesy. Of course, the subject here deserves the full weight

of serious debate. I'll do my best with the limited time I've had to

respond.

Let me first of all say that I know Oak Bay well,

having run as a candidate in that constituency more years ago than I

care to remember. Let me also say that I've always felt an affinity for

that marvellous part of greater Victoria.

I also must make

the point that Oak Bay, like so many other of our smaller communities

in greater Victoria, has a unique ambience and sense of place which

tends to sometimes work against the development of coherent land use

policies and coherent, coordinated public policy issues. That's not a

criticism; it merely is a statement of fact. Somehow or other, we must

find ways to properly promote our small pocket communities to more

effectively relate with each other to deal with some of the larger

regional issues.

That is a goal that has eluded previous

governments, including the NDP government of the seventies, so I don't

imagine it will be solved overnight. Nevertheless, it is a problem that

does need some addressing and solution. I suspect that solution will

only come through the active participation and leadership of locally

elected members. I'm delighted to hear the hon. member opposite feels

such a sense of pride for that marvellous jewel of greater Victoria.

She

confused me a little bit, though, with some of her comments. For

example, she makes the point that Oak Bay is famous for its strong

leadership, and I certainly agree with that. I'd like to remind the

hon. member that, prior to her election at least, the constituency was

very adequately led and represented by a number of people from the

other side of the political spectrum. If strong leadership is a

characteristic of Oak Bay, I just have to make the point that the

characteristic is obviously attributed to members of a different

political philosophy than that held by the member opposite.

I'm

referring, of course, to David Groos, Scott Wallace, Frances Elford,

Allan Cox — so many capable, bright people from Oak Bay who have made

such a useful contribution to provincial growth.

[ Page 11910 ]

was struck by the members comments about Oak Bay's overpowering

interest in the environment. Of course, that's true universally. She

makes the point that sewage is a prime concern of Oak Bay residents.

I'm delighted to understand and hear that, because it's always struck

me as a little bit anomalous that Oak Bay transferred their sewage to

Clover Point in Victoria.

She makes the point that Oak Bay

is not interested in handouts, but obviously they still have an abiding

interest in hand-offs to other jurisdictions. I would suspect that if

sewage is such a big issue, it might be more helpful were the residents

of these communities to apply themselves to local remedies rather than

attempting to hand-off to other jurisdictions to finance and to consume

it in some way.

She also commented about her desire for

more provincial and federal money in the area of sewage, and I'm

delighted that this side of the House has consistently brought forward

expanding dollar amounts and dollar envelopes for the purpose of local

communities dealing with their Sewage problems. Oak Bay is merely part

of the greater Victoria sewage problem, and Oak Bay, obviously, must be

part of the solution. But I find it a bit strange for Oak Bay to beat

their breasts with pride and claim that they had this overriding

interest in the subject, when in fact they failed to deal with it at

home — as have had other jurisdictions.

May I also comment

a little on the comments the hon. member made about education. Oak Bay

certainly has not been shortchanged in the area of education funding.

My goodness, Oak Bay has the University of Victoria in its environs.

Oak Bay is one of those municipalities that have been the most

adequately served of any part of the province in the field of

education. The hon. member knows — as do I — that some of the quality

high schools in B.C. are located in Oak Bay — and the entire K-to-12

system. I'm sure the hon. member is as proud of those students'

accomplishments as I am and every greater Victorian is. It's a bit

difficult for us to accept your argument that more needs to be done for

Oak Bay in the area of education — at least no more than elsewhere in

the province.

MS. CULL : I want to begin by assuring

the people in the House that I'm sure the hon. member opposite was not

intending to ignore the 60 percent of my riding which is in Gordon

Head, not in the municipality of Oak Bay.

I also want to

comment on the traditional representation of this riding over time. If

I look back over the records of elected members from Oak Bay–Gordon

Head, I believe there was really only one member of the Social Credit

Party who was not mentioned by the member, and that is the former MLA,

Brian Smith.

[11:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to return to my theme of the political tradition in Oak Bay–Gordon

Head. People in Oak Bay-Gordon Head make their political decisions in the same

way they make all their other decisions: they use common sense, not ideology.

They want a government that listens to them and reflects their values, a government

that will put seniors' health care and children's education above political

advertising, or senseless and costly privatization schemes, or handouts to friends

in the guise of economic development grants. They want a government they can

count on to treat them fairly, a government that has one standard for everyone —

not one for its friends and another for the rest of us. They want a government

that has fairness at the heart of its economic policies, one that will actually

provide economic equality for the women in our community — not simply talk about

it. They want a government that will think ahead, set priorities, carry out

its work and then evaluate it. You know, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what they

say on the other side, planning isn't a bad word in my community.

They

want a government that will set tough pollution standards and not

change them just because of one telephone call. They also want a

government that has high standards for cabinet ministers. They want a

government they can trust to have high levels of conduct, not one that

gives them a new scandal every week. They want a government that will

act responsibly and bring in a budget that will do the people's

business and not just run away when the going gets tough.

Mr.

Speaker, the people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head don't expect miracles, but

we do expect to be treated fairly and openly. We don't want to be

embarrassed and patronized by this government any longer. That's why

people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head respect Brian Smith. He walked away from

this government and what it has come to represent. And that's why

people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head are starting to listen to the Leader of

the Opposition. They've come to see that they can count on him to share

their values and reflect their priorities in his government. That's why

Oak Bay–Gordon Head elected a New Democrat in 1989, and that's why

they're going to help elect a New Democrat government in 1991.

URBAN TRANSIT

MR. LOENEN :

One of the finest achievements of our Social Credit government has been

the great people-moving system known as SkyTrain. Increasingly, we are

learning to appreciate the foresight that that represented. It was a

daring step, but it has proven to be correct.

I had the

opportunity to visit Calgary, Seattle and Portland, because I'm on the

advisory committee that is currently looking at the rapid transit link

between Richmond and Vancouver. We can be truly proud of our system, if

you compare, for instance, the ridership that our SkyTrain has

attracted to the systems of the cities mentioned. I'd just like to

mention the figures. The New West SkyTrain currently has 105,000

passenger-trips per day during the week. Compare

[ Page

11911 ]

this to: Los Angeles, 19,000; Edmonton, 20,000; San Diego, 28,000; Pittsburgh, 30,000; Buffalo, 31,000.

addition to the fact that it carries more passengers, and that its

convenient, safe, dependable and environmentally friendly, it is also

economical. If we compare it, for instance, to the Portland system, the

per-passenger-trip cost is $1.05 (U.S.). On our buses under the B.C.

transit system, it's in excess of $2 (Canadian). The operating

per-passenger cost for the SkyTrain system is a mere 33 cents.

