1989 Legislative Session: 3rd 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, APRIL 7, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5943 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

University Endowment Land Park Act (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Dirks

Introduction and first reading –– 5943

Private Members' Statements

B.C. ferries. Mr. Mowat –– 5943

Mr. Lovick

Oil spills. Mr. Cashore –– 5945

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Seniors' issues. Mr. Loenen –– 5947

Ms. A. Hagen

Vancouver Island pipeline route. Mr. Rose –– 5949

Hon. Mr. Davis

Budget Debate

Mr. B.R. Smith –– 5951

Mr. Guno –– 5955

Mr. Mercier –– 5957

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5959

Tabling Documents –– 5961

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

In the gallery today we have 24 members of the Advisory Committee on

Cultural Heritage, and I have asked that they all be recognized. The

advisory committee was selected following a nomination process which

reached out into every corner of the province of British Columbia. The

members are individuals who bring with them a wealth of experience and

knowledge of the needs of the cultural community of British Columbia.

As chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage, I can assure

you that we will be receiving their advice with great attention and

respect.

British Columbia is changing, and we are all

challenged to work toward a society which is both diverse and

harmonious. We need to support the aspirations of newcomers to British

Columbia to enter into the mainstream of our society while ensuring

that their cultural heritage is retained. This is one of the greatest

challenges we face and, under the able chairmanship of Mr. Kewal

Khosla, this advisory committee will make a real contribution towards

our mutual goal.

Mr. Speaker, with us today in your gallery

are Baldwin Ackerman from Vancouver, Mark Ando from West Vancouver,

Steve Babakaiff from Grand Forks, Jacques Baillaut from Vancouver,

Betty Bautista from Prince Rupert, Antonio Bevacqua from Fort St. John,

Celso Boscariol from Burnaby, Narinder Dhir from Burnaby, Ranjit Diwana

from Matsqui, Ed Eduljee from North Vancouver, Mike Kennedy from Prince

George, Riasat Khan from Vancouver, Kewal Khosla, the chairman, from

Surrey, Ben Lee from Kelowna, Bang Luu from Vancouver, Isaac Moss from

Vancouver, Buncy Pagely from Victoria, Sylvia Posch from Richmond, Rudy

Spence from Burnaby, John Stashuk from Vancouver, Jan Van Bruchern from

Vancouver, Kwok-ting Yue from Vancouver, Alan Yuen from Victoria, and

Irene Olljurn from Vancouver. Accompanying them is Enrico Diano, the

cultural adviser to my ministry, and also my deputy Mr. Mel Smith.

Would the House make them especially welcome.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to welcome the

guests here with the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. We know

that in a multicultural society whatever we can do to promote mutual

understanding and respect of each other's diverse traditions and

cultural features will only make a healthier and happier British

Columbia. So thank you and welcome today.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I would particularly like to single out — from my constituency

of Burnaby — Mr. Narinder Dhir, Mr. Rudyard Spence and Celso Boscariol, who

are on the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. Their families and relatives

are with them as well, and I would ask the House to bid them a very fond welcome.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a very special guest. He's a

Mohawk Indian from the Caughnawaga reserve, who won a gold medal at the

Los Angeles Olympics. He's a real Canadian hero who has dedicated

himself to working with young native people throughout Canada on drug

and alcohol problems and motivating young people for sports achievement

and so on. I'd like you to give a warm welcome to Alwyn Morris, who is

here with us today.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : On behalf

of the province, I'd like to join with the member opposite in welcoming

Mr. Morris to the House. Obviously the province has been doing a great

deal of work in the area of drug and alcohol with native people, and we

would welcome any contribution that Mr. Morris would care to give us.

We'd like to join in welcoming him to the House.

Introduction of Bills

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND PARK ACT

Hon. Mr. Dirks presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled University Endowment Land Park Act.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

The purpose of this act is to transfer a specified part of the

university endowment lands to the Greater Vancouver Regional District

for the creation of the world's largest urban park. This is a park for

all the people of British Columbia. We recognize the unequalled

environmental value afforded by these lands, both for this generation

and for our children's children. This act will ensure that these lands

are maintained for traditional park purposes in perpetuity.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Private Members' Statements

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, by arrangement with my colleague the hon. House Leader for

the opposition, we will change the order of members' statements today

and lead off with the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

B.C. FERRIES

MR. MOWAT :

I'm very pleased to speak on a special subject that has become very

dear to me, but particularly today, on what is another beautiful

British Columbia day. I'm going to speak this morning about one of the

finest transportation organizations in the world: our British Columbia

Ferry Corporation.

[10:15]

B.C. ferries carry the second largest number of vehicles of any system in the world. Our system ranks

[ Page 5944 ]

the top five in number of passengers carried. In terms of passenger

miles traveled: well over three million miles per year. It is the

largest system in the world. We have 38 ferries in the fleet, and they

carried almost 18 million passengers over 26 different routes this last

year. In total, over the corporation's 29-year history, close to 250

million passengers and 90 million vehicles have been transported

through B.C. coastal waters by this amazing fleet.

The

history of the corporation. It was founded in 1958 by the Social Credit

government under the great W.A.C. Bennett. Under the government's bold

leadership, two ships were built and began service on June 15, 1960.

Then the growth took off at a feverish pace: the Gulf Islands Ferry

Service and the old Black Ball Ferries, which had been serving the

Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay and the Sunshine Coast routes, were purchased in

1961. More ships were built, and in 1966 the corporation had 24 ships.

In the early 1970s the famous stretching operation took place, and to

date seven ships have been stretched.

Another amazing

engineering feat was the lifting of the four ships now in service

between the mainland and Vancouver Island. This involved adding an

entire new deck for additional vehicle capacity. When combined with the

stretching of these vessels, the automobile capacity increased from 106

cars to 376 on these ferries. The last major wave of construction took

place in the late 1970s and the early 1980s when five new super-ferries

were built. They are the largest double-ended ships in the world and

can carry over 350 cars.

The last phase of expansion came

in 1985 when the corporation bought out the coastal ferry operations of

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. This involved the purchase

of 13 ships and taking over 10 additional routes.

What I

would really like to emphasize today is how we compare with other ferry

systems in Canada. The major operator of ferries in Atlantic Canada is

Marine Atlantic Inc., a federal Crown corporation. Marine Atlantic took

over the operations of the CN Marine in 1985, and has been running the

service ever since. Among others, they run a service between the

mainland and the islands of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.

The

size of Marine Atlantic is roughly comparable to B.C. Ferries. The

total assets of Atlantic were $335 million at the end of '87, while

those of B.C. Ferries amounted to $365 million. Operating expenses in

1987-88 fiscal year for Marine Atlantic were $212 million, and for B.C.

Ferries were only $176 million. The fares are quite comparable as well:

a 45-minute trip from the mainland to Prince Edward Island costs $9.25

for a car and driver, while the one hour, 25 minute trip from Swartz

Bay to Tsawwassen costs $21.75 for car and driver.

I guess

the question is asked by the members who are listening, why do I make

these comparisons? Because the final comparison is the most

interesting, and it's called "government subsidization."

While the B.C. Ferry Corporation gets along quite nicely with about a $60 million

contribution from the B.C. government, Marine Atlantic needed $105 million for

the fiscal year 1987-88 and $133 million for 1988-89. But I have to say that

this subsidy in the last year of $133 million came from the federal government.

So it's interesting to note that we received no funding for our B.C. ferries

from the federal government, in spite of the continued attempts by this government

to ask Ottawa for assistance.

Expansion

in the 1980s is very exciting. The time is right for another round of

expansion in the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Over the past five years,

vehicle capacity utilization on the system has increased from 56

percent to 63 percent. Any of the hon. members who take the ferry home

on weekends will see the large lineups that the passengers have to deal

with.

As announced in the budget, the corporation will

undertake a ten-year, $550 million capital maintenance and expansion

plan, including the construction of four new ferries and improvements

to ferry terminals. Two of the new ferries proposed will be the large

superferries to service the Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen route. Each would

have a capacity of 470 cars and will be 550 feet in length. By

comparison, the largest ships in the current fleet carry 376 cars and

measure 470 feet. The estimated cost of these two ferries, if built in

local shipyards, is $125 million each. One does not have to even think

of the number of jobs that will be created, because it will be many

thousands of man-years.

The two other ferries are in a new

class which will be designed to carry 125 cars each. This size would

allow for growth in some of the corporation's other routes over the

next decade. The estimated cost is $25 million each, and again, the

creation of new jobs will result.

These four new ferries

will have a capacity of 1,190 cars in total, adding to, the current

fleet capacity of 4,964. Therefore this expansion represents a 24

percent increase in vehicle capacity, which is enough to take us into

the next century.

There will be an expansion of the four

major terminals at Swartz Bay, Nanaimo, Horseshoe Bay and Tsawwassen,

and this will generally involve expansion of facilities to accommodate

the growth over the next decade as well as construction of new

buildings. The holding compound at Swartz Bay and Horseshoe Bay will be

enlarged, while loading ramps and access to ships would be improved at

Nanaimo and Tsawwassen. Also included is the expansion of the causeway

and highway leading to the Tsawwassen terminal. The total estimated

cost of these improvements to the terminal is approximately $60 million.

MR. LOVICK :

I rise with some pleasure to respond to the second member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain and his elucidation of the wonders of the

B.C. ferry system.

I would be generous in my comments

initially; however, I'm a little surprised to hear this, because it

sounds to me like a restatement of a number of B.C. Ferry Corporation

annual reports as well as of the kinds of things I'm sure are going to

be given to the

[ Page

5945 ]

minister as briefing notes when we get to the estimates debate.

However,

I listened carefully to see whether there was any other agenda here,

and I detect that there is another agenda: namely, some reference to

the federal government and the fact that we aren't getting the kind of

treatment we perhaps ought to be — indeed should be — getting from the federal government. I'm happy to report that we on this side of the House have no disagreement with that.

I'm

a little surprised, however, to discover that this particular

government, though it has been in power for some time, though it has

apparently been lobbying for some time and though it apparently is well

connected with the federal government, has nevertheless been woefully

unsuccessful in its efforts to get some relief from the cost of subsidy

to the system.

I also want to offer a couple of

observations about the operation of the system, giving notice, I

suppose, to the minister and others of the kinds of questions we ought

to be raising and answering in the course of estimates debate.