That

shows that that particular technology and that particular system, even

though it is a large initial investment, will continue to be a very

profitable and reasonably priced — in fact, cheap — form of

transportation for years and years to come.

My community in

Richmond is a fast-growing community. There is tremendous pressure

there. We know that the road system is plugged. We know that adding

more bridges and laying down more asphalt and concrete is not the

answer. In fact, a recent survey done by Marktrend showed that 75

percent of the people interviewed — both in my community and across the

river in Vancouver — said no to that.

Compare this to the

support for a new rapid transit link. In my community the support is 94

percent. In Vancouver the support is 77 percent, and that is a survey

done of people who live between Main and Arbutus. That is to say, in

the neighbourhoods that will be most directly affected, 77 percent are

favourable to the idea of building rapid transit. In fact, 77 percent

say that we need it, and we need it now.

The city of

Vancouver has so far, at least officially, been less than supportive of

the idea of building a rapid transit link to Richmond. The mayor has

suggested that we look at improving our bus system, indeed, B.C.

Transit has commissioned a study to look at how we can improve the bus

system, how we can add more buses, how we can have dedicated lanes and

how we can get the most out of buses. But we know that is not a

long-term solution.

If you consider the fact that our

SkyTrain can handle the equivalent of 12 lanes of freeway, it is very

evident that more buses cannot begin to compare to the volume the

SkyTrain system can handle.

In addition to that, we have to

fight pollution. We know that private automobiles and, indeed, the

diesel buses that we use are great polluters not only of the air, but

also of the water because of the surface runoff. Buses will merely add

to the congestion. It's insufficient to do the job.

The

technical people will tell us that it is 40 percent easier for people

to move out of their private vehicles into a rail-based system than

into a bus system. In other words, people are not inclined to move out

of their cars into a bus, but they will, to a much greater extent,

leave their cars for a rail-based system.

It has been suggested that somehow this particular transit line would benefit

the commuters in Richmond only. That's not true, Mr. Speaker. Studies indicate

that 40 percent of the ridership would be within the city of Vancouver, so it's

not only for the commuters.

has been suggested that somehow the whole notion and commitment to

build this system by the year 1996 is an attempt by the Premier to

favour his own riding. Again, it's wrong; it's factually incorrect.

1989 there was a GVRD study, together with the province and headed by

Mike O'Connor, which had public hearings all over the region. It was a

very intensive study and very in-depth. They came out with the

recommendation that great priority be given to an extension of the

system into Richmond. In fact, the city of Vancouver followed through

on that recommendation by endorsing it within a month of the date the

report became public.

I notice my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I'll be happy to continue after.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks from my friend the

second member for Richmond, and I must say that it was rather nice to

watch the member speak with a smile on his face about what he perceives

to be good news. Certainly the last few times we have witnessed him in

his role as caucus chairman for the Social Credit Party, he has looked

rather under the gun, to put it mildly. So it's nice to see him talking

and feeling good about doing so.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The

matter of SkyTrain is controversial, to put the matter charitably. What

I think we need to establish very clearly at the outset is that, yes

indeed, the municipality of Richmond ought to have some kind of rapid

transit connection with Vancouver and with the rest of the lower

mainland. The real issue, though, is whether SkyTrain itself is the

appropriate technology. That's what I think we do need to pose some

questions about.

Let me just start by drawing the member

for Richmond's attention to the fact that the statistics about

ridership aren't entirely attributable to the technology of SkyTrain.

They're attributable to the fact that a decision was made a very long

time ago that Vancouver would not be a freeway city comparable to, say,

Seattle or Los Angeles. What has happened is that those roads, as the

member quite correctly pointed out, are congested and clogged. Anything

that will get people out of their cars in that whole lower mainland

region will be in considerable demand, and thus SkyTrain's supposed

great success story.

There are two problems with SkyTrain.

First, let's not forget what the initial costs were. We're talking

about an overrun in excess of $700 million. That makes the Coquihalla

look like a good business deal, doesn't it? Ask yourself, Mr. Speaker,

what the interest payment on that is per annum. We're still paying for

that. So about SkyTrain, economically, you've got to pose some

questions.

What about the efficiency question? Efficiency in terms of SkyTrain also has to be called into question

[ Page 11912 ]

when

you consider the events of this past winter. How many of the trains got

stuck? How many of the trains scared the living whatever out of their

riders by not being able to stop, going through two different stations

and finally coming to rest in a snowbank? This technology, which we

bought from eastern Canada, proved to be not entirely compatible with

winter conditions.

Clearly we've got to pose a few

questions about the advisability of extending SkyTrain — the same

technology, another area, another direction. Of course, the reasoning

behind that marvellous decision not to worry too much about SkyTrain's

ability to deal with snow was that, after all, it never snows in B.C.

We don't have to worry about that in Vancouver, the lower mainland,

Surrey and New Westminster, so therefore we won't worry about making

sure the technology is compatible with winter conditions. Lunacy writ

large.

I think it's safe to say that my friend from

Richmond is not really here to talk about the technology of SkyTrain

and about transportation and the large issues surrounding it. Rather,

what he wants to do is make very sure he gets onside with the 94

percent of the people in his constituency who are pushing very rapidly

to ensure that there is a rapid transit link to Richmond. We sympathize

on this side of the House. We would also ensure that Richmond is well

served, as it ought to be.

[11:30]

The

question, however, I would point out again, is whether the appropriate

technology is SkyTrain. Remember it had a checkered history. Remember

that there is a suggestion that SkyTrain was purchased in order to

lever dollars from the federal government, and the condition from the

federal government was that you had to buy that Ontario-based

technology despite the fact that there were apparently other, better,

perhaps cheaper technologies available. So SkyTrain's story, with all

due deference and respect to my friend from Richmond, is not entirely a

happy little story of success.

MR. LOENEN : It is a

delight to hear that the NDP will support this great initiative to

build a system that will move people, preserve neighbourhoods, bring

densification to our communities, that will indeed be.... There are so

many positives associated with it. I want to say to the member that he

casts a lot of aspersions on that great Canadian product, the SkyTrain

technology. Mr. Member, you mentioned the sum of $750 million, and you

said that it was a lot of money. Yes, it is a lot of money. If we use

that type of technology, if we use the SkyTrain system, 80 cents out of

every dollar — 80 percent of that sum — will be spent in B.C. creating

job opportunities for British Columbians using British Columbia

products.

This is not merely an expenditure. This is a great investment to, first of

all, create jobs and secondly, create communities that are livable, where people

have an opportunity to travel without endangering the environment of their neighbourhoods.

know that the discussions will probably go on, and that's fine. To pick

holes in the system because of some delays for a few days because of

snow and frost.... We've learned from that; we'll straighten that out.

I wonder how many of us who have private cars were inconvenienced

because of winter conditions.

The member for Coquitlam said

that we ought to be spending money on the extension into Coquitlam. I

want to quote from an

article in the Province

on February 11: "Despite all this evidence, a number of Vancouver city

councillors still insist the next rapid transit line should go to

Coquitlam. They should put aside their parochial concerns and consider

that an estimated 45,000 Richmondites head out to work every morning,

and of those 45,000, 13 percent head to downtown Vancouver. A further

22 percent go to other destinations than Vancouver. From Coquitlam, a

comparable 49,000 hit the road, but only 9 percent head downtown and 16

percent end their trip within the Vancouver boundary."

The

truth is that there are more commuters going into the downtown

Vancouver area from Richmond than from any of the neighbouring

municipalities. This initiative and this promise by this government to

deliver is based on need, not because it's the Premier's riding.

Hon.

Mrs. Gran tabled the forty-ninth annual report of the Pension

(Teachers) Act and the fifty-fifth annual report of the Pension (Public

Service) Act.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual reports for

the Ministry of International Business and Immigration for the year

ended March 31, 1989, and for the year ended March 31, 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, this being private members' day, I wish to call Bill M202.

CLEAN ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, it's a real pleasure to have a private member's bill

called in this House. I'm very pleased and grateful to have this

opportunity during this term — having been elected in 1986 — to finally

have an opposition bill debated in the House.

As you know,

I — along with my colleagues — have introduced a number of bills in

this House dealing with the subject of sustainable development, a

concept that is affirmed by both sides of the House. Taken as an array

of measures, those sustainable development bills relate to a program to

bring about a new era of response to environmental concern for the

province of British Columbia.

We all know that if we accept

the common ground that is contained within the Brundtland report, that

is contained within the concept of sustainable development and a

sustainable environment, that that common ground relates to the future

of our children and to their children. It relates to the future of

those we hope would have an opportunity in another generation, in

another age, to participate and have a decent

[ Page

11913 ]

standard of living, an opportunity for sustainable

jobs and to have the enjoyment of a healthy environment where we would

know that waterways would not be damaged and, indeed, that the process

would have begun which would clean them up, and that the air that goes

out into the airsheds of our communities would cease to be contaminated

with NOx and S0x and other kinds of emissions that we know affect the

health and safety of our people and can cause tremendous costs in our

health care system when those matters are not attended to. We know that

in the concept of sustainable development we have to find a common

ground at a level that downplays the partisan aspect and promotes an

approach in which we enable all people to be part of developing the

solution.

In introducing the first of the 11 bills that I

have introduced, the Clean Environment Enforcement Act, I seek to

address a number of issues that urgently need attention in this

province. The first initiative of this bill would be to rename the

Waste Management Act and call it the Clean Environment Enforcement Act

so that the intent and goal would be very clear, and to bring that more

in line with the purpose in the context of sustainable development. It

would provide for effective monitoring of pollution and toxic spills.

know that the Minister of Environment, who is listening very carefully,

in going to cabinet and in seeking to be an advocate for the

environment — which is his role — has to deal with the problems that a

government has in seeking to balance a budget. He has to argue

passionately on behalf of what he believes is needed in order to

provide the protection that's needed for our environment in this day

and age so that we will indeed have a sustainable future. I know that

that minister understands that in a very real sense we do not serve our

province well when we set up a duality between economy and environment,

for instance. When we set that up as a duality, we create a false

debate and we start to promote the idea that jobs are at odds with

environmental protection, or that one part of society is against

another part of society in terms of an urgent issue.

But I

know that that minister understands that at the very basis they are not

at odds — that indeed it is a sustainable environment which makes it

possible to create the conditions that enable a healthy economy to

continue to function and to hope to be able to function effectively for

future generations. Therefore I know that when the Minister of

Environment goes into that cabinet room and argues on behalf of the

environment, he goes there and argues those points. I know that the

minister seeks to approach his position as an advocate for the

environment and that he seeks to encourage the understanding within the

cabinet chamber of that reality. I know that in doing so he has his

work cut out for him.

AN HON. MEMBER : How do you know that?

MR. CASHORE : I know that because this government has....

HON. MR. SERWA :

On a point of order, I've enjoyed listening to the hon. member

opposite, my critic of the environment. He says a lot of good things,

and I think we share common objectives in that particular area. But in

listening to the speaker — and I noted his statement that this bill

would require the fighting of cabinet for funds.... Perusing the bill,

I note that in

section 4 — pretty well throughout the

section — it

calls for expenditures on the part of the Crown. That clearly calls for

an impost on the part of government, and clearly with the parameters of

a private member's bill, this bill is in fact out of order.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. The bill is out of order.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to government business and call committee on Bill 92.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 92; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to make some comments with respect to

section 2 of this

legislation. I want to talk a little bit about what's included and not

included in this section, and I want to talk about some of the

hypocrisy one can find in this section.

First of all, I

want to point out that it's somewhat hypocritical for this

administration to be bringing forward this particular

section in light

of its record over the past few years. I think it would be

instrumental, in commencing debate on this section, to point out just

what this government has done with respect to tax increases and to

point out the tax unfairness it is freezing by implementing this

section.

The point here is that over the past few years

this government has consistently altered and adjusted the tax system to

place more and more burdens on the ordinary working people of this

province and has shifted the burden away from those who can afford to

pay. By bringing this provision before the House, the minister is now

freezing that tax unfairness.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

No, the point here isn't to increase it; the point here is to make sure

that there's an element of fairness in what's being proposed by the

administration. I know that point is lost on the Premier, who would

rather heckle than enter the debate on this matter. If he wishes to

debate, he should get up on his feet, rather than heckle.

[11:45]

Mr. Speaker, since this

administration came into power in 1986, we have seen the imposition of

784 different fee increases. That's everything from driv-

[ Page 11914 ]

ers'

licences, which have gone up 150 percent; to extended-care fees for

seniors, which have gone up 27 percent; to marriage licences, which

have gone up 150 percent. What this move does is freeze tax increases —

for example, those 784 fee increases that this administration has

brought in. In addition, what this

section does is freeze the 229 new

fee increases brought in by this administration. In other words, since

this administration has been in power — in the 1,200 or so days it has

been in — it has brought in a fee increase just about every day. It has

brought in about 1,000 fee increases.