First, I am intrigued and appreciative — as I'm sure everybody is — to

learn about the ten-year plan to expand the size of the ferry fleet and

build more ferries. I'm wondering, however, if we are once again going

to go through that rather anomalous process of building these things

and then selling them off and leasing them back. I, for one, have some

difficulty knowing that the Xerox Corp. is still an owner of vessels in

this province; I believe that's still the case. Perhaps we can get some

assurances that we are going to hold onto these things, that all those

initial statements and background papers about further privatization of

the B.C. Ferry Corporation are just rumour and have no substance in

fact.

Further, I would like to say that I hope the

government will accept the proposition that when we talk about the B.C.

Ferry Corporation, the plans for expansion and the important place it

has within the transportation infrastructure in this province, we will

recognize also that the infrastructure will get the full support and

encouragement of the people only insofar as they believe they have been

listened to and consulted.

I would offer for members'

attention the case we had just the other day of the Isabella Point

saga, in which we apparently had conflicting reports from the minister

in terms of whether the people were consulted and whether the decision

had been made. I hope, Mr. Minister and others on the government side,

that you will recognize that even if you want to spend all kinds of

money improving the system, you would be wise and well advised to make

sure that the people you are attempting to serve believe that you do

indeed have their best interests in mind and that they are being

listened to in their concerns.

On that note, I will happily yield and say I look forward to the second member

for Vancouver-Little Mountain having other news about the B.C. Ferry Corporation

to give us — perhaps some other announcements that we are not yet aware of.

MR. MOWAT :

The expansions planned by the B.C. Ferry Corporation are just the

latest stage in its great history. The corporation remains one of the

jewels in British Columbia's crown. It encourages economic development

and tourism. The corporation has grasped this role with enthusiasm over

the last 29 years and will continue to do so for many years.

One

element that allows the corporation to play this key role is the people

who work for the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The kind, courteous staff on

the ferries never fails to impress the passengers from both within

British Columbia and abroad.

B.C. Ferries also gives

special attention to those who need it the most and perhaps have more

difficulty traveling on the seas than others, such as children, seniors

and the disabled. For this special service, the government of the

people of British Columbia say thank you to the staff of B.C. Ferries.

conclusion, the B.C. Ferry Corporation is one of the true success

stories in the history of British Columbia, one that was initiated by

this Social Credit government and that continues to be fully supported

in its operation by the current Social Credit government. We look to

future good sailing on all our B.C. ferries.

OIL SPILLS

MR. CASHORE :

I am going to be speaking on the subject of oil spills. It's obvious

that this government is more concerned with public relations than it is

with protecting the environment, because — pure and simple —

their approach with regard to dealing with the Alaska oil spill has

been only to learn from their PR mistakes during the previous spill.

That has been the sum total of the main approach of their attention.

Let's

take a look for a moment at the issue with regard to the moratorium

that was announced the other day, the so-called moratorium. On March 29

I asked the Premier if he had made a firm decision to reimpose the

moratorium on offshore drilling, in the matter of the Pacific accord

where the government has some jurisdiction, and the minister said:

"There has been a moratorium on offshore exploration since 1972, and it

is still in place." He went on to say: "There is no possibility

whatsoever of that moratorium even being lifted for at least five

years." Unknown to the House, at that very moment copies of a news

release entitled," Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling " were being

distributed to press gallery mail slots, stating: "The province will

continue the current moratorium on petroleum drilling off the B.C.

coast for at least five years."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This

raises some vexing questions. First of all, the minister fails to state

that the moratorium is on offshore oil exploration, and mentions

drilling only. I am glad the Premier is in the House, because his

comments on CBC television the other night left the public with the

impression that he is at odds with his minister, and I would ask the

Premier, Mr. Speaker...

[ Page 5946 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members.

MR. CASHORE :

... to take this opportunity to clarify whether or not the moratorium

includes seismic activity, given the activity that has been going on in

the strait under the Geological Survey of Canada. Does the Premier

include that activity when he says that there is a moratorium in

effect? Would he clarify his remarks and coordinate them with remarks

of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan)?

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, he does not acknowledge that by continuing the

moratorium there is no assurance whatsoever that seismic activity will

not continue. In fact, the minister must be aware that the Geological

Survey of Canada did seismic work starting June 27, 1988, involving an

air gun array covering 1,100 kilometres. While this work produced

scientific data on our offshore topography, is it not true that the

results were handed to Chevron to process and that the profiles were

then given to the Institute of Sedimentary and Petroleum Geology, an

arm of the Geological Survey of Canada, so that they can analyze the

data for assessing the area's hydrocarbon potential?

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

So you see, my friend, it means that the activity is going on, and the

government knows it's going on, with a view to the hydrocarbon

potential.

Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that by saying you

are continuing the moratorium, you do so knowing that under the terms

of the Pacific accord there is not now, nor ever has been, a ban on

directly involved in that activity?

Is it not true, if we

look at the timetable that is presently in place and was in place prior

to the sham announcement of the other day, that one year is required to

negotiate the agreement and one year to draft the legislation and that

Chevron needs three years of follow-up seismic surveys to get ready for

the first drilling to begin in five years' time?

Is it not

true, then, Mr. Premier, that your announcement of a moratorium,

cleverly, using the term "five years," was merely stating the status

quo? It was merely stating what already exists. It did not mention that

in a 1981 order-in-council, this government claimed to have

jurisdiction for the territory on which they now claim to have

proclaimed a moratorium, but that that matter was set aside when it

came to dealing with the Pacific accord, and in actual fact it has

never been established that this government even has the authority

under Canadian law to issue that moratorium that they are doing as a PR

gesture, when they haven't actually done the work to establish that

they have that authority in the first place.

It was a

non-announcement, Mr. Premier, and you know it. Your plan is still in

place to see Chevron start drilling in five years. You knew all along

that even if the accord was signed tomorrow, they couldn't logistically

start for five years.

Mr. Speaker, the minister should make this announcement: (1) that he ceases

negotiations on the accord, and (2) that he is going to do everything that is

possible to make sure the federal government will entrench that moratorium in

legislation and that that legislation will be followed up in support by the

provincial government.

it not true, Mr. Premier, that your so-called continuation is a sham

and that it changes nothing? Is it not true that your government is

carrying on with the negotiation process, whether you are holding

formal meetings or not? What we are dealing with here is an empty

promise, and it's as empty and hollow as your entire public relations

campaign on the Alaska oil spill, and your disastrous record on the

environment. If your record weren't so disastrous, you wouldn't have to

call in an expert on other disasters to advise you, namely the firm

that helped Union Carbide and the firm with regard to the Bhopal

disaster and the firm that helped Tylenol.

Mr. Speaker, we

really have to ask ourselves what this government is up to, anyway,

when it is making an announcement about something that it has not even

clarified that it has the authority to do? It is known that under....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Sorry, hon. member, time is up.

To respond, the Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the word "sham." We first heard it from

the Leader of the Opposition, when I as Premier, and others, took the

time on Easter Saturday to travel to Alaska to see firsthand the

biggest oil disaster that has ever occurred in the world. Because we

took the time; because I traveled there while the Leader of the

Opposition sat in his living room watching television; because we took

the interest; because we as a government were concerned; because we

took that initiative to see firsthand what it was that had occurred and

how it was being addressed by the oil company or by Alyeska; because we

took that initiative, he labelled this a sham.

We've heard

it again from the critic for environment. Again, he calls it a sham. No

solutions, no answers, no alternatives, no suggestions, just a whole

lot of the usual NDP socialist negativism, saying it's a sham. Because

there's public support for what we're doing; because the people of

British Columbia say this government is interested and concerned,

they're now saying it's a public relations effort.

Mr.

Speaker, I have no problems with public relations. I have no problems

with the government doing whatever it must in order to convey to the

people the dangers of these oil tankers. I have no difficulty in

telling the people that we must through the efforts of a task force

seek alternatives and seek ways of addressing oil spills and disasters

on our coast. But what has the socialist NDP to say about it? They say

[ Page 5947 ]

that

whatever it is we do in order to ensure that this might be addressed

better in future is a sham. They have no solutions. They have no

answers. They have no alternatives. It's the usual negative garbage

that we tend to hear time and time again whenever positive initiatives

are taken by this government.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr.

Speaker, I'd just like to continue on for a moment. Really, if you look

at the statement, this really shows Again, it's misleading. This member

talks about oil spills, but what he talks about is seismic. He's

confusing offshore drilling with pipelines and oil spills. I really

don't understand. But this is the way they work, to try and confuse

everybody, and wrap everything into a fierce tactic.

What

I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that seismic can and is used

throughout this world to study the earth's crust; and that is a very

important thing, especially for us here in an earthquake zone. Would

that hon. member deny our good people the knowledge that is available

as to what that earth's crust is doing, especially in view of the fact

that we are living on an earthquake zone?

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the Premier had the opportunity in this House to stand up

and clarify whether he included a ban on seismic activity; he did not

say that. Seismic activity is being carried on by the Geological Survey

of Canada. That activity has been handed over to Chevron, and Chevron

has reviewed that data and passed that on to the Geological Survey of

Canada. A portion of that is used for the plan for hydrocarbon

research — that cannot be denied. The Premier did not take the opportunity....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, hon. members. The House is very lively this morning. Please continue.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not take the opportunity to clarify that

point. And just to show how desperate he is with regard to his PR

things, he is resorting to distorting history with regard to the NDP's

role in this whole thing. He has completely.... He should stand in this

House and apologize to Tom Berger for the statements that he has

made — which were quoted in the press — that are inaccurate. Mr. Berger said: "He" — the Premier —

"said the U.S. Congress decided on tankers in 1972 and construction

then started on the pipeline that terminated in Valdez, site of the

Exxon disaster. I wasn't even appointed to the Mackenzie Valley

commission until 1974." Mr. Premier, you have been distorting history

in a most unfortunate way.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The NDP is against pipelines.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE :

It points up the fact, Mr. Speaker, that they're so desperate from a PR

perspective that they would distort history and try to alter the

facts....

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE :

They cannot deny the fact that the five-year moratorium that they talk

about is a sham; that it was in keeping with their present plan; and

that the drilling would not have started for five years anyway. One

year to continue to work out the details, one year to draft the

legislation, three years of seismic activity.... Indeed, seismic

activity went on in 1988, and the Geological Survey of Canada is

planning further seismic activity in 1989. The fact is that this

government is powerless to deal with that.

Their

announcement is a non-announcement, and the Premier knows that. He

knows the thing they have developed is expertise in conducting their

affairs as a public relations gesture. But when it comes to protecting

the environment, they are hopeless. They are only dealing with hollow

words; they are not doing the things that are necessary to getting out

there and advocating on behalf of the environment,

SENIORS' ISSUES

MR. LOENEN :

I just want to remind the House that starting on Sunday it will be

Volunteer Recognition Week in British Columbia. We want to extend our

appreciation to the many volunteers that serve our communities.