What it has further

done with respect to personal income tax.... In the first budget it

brought down in 1987, this government raised personal income rates from

44 percent to 51.5 percent of the basic federal tax payable, while

cutting the surcharge on high-income earners. What this government has

done through that provision is freeze that tax unfairness — the

unfairness of a system that increased taxes to the average person in

British Columbia from a rate of 44 percent to 51.5 percent of the basic

federal tax payable and at the same time cut the surcharge on

high-income-earners. Income taxes paid by British Columbians have

increased by a whopping 64 percent since 1987. I don't want to jump to

other sections of the bill, but that outstrips the 42 percent growth in

the provincial economy over the same period.

British

Columbians are now paying $1.4 billion per year more in income taxes

than they did when this government took office; $1.4 billion more is

coming out of the paycheques and wallets of British Columbians. That's

what this government has done to this province since 1986. With that

kind of record, it's clear why British Columbians are asking for a

change in government. They cannot support a government which has

increased the burden to the average-income-earner in this province and

at the same time provided a cut in the surcharge on high-income-earners.

More

importantly, the provincial government, in its activities in the last

five years, has implemented large increases in Medical Services Plan

premiums. They were introduced in the government budgets of 1988 and

1989. It now costs British Columbians approximately $200 million in

additional premium payments each year. Interestingly, not covered here

by the freeze is the matter of MSP premiums. That, of course, begs the

obvious question as to why the minister chose not to freeze the

premiums under the Medical Service Act. On the one hand, it has

institutionalized tax unfairness; on the other hand, it has left the

situation open whereby MSP premiums can be increased, notwithstanding

the provisions of this legislation.

In my first question

with respect to

section 2, which places a tax rate freeze, I'd like to

ask the minister why no provision was made for medical service premiums

and to impose a freeze under the provisions of the Medical Service Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Again, the member is wrong. He's resorting

to rhetoric — because of television, I believe — in order to attempt to

delude the unwary, to delude the people who are watching television.

With great respect, it follows a line of debate that this member has

carried on in this House ever since he has been here. He hasn't learned

very much. He talks about double standards, and really and truly, I

would not want that member ever debating a double standard with anyone.

MR. LOVICK : On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, we are ostensibly debating a tax measure. Every time the

Minister of Finance stands up to speak, he proceeds to engage in

character assassination. Surely, in a civilized House, we ought to

abide by the basic rules of decorum and decency. I suggest that the

minister's remarks are entirely uncalled for. Let's get on with the

business, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, if the Minister of Finance had any improper intention, I'm sure he would apologize and withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

If I've made any aspersions that are improper against anyone, I would

certainly withdraw them, but I don't want anyone telling me, Mr.

Chairman, about character assassination. That bunch over there wrote

the book on character assassination.

Mr. Chairman, the hon.

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was talking about our taxes being

higher in British Columbia. That's not true. We have among the lowest

taxes of any place in Canada — we're either number one or number two.

We would have the lowest tax rates in all of Canada if it were not for

Alberta, which has no sales tax whatsoever.

I want to tell

you: we have the lowest small business tax. They keep talking about

business people. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, if I have to say this over

and over again, I will: any small business person who would put

themselves in the hands of those people would be like a chicken going

over to Colonel Sanders looking for help. I can tell you that right

now. We have the lowest small business tax in the country.

Also,

NDP governments have been notorious in bringing in payroll taxes, a tax

on payroll, a direct tax on the ability to employ people to work in

positions. The Manitoba government went right ahead and did it. The

government of Ontario — the only socialist government in all of Canada

at the present time — has a payroll tax. There are no payroll taxes in

British Columbia — none whatsoever. Nor do we intend to bring in any.

You

know, ours is among the lowest personal income taxes in all of Canada.

We're much lower than the province of Ontario. The member talked about

MSP premiums and the fact that they had increased. The policy has been

for years — and that dates back to previous governments, to the one

previous socialist government that we had in this province from 1972 to

December 1975, when they called an election in the dead of winter — to

set the MSP premiums at 50 percent of the cost of MSP. In this province

right

[ Page

11915 ]

now, today, we are lower than 50 percent. Through

good fiscal and financial management, we have set about keeping the

taxes lower.

This

section we're looking at —

section 2 of

the bill — goes one step further. It says that we are not going to

allow these taxes to increase at a rate that the economy cannot afford.

So we're freezing the rates on all of these taxes, sir. We're saying

that the people out there don't have deep enough pockets to pay for

socialism. We're saying that the people out there simply do not have

the money — within the period that we're speaking of in this bill — to

give government more from their pockets. So, under this bill, we're

setting about to freeze a whole host of taxes — in fact, the principal

taxes that this government levies.

Mr. Chairman, this is a

good section; this is a good bill. 1 noted that in unison, in

aggregate, the other side just yesterday stood up and voted for this

bill, and now we have the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

saying: "No, it's no good. You have done something in the past, and you

may do something in the future." This bill in law, in statute, freezes

taxes for the first time in British Columbia. It is forward-looking

administration from a forward-looking Social Credit government. It is a

type of thinking that has kept Social Credit in power most of the time

since 1952 and that, I know, will influence the people in the future.

Mr.

Chairman, we did not increase the MSP premiums last year. So the hon.

member is not speaking correctly when he addresses those issues.

MR. BARLEE :

The question on this side of the House, after listening to the

minister, is if this bill really protects the consumer. After examining

the evidence and the exclusions, I don't think it will. Does this

legislation really intend to protect the consumer? I don't think it

does.

A case in point is the provincial tax on gasoline.

The provincial gasoline tax is probably the most Draconian tax in

British Columbia. It's also the most common tax, and it very

effectively removes $450 million a year from every consumer in British

Columbia. The total is $450 million a year; that's over $1 million a

day. Every time someone fills up with about 40 litres, they pay $5

directly to the provincial government.

What is the

government actually doing about the gas tax? Are they rolling it back

under this legislation? No, they aren't. Are they going to freeze it?

No, they aren't. So what are they going to do? Under this legislation,

they're actually going to increase the gas tax in British Columbia, and

we have the second-highest rate in Canada. Our provincial gas tax is

higher than in every other province with the exception of Quebec. So

you're going to draw $1.25 million every day, 24 hours a day, seven

days a week, 30 days a month and 365 days a year. I think it's a bit of

sleight of hand; I think it's smoke and mirrors. The question is: why

do you neglect to include a Draconian tax like the gasoline fuel tax in

your legislation?