Interjections.

MR. LOENEN : Are you against volunteerism?

I'd

just like to remind members opposite that throughout this province we

have 151 seniors' counsellors, who serve the needs of seniors. Early

next month, in fact, there will be a special conference in Kamloops for

senior citizen counsellors. These counsellors are all senior citizens

and serve in a volunteer capacity. They provide information and advice

to fellow seniors in communities throughout the province and make a

very real and valuable contribution to the lives of our senior citizens.

treasure our senior citizens. We provide, as a government, many

services to seniors. We acknowledge the contribution they have made,

and we want to enrich their lives. For that reason a task force will

look into how we could better serve seniors. As a result of that, there

will also be an advisory council to give this government advice on the

needs of seniors and special opportunities for them.

This

morning I would like in particular to talk for a minute about our

long-term-care facilities. As you know, they consist primarily of two

types: intermediate-care facilities and extended-care facilities. In my

own community of Richmond, we have four intermediate-care facilities,

and there is one extended-care facility at the Richmond General

Hospital.

By and large, they provide an excellent service,

and we are very pleased that we have those services available in our

community. However, there's always room for improvement, as we know. I

must say that

[ Page 5948 ]

since

I was elected in '86, I have received some complaints. They pertain

particularly to those people who need to be moved from

intermediate-care facilities to extended care because their situation

has deteriorated somewhat, and they are in need of higher levels of

service.

As a result of that, people are often faced with

having to move outside of our community, outside of their familiar

surroundings and outside of the circle of friends they have built up.

There is nothing more painful, uprooting, disconcerting and

disorienting to senior people — particularly after having spent

perhaps ten to 15 years in one facility where they have built up

friendships and have come to know the staff and the people who provide

them with the services — than then finding they have to be moved elsewhere.

[10:45]

It is particularly painful when, as a result of that kind of

situation, couples have to be separated. I know many examples where

that in fact is the case — where either one or the other of the partners must move to a different facility.

Steveston

is an historic fishing village that many of us know about. It has a

very strong sense of community. Many people have lived there all their

lives. They've worked there; they've built up friendships; they have

relatives; and they have familiar faces and surroundings. We do have

the Lions intermediate care facility there.

In addition to

that, they have the apartments for seniors immediately next door, where

people who are still reasonably independent can make use of the food,

facilities and services at the intermediate-care facility. But many of

those people, when faced with having to be moved into an extended-care

unit, must then go elsewhere, perhaps to the North Shore, White Rock,

Surrey, wherever. As I said, there is nothing more disconcerting than

being uprooted in that way. Obviously what is needed is to add the

provision of extended-care beds to the existing facilities, so that we

will in effect end up with multiple levels of care under one roof.

Mr.

Speaker, we have within British Columbia a total of 17,428 funded

intermediate-care beds and some 7,603 extended-care beds. Out of that

total, there are some 1,418 beds within multiple-care facilities and a

further 571 in the planning stages. Even after those in the planning

stages have been completed, it means that only 11.4 percent out of the

total extended-care beds and only 6.4 percent out of the total

intermediate-care beds will be within multiple-care facilities. That is

just not good enough. It means that out of the total — over 17,000 intermediate-care beds — just over 1,000 will in fact be in multiple-care facilities.

have to turn that around and do something about it. Many of these, of

course, are in rural B.C. We must increase the multiple-level care so

that we can meet the needs of the people who make use of these

services. Again speaking about our community of Richmond, I have both

privately and publicly strongly supported that the 100 new

extended-care beds promised to our community will be added to the

existing intermediate-care facilities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired.

Before we proceed, hon. members, the second member for Victoria has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE :

In the gallery right now are 11 members of the Capital Regional Mental

Health Association, visiting the precincts today to learn about the

ways of democracy and parliament. They are accompanied by Mrs. Roberts

and Miss Cooksley. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : In response to the previous statement, the member for New Westminster.

MS. A. HAGEN :

First of all I'd like to join the second member for Richmond (Mr.

Loenen) in acknowledging the many people who work in the volunteer

sector and those who work with older people. In addition to the 151

seniors' counsellors in the province, I would like to take this

opportunity to pay tribute to COSCO — the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations —

the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization, the seniors' research and

referral centre and the many community-based organizations that toil

diligently on behalf of older people. Just to put this into

perspective, I'd like to take a moment or so to talk about some of the

questions that come to these people for which they regrettably don't

always have the answers that older people need to receive.

They

get questions about home support and the fact that there isn't enough

home support for them to be able to keep themselves independent for any

length of time and their families able to help them in their own homes

and communities. They get questions about transportation: in the rural

regions of the province, there is virtually no service to assist people

with transportation. They get questions about where they can get

information. We need to be reminded that in 1983 this government

absolutely cut off the funding to 23 community-based organizations that

provided that kind of service in a volunteer way to their communities,

assisting the seniors' counsellors and augmenting the services of

seniors' counsellors.

They particularly get questions about

housing, to which the member alluded, housing which is inadequate not

only at the far end of the spectrum for extended- and intermediate-care

but also for people who need support for innovative kinds of housing

that will enable them to maximize their independence. They get

questions, too, about the economic situation they face: the 45 percent

increase that many of them are paying in medical service premiums and

the lack of rental subsidy assistance, which until the announcement of

a few days ago hadn't been raised in years, so that there was a

continuing decrease in the number of people getting assistance for

their housing.

[ Page 5949 ]

They

get questions about how they can pay user fees like Pharmacare, where

the government is not even refunding some of the refundable because

it's too small a cheque. They get questions about how they can

coordinate the planning for themselves and their families. Those senior

volunteers in our community do a valiant service. It's a service that

extends the helping hand of the community and the resources of the

community. Unfortunately, without the infrastructure, the planning, the

help of government, many of them are only able to tell seniors that

there is no help available.

I want to conclude by noting

that the comments of the member regarding multi-level services is very

well taken. Again, I have known of organizations that run extended-care

and intermediate-care facilities which have come to this government

over a number of years and asked for the opportunity to purchase land,

the opportunity to plan for and to integrate those services. It is well

to call for them, but to call for them without action and funding

really doesn't deliver anything. I'm certainly aware that it is the

despair of many organizations that have sought to do the innovative and

productive kinds of planning and organizing for the long-term-care

needs of seniors, including those who are separated from husband or

wife because of the organization that is presently in place.

Words

are not enough; action is what we need. If the member is prepared to

say in his final comments that his government is taking action on his

excellent suggestion to ensure that seniors' counsellors and many other

volunteers have the resources to do their jobs well, then I think this

particular part of our discussion will have been productive. Words, Mr.

Member and members of this House, for the older generation are hollow

without action. We need action to fulfill the kind of mandate that we

must have for the care of our elderly in British Columbia.

MR. LOENEN :

I thank the hon. member for her kind words. We're all together on

seeing the needs of seniors and wishing to respond to them. As I said

earlier, this government certainly is committed to meeting those needs.

We are making some excellent moves to put in place the machinery to

meet them. I am a member, for instance, of the policy advisory board of

the Victoria Health Project, a very exciting program under which we

try, through clinics, through support services, to meet the needs of

people who need health care in their homes, their communities.

MS. A. HAGEN : An excellent program, but a small corner of the province.

MR. LOENEN : We look forward to expanding that wherever we can make use of it.

Getting

back to intermediate-care facilities, extended-care facilities and the

need to build multilevel facilities, yes, the Ministry of Health is

responding to this. They are turning the corner. Many of the planned

facilities are indeed geared to the multi-level type. I agree with the

member that more can be done. I certainly hope that also in our

community of Richmond we will be able to show the way and to see that

whatever new extended-care beds come into the community, they will be

added to the existing intermediate-care facilities.

Many

problems stand in the way of converting, for example, the existing

intermediate-care facilities. We need the cooperation of the regional

districts; of the CMHC that holds the mortgages; of the various

societies. There are legal problems as well. Licensing falls under

different pieces of legislation. There are divisions within the

Ministry of Health itself. Whole structures have been created around

the provision of certain facilities rather than others. But I'm

convinced that if the political will is there to meet the needs of the

people in the community, we will be able to overcome those problems and

place the needs of the seniors first and foremost. I'm committed to

that, and I know our government is.

VANCOUVER ISLAND PIPELINE ROUTE

MR. ROSE :

I think it's only appropriate that an expression of concern for the

elderly came before my speech, especially when I and the Minister of

Energy are going to be debating the next round. I welcome the Minister

of Energy back to the House. I understand he has been ill. I've always

enjoyed dialogue with the minister. We go back a long way. We used to

ride the same planes together back and forth to Ottawa. I always found

him to be open, candid, frank and honest. However, having said that....

I'm really pleased to see that he's here, because I was afraid the

Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) was going to respond on the

pipeline, and I prefer to have somebody with a knowledge of pipelines

rather than pipedreams.

Let me get on with it. The issue

here has been well canvassed by my colleague from the Kootenays. All

the other ramifications having to do with financial feasibility,

supply, price, all that stuff, are not my concern. Although I may touch

on a number of those items, my concern has nothing to do with the

issues I've just mentioned.

[11:00]

We know there's been a Utilities Commission preliminary report on

this issue, although while the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) and the Minister of Energy may have seen this, I haven't. My

concern is just with the route. My concern is with the lunacy of the

possibility of shoving this pipeline up the watershed of the Coquitlam

River. That's what I'm angry about.

Yesterday the Attorney-General tried to sell this pipeline route — as if it's already been decided —

as an environmental issue. In other words, we'll trade that dirty,

rotten oil that's coming up the Inside Passage to the pulp mills for

nice, clean, sweet gas. Well, I thought that might have described his

speech rather than the product.

MR. WILLIAMS : That was sour gas.

[ Page 5950 ]

MR. ROSE : No, it soured me, because it looks as if the issue has already been decided.

talked about replacing oil, which is currently used in these mills,

with natural gas. I think that's a reasonably laudable objective. This

is what he said: "In order to do that, we have to build a pipeline, and

we may have to make trade-offs. One of them has to be, Mr. Opposition

House Leader" — he harrumphed.... "And you are the person who

should think about this most clearly, because you were there for the

other performances." I don't know what the other performances were,

unless he's talking about an earlier speech of his. "...a line through

the watershed area in order to make a viable project." He's saying the

thing is so shaky — financially, in terms of its viability —

we've got to take 1.5 million people in the lower mainland and risk

their health in order to make this thing viable, when there's a clear

alternative.