HON. MR. VEITCH : To the second

member for Boundary-Similkameen, I'd like to remind the hon. member

that consumers are also taxpayers, and taxpayers are consumers. That's

why we are freezing these rates.

Our gasoline tax is tied

to the wholesale price of gasoline, and it has been consistently tied

at 22.5 percent of the wholesale price. Gasoline prices are coming down

in the province of British Columbia. In aggregate, they are decreasing

because the world price of oil is coming down.

I want to

tell you that we have one of the best and most extensive highway

systems through some of the most difficult terrain anywhere in all of

Canada. We maintain good highways. We have announced a Freedom to Move

initiative that's going to build more highways.

Hon.

member, if you examine this bill and this particular section, you will

find that in fact we are freezing taxes, and there are some areas that

follow up and down with the marketplace. The wholesale price of

gasoline in British Columbia has been declining, and by all appearances

it will continue to decline. Gasoline prices are indeed dropping in the

province of British Columbia.

[12:00]

MR. BARLEE :

What the minister has said, after about three or four minutes of

dialogue, is that they are not reducing the gas tax. They are not

leaving the gas tax the same, but in 250 hours the gas tax in British

Columbia goes up again to the second-highest level in Canada. That is

the essence of the point. In other words, out of the 40 cents we pay in

Vancouver, over 12 cents goes the province and over 12 cents goes to

the feds — about 60 percent of that price goes to the two senior levels

of government. I don't think it's good enough; that is not consumer

protection.

HON. MR. VEITCH : For the hon. member for

Boundary-Similkameen, the percentage of gas tax remains the same. As

the price of gasoline at the wholesale level drops, so does the tax

that government collects. Taxes to government on gasoline, by the very

fact that wholesale prices are dropping, are being reduced. In fact,

the government is taking in less money now than it did a few weeks ago

on gasoline prices. It's tied to 22.5 percent of the wholesale price of

gasoline. So I'm afraid that argument simply does not hold either

gasoline or water.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we

continue, hon. members, the member for Alberni has asked leave to make

an introduction. I wouldn’t deny him this on such a beautiful day.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I would like the House to help me welcome, on this last day of the

House and on this very important date, 40 grade 11 and 12 students from

my old alma mater, Alberni District Secondary

[ Page 11916 ]

School, and their teacher, Mr. Rick Chase, to the House.

MR. SIHOTA :

It's wonderful to see that there are young people from Alberni here. I

hope they'll stick around, because they'll get to see their wonderful,

stellar, first-class MLA in action in a few minutes. Stick around. This

guy is great.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That's all the commercial time allowed.

MR. SIHOTA :

That's it for commercials. I want to return to the line of questioning

I started with the Minister of Finance. Under this legislation, you

have frozen, for example, the Horse Racing Tax Act, but you have not

frozen premiums payable under the Medical Service Act. Why?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I've just explained to the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew that

for years and years — and I believe under the previous NDP government —

it was the policy of government to hold MSP premiums — the fees we get

for the Medical Services Plan — at 50 percent of the cost of MSP.

Today, our rates are presently less than 50 percent of the cost of MSP.

did not increase taxes. We did not increase the impost. It's not a tax;

it's a fee. We did not increase the impost on MSP last year, and we

have not increased it this year. It is constant. We are now paying less

individually in MSP premiums than we did last year at this time.

The

costs of medical services have risen. There's no question about that.

All you have to do is go through the documentation tabled in this

House, and you will readily ascertain that people in British Columbia

are paying less, on a percentage basis, than they paid last year.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Minister, the argument with respect to policy and the level of

premiums or taxes can be made with any statute covered here. You've

made a conscious decision not to include the provisions of the Medical

Service Act under this legislation. Would you not agree with me that,

by not including the Medical Service Act in this section, you leave the

door open for increases in medical service premiums? Yes or no?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Chairman, I believe I've answered that question. This will be the

third time. I'm prepared to go on and do it again. We're presently

charging less than policy that has been in place for a long time. There

is no indication, at this time, that we intend to increase taxes on

people. In fact, we shouldn't be dealing with things that are not in

this section, Mr. Chairman, with great respect. We should be dealing

with items that are in this section.

You will note that a whole host of things, including horses, are included.

The horse-racing industry is, in fact, a very important industry to a lot of

people in British Columbia. We are freezing the following under this act: the

Corporation Capital Tax Act; the Fire Services Act; the Horse Racing Tax Act;

the Hotel Room Tax Act, which will help with our tourism industry; the Income

Tax Act, which affects every British Columbian — we are already among the lowest

in Canada, and we're still going to freeze income tax; the Insurance Premium

Tax Act; the Logging Tax Act; the Mineral Tax Act; the Mineral Land Tax Act;

the Mining Tax Act, the Property Purchase Tax Act; and the Social Service Tax

Act — the rate we charge on social services covered by the Social Service Tax

Act at a store or any place in British Columbia.

a result of this

section in this legislation, consumers can now go

forward assured that those rates will not be increased. We are freezing

the tax rate for British Columbians. It's the first time it's ever

happened.

If you are looking for examples, you better start

looking to the only socialist regime that exists in Canada. They are

going to come in with a host of taxes, I predict, in this next budget

that will make even you blush, sir. We are taking the only responsible

way out for these times in which we live. The taxpayer simply cannot

afford to have government grow bigger and bigger and bigger. By the

very fact that we are freezing tax rates in this act, we are helping

those people out there who are working, and those who are not working,

to meet their mortgage payments, pay for their children's education,

even pay for their medical premiums.

This is a humanitarian

act. This is a responsible act for this point in time in history. This

is

an act that I dare your friends in Ontario to even bring in — faced

with the terrible mess that they've got themselves into in that

province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Chairman, I

would urge everyone to support

section 2 for all of the reasons that

we've heard from the minister responsible. But also I'm reminded of an

article that I read in the Globe and Mail

about a week ago, where a business person was addressing a major

audience in Toronto. The quote was something to the effect that Ontario

had suffered tremendously in part because high taxes were driving

business and people out of the province. As well, those seeking to

invest, to start new business, to expand on existing business, were

looking at places other than Ontario because of their extremely high

tax rates.

I think we owe it to all of the workers in this

province — and those who might be moving here from Ontario, and there

are thousands of them — that we provide them some haven in this country

where they can invest with the knowledge that if they do invest and

expand or grow or establish a new business to employ hundreds of

people, they won't be driven out or punished through high and

increasing taxes.

This will be a tremendous attraction.

This will bring business to communities in the Cariboo, Port Alberni,

the Kootenays, the lower mainland — particularly, however, the outlying

regions in the province, which often are so dependent on single

industries.

[ Page

11917 ]

People from other provinces, other parts of the

continent, people looking to invest from the Pacific Rim or Europe,

will look to this province as a model, as an example. They'll be

comparing the tax rates here to those in other provinces or other

jurisdictions. But they'll see as well a piece of legislation which is

a first in this country, where a government has dared to go forth and

say that for three years all tax rates will be frozen; we'll control

the amount of budget; we'll balance the budget over the five-year term.

All of that has never been spelled out anywhere in this country or on

this continent, to my knowledge.

I would urge all members,

particularly those whom we've heard from so far: if you're concerned

about those jobs in Esquimalt, if you're concerned about the people

keeping their jobs, if you're concerned about attracting new industries

to those communities elsewhere in the province so dependent on new

industries coming in, if you're concerned about the workers, if you're

concerned about the shopkeepers and small business in all of those

places, then support this section.

We can use the jobs. We

need those jobs, and not only for our own British Columbians — those

that are working, to give them security, those who might be unemployed,

to find that opportunity which is so necessary and so deserved by them.

Think as well about those many wonderful people that have decided to

make British Columbia their home and are moving here in droves such as

we've never seen before — from other provinces, most especially

Ontario. You know, the old saying goes: in Ontario now — and I've said

it before — if you see hitchhikers, they're prepared to go either way.

They don't care anymore. They want to get out. Really, these people too

deserve that opportunity.

This province will provide them

that opportunity. We'll attract that business; we'll see business

expansion; we'll make those jobs available. I want us, this government,

to continue with the record which is second to none anywhere in this

country, where we've created consistently more new jobs than any other

province. In fact, at one point last year, with only 12 percent of the

population, we produced practically half of all the new jobs in the

whole of Canada. That's a phenomenal record. That's something we must

be extremely proud of.

This type of progressive

legislation, a first in the country, and this

section particularly,

will ensure that we stay number one, and that this province will be the

best place in the country.

MR. SIHOTA : I suspect

that somehow those will be the last words we'll hear from the commander

as he leads his troops into retreat without so much as bringing forward

interim supply for this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order,

please. The Chair has allowed considerable leeway, but one should be

relevant to

section 2, pursuant to standing order 61.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, that was second reading debate that we had from the Premier.

question to the Minister of Finance is not a skill-testing question,

and I'd like a yes or no answer. You talked earlier about the

horse-racing tax measures being important to people. You're right. But

so are the medical services premiums very important to people. Would

you not agree that by not putting in a provision here with respect to

the Medical Services Act, this allows the government to proceed with an

increase in medical services premiums? Yes or no.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Chairman, I explained to the hon. member the other day that yes and

no can both be definite answers; each one can be as pure as the other.

This is not a court of law; you seem never to have learned that. This

is parliament; this is a place for debate, hon., member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Let me continue the debate. May I continue the debate, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair has recognized the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Medical Services Plan premiums in British Columbia were last increased

effective April 1, 1989. That was $2.50 for a single subscriber, $3 for

a family of two and $4 for a family of three or more, to $31, $55 and

$60 a month respectively.

The hon. member is moving away. The hon. member can't take the heat, so he's moving out of the kitchen.

It's

not clear which user fees are being referred to. Effective April 1,

1987, seniors have been charged 75 percent of pharmacists' dispensing

fees, to a maximum of $125 a year. Seniors are reimbursed for payments

above the annual amount.

[12:15]

Now

we're in debate, Mr. Chairman. If Medical Services Plan premiums are

frozen, more funding will be required for health care and more funding

will be required to be raised through the general tax system, which we

are indeed freezing. It's not clear to me, when this member talks about

protecting the poor people.... They figure they have some kind of an

edge on helping poor people, when Social Credit governments have

consistently helped the poor, the working and all people in British

Columbia. We don't have special interest groups in our party.

It's

not clear whether user fees for the poor and low-income families would

be protected from, for example, families on social assistance who do

not pay for medications or any part of pharmacists' dispensing fees. Is

the hon. member suggesting that we increase those fees, that we level

the playing-field? Is that what he's talking about? We are protecting

people, if you want a yes or no, answer a yes or no to that one, hon.

member.

MS. A. HAGEN : I would like to move an amendment to

section 2 of this act. The amendment would

[ Page 11918 ]

to add a new subsection, subsection (m), which would read: "Medical

Service Act." I would like to speak to that amendment now, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN :

We have had discussion over the last few minutes with respect to this

bill between the Minister of Finance and my colleague from

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew about whether Medical Services Plan premiums

will be frozen. The intent of this amendment is in fact to make a clear

statement to all the people of the province that this essential fee is

one that will not be increased during the life of this legislation.

MR. REID :

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't have the amendment in front

of me, but I think it calls for the Minister of Finance to redirect

funding, so I would suggest that this amendment is out of order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The member has not been recognized.

The

Chair has considered the amendment.

Section 2 of the act refers to a

freeze on taxes. In introducing the amendment, the member referred to

fees under the Medical Service Act. Not being taxes, and also dealing

with the taxation prerogative of the Crown.... The Chair would have to

find the amendment out of order.

The Chair might also

further add that

section 61 of our standing orders says that debate in

committee should be strictly — and I underline the word "strictly" —

relevant to the section. That does not permit debate on matters that

are not included in the section. The Chair has been lenient up to now

with respect to some debate on matters that are not within

section 2,

but it brings that to the attention of the members. The Chair so rules.

MR. LOVICK : On the same point of order, would you be good enough to give us the citation, please, for that judgment?

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm not challenging. I'm asking for some information, Mr. Chairman.

Ignore the yahoos on the other side, Mr. Chairman; just address my

question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair directs the member to

section 61 of our standing orders, as previously mentioned.

MR. SIHOTA : A point of order. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I must take

issue with the fact that you made a decision without so much as asking the other

side who was sponsoring the motion for our position with respect to the matter

raised by the member for Surrey. It seems that basic fairness requires that

if you're going to rule on one of these matters, you should at least ask

for our submission with respect to what you are considering.

Secondly,

Mr. Chairman, I find it surprising that you did not rule on what the

member for Surrey raised, but you made your own ruling on another

matter, independent of what that member raised.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, this

section deals with a general freeze. It deals....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please, hon. member. The Chair appreciates and thanks the member

for his viewpoint, but the Chair had reached a decision on the

amendment before the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale had been

recognized, and the comments of the member did not have any impact on

the Chair's decision.