Indian Arm is also in my riding; it has

nothing to do with any particular watershed. We're really concerned

about that. Why can't it go...? If we have decided, as the minister

suggests.... He said the decision has been made; that's what he told us.

AN HON. MEMBER : Order.

MR. ROSE : All right. If you want to get up and call order, you do it.

think the decision has been made. We've heard from the Minister of

Energy; we've heard from the Minister of Environment. There have been

announcements. If the decision has been made, then why bother with the

Utilities Commission? That — and I'll repeat the word — is a sham. It's a public relations sham if the decision has already been made; it's a waste of public money.

repeat: whether the pipeline is a good idea or not is not the question

here. There are some people who thinks it's premature; there are some

people who don't think it's necessary. I am not arguing whether or not

it's necessary. I think anything we can do to reduce the risk of oil

spills in the Inside Passage is a laudable objective. But what are the

trade-offs? That is the important thing.

I seldom quote

COFI, but this is from a brief prepared by that radical NDP law firm

Ladner Downs. Look at what they say: "Major gaps which remain open

include the binding agreement, supply, contractual arrangements with

industrials and the LDUs contractual arrangements on storage, issues of

IQ factor and curtailment. The question is whether or not the project

is fatally flawed because of a lack of certainty and proof of economic

viability." We're really concerned about this, Mr. Speaker. We don't

think it's suitable at the moment to proceed, and we're actually

terrified.... Not just me. Here's another rabid NDPer called Gil Blair,

the mayor of Richmond. He's the chairman of the GVRD. This is what he's

got to say.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : I've got one more minute of gas, and I'll ask for extra time because of all the applause and interruptions.

"Construction of a natural gas pipeline through the Coquitlam

watershed will cloud the drinking water used by 350,000 residents and encourage

'undesirable organisms,' a report commissioned by the Greater Vancouver

Regional District warns." It goes on to say a little further in a Sun story:

"Some people consider the cloudiness only an aesthetic concern. The report

says turbidity is recognized, however, as a serious health concern because it

can reduce the effectiveness of the disinfectant chlorine."

I've got all kinds of quotes here. "Watershed route would be insanity"

says the Vancouver Sun . Is this another New Democratic Party rag?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

I always enjoy the remarks of the affable member from Coquitlam-Moody.

He indicates that maybe the Vancouver Island gas pipeline isn't all

that bad. He's really saying, however, that trade-offs may be involved,

and if one of the tradeoffs is the health and other considerations in

the Coquitlam watershed, that trade-off is too expensive.

If the project proceeds — and I believe it will —

it will only proceed subject to the conditions which I believe the

Utilities Commission will attach to the licence, to the authorization

to construct. One of the conditions will undoubtedly be that there is

no threat whatsoever to the water quality in the Coquitlam watershed.

Health is the paramount concern. There's also water management in the

sense of turbidity and so on, perhaps having to use other reservoirs,

but I believe it may be possible. The pipeline company and our ministry

consultants tell us that by phasing the construction, by monitoring the

construction operations and being extremely careful, it's possible to

stay well below national health standards.

As far as I'm

concerned, those are conditions which must obtain during the

construction phase. Once the line is in place, it's really benign as

far as the watershed is concerned — nothing like the logging roads

that exist in the watershed or like the logging road extensions

currently being authorized in the watershed. The pipeline is a ten-inch

line. Most of the way it will run on the high side of an existing

logging road, and it will improve the ditching of the logging road.

Regardless,

if the line is to be built through the watershed, it can only be built

with complete sensitivity with regard to both health and other water

management considerations in the watershed. I believe this is possible.

In a few days the Utilities Commission will be telling us, in a series

of documents which will be made public, that the pipeline is possible

given a series of conditions, and those conditions must all be met. One

is gas supply; another is that the pulp mills must sign up; a

third — and most obvious — is that the federal-provincial

agreement must be available in all its glory; and finally, such

concerns as the Coquitlam watershed must be fully addressed. Unless and

until all those conditions are met, the certificate will not be issued

and the pipeline

[ Page 5951 ]

is not financeable. I believe all those conditions will be met.

However,

the member is addressing the Coquitlam watershed issue, and I merely

want to repeat that this will be dealt with with the utmost

sensitivity. In no way will health concerns be breached or the

watershed management be at all compromised by having to run in water

from the Seymour and Capilano reservoirs. This may mean postponing

construction until an appropriate time in the fall. The construction

may have to be interrupted intermittently in order to ensure that the

turbidity and other criteria are doubly met. Nothing is for certain. We

are adamant, however, that the construction of the line, if it proceeds

through the watershed, will be done in such a way that it is a clean

operation throughout and that in no way are the health or other

concerns of the Greater Vancouver Regional District or the Greater

Vancouver Water Board likely to be verified in any way. We will make

sure it is a 100 percent clean project.

MR. ROSE : I thank the minister for his usual frank and knowledgeable kind of response. I would just like to know why he has changed.

On March 29, 1984 — and I quote from Hansard — the

minister said: "I think that kind of investment is inappropriate. A

more logical way of supplying communities on Vancouver Island with gas

would be to bring it in liquefied form down from Prince Rupert...."

Further on he says: "The rationalization is that because the federal

government — foolishly or otherwise — has put a large sum of

money into gas pipeline extensions in Quebec, it's now British

Columbia's turn." Two wrongs won't make it right. Does $150 million of

public money make it right?

Quoted in the Province

is the same minister: "I know the only cost-benefit ratio that makes

sense is to leave the dollars in people's pockets." That's what he said

in 1984. What's changed? Has the price of oil changed? Marginally.

Nothing else. What's changed? Has the political climate changed? Are

you so desperate for votes on Vancouver Island that you are going to

spend $300 million of public money on this thing that is really very

tenuous at this moment?

I'm not concerned about that

particularly. I'm not concerned about that part of it, because if it's

needed, I would rather have oil and gas if that's the question. Of

course I would, and I think anybody would because it's cleaner. But

that's not the point.

What have we got to do yet?

Finalization of the Canada-B.C. agreement on finance, environmental

safeguards, Coquitlam watershed and contracts with pulp mills —

none of these have gone. Gas supply contracted out. We haven't got

anything. We haven't got supply, price or approval for environment.

We've got nothing. It's a sham; it's a pipe-dream. Let's not proceed

with this foolishness — even delaying it for six months. Let's delay it for six years.

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. B.R. SMITH :

It's a pleasure to speak in the budget debate. To start, I just want to

pay my tribute to the three new members here and to welcome each of

them. I hope they find this a place of comradeship, which it is over

and above and beyond the partisan debate. It's been a very good place

of comradeship since 1986, in that regard. I think the mood of this

place and the personal relationships among the members on both sides

has much improved.

I would also like to pay tribute to the

two members who left most recently. The former member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) was a man who I admired a great deal and had very

straightforward dealings with in and out of this chamber. He was an

adornment to this place, and we will miss him.

The former

first member for Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), who is now the Minister of

State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, had an incredibly

brilliant but short career in this place and has gone on to greater

things to represent her province in Ottawa. Both of those members are

missed.

[11:15]

Speaking on the budget, it's with great pride that for the first time in ten years — and some of those years were pretty difficult financially —

we have been able to bring in a budget that is balanced. I think it's

generally a good news budget. It has enhanced social programs. It has

provided for badly needed capital expenditures. It has taken a step at

reduction of accumulated debt.

When you consider the task

prevent deficits without even getting into attacking accumulated debt,

we've got a good head start here.

I'm not going to get into

esoteric arguments about budget stabilization funds, and whether that

is a good thing. It seems to me that it is a good thing, in times of

buoyant revenues, for the province to put money away in a rainy day

fund. That is a prudent thing to do. It could be argued, of course,

that some of that shouldn't be spent during a sunny day. I'm not going

to make that argument here.

I listened with great interest to the comments — of the sustained developers, if I can call them that — that

were made on the other side of the House about this budget. The

lead-off hitter on the opposition side, the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Clark), who is very erudite, characterized this budget as

being unfair. If he'd had his druthers, he would have taxed

corporations savagely, destroyed the incentives of high wage-earners,

returned user fees and — I dare say — nationalized back every service that had been privatized.

number of speakers talked about the fairness in the budget. This budget

has a general lift of almost 13 percent in major social services, and

they talked about the unfairness of the budget and how it impacts on

different groups in society. Many of them would tell us with floods of

tears what they would

[ Page 5952 ]

have done for the disadvantaged in society had they been drawing a budget.

Lest

we forget, it was a free enterprise administration that during the last

two decades has provided the most major help for disadvantaged groups

in society, probably, of any province in the country. It was a free

enterprise government that brought in the SAFER program, the

long-term-care program, that made huge steps forward in the field of

special education and that has taken major steps to integrate into the

community people who have disabilities, whether they are young people

or whether they are seniors.

The suggestion you always get

from the other side is that virtue is a monopoly over there. We on this

side listen to that, I think, with good humour and some tolerance.

AN HON. MEMBER : A lot of tolerance.

MR. B.R. SMITH : A lot of tolerance. That's right.

But

solid social programs have been maintained in this province even during

the ravages of the restraint program. Now that that period is over and

revenues are buoyant, it is fitting that social services have been

enhanced.

Certain areas I want to address I am going to

address under individual ministries, but during the throne debate I did

say that I felt the public were thirsting for future directions and new

directions. I do not believe that they wish to return to the left. They

want to go forward in the directions of free enterprise. They want to

maintain entrepreneurial energy, for sure. They want to maintain the

benefits that are going to be enjoyed by free enterprise, not just in

the lower mainland but throughout the whole province. That's why

regional development has to be a terribly important thrust of this

administration and any future free enterprise administration.

Also,

I believe that the public wants to maintain the buoyant trade and

foreign investment that we have, and believes that we can do that

without losing control of our destiny and our economic future. It must

and will be the challenge of this government to stimulate that kind of

investment and to do so without interference, without stopping that

flow and without being tempted to bring in measures that are going to

deter that capital and drive it to Alberta and Ontario. That will be a

really important challenge.

Also, the public believes that

our resource industries in this province are still vital and must

maintain their strength, and that their importance must never be

discounted by those who like to use catchwords like "value-added,"

"computer technology," "clean industries" and all these things. All

industries, if they are going to survive today in this age, are going

to have to get extra value out of their products, are going to have to

be way ahead in technology and are going to have to be clean. We've got

to provide, as a government, an incentive climate to private capital to

do the job of opening up the parts of this province which are largely

undeveloped and are going to require infrastructure, roads, hydro and

other opportunities.

To deal with some specifics in the

budget, I must say that one revenue matter gave me a tiny little bit of

concern. One revenue matter I thought deserved a little bit of comment.

That's the increase in the tax on bulk tobacco. I want to say that the

pipe-smokers of this province will not stand for the way that that tax

has been brought in, that sneaky tax. We have been grouped together

with the home-rollers, those who have been using tax loopholes to have

home makings to avoid the overtaxed tailor-made cigarettes. We know

what they've been doing. The fiscal ferrets discovered this inequity of

nicotine and they decided to treat pipe-tobacco smokers the same as the

home rollers. I tell you, the pipe-smokers of this province are not

going to stand for it. To see this clean, safe product increase in some

cases as much as 40 percent is a monstrous inequity, and I will, on

behalf of the Premier and others, be speaking in the debate of that

bill. I may even bring an amendment in.

To turn to a few

specifics in the budget that I think should be addressed, one is

housing. I think that the housing initiatives in this budget are good

ones and that they do provide a framework which can give us some badly

needed new housing units. The target is 4,000 new rental units. The

opposition, of course, says this is not enough. They would use land

banks and they would churn out social housing. I can remember how this

was done during the early seventies and the speed with which some of

this was done. I think that we need to have a better-thought-out

approach. We do not want to create social housing enclaves, places of

uniformity, places of bleakness, such as have been created in other

countries to meet the needs of social housing. I said in the throne

speech and I say again that while I support all these support systems

that have been put in to assist people to afford rental housing, I do

not think the overall approach is the approach that we should be

following long term. The answer is not to increase the safety net

system and support people in housing with all kinds of safety nets

alone, but to give them incentives to buy and own their units. That is

what we should be striving towards in the long run. That is where we

should be going as a free enterprise administration.

If you

go back to 1970-71, before the federal government decided to adopt the

Benson approach and treat every tax dollar the same, for part of that

period we had a perfectly good program in this country of capital cost

depreciation for rental housing. Businessmen who would invest in rental

housing would put up good quality rental housing and would get an

accelerated high rate of depreciation which they could depreciate

against other income. The result of that was that people were content

to build good housing units, run them and not gouge their tenants in

rent, to get their economic advantage out of the depreciation they got

in the initial stages and then run these as good housing operations. We

had a good supply of rental housing during most of that period. When

those depreciations were taken away, we had all kinds of problems.

Do you remember the first problem we had was the rush to strata title everything that was rented,

[ Page 5953 ]

and

the disruption that that had on tenants and how it put people suddenly

out of their accommodation or in threat of being removed from the

accommodation whenever these conversions took place? We have had

problem after problem since those rapid depreciation incentives were

removed from the Income Tax Act in the guise of uniformity and

fairness. I think it's time that we considered going back to rapid

accelerated depreciation to try and get quality housing built by the

private sector with some assistance from government — certainly in

identifying sources of land for sure. It's time to get more good

quality housing built by the private sector again. I think that is the

way to do it, without all these subsidies and support systems that

we've got built into the housing system now.

I notice that

we are doing a number of things which are certainly going to improve

the plight of people who are on fixed low incomes: increasing the GAIN

shelter allowance; increasing SAFER for rental assistance; and

certainly in my constituency, the increase in the homeowner's grant for

seniors of a further $70 up to $700 will be well received, as I am sure

it will throughout the province. The increase in the homeowner grant by

$50 to $430 for non seniors will also be well received.

Measures like that, and measures that reduce the property purchase tax as well —

and make it easier to get second mortgages.... All those measures

together are still not worth an approach which gives incentive to the

private sector to build better and more rental accommodation. A second

approach would be to have an incentive program to get renters to

purchase their accommodation and own their accommodation with very easy

long-range terms.

If we really believe that we are a free

enterprise administration and party, and if we believe that's the

direction to go, we shouldn't be trying to hook in generations of

people as renters on a safety network of social support. We should be

finding ways for them to own their accommodation. We can give them that

kind of pride — give them that incentive — so that they don't

have to worry whether or not SAFER goes up. They don't have to worry

about the homeowner assistance that's built into the budget each year.

They can have that kind of dignity and that kind of security of tenure

that comes from ownership.

Another measure in this budget which probably hasn't had deserved attention —

I think it is very definitely a step in the right direction — is the

lowering of the age for people to qualify to defer their home taxes.

That age qualification was lowered from 65 to 60 in this budget. That

recognizes, I think, that there are a number of people on fixed incomes

at a lower and earlier age — people who have taken early retirement.

think in many cases this deferring of property tax is a very useful

device; particularly useful for people who are having difficulty

meeting those annual payments, people whose major asset is their home

and who are going to pass that home on maybe to a son or daughter

later. At a later time, when that home is sold, those taxes can then be

paid. I recognize in saying that that in my riding particularly people

are pretty fiercely independent and don't like to follow that device.

We've

had a really low utilization on that deferral. I don't think there were

3,000 people in the province last year who were on that program. It is

one, I think, that all members in their newsletters and in their

materials should again and again remind their citizens of. It surely is

not something that one has to apologize for in this day and age —

that one has decided to go into a tax deferral program. If you own a

home that is fully paid for, that would seem to be a worthwhile step to

ameliorate the bite of high taxes.

I want to also speak

briefly about justice reform because I think the budget made important

statements that show that the government does have a commitment to

bring in some major justice reform. Much of my work in my former

portfolio in the latter years was designed to bring about reforms to

the justice system. Each year we tried to bring in legislation dealing

with law reform. We set up the commission on justice reform, which

toured the province. It is absolutely essential, I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that we move to try and get this system more accessible to

ordinary people: less mumbo-jumbo, less mystique; easier for people to

get into court; easier for them to do routine things of a legal nature

without retaining a lawyer; and easy for them to get into a court which

is a people's court.

A new Small Claim Act is going to be

brought in. I say hallelujah, Mr. Speaker, because that's the level

where most people deal with the civil courts. They deal with it at that

level or at family court level, for matters that have to do with

maintenance or whatever. The small claims court is the court that the

person goes to to collect a debt or to defend himself on some kind of

claim. That court should have a much wider jurisdiction. People should

be comfortable going into that court and feel that they can go in there

without retaining legal counsel. They also should have the right to

have counsel in there if they want, but costs should not be awarded.

It's very important that the small claims procedure be extended and

have much wider monetary jurisdiction. I gather that that is going to

be done.

[11:30]

Access to legal services also depends on legal aid. There has been a

lot of debate in this province, over the last five or six years, about

legal aid. I'm glad to see that the amount of legal aid in the budget

has been increased by about 20 percent this year. That's probably not

enough, but it's a very good start.

I know it's

fashionable in some circles for people to think: "Why should we put

money into legal aid? All we're doing is paying for lawyers to defend

people who are guilty." You hear that; you have that perception with

the public quite often. Well, all you need to do is to go through

personal experiences, as some people in this chamber have: to have a

son or a daughter who has maybe left home or run away and got into some

difficulty with the law. You don't know about it, or they won't turn to

you, and there they are in front of a court, and they need some help.

The

[ Page 5954 ]

legal

aid system is there to provide them with that help. In many cases, that

help may make the difference as to the future direction of their lives,

if they get proper legal advice and proper assistance when they're in

that kind of trouble.

Very many lawyers in this province do

their share of legal aid, for very meagre remuneration compared with

the remuneration you get for doing the same sort of thing in Britain

and other countries. The lawyers of this province, through their pro

bono program, have been pretty public-spirited in devoting time. Nobody

gets rich on the legal aid tariff. But the demands on that tariff are

enormous, as more and more cases under the Charter of Rights come

before the courts. So I'm glad to see that the government has

recognized that need and has heralded an increase in the budget of 20

percent.

I also notice that a strong commitment has been

made to support the program for victims of crime, and that additional

funds are being supplied to the Crown counsel offices in that regard.

The victims' assistance program is two years old, Mr. Speaker. I think

it was one of the most important steps that this government and this

Legislature made to meet the needs of ordinary people who are thrown

into the justice system. No need was greater.

If you can

only imagine the fear felt by many people who have gone through the

justice system the first time; if you can imagine what it's like for a

woman who's a victim of a sexual assault that maybe took place in the

middle of the night; the difficulty she has in dealing with policemen,

often male; telling her story many times to police and then later to

prosecutors; going to a courtroom in a hostile environment, being

cross-examined at a preliminary inquiry, then being cross-examined

again at trial; being asked to give the whole history of her life....

Under the old rules of evidence that was permissible. And nobody,

throughout that whole system, ever spent very much time preparing this

person for that system. In small communities — often one or two courtrooms —

out in front of the courtroom, before the trial started, you'd have the

victim, the accused and the accused's family, all sitting around

looking at each other, in small, confined quarters. That woman has to

sit there and has to put up with that kind of intimidation and fear,

even before she gets into the courtroom.

For many years in

this country we did nothing to make the plight of these victims of

crime easy. We simply ignored them and treated them like sausages in a

sausage machine. They were put forward as witnesses; maybe they were

interviewed by busy Crown counsel; but very little time was spent with

them. All of that thinking is now changed. In this province's justice

system, starting with the policeman on the beat, and going from there

to the community organizations, the volunteer organizations who work

with victims of crime, and moving up from there to the Crown

prosecutors, everybody now has a philosophy that we are going to try

and spend some time, and prepare these people so they can have the

courage to go in and tell that story under oath.

It used to

be so easy not to go there at all. Why would anyone want to go through

that? Why would anyone want to be cross-examined on their whole life?

Why would somebody want to go to a courtroom and stand there and have

the accused and his family leer at them outside? It's much easier to

let it go, and when you let it go, it means that the person who

committed that crime will do it again and again, because there will be

no sanctions. There will be nothing to say that he is going to pay for

this, because women and other victims are going to be prepared to let

him get away with it because they don't want to go through that ordeal.

So by having a victims' program and by setting up that support system,

you are investing in law and order and a safe society. That is what we

have done.

Also, it is only fitting that a compassionate

and just society finally has a program for enforcing family maintenance

that is fair and automatic, which someone can hook into, if they wish

to, and not have to constantly go to lawyers and through courts and all

that travail. They can do that automatically, and that is now being

provided by this government in what I think is probably the best family

maintenance enforcement program in the whole country.

notice also that there is going to be compensation for costs paid to

victims of crime by perpetrators of those crimes. I think that is

important, but everyone knows that many of the people who commit these

crimes don't have any money, and we are not going to be able to recover

costs. But if they do, I think we should try. There was a landmark

decision handed down last week in Saskatchewan in which a judge awarded

punitive damages — in the neighbourhood of $50,000 — to a

victim of a sexual assault in a civil action. That's a landmark

decision. I think you are going to find that in more and more cases

that route is going to be taken. That doesn't preclude criminal

prosecution, but it is another route. If the perpetrator of this crime

has any assets, that's an appropriate thing to happen. I can tell you

that to the dozens of victims of assault who came to see me when I was

Attorney-General, and who I dealt with in the courts in 15 years of

criminal law, $50,000 is no kind of recompense for what they have gone

through. But at least it is a start; it makes a statement.

am very pleased with the reforms that are going to be introduced in

justice reform and under that package. I know that some of them are

sensitive and are going to require care and a lot of consultation — such as merging the courts —

and that these can only be brought about by sensitivity and a lot of

consultation with people in the system. I think they must take place.