The Chair might also mention that the Chair's ruling is not challengeable.

MR. D'ARCY :

I don't want to quibble with your honourable self or your legal

adviser, but I have always made the assumption that if it involves

money, and if government requires you to pay it, it's a tax. The

government can call it a rental, they can call it a fee, they can call

it a tax, but if you have to pay it — and if you want medical services

in this province you've got to pay — then it's a tax. They can call it

anything they want.

I realize your decision is going to

stand, but I would really be interested to see the legal basis or the

dictionary basis for saying that a tax is not a tax if the government

chooses to call it something else.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The hon. member probably heard the Chair when it

referred to the fact that the Chair's ruling shall not be challenged.

The hon. member, I believe, has been a member of this House as long as

almost anybody else and should, of course, be familiar with

section 67

of our standing orders.

The member for Alberni on

section 2.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

The minister has made some remarks concerning small businesses in this

province and how they benefit so greatly from the tax structure and

will benefit from this tax freeze. However....

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I do know about small business.

would just like to talk about a study done by the Canadian Federation

of Independent Business concerning taxes in this province. I will quote

from the report. It says that taxes should not be frozen but should in

fact be lowered, mainly because this government has increased taxes in

this province since its term of office.

The analysis of the

study's result revealed that Canadian retailers generally, and

particularly small retailers, Mr. Minister, are at a serious

competitive disadvantage. "The Canadian tax system penalizes small

firms much more heavily than it does large firms." The study clearly

shows that no level of

[ Page

11919 ]

government is without sin when it comes to excessive taxation.

Time

and time again this government raised fees and raised taxes for small

business in this province. The minister alludes to the fact that small

business supports the government's initiative. If he feels that way,

the answer is simply to drop the writ and see how many small

businessmen will climb aboard the crumbling Social Credit wagon as it

lumbers on down the road of defeat.

Whether it's food

stores, variety stores, motor vehicle repairs, shoe repairs, hardware

stores, women's clothing — I have tables here that I won't burden the

House with — this indicates that as a result of the combined

federal-provincial-municipal tax structure, small retailers located in

Vancouver are at a significant disadvantage. In none of the 12 retail

sections studied is the small Vancouver retail store in a position tax

wise to compete.

These results show that highly detrimental

impact of a punitive tax structure on British Columbia retailers, and

all levels of government are guilty of contributing to this excessive

tax burden. Accordingly, it is time for all levels of government to

realize the system is killing small business in this province.

talk about a tax freeze in this province. The government introduces

this bill and says that the taxpayer protection plan, in fact, will

protect taxpayers. It will do nothing to protect small business people

in this province. The expenditure limitations and the balanced budget

plan should be addressed in a manner to reduce taxation so that we get

out of the recessionary mood we're in and get people to spend dollars

more freely, with the government taking less and less.

Local

taxes account for 52 percent of the total taxes paid by a small

retailer located in Vancouver. Does the minister think we should freeze

taxes at over 50 percent? Taking 52 percent of the dollars out of a

business is totally excessive. Government must get to the root of the

problem by relieving small business of uncompetitive and inflexible tax

structure in this province, not by freezing an uncompetitive and

inflexible tax structure.

If the minister were to be

truthful, bring forth a budget in this House and reveal the true state

of taxes in this province — whether they're balanced or not, where the

money is coming from, where it's going — perhaps this uncompetitiveness

could be addressed.

British Columbians could also lose

other small businesses that opt to locate across borders in this

province because of the harsh economic environment here. Talking about

retailers moving from Ontario to here, the report clearly indicates the

uncompetitive tax advantage and harsh economic environment in this

province.

It is time for all levels of government to cooperate so the combined impact

of tax policy changes made at each level of government can be evaluated; otherwise,

the current uncompetitive status of Canadian businesses will further deteriorate,

causing profound long-term damage to the Canadian economy. I suggest to the

minister that the expenditure limitations of

section 2 not be frozen but, in

fact, be reduced so that business can get on with doing business in this province.

The freeze is not acceptable. It is time that the taxes were lowered so that,

in fact, we can get on with doing business and continuing to expand.

The

Minister of Finance knows the rate at which businesses are going under

in this province. Personal and business collapses — bankruptcies — are

up in this province. They have been up for the last five months. By

putting a freeze on taxation, you will continue that trend. It is time

to relieve taxes so that expenditures can take place, business can

prosper and so that when people have earning power, they can pay more

taxes.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I just want to correct

something I said to the House a few moments ago when I mentioned that

gasoline taxes were tied to the wholesale price. It's actually tied to

the retail price before tax. I just wanted to correct that for the

House.

The hon. member for Alberni is making his speech to

the wrong House. He should be sending a letter to the Hon. Floyd

Laughren in Ontario. You see, there's nothing in this bill that

precludes tax rates from decreasing. It precludes them from increasing.

That's what it's all about.

The Premier mentioned that one

of the reasons we are including

section 2 in this piece of legislation

is that we want to protect business of all kinds. Small business, yes.

We realize, as the hon. member said, that our taxes are increasing too

quickly all over Canada. They are increasing too quickly at the federal

level; they are increasing too quickly in Ontario.

Here's a

statement. People are coming here — small business people, employees

and everybody else — in droves. After the election, when the Social

Credit government is re-elected, I want to inform the committee, there

will be many more businesses moving out of Ontario. I feel sad that

Ontario has to do that.

Here's what the Hon. Floyd Laughren, the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics, said on March 18, 1991.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH : If the hon. member.... I'm on

section 2, and I'll relate this to

section 2.

[12:30]

said: "The Statistics Canada employment figures released March 8 show

that Ontario has suffered the worst job loss since World War II." Mr.

Speaker, 196,000 jobs have been eliminated in the province over the

last four months since they have been in power.

continues: "The unemployment rate, which was already disturbingly high,

has now soared to 9.5 percent." It gives me no pleasure to say that

unemployment in Ontario is going to continue to soar and soar until the

people get a chance to kick the socialists out.

MR. JONES : This bill flows from the Premier's January speech, where he implied that there would

[ Page 11920 ]

real protection for taxpayers and that taxes would not increase in

British Columbia. In

section 2 we see the dozen areas for which there

will be limitations until March 31, 1994, in terms of taxes.