The time has come to do these things. They are going to be done, and

they must be supported. You cannot have citizens today trying to

understand which federally appointed court they should go to for which

matter, or whether a local judge has the authority to deal with their

matter, or whether his case should be adjourned until a Supreme Court

judge happens to arrive. You cannot have that kind of distinction

today. There has to be a bringing together and a simplifying of that. I

com-

[ Page 5955 ]

mend the ministry for the steps it is taking in that direction. I will be supporting those.

also am pleased to see a commitment made to finalizing the closing of

Oakalla and removing Oakalla as a correctional facility, with the

completion of Maple Ridge and Surrey and, finally, the women's prison

that will be brought about. That was a long commitment, and I think it

is to be supported and commended.

Mr. Speaker, I am going

to speak briefly as an Island member about transportation. The budget

contains a commitment for major ferry refurbishing and construction. I

commend the minister and the government for that; I think that is an

excellent thing to do. Load factors on those ferries continue to

increase; it happens to be one of the finest services in the world.

When you are a backbencher, you use the ferries a lot more. I have

spent quite a bit of time traveling by ferry in the last seven or eight

months, and I've found it very pleasurable because I have been able to

spend time with some of the excellent people who are the crews and the

masters of these ferries, both on the Horseshoe Bay run and the

Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay run. I don't think there is a finer ferry service

anywhere in the world. It moves more passengers and moves them more

efficiently and with more human commitment. Quite often they don't get

praise. They get minor complaints, and I can assure you they are mostly

minor, because they do a fabulous job.

I want to say as an

Island member that I am not content with the expenditure of only $30

million on the Island Highway this year. I am not one bit content with

that, because there has to be more of a commitment to that highway. We

have already made the commitment to accelerate the completion of it and

to do it. There is no doubt that the government is committed to doing

that, but we are going to have to move faster because the demands on it

are such that we are going to have to get that work done. There is a

great need to deal with that

section of the highway from Campbell River

to Qualicum. That is a particularly bad section: single lane most of

the way, bumper to bumper in the summer with campers and recreational

vehicles. I know there's no problem with the commitment; we're talking

about when it's going to be delivered and the money to deliver it.

For

that and the Nanaimo bypass, which we've been working on and planning

for some time and on which a number of consultation meetings have been

held, we're going to have to get some more money. I can recall that

back in 1985-86 we had a task force on Vancouver Island put together by

a group of businessmen and mayors. At that time, the present Finance

minister was in charge of the task force, and he recognized the need to

spend more money on Vancouver Island, that Vancouver Island was a place

whose time had come, particularly on transportation and highways.

will be bending his ear and that of the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) to get accelerated spending on that highway.

How's my time, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : It's expired.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

I want to thank the hon. members for their indulgence and say that it's

a pleasure to speak in the budget debate. I'll be making separate

comments in the ministries' estimates.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I'd like the House to help me welcome a member of my constituency, a

former alderperson in my community in Port Alberni, member of the

hospital board, community activist and Social Credit member, Anita Jack.

[11:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The budget debate continues with the member for Atlin.

MR. GUNO :

I just got back from a fairly extensive tour of my riding. I left

shortly after the budget speech came down, and it was rather a good way

of recovering from that experience. It's nice to be back; it's truly a

privilege to participate in this debate on the budget.

As I

said, I just came back from a trip, and it was rather special in that I

traveled with a very special individual, who was introduced by the

member for Victoria this morning — Alwyn Morris, who won the gold

medal along with Hugh Fisher in the 1984 Olympics. I took the

opportunity of inviting Mr. Morris to the southern portion of my riding

in Atlin to talk to the young people who have rare opportunities to

meet someone like Mr. Morris.

I was struck by the reception

by the young people of this young man. Today the first member for

Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) described him as a genuine Canadian hero. I

think he's also an important role model for many of our young people,

particularly for our native young people in my riding who come from

small reserves. Mr. Morris's message to the young people was simply to

dare to dream and to strive to fulfill their potential.

also took the opportunity to introduce him to a number of non-Indian

students in a school in Terrace and the senior high school in Stewart.

Again he was universally well received. It was a real privilege for me

to travel with this young man.

In my travels, I was struck — particularly in the area of youth in the north —

by just how little we are doing to encourage them to fulfill their

development. Certainly our educational system in the north is far from

adequate in terms of providing that kind of challenge. When Mr. Morris

was engaged in dialogue with a number of the young people, one problem

that continually came up was the lack of resources for the development

of athletics among our young people. Facilities are often inadequate or

not even in existence, so there's a very big constraint on youth

development. I was disappointed not to see in the budget any real hope

for improvement in this area.

[ Page 5956 ]

Also

in my travels, one of the big concerns raised by the many people I came

into contact with was the huge oil spill in Alaska. As a riding in

close proximity to the Alaska panhandle, this is a very real concern.

Many of our people are engaged in the commercial fishing industry, and

feel that this spill really poses a tremendous threat to their

livelihood. I don't really feel that the easy assurances we're getting

from our federal government that such an impact on our northern waters

is going to be minimal.... I just don't accept that kind of assurance.

We've heard it before, and we've seen just how little is known about

the spread of these huge environmental disasters.

When our

environment critic made a statement this morning, the Premier

responded. The Premier can huff and puff and spout all kinds of

rhetoric about their commitment to the environment, but I think the

record of this government is clear: it's clearly an unmitigated

environmental disaster. By almost every measure, they have failed to

protect our environment.

I don't dislike this province; in

fact, I love it. It's the government that is found wanting; it's the

government that I dislike. Suddenly this government has discovered the

environment; they are suddenly in love with the environment. I think

the public of British Columbia are fed up with the kind of con games

this government is playing. They're fed up with the foul air we're

breathing, with the polluted waters within our territory, and with the

kind of assault we're making on our wilderness areas. It's clearly

negligence, and the budget certainly doesn't demonstrate that there is

going to be a genuine commitment on the part of this government.

see a very expensive PR campaign being mounted by this government to

try yet again to con the people of British Columbia that they are

committed. I don't think they can be believed, because this government

have a slavish adherence to the laissez-faire philosophy, which is

antithetical to the concept of sustainable development.

I'll

give you an example: in the north we have only one conservation

officer, who is established in the village of Atlin. That particular

conservation officer is supposed to service the entire constituency of

Atlin, an area that is bigger than many small western European

countries. We have only one person to monitor and collect data about

our wilderness and the animal life in that area, yet we continue the

myopic view of single-use resource management — that is, mining our forest.

my travels, another great concern brought to me by many people is the

condition of the roads in the southern portion and other parts of the

riding — in the Nass Valley, for instance. I've gotten up

countless times in this House to try to urge this government to take a

look at the road system in the Nass. I think the people of the Nass

Valley have demonstrated incredible patience, but not only are the

roads unsafe, they're unhealthy. In the summertime we have to suffer

the incredible dust that permeates the whole area because of the poor

conditions. Millions and millions of dollars have been taken out of

that area, yet the citizens of Nass Valley have to put up with one of

the worst road systems in British Columbia.

The next worse, of course, is Highway 37. I've had a chance to talk to the mayor of Stewart, who relayed to me her concern — and I think this is supported by many people in the northwest —

that we're ignoring a very important potential by not upgrading and

paving Highway 37. If this government is serious about regional

development, it ought to recognize the urgent need to upgrade this

vital roadway, which would open up much of the northwest and diversify

the economy. Again, I'll be watching with great interest exactly how

much money is allocated for the upgrading of the highway system through

this area.

In terms of health, Mr. Speaker, I'm also

anxious to see what is in store in the budget for people in the north,

when the details are spelled out. There are tremendous problems in

existence, so we need a tremendous boost in the budget in terms of the

delivery of health care in the north.

In Stewart, for

instance, they are putting up with a very antiquated hospital system.

They've come up with a plan to house just about all the health care

functions within the community under one roof, and have applied for

funds from this government for the development of that concept. I will

be watching with great interest to see whether or not this government

is going to respond to these particular needs.

In terms of

mental and public health, that is, again, incredibly insufficient. We

in the north have had to put up with having one public nurse, but now I

gather another is stationed in Stewart. It may sound adequate to people

from the south, but they just fail to appreciate the tremendous

distance between Stewart and Cassiar. It's actually an eight-hour drive

in the best of conditions. So to have one public nurse covering the

whole Stewart-Cassiar area is simply unrealistic. Now the government

has seen fit to station one in Stewart so that we can free up the one

in Cassiar, but the problem is that these public nurses are also

fulfilling the function of mental health workers. They are doing a

fairly good job under the circumstances. They are being given some kind

of training. But I think it's really unfair to the people of the north

to have to put up with that kind of slipshod response by this

government and to have to ask people who are already overburdened in

their own roles to take on another vital function and serve as mental

health workers. When this matter comes up in estimates, I'm going to be

leaning on the Health minister to at least give us some kind of

response as to how they are going to deal with this matter.

The

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), in his response to the

budget, talked about the dual economy: the fact that much of the

emphasis in terms of economic development is concentrated in the lower

mainland and that the rest of British Columbia is suffering as a result

of neglect. I think this kind of response to vital social and health

needs demonstrates the myopic view of this government.

every community I have visited with Mr. Morris, the existence of

alcohol and substance abuse is just as urgent as it is in the south,

and yet we have

[ Page 5957 ]

very

little in the way of resources to deal with these problems. I think

that this government is being negligent in not dealing with this in a

more realistic way.

I want to talk very quickly on native

affairs. I've heard much of the rhetoric about this government's

newfound interest in developing a better consultative process with the

native people, yet their budget does not reflect that kind of

commitment. I don't think there is anything here that they can truly

boast about, no matter how much they try. But they have a lot of money

allocated for fighting land claims in the courts. If this is their way

of demonstrating fair and equitable treatment of the native people, I

think that's going to fall flat, as it should.

AN HON. MEMBER : Enrich the lawyers.

MR. GUNO :

Enrich the lawyers, by all means. Just a cursory examination of the

amount of money being spent by governments and by the native people in

fighting this matter in court will show just how much of our resources

are being spent in a kind of blind, racist intransigence.

[12:00]

I wasn't here yesterday when the leader posed a question to the Premier

about the national tax issue. I understand that the Premier said a national

tax was only a rumour. Yet at this moment the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) is in Ottawa consulting on such a scheme. Some rumour! We have to

ask: do British Columbians have any confidence that the Minister of Finance

will recognize the unfairness of a national sales tax? Given the unfairness

of his recent budget, I would say that the answer is no.

The Premier of our province, when asked by our leader yesterday, wouldn't do what other provinces are doing — and Alberta and Nova Scotia have done —

which is to say no to a national tax now. Just what are the details?

What is at issue here? The new national tax, as I understand it, is a

second stage of the Tories' tax grab. We've said continually that it's

part of a Tory hidden agenda and that there are grounds to stop this

tax increase.

On this side of the House we realize there's

a vital need to reform the existing sales tax system, particularly in

terms of the manufacturers' sales tax. For instance, one-third of goods

and services are now hit with the 12 percent manufacturers' tax, and

since it applies only to goods made in Canada it gives an unfair

advantage to imported goods. We support the reform of federal sales

taxes; we just don't want to see the reforms used as an excuse to

increase the tax burden on average families, such as in this particular

budget that the government is setting down.

In terms of regional unfairness — and again, I go back to the theme of the

dual economy of this budget that we're debating — I really feel the government

is losing a very real opportunity to address the need for a vibrant northern

economy. I think their failure to address this will result in an unevenness

of economic growth and give the lie to their claim that they are dealing with

regional disparities. I certainly see the results of that kind of myopic view

in my own region. In the Nass Valley we still see something like 75 percent

unemployment on average throughout the whole year.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Why don't you become part of the solution?

MR. GUNO :

We are part of the solution. You're the problem. Listen very carefully

and take a look at our sustainable development initiatives. The

solution is mainly for us to start addressing the waste and

mismanagement of this government.

Anyway, I'm glad to be

back in this fantasyland. There's only so much reality you can take

going out to the constituency. But as a member who represents a very

large part of the north, I will be watching with a great deal of

interest as this budget unfolds.

MR. MERCIER : Is this a good budget? You bet it is. We've got people lined up to speak on this budget.

the time available I'd like to touch on two or three minor matters that

are of interest to me, and then I'll close by hammering the federal

government for their indicated efforts to move into the sales tax area

of taxation.

A minor point which the House might be

interested in is the financial reports to the Legislature. The timing

of debates and the legislative sittings relative to financial estimates

and reports have been of interest to me. It's my opinion that the

detailed estimates should be completed and adopted prior to the

commencement of a fiscal year. I'd rather see us doing this in January

and February, so that we put the budget to bed before the fiscal year

starts. At the other end, I believe that the audited financial

statements should be tabled before October 31, even if a special

legislative session must be called for that purpose; alternatively,

that there be a method to release the information to the public on

completion of the audited financial statements.

This all

relates to the timeliness of release of information. I've discussed the

matter with the auditor-general, for example, and it's clear that in

every other respect this government is ahead of most regions of Canada

in the preparation of their financial statements; they meet and exceed

all national standards with respect to content and clarity. If we can

move ahead on the timeliness of reporting to what is generally accepted

in other parts of our social structure — the corporations, tax filings and all these other things — we can lead the way in the matter of financial reporting to our taxpayers, and I think we can do it without much effort.

the matter of securities legislation as it relates to the Ministry of

Finance and this budget, I'd like to advise people, if they didn't

know, that less than 15 percent of our population invests in the

securities market. I would like to see us attend to the privatization

of certain aspects dealing with securities.

Coupled with

that, I would like to see us increase enforcement and penalties for any

fraudulent actions by people involved in the securities industry. I

would like to lay the responsibility — if we can move to

[ Page 5958 ]

privatize this effort —

with the lawyers, accountants, engineers, company directors and

promoters. I'd like to see us have the securities industry compensate

the victims of fraud. What we have now finds its roots in the

Securities and Exchange Commission legislation of the United States. I

think it's true that we've been able to prosecute people but we haven't

got a way to compensate people who have lost through fraudulent action

in the securities market. We have got to improve the channels available

for people who might lose on these fraudulent acts so that they can go

through a civil action. There could be an indemnity fund set up within

the industry.

If people think this is a new idea, it's not.

In England the industry has been virtually self-regulated for

centuries. In the case of the United States, they've developed a huge

bureaucracy. But the bureaucracy hasn't really caught anybody. They're

really great at closing the door of the barn after the horse has

gone, la the Ivan Boesky affair.

have a more positive influence on the securities industry we have to

encourage them to manage as much of it as they can themselves. When I

first mentioned this, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota), who must have very limited experience in the industry, didn't

understand the difference between the enforcement aspect, which would

come under the Attorney-General's office, and the processing of the

investment documents, which currently comes under the Ministry of

Finance. I would just leave with you that we don't process documents

for credit unions, yet we provide a way to guarantee their members. We

don't process the documents for travel agencies, yet we have an

indemnity fund set up in case that money is lost to their customers. I

don't think it would be difficult to transfer the preparation of

prospectuses and other investment documents to the industry, and we

could police it in an even tougher fashion than we have recently.

Another

point I wanted to touch on briefly is our regional programs. I support

the idea of regional development, but I want to go on record that I do

not believe we can take from one region to the detriment of another. In

our province I think it would be divisive. I think our emphasis should

be on the attraction of new business.

I also want to record

my personal resistance to grants to businesses. I think we must have a

very special criterion for the circumstances that may require

government assistance, but not a broadly based program. On that same

subject, I don't believe that it is proper to play one area of the

province against another, or one business against another. If we leave

the business community alone, the natural economic forces will

ultimately result in the most efficient development of our resources.

believe that we can have a coordinating function and a voice for a

region. I believe in our program for greater use of provincial agents;

I think it's an excellent idea. But I don't want to add a layer of

bureaucracy nor add any overhead to our operation. And I certainly

don't think we should diminish the important role of the individual MLA.

would like to take a minute now to pay a tribute to the former Premier,

Bill Bennett, who I think laid the groundwork for the recovery of the

financial condition of this province.

I would also like to

say that it was very courageous of our Premier to lead us in a drive to

have a balanced budget. One of the reasons I ran in 1986 was that I

knew the Premier's personal view on the fiscal responsibility of

government and shared it with him. I support him and congratulate him

on this drive to this balanced budget.

Because I am a

chartered accountant, some people ask me in the street: "What is this

budget stabilization fund?" I've got a very simple answer, and I hope

the members of the opposition are listening, because it's probably the

simplest way they'll every hear it explained. The contingency fund is

roughly between 5 percent and 10 percent of our annual expenditures. If

anyone can tell me of any business operation or any non-profit society

operation that doesn't believe it should have a reserve, then I can

tell them they're financially irresponsible.

We have

created this fund. It may move a little bit, but it should always be

retained in the range of 5 to 10 percent of our annual expenditures. I

think the members of the opposition, if they understand that, will be

very supportive of the stabilization fund.

I have other

questions about the budget. They say we're still in debt. When our

government came into office, we were having trouble paying the grocery

bill. Let me assure you that we now pay our grocery bill as it falls

due, and on a current basis, we are debt-free. We do have debt, but the

debt is just like a house mortgage. You're not expected to pay it off

each year; you are expected to pay something towards it each year.

think the public, if it really understood what they're doing here....

Yes, there's debt, but it's longterm debt. In our Crown corporations

and our other operations, we have long-term debt related to fixed

assets that we have built. But we are debt-free on our current

operating account, and that's a real tribute to this government.

[12:15]

I have a few more things to say about our ministries. Imagine, the

Health ministry increased its budget $400 million, to $4.3 billion, and

it makes up one-third of the total expenditure of this government.

Hospital programs total $2.1 billion. Physicians and other health

practitioners receive $1.2 billion. I want it to be on the record that

I support increases to nurses and doctors that would be sufficient for

them to maintain their well-deserved stature and economic standing in

our community. I want also to say that good financial management

enables us to maintain and expand the finest and most affordable health

system in the world.

With respect to education, there's

$1 billion for Advanced Education and Job Training and $2.2 billion for

Education. I always compliment our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet), because he's regaining some lost ground and forging ahead,

breaking new ground. He has the confidence of virtually

[ Page

5959 ]

every school board in this province. Everywhere I

go I hear good things about the progress made by the Minister of

Education. There was a time when restraint was necessary. We've come

out of that, and we have a minister who's progressive. He knows what

he's doing, and he's building a better and better education system.

Imagine,

an 11.5 percent increase, to $1.6 billion, to Social Services and

Housing. I think the emphasis on that is important. We're concentrating

on reducing the negative effect of alcohol and drugs on our society and

family structure. I think that is the only long-term goal that will

satisfactorily address social problems.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

With

respect to the environment, we're emphasizing a cooperative effort. You

will see environmental budget allocations throughout different

ministries in this budget. The main drive is that we have sensible

development. There are less than 15 producing mines in this province.

The mining community does a tremendous job and provides tremendous

payrolls, and we have to accommodate its quest for mineral resources in

every way we can, to help pay for the social programs we need so much.

There

is an element of truth in criticisms regarding the environment, but I

think the reality is that we're in a transition period to higher

standards. We are leading the way in so many areas of environmental

controls and improvements. The only criticism is that we may not be

moving as fast as some people want; but we're certainly moving a lot

faster than most other developed nations in the world.

closing, I'd like to say that our budget is fine on its own. There are

some external forces that could affect us negatively. We live subject

to world markets for our raw resources. We can't guarantee that the

price of copper next year will be what it is this year. When the

critics say that the revenue side of our budget might not be fully

provable, we can only say that we're confident about the future and

about prices. We have a stabilization fund just in case copper prices

or timber and lumber prices fall, and just in case some of our revenues

don't stay at the levels they are at now. That's just good planning.

What

we can't control is what the federal government is doing to this

country. Prime Minister Mulroney recently said the federal government

is financially irresponsible, mainly because the interest on its debt

eats up over 30 percent of its income. Nobody can live when they owe

that much to the finance company. The federal deficit is a serious

problem, but I have a feeling — this is my own view — that the federal politicians are what's really dangerous to this country's welfare.