What

I'm concerned about now is that the message the Premier conveyed in

January about a blanket .freeze has now been adjusted downward. Now the

Minister of Finance, my friend and colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon,

suggests that it is a freeze on a few specific areas — "a freeze of the

principal taxes." So the Premier conveyed the image that it was a

blanket freeze on taxes, but now the Minister of Finance says it's a

freeze on principal taxes.

That's not quite the case. One

of the hallmarks of this government and its predecessors of that

political stripe has been a tremendous increase in school property

taxes in this province. The hallmark of that government, in my

nine-year tenure as a school trustee, was a shift of burden of tax

responsibility from the province to the homeowner. So what we see are

the. 12 areas in which there are going to be tax savings — a tax freeze

for the residents of this province — but it doesn't include school

taxes. So I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance why school taxes

aren't included here.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Obviously,

Mr. Chairman, you would rule me out of order if I answered the specific

question the hon. member asks because, as you ruled previously, we can

only discuss what is included in this legislation.

Property

tax rates are not included. The province levies rural area taxes,

residential school and nonresidential school taxes. Most property tax

rates set by the province are expected to fall, and as individual tax

rates are set for 75 school rates and the pressure is on, we hope they

will continue to fall.

Most homeowners are expected to pay

lower net school taxes in British Columbia as a result of actions by

this Social Credit government — after deduction of the homeowner grant

and the supplementary grant. We're saying that we are addressing those

problems, and we will continue to address those problems. We will

continue to keep taxes at the lowest possible level in British

Columbia, year after year.

MR. JONES : The Minister

of Finance makes my point exactly. The minister says that school taxes

are a critically important aspect of taxation in this province- one of

the largest single taxes that taxpayers pay. And I agree that there has

been an initiative that I would call a partial initiative to address

school property tax, but that initiative was for one year. It was not a

freezing.

The statement made by the Minister of Education with respect to school property

tax — I think the minister was trying to quote, but in fact misquoted — suggests

that most homeowners will not see an increase in tax this year. So what we're

talking about, rather than the legislation which is a three-year.... So if it

had been included in legislation, it would cover the period to March 31, 1994,

and not one year. Secondly, it says "most homeowners." Now if you're

trying to create the impression that there is a tax freeze, it should apply

across the board to school property tax and to all homeowners, not just to most

homeowners.

The

other loophole created in terms of putting a freeze on school property

tax is that there is an exception for revenues from new construction. I

would hope that, because of the number of portable classrooms we have

in this province, it is going to be a substantial part of the education

budget that we are using to provide decent facilities for those

schoolchildren. The revenue from new construction will be substantial,

and that will not be passed on. If we are going to say that we are

freezing taxes — as is the impression created by the Premier in his

speech — then we support this bill, and our support in unequivocal.

What we're trying to do here is suggest that the message being conveyed

by the government — that we agree with — is not a completely accurate

measure. It is a very specified number of taxes, a very discrete 12

areas of provincial taxation, that are being frozen — and we support

that. We're asking why, when you're conveying the impression that there

is a tax freeze, you don't freeze taxes. Yes, there's a partial freeze

on school taxes. Yes, it's for one year, not three years. Yes, it

excludes taxes for construction. But why not include those other areas?

You already explained, with regard to gasoline taxes, that you

recognized a loophole there. With respect to small business, you

recognized a loophole there. There's also a loophole with respect to

the school property tax — a very serious omission of the part of this

government, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BRUMMET : I can't help

but note that the member for Burnaby is giving the same speech he gave

a couple of years ago when there was some merit to it, but, of course,

it's far out of date. He started out saying that there's something

wrong with this section, because it does not freeze school taxes, and

that there has been a burden of increasing school tax on homeowners.

With the 25 percent reduction in the difference between the homeowner

grant and the total tax last year, and with the committed 50 percent

reduction this year, it is true that most homeowner school taxes will

go down. I don't know whether the member is aware of it or is being

deliberately obtuse about that.

I would like to commend the

Finance minister for freezing in other areas and providing relief to

the taxpayers, as has been done with the school tax. The member must

also be aware that the provincial government now takes responsibility

for collecting and spending 90 percent of the money for school budgets,

which was quite an increase.

I'm intrigued — and I don't

think the Minister of Finance could even answer this one, because it's

so irrelevant — by the member from Burnaby saying the revenue from

school construction is going to increase. I spent a fair bit of time in

the Ministry of Education, and I don't think that in any of the school

construction that we did we saw it as a source of revenue, other than

perhaps indirectly with the jobs

[ Page

11921 ]

involved. But we certainly saw it as an

expenditure. Tax on new construction. Who pays for the school

construction? The government. So it is not a source of revenue; it is a

source of expenditure, for heaven's sake.

MR. SPEAKER : The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID :

Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard a no over there, so I'm going to take

the liberty of doing it in any event. It's with a great deal of honour

that I'm able to introduce Ald. Gary Robinson from the Corporation of

the District of Surrey. He's here today, I understand, with the mayor

and some of the other members of council. I do see Gary within the

precincts, and I'd like the House to give him a special welcome.

MS. EDWARDS :

The minister makes a great deal of what people can afford these days,

and that is the issue, Mr. Chairman, with times as they are and with

people suffering such things as.... You know, the nation is suffering a

huge outflow of jobs because of the free trade agreement, which of

course is not ours. But what it does is help create the situation where

people are feeling the pinch, and they're feeling it extremely tightly.

might say that, under

section 2, we've mentioned a number of things

that are in the act. It's interesting that as the government introduces

this bill and suggests that they are trying to freeze taxation, it

looks rather odd at a time when you look at the increase in rural

taxation over the last four, nearly five, years that this government

has been charge. In ten years, the increase in rural taxation has been

over 100 percent, but even since 1986, the tax rate for rural

properties has increased 64 percent. When you put a freeze on that kind

of amount, you in fact are not doing exactly what the government says

it's doing, which is putting a freeze on taxes to protect the taxpayer.

In fact, you've already put an increase of 64 percent on rural

taxpayers since 1986. That, first of all, is a point I want to make to

the minister as I discuss some of the other situations where he is not

being totally open about what is being frozen and what isn't.

One

of the things that the rural taxpayers in my riding also notice is that

there is no freeze, and there has been no freeze, on fees and licences.

There have been 784 increases in fees and licences since 1986, and some

of them are huge. The increase on drivers' licences is 150 percent. The

people in my riding can ill afford that kind of thing, because they

don't have public transit. We can't talk about SkyTrains and things,

except for as much as they cost us for what goes on down here. We don't

have buses. People need to have cars. They need to drive. They have to

pay 150 percent more for their drivers' licences.

The government applauds family and trie