Federal politicians, when they sit in Ottawa, must get too far away from what's

really happening. They really believe they're doing a good job. They revel

in making promises with our money, but what's happening is they are killing

us with their kindness, and we can't afford it.

like to break this country down simplistically into taxpayers and tax

users. All we are is the arbitrator: we take the money off the

taxpayers, we give it to the tax users. For the people who are

taxpayers, I think we can say they have just about had enough, because

they are working eight months of the year for some tax collector.

think the federal sales tax proposal is absolutely crazy; I think it is

irresponsible. I say to the federal politicians that this is not

England. England doesn't have a provincial structure underneath its

federal structure. This is certainly not New Zealand. New Zealand is

trying to bail itself out with every means possible, and they are

taxing the butt off every one of their citizens. I'll guarantee you the

government there is going to lose its next election, and all over the

federal sales tax they have put in.

We cannot let — and I agree with the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) —

the federal government, under the guise of restructuring its

manufacturing tax, which is a 12 percent rate that my company pays and

other manufacturing companies pay, make the biggest tax grab that has

happened in our lifetime, and I'll be 50 this year. It is a transition

they are trying to pull, and we can't let it happen.

I hope that our Minister of Finance — and he can't tell you what he is talking about until he gets back — is

putting a strong case for that in Ottawa right now. I would personally

challenge the constitutionality of such a tax. I think it violates the

intention of our historical tax regime, and I think it is inflationary.

Nobody has thought of that: if you add that percentage on to every

little bill from every little shop, it's inflationary in another way.

closing, I think that the federal government has to look unto

themselves. The budget our provincial government has presented is proof

that B.C. has done its part.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud and happy to stand in my place and

close the debate. All British Columbians in every corner of this

beautiful province can be truly proud, justifiably proud, of the fiscal

responsibility, the good fiscal management and the enviable fiscal

position of their government.

We have managed the

taxpayers' dollars in a manner that is consistent with responsible

government. When our government assumed office, we had an operating

deficit of $1.2 billion. Today we can proudly say that we have a

balanced budget. Besides having a balanced budget, we still have $1

billion plus in a rainy-day account — our investment in the future. We're setting aside money for our greatest resource: the people we represent.

Mr.

Speaker, by having a rainy-day account, we can assure our children and

our children's children that they too will have a future in our

province. And when a downturn comes, we'll not be required to lay off

people or cut back programs. Instead, we can help generate more

activity in the economy to keep people employed and keep our programs

in place. Our financial house is in order.

[ Page 5960 ]

Governments

across the country are going deeper and deeper into debt. In order to

service that debt, they have to borrow money at high interest rates.

That money would be better used to create new business or to expand

existing business; that money could be better used to ensure that there

is plenty of activity in the economy to provide for a better future, to

provide job opportunities for our people, to keep down the interest

rates for those seeking a mortgage, and to ensure that small business

can continue to operate and not be pounced upon by the banks. It would

serve all governments well if they took a lesson from our province, to

eliminate their operating deficit — something that we've done, but

we've gone a step further and we've also reduced our accumulated debt.

Unlike the members opposite, we don't want to leave the bills for

future generations to pay. Unlike the members opposite, we don't want

to saddle our children or our children's children with a big mortgage,

with a big ongoing debt.

The opposition takes great comfort

in always telling the government that it has to spend more. I've

listened to all of the members opposite speak, and in each and every

program they want more money spent. They can find more ways of adding

to the debt. Maybe it's time the opposition told British Columbians

just exactly how much they would spend and where they would get the

money.

In British Columbia we've added almost a billion

dollars to the health care budget since we became government. It's a

health care system that's the best in the country. How much more would

the opposition have us spend? Would you say a billion dollars more? Or

maybe $500 million more? We'll settle perhaps for $500 million; we

haven't heard the figures' but we've certainly heard a great deal said

that means more money.

Over the last three budgets, our

government has increased education funding by over $700 million. How

much more would the members of the opposition have us spend? The member

for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) said that we should be spending more

to implement the recommendations of the Sullivan royal commission and

spending more on education generally. How much more, members across the

way, would you suggest? How much more would the socialist NDP

spend — $400 million?

There's the member from Point

Grey, who said there is no room for two educational systems in this

province. She wants to get rid of the independent system of education,

not only denying people a choice but also adding further to the already

high cost of education. How much more would that be — $100 million?

have an excellent student assistance program, but the member for

Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) wants us to spend more on student assistance.

How much more — $50 million more? We didn't get the figure, but we can assume perhaps $50 million.

The

member for Point Grey said there should be an increase of 30 percent in

university funding, and there is a cost well in excess of $100 million.

We're

spending more than a billion dollars on transportation in this province

this year, but we've heard from the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) that there ought to be more. How much more — $300 million more?

[12:30]

We're spending more money on social services than ever before, even

though the number of people needing assistance has been declining.

We've heard it said they want to spend more — a universal lunch program, higher welfare, more people dependent on welfare. How much more money does the NDP want to spend?

British

Columbia has the second-lowest personal income tax rate in Canada.

Would the opposition have British Columbians pay the highest rate in

Canada? British Columbia has the second-lowest rate of corporate income

tax in Canada. How much would they have us raise those rates — to

be the highest in Canada? We have the second-lowest sales tax rate in

Canada. Would they have the highest sales tax rate in Canada?

Would

they pull another NDP-Manitoba approach and see us highest in taxes

across the board? Would the opposition increase the sales tax to meet

their spending promise? We could go down every budgetary item and find

that the opposition wants to spend more and more. Spend, spend, spend!

That's the opposition, the NDP socialists. These so-called new converts

to the free market system still don't understand that if governments

spend more money, they have to take more money out of the pockets of

working British Columbians.

We won't mention much the

Leader of the Opposition. I forget his name. I forget what he looks

like. He's hardly ever here. In Kamloops about six months ago that

Leader of the Opposition, whom we see occasionally, from time to time,

said that the provincial treasury needs an extra $3 billion to bring

provincial services up to snuff.

Mr. Speaker, we say no to

the reckless spending of the opposition. We don't want working British

Columbians to have their paycheques robbed. British Columbians don't

want the NDP to dip deeper and deeper into their pockets. If the

opposition had to finance their wild promises, instead of having a

balanced budget and a billion dollars in a rainy-day account, this

province — if the opposition had their way — would likely

have a deficit of $2 billion, no rainy-day account and a sales tax more

in the order of 10 percent. That's the reckless spending of the NDP

socialist opposition. The opposition would give us higher business

taxes, higher personal taxes and fewer jobs, and working British

Columbians would not have as much money as they have today.

The

only way the opposition can finance its free spending programs is by

increased public debt and increased taxes. Every British Columbian

would be the loser, and the economy would be destroyed. The opposition

wants to take us down an economic path of higher debt, higher taxes and

a lower standard of living. We on this side of the House say no, no,

no! British Columbians don't want to go down that path.

[ Page 5961 ]

That's why they have supported a strong, prudent government for nearly 40 years, and they'll continue to do so.

They're

wasteful; they're extravagant. Their spending habits are out of step.

Once again, they're out of step with British Columbians. The NDP

continues to find themselves the prisoners of the past. When British

Columbians demand responsible management of their tax dollars, the NDP

once again finds itself on the wrong side of history. British

Columbians can't afford the NDP. It's a party that will be forever

relegated to the opposition, and so they must be.

As has

already been said a number of times, the increasing amount of

government debt in this country is a threat to Canada's future. But in

British Columbia we have tackled public enemy number one. The NDP

finance critic was interviewed last week and asked whether he thought

reducing the accumulated debt and the annual debt-servicing charges is

a priority." He replied: "It's not a priority at this point." When it

is generally agreed that the growing mountain of government debt is a

threat to our future, the opposition still wants to pile on more and

more debt.

An analysis of our budget by Pemberton Securities says:

"The

citizens of British Columbia are now in the enviable position of seeing

the fruits of past fiscal responsibility by the provincial government.

At a time when the federal budget and virtually all other provincial

budgets will increase taxes and/or reduce services, the B.C. budget is

balanced and reduces government debt, and for some taxpayers there's

even a slight tax cut. This is a good budget for all British

Columbians. It will become increasingly recognized as such as we see

the other provincial budgets and the federal budget."

All

British Columbians have reason to be proud of the enviable position

their province finds itself in in relation to governments elsewhere in

this country. It is their hard work, their sacrifice and dedication to

purpose that has made it all possible. This budget allows British

Columbians to prepare themselves better than anyone else in Canada for

the opportunities and challenges that await us in the decade ahead.

have shown vision. We have shown foresight. We have shown courage and

sensitivity. We, better than any government anywhere, are providing for

those in our society who are less fortunate than ourselves. We live in

a beautiful province, a province of which we should all be extremely

proud.

I hope each day that those who listen and follow the

debates here will not be affected by the negativeness that we

continually hear from across the floor. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that

British Columbians will be positive about our great province and about

the tremendous challenges and opportunities available here. But if,

like governments elsewhere in the country, we do not get control of the

budget, as we've done here, the future for our children and our

children's children will not be as it was for us and as they deserve.

We owe it our children; we owe it to our children's children.

This government has been responsible, and this government has shown once again that we are a government for the future.

[12:45]

MR. SPEAKER :

Pursuant to standing orders, I'll put the motion. The motion is that

Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee

of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

Brummet

Savage

Vant

Michael

Parker

Weisgerber

Huberts

Dirks

Mercier

R. Fraser

De Jong

Chalmers

Veitch

Reid

Richmond

Vander Zalm

S.D. Smith

Ree

Davis

Johnston

Pelton

B.R. Smith

Loenen

McCarthy

Mowat

Peterson

Serwa

Long

Jacobsen

Davidson

NAYS - 15

G. Hanson

Barnes

Rose

Gabelmann

Boone

D’Arcy

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Kempf

Guno

Lovick

A. Hagen

G.Janssen

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, I failed to hear the name Harcourt read

out.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Yesterday I took on notice several questions from the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf),

and I am satisfied that I now have the information to properly address

the matter. I now table my written answers to questions I took on

notice.

Hon. Mr. Ree tabled the annual report for the

British Columbia Police Commission for the fiscal year 1987-88,

pursuant to provisions of

section 10 of the Police Act.

MR. ROSE :

I was going to ask the Solicitor General when he expects the annual

report of the B.C. Racing Commission. There hasn't been one for four

years, to my knowledge. Can he tell us when that might come down?

MR. SPEAKER : The member can talk to him outside the House about that.

[ Page 5962 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I would remind all members that we sit on Monday at the prescribed

time. We will proceed to Committee of Supply and assorted bills. Having

said that, I wish everyone a very pleasant weekend. I hope they enjoy

themselves in the fine weather.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1989, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada